Since Barack Obama incessantly makes the case that a John McCain administration would equate to another Bush term, it's worth looking at just how much Sen. Obama himself is in agreement with the unpopular president.

Does that mean that he, too, would be a repeat of President Bush? If one were to apply his logic, maybe so. There are 20 reasons why...

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/13/wall.bush-obama/index.html



-- Modified on 10/13/2008 5:40:36 PM

"12. Health care: While they don't share similar views on universal health care coverage,..."

"13. Middle-class tax cuts: While he hasn't voted for such cuts,..."

This chick is obviously trying to stretch the truth. She is using small details and quotes, taken out of context, to make her argument.

Maybe Obama and Bush both like to eat mashed potatoes. Does that mean they are "the same"? And... gasp! They both wore a red tie! C'mon, people. Just because a black reporter posted something about Obama doesn't mean it's concrete facts, we still have to use our brains and analyze.

Of course Obama will have some similarities with the present administration. He cannot just completely reject every single aspect of our government and start over! That would be a call for revolution. His goals are to improve on the current policies and make changes where appropriate.
A lot of the "similarities" that are listed are actually positive, like the abstinence education and expansion of affirmative action. I can't imagine any candidate speaking out against those. What do you want him to say, "no, we shouldn't teach kids about abstinence, we should just let them loose into the world and have them find out the hard way"?
That's like candidates saying they are in favor of improving education. Or in favor of fighting poverty. Well, duh. Everyone agrees on the positives, so these do not make good evidence when contrasting the platforms.

Saying that Obama is the same as Bush is ridiculous. Even the most obvious difference, that Obama voted against the war, is significant enough to refute that statement.



-- Modified on 10/13/2008 6:45:39 PM

and Senator Obama is A-OK in your book, you'll desist with your nonsensical postings and you'll vote for him on election Day?

Somehow, I think not.

So, which is it?  Bush was good or bad?  You guys can't even decide that.

Btw, Dubya is now the WORST U.S. PRESIDENT in HISTORY.

(echoes).

It makes about as much sense as anything else you've written.  

-- Modified on 10/13/2008 10:00:02 PM

Obama agrees that the US should lead the fight against AIDS. Who would oppose that?

Increase Minority Home Ownership. Anyone would be for that, the devil is in the details, would he repeat the mistake of trying to do it through markets?

Racial profiling. Yes, like anybody, (except perhaps conservatives here) would be for it when it's stated like that.

Religion: As an atheist, I happen to accept that all President's have been of the Christian faith. Again, the devil is in the details here. Does he invoke God in his speeches? Is he totally inflexible about faith-based initiatives?

Welfare Reform: Yeah, like there's actual opposition to welfare recipients going to work. The only opposition is if they go to work at a detriment to their children.

Abstinence: I'm as liberal as they come, and I can't find a reason to oppose teaching abstinence. Where I object is when it's the only thing taught. It isn't a method of birth control.  

Budget: It's hard to oppose a bill that keeps the Federal Government running.

Energy: again, who the hell can oppose promoting dependable, affordable, and environmentally sound production and distribution of energy for America's future?

Now for the things she presented as the same but are really different:

Education: Obama has opposed Bush's main initiative: "No child left behind."

Economics: Bush gave the tax cuts to the rich and it was a net tax cut. Obama would change the tax system to a progressive one. That's not at all like Bush's cuts.

Healthcare: as she blankly says, "while they don't share similar views on universal health care coverage . . ." yeah, right after the cornerstone difference is remove, you're right, there's no difference. [sarcasm]Except for having an engine, this Porsche is no different than that one.[/sarcasm]

Then there's cornerstone differences:

Obama disagrees with Bush on "reforming" social security.

He disagrees with Bush on setting a timetable to end the Iraqi war.

He disagrees with Bush on further tort reform.

My conclusion: Either Tara Wall is totally out to lunch, or she's being deliberately misleading.




-- Modified on 10/14/2008 6:35:40 AM

Here are some minor differences between Hussein Obama and GWB, but most of Hussein OBush's votes are similar to GWB...(Note: Hussein voted "present" 303 times of a total of 600, so we don't have much data about him.).

- Hussein voted "No" to Provide for a deficit-neutral reserve fund for providing an above the line Federal income tax deduction for individuals purchasing health insurance outside the workplace.

- Hussein voted "No" To protect small businesses, family ranches and farms from the Death Tax by providing a $5 million exemption, a low rate for smaller estates and a maximum rate no higher than 35%.

- Hussein voted "No" To provide certainty to taxpayers by extending expiring tax provisions such as the R&D Tax Credit that helps US companies innovate, combat pay exclusion for our soldiers in the field, the education deduction to make colleges more affordable and the alternative energy incentives to make the environment cleaner through the end of 2009.

***For more on Obama's votes, please read my post above...

Obama = Bush.  

You love Bush's policies.

Therefore, you're voting Obama!!

I knew you'd come around eventually

1.  Biggest increase in size of the Federal Government?

A conservative republican named DUBYA.  Before him?  H.W. Bush.  Before him?  Reagan.


2.  Biggest increase in taxes?

A conservative republican named H. W. Bush.


Funny how you Republicans talk about the Liberal Dems being "Socialists" when it's really YOUR OWN DAMN PARTY that's the worst culprit of them all.

Ironic, ain't it?