50 yesses!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I respect anyone's opinions... really, it's true. What I don't like, from either side, is when anyone makes generalizations or assertions about policies or positions that aren't based in fact and reality. Specifically, what policies do you not support? From the discussions that we (everyone) has had on this board, I have rarely read that the opposition has a factual view of Obama's policies. What I normally read are false characterizations or speculation. I would LOVE to have an actual policy debate based on fact... so if you please, provide a few examples of the policies (not proposals or characterizations of proposals) that you feel that Obama has created that are a complete offense to your own position.

Because his money goes further in other countries, and they need the money more? Obviously?

Oh, and because he wants to!

I am a moderate too... I AM a Democrat... but a moderate one. I can't associate myself with a party like the GOP who will stand on the floor of the senate/house and tell straight up lies (strong mis-characterizations at minimum) about legislation or policies (like the $40 million for mice lie)... I have NEVER seen a Democrat do that... seriously. I don't support the Death Penalty without conclusive and irrefutable evidence... just because there have been over 100 people exonerated in the last 2 decades that were sitting on Death Row. I don't really support a gun ban... I think it makes alot more sense to regulate the ammunition for assault weapons then to ban the weapons... because banning the weapons doesn't keep criminals from having them. If we came up with a common sense way to trace where the bullets came from (like stamping the shell casings with a serial number) that would make more sense.

That said... I can't stand the extreme left wingers either... and they are just as crazy about Obama's positions as the right... just for different reasons.

It would be much easier to make a small list of what I agreed with but here is a small sample of his domestic or economic policies I oppose:

$750 Billion "Stimulus" plan
2009 $1.85 Trillion budget deficit (proposed $9 trillion+ budget deficit over 10 years)
Government takeover of Chrysler and GM
Intimidation of secured bondholders to achieve a 55% ownership interest in Chrysler for the UAW
Refusal to accept TARP repayments from JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs
Using TARP loans to pressure banks to support government policy (see Chrysler and GM)
Card Check (eliminates secret ballot and requires mandatory arbitration for union organization)
Minimum Wage Increase (proposed increase to $9.50 per hour)
Cap and trade carbon limitations (proposes reducing carbon emissions by 80%)
Opposes domestic oil drilling (offshore and Arctic Wildlife Refuge)
Opposes oil shale development in Colorado
Government funded health insurance (paid for with penalty taxes on small businesses who don't provide health insurance)
Increasing the capital gains tax
Increasing marginal tax rates on families earning over $250,000
Reduction of the charitable giving tax deduction
Applying FICA taxes to income over $102,000
Amnesty for Illegal immigrants
Drivers Licenses for illegal immigrants
Opposes state initiatives banning affirmative action
Supports renewing the assault weapons ban
Supported DC handgun ban
Opposes legalization of marijuana

Here is a good graph showing Obama's proposed budget deficits that sums up my opposition:

http://www.porn-rss-feeds.com/images/obamadebt.jpg

On foreign policy I oppose the following:

Closing Guantanamo Bay
Releasing Guantanamo prisoners onto the US mainland
Releasing memos detailing enhanced CIA interrogation techniques
Engagement with Syria and Iran
Support of the International Criminal Court and the authority of international law over US law (See Harold Koh nomination)
Pressuring Israel to negotiate with Hamas and the PLO
Supports cuts in missile defense funding
Supports cuts in overall defense spending
Opposes missile defense systems in Eastern Europe
Supports increases in foreign aid administered through the UN (see Global Poverty Act of 2007)

I am sure there are countless others I could mention if I had more time. :)

To be fair I do support his position on relaxing restrictions on Cuba, his engagement with Russia, his use of airstrikes against enemy targets in Pakistan and his continued use of "renditions" for enemy combatants.

This is exactly what I was talking about... the majority of this list is stuff that hasn't seen the light of day as actual policy and some of it is a complete mis-characterization (read as bullshit). Let's go through your list and make a list of actual policy. btw... I am familiar with The Heritage Foundation... where you got that graphic.

These 2 things are the only thing on your domestic list that anywhere near reflect actual policy and the "9 trillion budget deficit in 10 years" assertion is a false number created by the right to support a bullshit talking point. Some of the other things you mentioned like TARP repayment do reflect a small part of what Geitner wanted from TARP recipients... but it's alot more complicated than just saying he refused payments. "Card Check" -- the proposed legislation (EFCA) DOES NOT remove secret ballots... that is a bullshit lie told by the right... but for the record... I don't support Card Check either. I am not going to go through the rest of the list because I don't want to type that much... but the majority of what you posted isn't fact... these are almost all things that the right is saying... but they aren't even true. Do more research for yourself if you don't believe me... but I wouldn't use all of those right wing sites you must read... because as I stated... they are bullshit stories. Not everything you posted is wrong... I am not saying that... but most of it is.

