No plan for Energy, let alone independence, can or will succeed without Nuclear power as its centerpiece. Plain and simple and you can take that to the bank. Period, end of discussion, the debate’s over, the science is in!

Yet Obama and other idiots refuse to utter the N word. It’s really a Litmus test. If you hear ANYONE talking about energy policy and solutions and they don’t include Nuclear energy they are a babbling idiot, a fool, or a propagandist.

Obama shows with his lack of understanding, his propagandizement, or his just plain refusal to confront reality that on THIS ONE CRITICAL ISSUE ALONE he is not ready for anything close to POTUS.

Obama being in the Senate is itself depriving some village of a Community Organizer…

The first is the economy. It has gone into a slowdown. It happens, the economy is cyclical. While the Democrats were all able to see how sending out tax rebate checks could stimulate the economy, they seem to be incapable of seeing how lowering the tax rates in the first place will help prevent or at least lessen the depth of a slump. Obama has categorically said he intends to raise tax rates. When questioned about it by a MSM reporter who actually included in the question that increased capital gains rate increases cause revenues to fall, Obama responded with “It’s not about raising revenues, it’s about fairness.” That shows a fundamental lack of understanding when it comes to governmental economics. There is only ONE legitimate reason for taxes, that being to raise revenues for the government to pay for the services it provides. Since it has been historically proven that raising rates reduces revenues, what possible purpose would it serve to raise rates? Is the government swimming in so much surplus money that it can afford to take in less? Or would it make more sense to LOWER RATES which has been historically proven to RAISE REVENUES thereby reducing the deficit that is causing the dollar to lose value worldwide? While other countries are lowering business tax rates to encourage growth, Obama is advocating raising them. An act that has been proven to discourage business growth and cause unemployment.(See Michigan, home of the one state recession) Additionally, in order to be able to pay these assitional taxes, businesses will have to raise prices causing inflation. While inflation is a normal part of the economic cycle and normally can be controlled through interest rate increases, inflation caused by taxation can only be slightly moderated by raising interest rates because it is not a part of the normal free market system. The resulting combination of high inflation, unemployment and interest rates is called STAGFLATION because it stagnates the economy. Obama’s taxation policies are not new, they are simply a rehashing of the disasterous economic policies of the Jimma Carter administration. I lived through that once, I’d rather not have to face it again.

There is also the issue of Obama’s plans to tax “Big Oil” on their profits. Perhaps someone should explain to Obama or at least the AARP exactly who those “Big Oil” profits go to. Over 65% of “Big Oil’s” profits are paid as dividends to retirement accounts. Perhaps the big unions should take a closer look at how an Obama presidency will cut the funding legs out from under their pension plans. Union and other pension plans own over 40% of the stock in ExxonMobil. If Obama steals (that’s what taxes really are) the profits from ExxonMobil, he’ll be taking them from the union pension plans. At the same time that his corporate tax rate increases will result in heating oil, natural gas, and electricity prices rising. His taxation and wealth redistribution plans are nothing new. They’ve been tried all over the world and been found to be abject failures. His father even advocated 100% taxation rates.

My second reason for not voting for Obama (I’m not really a big McCain supporter. He ticked me off with his comments following the Illegal Alien Amnesty bill got shot down. His constituents have VERY LOUDLY shown at the ballot box we want illegal aliens shown the door, but he insists on trying to let them off scot free.) is his comments about the military and national security. He has openly stated he wants to found and fund a national security force the size and strength of the US military while cutting military spending dramatically. The national security force idea is ludicrous and costly. Exactly why would we need a million man security force in the US unless there was some intent to have a coup? As for his plan to cut spending to the military, I’ve lived through the result of that type of thinking when I was in the military. Military spending was an extremely LOW priority during the Carter Administration and the Democratically controlled congress during the Reagan one. They refused to appropriate adequate levels of funding for equipment. When I arrived at Ft Carson in February 85, I was supposed to be issued a Kevlar Helmet and body armor. When I left in August, 1987 I still had not been issued either. Why? Because the Congress was allocating so little money for the purchase of body armor that the Rapid deployment forces units’ body armor was reaching its expiration date before enough had been purchased to equip the rest of us. I would never vote for a candidate who will deprive our soldiers of the equipment they need as a cost cutting manuever. Obama has said he intends to do just that. Perhaps someone should tell the family members of service members serving in Iraq and Afghanistan about Obama’s plan to prevent the development of new MRAP vehicles (Mine Resistant, Ambush Protected) that are saving lives almost daily in those two countries. That’s what his proposed cuts in military R&D and procurement will do.

I will say this much for Obama, he speaks well when reading from a teleprompter. It’s just a shame that he’s on the wrong side of so many issues. The economy of this country could be booming if the government would get out of the way. Instead he wants to turn the US into a workers’ utopia like the former Soviet Union where toilet paper was a luxury.

I live in the Bible Belt so I know what it’s like to have a belief and feel like a fish out of water. I wait for the Rev Billy Bob to corner me in the market some day to try and talk some sense into the lib who is actually a left leaning (almost fallen?) moderate.

Dang, now I’m wide awake again … I should have stayed on the sofa. Oh, well.

Ellis and I talk like this..we have a history and this is our version of a debate..relax

BTW, those same polls that have Obama up by 2 also have a poll out that has 58% of the people in this country agreeing that the MSM has been biased towards Obama. 78% believe that the MSM is purposely negative towards Palin.

Ellis said that Obama reached across the aisle. Now you are bringing up bills he sponserd. Here is the link that you should be citing:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?&Db=d109&querybd=@FIELD(FLD003+@4((@1(Sen+Obama++Barack))+01763))
or try this: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/thomas
How many bills sponsored by Obama have been signed into law?
265 were sponsored, 2 were formally passed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-jCBk4IAFM&eurl=http://hotair.com/archives/2008/02/27/video-how-many-bills-sponsored-by-obama-have-been-signed-into-law/

He almost
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/271/

co-sponsored that ethics/earmark bill.
http://obama.senate.gov/issues/ethics_and_lobbying_reform/

If you’re honestly curious about Obama’s record of bipartisan legislation, this should get you started:

http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2006/10/barack_obama.html

I see your sister and brother-in-law, and raise you my father, who hasn’t voted Democrat since JFK; two of his Republican friends; the Republican father of another friend of mine; and two old friends of mine who’ve voted Republican for the last three elections. They’re all voting for Obama. Encouraging signs, as are the numerous “Republicans for Obama” bumper stickers I see in my neighborhood. It ought to be an interesting election.