Between Obama and Clinton, who do you want to win?
I'm crossing my fingers for Clinton. <goes off in the shadows and waits for the "oh no she didn't bring this topic here. ugh, i hate her. remind me to ask ron for an ignore feature" whispers  > |
|
|
| LOL... as a Canadian I have no say of course, but I love Obama, can't stand Hillary.... |
| I almost voted for Ross Perot once, just couldn't pull the trigger in the voting booth. Too "eccentric." He was right about NAFTA, of course. We ALL knew good paying jobs would head to Canada and then Mexico. Poor Mexico (and us) just didn't see China coming.
I think that's about all I'll say.  |
Willowsprite wrote: LOL... as a Canadian I have no say of course, but I love Obama, can't stand Hillary....
Why do you love Obama? Just curious |
Sigh.......  I'm starting to hate both of them. |
| Can't stand either. |
debcram wrote: Sigh.......
I'm starting to hate both of them.did you see their last debate? The one I guess last week? I couldn't watch it for more than 5 minutes at a time. They're both so UNAPPEALING as candidates. Not to get too into it but, but for one thing, I can't believe that people in this day and age actually CARE that one's a woman and one's an African American. I mean, that that even frames one's opinion of someone is just so foreign to me. Can we just have a do-over with both parties and start with fresh, new candidates? PLEASE?? |
barney1 wrote: Can we just have a do-over with both parties and start with fresh, new candidates? PLEASE??
I am totally with Steph!!! Do -OVER!! |
I am not voting till they give me someone I like.  I don't care what party they are. I may write my cousin's name in... that is what he and his friends are doing ,at least I can say I voted |
If you follow US History or have been watching Adams on PBS, you know it's only in modern times with the media trying to run our lives that the candidate "must" be decided before the convention. Baloney!!!! Some of the very best conventions have been real knock-down drag outs with deadlock vote, backroom arm twisting, and the nomination going to a third candidate...like John Q. Adams. So maybe Obama and Clinton will slug it out to a draw and a third member comes in........hey, maybe Al Gore??? AAAAHHHHHHHH!  |
| Al Gore? Heck NO!!! I'd love to see John Edwards re-enter the ring!!!! |
| <passes the vomit bag around>
|
| Jo...you only have that vomit bag handy, cuz you kid is drinking beer!!! :sidestep: |
 |
SheepieBoss wrote: hey, maybe Al Gore??? Or John Andersen! |
| Ah, I forgot about him..........is he still alive?? |
| I just wish everyone who voted took the time to learn about each candidate, what their stand for, and not what sounded good from one motivational speech they saw on tv that was nothing but well-written "garbage." |
Joahaeyo wrote: I just wish everyone who voted took the time to learn about each candidate, what their stand for, and not what sounded good from one motivational speech they saw on tv that was nothing but well-written "garbage."
and yet you want hillary 
sorry couldn't resist |
| Oh, I want neither ...however, I'd prefer her to win over Obama to give McCain a better chance, and if in general I had to pick one of the two Democrats to be President.
Not a fan of McCain either, but I believe in voting along your party line. |
Joahaeyo wrote: I just wish everyone who voted took the time to learn about each candidate, what their stand for, and not what sounded good from one motivational speech they saw on tv that was nothing but well-written "garbage."
Well you did only ask for Republicans opinions, so of course the voters of your poll have not taken the time to learn about the candidates. |
Joahaeyo wrote: Not a fan of McCain either, but I believe in voting along your party line.
Really? So if, say, Hillary was by far the best choice (not the real Hillary, but some perfect version of her), you would still go with an imperfect candidate just because they're of your party? To me, voting principles like that have never made sense. |
| Well if you're voting for someone who has the views most like yours (taxes, abortion, gun control, etc) and you want someone who make a decision you'd be mostly in favor in ...then 9 times out of 10 ...it would be along your party line. |
| Unashamed Clinton supporter. I am not happy with everything she says and does but I believe she is far more qualified than Obama to run the country. |
| Other than being the President's spouse and a couple of years more as a carpetbagger in the Senate, what exactly are her qualifications that are so far superior to Senator Obama's complete lack of experience?
Just askin. As an analogy, do you think Joan would be more qualified to run this forum (including all of the behind the scenes custom programming that has been put in place) than you since she has been married to me ? I'm not saying that to be qualified for the Presidency you need to have been the executive of anything (although I think that would help QUITE a bit, and perhaps experience as a Governor should be a Constitutional requirement), I'm just a bit tired of hearing unsubstantiated claims about Senator Rodham Clinton's "experience." That said, I do think that Senator Obama is much more likely to be chewed up and spit out by Washington politics; I think unless he demonstrates a willingness to bring in seasoned and experienced politicians to help him he is likely to have the identical experience as Deval Patrick here in Massachusetts, who has been able to accomplish exactly NOTHING his first year in office,. I think that would be a disaster for our country. |
| As an aside, as many were Freemasons I don't understand why our founding fathers put no experience requirements into the Presidency.