I guess I wasted my time trying to engage you on this subject so you could make some blanket statement that I am misinformed without addressing any of my points in substance. I can have an in depth discussion on each point that I posted and produce numerous sources, examples etc. The fact that I took you seriously enough to bother to put together a list so you could dismiss it out of hand does call my judgment into question however. Go fuck yourself.

As for the only substantive point you attempted to make....... Card Check does eliminate secret ballots if 50% of the employees sign authorization cards. Therefore if the union can strong arm enough employees to sign cards then there is no secret ballot election. Read the bill if you are confused because these facts are not in dispute.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/.../~c110QZETCP::

And go fuck yourself.

I didn't address every falsehood you posted because I already know what the outcome would be... you would play circle jerk with the issues and we would get nowhere. I already know the answers... so I do not need to waste my time arguing every point for no reason.

In your own answer you pointed out the IF... the bill does not eliminate the secret ballot... it does however provide a process to circumvent it in the occasion that more than 50% sign authorization cards...

Apparently the extent of your ability to have a policy debate is claim anyone who disagrees with you is uninformed. Is it impossible to comprehend that someone might be quite adequately informed but simply disagrees with you? Perhaps our values differ in some fundamental way which leads us to support different policies and different outcomes? I oppose Obama because of his stated polices and positions. That does not make me uniformed but rather just someone who disagrees with him and you on what is best.

Instead of assuming I am uniformed isn't it possible to assume I am just a bad person whose defects of character make it impossible for me to support the obvious righteousness of Obama's agenda? Perhaps I am simply evil as opposed to stupid?

Anyway there is no reason for you to trouble yourself considering any of these things because as you have already clearly stated "I already know the answers.... so I do not need to waste my time arguing every point for no reason."

I will point out a couple of the most egregious so that you feel more comfortable in the fact that I am not just saying you posted falsehoods... but proving it. Maybe this will make you feel better. I doubt you are evil or stupid... just simply misinformed because you probably read alot of right wing sources... or at least some of the things you posted would indicate this. I read alot of those same sites because I like to get both sides of the story.

Obama hasn't proposed any "penalty taxes" on small businesses. As a matter of fact, it specifically says that small businesses will be exempt.
Obama has never proposed amnesty... as a matter of fact he proposes that we secure our border first, resident illegal immigrants would be required to pay a hefty fine and go to the back of the line... but they wouldn't just kick them out. How you you propose to round up 23 million people or however many illegals there are?

His position is that it should be up to the states... he doesn't support any type of federal requirement to do so. These drivers licenses fall right into the comprehensive immigration reform plan that he supports... the one that McCain helped write...
This is misleading. He has not proposed "releasing" any prisoners onto US soil... he has proposed holding them in military prisons in the US and trying them with military tribunals.

This is false. The whole hullabaloo over Harold Koh was a red herring where some National Review journalist posted a letter from some guy who never commented on the letter accusing Harold Koh (The Dean of Yale Law) of supporting Sharia Law by citing a speech that he gave. A statement that the event organizer denied.

If you read the speech transcript, he was specifically talking about contractual law in the context of international business and how it applies in US courts. The reason behind this smear is that he wrote an article for Stanford Law Review which stated that the US wants to have it's cake and eat it too in the sense that it uses the ICC for it's advantage when it comes to dealing with other countries but does not comply with it's rulings when the US is concerned... specifically when it comes to selling small arms to small nations that later end up in the hands of militants. He has never said that ICC rulings should supersede US law... he has merely said that the Declaration of Independence requires us to respect the laws of mankind... so, in essence, he is saying that we should respect the laws of other nations instead of not respecting them and calling other countries who do not respect them "rogue nations".

Until we have a useful dialog with these 2 countries... there will be no solution to the Israel/Palestinian conflict. We HAVE to engage them in order to end this argument that has gone on way too long and fueled international terrorism.

The funny thing about this statement is that even the majority of Republicans support a two state solution... how do you propose to get to that if there is no negotiations between Israel and the elected government in the Palestinian Territory? News Flash - there is never going to be a group in Palestine that would meet our expectations of acceptable political behavior. Israel has killed thousands of Palestinians (if not more)... there is no way that the Palestinians are going to not have a militaristic view of their politics. Groups like the PLO and Hamas are our only hope as the last 40 years have shown.

People have no clue but Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, they are all Federalists, not republicans, and definitely not conservatives.

These people are federalists, so is Michelle Malkin, they are all Federalists hiding behind the guise of republican.

Ann Coulter even formed a Federalist Society lol

These folks write books and do talk shows all day long and are called Republicans... they are not.

This video is a documentary about how the Federalist Society is behind the targeting of the US Attorneys as well as thousands of other Democratic Party elected officials.