The Master of a Freemason's lodge must have experience in several posts, each with prescribed and increasing duties and responsibilities before he can be elected Master. Or so I'm told.
This man is Constitutionally qualified to be the President, although it looks like he doesn't want the job. |
| Well, I really hesitate to get involved in political discussions on a forum, they always turn "ugly". But, everyone choses a candidate based on the issues that are important to them. My hot button "issues" are Iraq and Health care. I agree with her "position".
I believe her qualifications have far more to do with who she is as a person than who she is married too. She is well respected in other countries, at at this point we need all the respect we can garner. She has been involved in politics since the early 70's, and knows how Washington works. I have met her on two occasions and have heard her speak on NYS issues and feel she is well informed and knowledgable. I also had personal experience with her (and her aids) helping me to resove a Student Loan issue in her capacity as Senator. Obama admitted himself on 60 minutes that the only thing he has ever run was the Harvard Law Review. I am very skeptical of the "charismatic" agenda that he seems to be promoting, he ain't no JFK and feel that he is no more interested in the "middle class economy" than the republicans. That being said I believe they have both behaved shamelessly and this election makes me embarressed to be a Democrate. |
barney1 wrote: Willowsprite wrote: LOL... as a Canadian I have no say of course, but I love Obama, can't stand Hillary.... Why do you love Obama? Just curious Ok, well I'm a political junkie, I love watching it all unfold and analyzing it to death.... However, political and job qualifications aside (I feel they all have their respective strengths/weaknesses) I think Obama at least appears intelligent and well spoken. That is a huge thing as far as I'm concerned. Qualifications aside because there are a ton of staff for him to choose from and put in various positions to best aid him where he is lacking in knowledge or experience. He seems level headed. |
| Hillary Clinton was more then just a First Lady, so don't sell her short on her experience in the White House....8 years I believe. (Do you remember that was one of the biggest complains about her is she wanted to be involved?) Obama is a Freshman Senator.
I hope people pick the person who they think will make the most difference in areas that they think are important. Whoever is elected President next has a huge mess to dig us out of so we will have to be patient and hope for the best. Don't expect a huge turn around in the first 100 days or the first four years. We have a lot of economic issues that need to be fixed, and of course my pet cause Health Care. Ron I don't know how well Joan would do in running the OES.ORG Forum. I don't know her credentials nor how involved she is in the programming end nor the everyday "hands on". |
| In my heart of hearts, I've always believed that Hillary was the real president during the Bill years. He never struck me as bright guy, just charming (sound like another canidate?). I think Hillary was the one that really wore the pants for that administration. IMHO |
violet wrote: Hillary Clinton was more then just a First Lady, No, she wasn't. For half "their" term, they weren't even talking to one another. 'member?violet wrote: Ron I don't know how well Joan would do in running the OES.ORG Forum. I don't know her credentials nor how involved she is in the programming end nor the everyday "hands on". Exactly my point. She isn't, even though she sits less than three feet behind me in our office ALL DAY LONG. Neither was First Lady Hillary present during "Presidential" meetings. Maybe at night they chatted and strategized politics on how to defeat their evil enemies (when they were talking) but she wasn't in the NSA meetings or the daily briefs or anyplace where the real work of the Presidency is done anymore than Laura Bush is.
First Lady Hillary was pilloried for being "too involved" on the one occasion when she overstepped her bounds and tried to make public policy (health care) behind closed doors. This is the same charge levied against Vice President Dick Cheney and the national energy policy. At least Vice President Dick Cheney was elected, if not empowered by the constitution. I am not saying she is less qualified than Senator Obama, I'm saying she has virtually no relevant experience, just like Senator Obama and just like Senator John McCain. Relevant experience might include things like being a governor (not a governor's wife), running a large corporation or a large branch of government or even Speaker of the House, being a general (or equivalent) in the armed services. She does have some limited political experience, a little bit more than Senator Obama, but nowhere near the experience of Senator John McCain. The only thing that I would THINK that she has the advantage on is that she is ruthless and stops at nothing to attain her goals. Unfortunately while I think this is not a virtue we should be upholding to our children, this is an advantage she holds over Senator Obama who I believe would be decimated by Washington which would be a disaster. So between the two, in my opinion she is the lesser of two bad candidates, with Senator John McCain having a slight edge over her. . This says NOTHING about anyone's positions on anything. Just qualifications. Nor does this suggest for whom I might vote. |
| I still feel that the experience that Hillary had during the eight years of her husband's presidentcy puts her heads above Obama when it comes to experience. Also their experience as her hubby being governor...don't sell her experience short. Of course her years as a Senator also.
Anyway, we only have hope for whoever wins we get turned around for the better. |
| since I am an aging left wing "hippie". the candidates I want never even get
close enough to being a nominee. I wanted Joe Biden, sigh! I also wanted Howard Dean last time. Bill Clinton is the only person I wanted to win who did. |
| Were you disappointed at how moderate he was as a President or at his impropieties as President? |
| I think the one qualification for a president should be that they have at least served in our Armed Forces. I'd prefer a wartime, high ranking officer, that has already proven himself as a leader of "his men."
I know a black American General that I thought would make an excellent president, but I think if memory serves me he refused to run for office. And, I don't blame him! He chose his family. What gets me about this years election is the fact that we're at war with Iraq, etc....... A Muslim nation. Who was it that attacked us on 9-11 and so many other times in the last few years? Why would Americans even consider a Muslim for our president? It makes me sick!!! He may be okay as a person, but his beliefs are....... well............. I keep hearing from some that he IS NOT Muslim. Please give me information that proves that statement. So far, I guess I'm looking in all the wrong places. God help us all. I'm not quite sure who I'll vote for in the end.... but it WON'T be OBAMA!!! He's a wolf in sheep's clothing! |
| Ron,
Don't care what bill Clinton did w/ his personal life. I am sure he is not the only president or official to engage in improprieties! He got caught. It is his wife's problem not ours. To address the matter about candidates being veterans. "W" sure wasn't. I am very surprised at John Mccain. You would think all the suffering he endured as POW would make him more sympathetic to our soldiers. Why would he want them to suffer as he did? He is a scary candidate to me. I am not thrilled by Obama or Hillary. I wanted Joe Biden 1st & John Edwards 2and. I liked Howard Dean last time. I will however vote for Obama. my only concern is that he has promised many things that I don't think he has the experience to pull off. As far a his religion goes, I don't care! "W" is a religious LOON! Doesn't God speak to him personally ! |
| I just read an article by Thomas Sowell where he admits he couldn't vote for either McGovern or Nixon so he stayed home. He's in the same boat this year but realizes he must vote for McCain because of the nuclear threat in Iran and that LOON's association with Osama bin Laden.
Obama's willingness to "talk" to our enemies face to face, empowers them. It's a Rodney King thing, "Can't we all just get along?" Sorry, not when the other guy wants to take himself and the rest of the world to Allah's Final Judgement or whatever they call it. Obama wants "change." Change under what pretext? We assume he means for the good, but what and how? Yes, with the world's problems: oil, nuclear, terrorism, famine, disease, etc it's nice to have a candidate with an upbeat attitude, but I'd like to see experience behind him, hear his plans and not just platitudes. There's a lot about Obama that concerns me: his record or lack of record in Illinois, his weak showing in the Senate, Black Theology (I'd have to go back and review the Black Muslim ideals, they sound similar. ), his wife's hurtful comments. I am no John McCain fan! I feel like Thomas Sowell........I wish I could stay home this time but there's too much at risk. |
mouthypf wrote: I keep hearing from some that he IS NOT Muslim. Please give me information that proves that statement. So far, I guess I'm looking in all the wrong places. A snopes article. Plenty of info available if you google it tho. http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp |
mouthypf wrote: it WON'T be OBAMA!!! He's a wolf in sheep's clothing!
This leaves me with some questions. 1. Why do you not believe in the current Administration enough to know they would have vetted someone out before he became a US Senator if he was actually aligned with our enemy? Do you really think this lone man is smarter than the entire CIA/FBI/Secret Service/opponents' digging through his background and could bypass all of that and infiltrate our government? 2. Do you realize that there are a wide array of Muslims just as there is a wide array of Christians? Do you know that we as a nation are not actually AGAINST Muslims in general, and we're only concerned with the fanatical fundamentalists who are only every bit as horrible as Christian fanatical fundamentalists? On that same note, do you realize that Muslim is a religion, not a national origin? Because surely you have relatives who were of a different faith than you, yes? I know I am not of the same faith as my grandparents and parents, and their faith was responsible for many atrocities over the years ( http://www.burningcross.net/crusades/ch ... ities.html ). So because someone has a relative who might be a Muslim, even though that relative was not a fundamentalist, fanatical Muslim, his offspring (oh, who was not even raised by this relative) is therefore a "wolf in sheep's clothing"? mmmmmkay. |
rdf wrote: 1. Why do you not believe in the current Administration enough to know they would have vetted someone out before he became a US Senator if he was actually aligned with our enemy? Do you really think this lone man is smarter than the entire CIA/FBI/Secret Service/opponents' digging through his background and could bypass all of that and infiltrate our government? Your response/question assumes that Muslims are aligned with our enemies and that it might be somehow illegal for a Muslim and/or a person aligned with our enemies to be legally and properly elected to the Senate.
So I'm not sure I get your meaning with the first part, but I do get your other points. |
Ron wrote: rdf wrote: 1. Why do you not believe in the current Administration enough to know they would have vetted someone out before he became a US Senator if he was actually aligned with our enemy? Do you really think this lone man is smarter than the entire CIA/FBI/Secret Service/opponents' digging through his background and could bypass all of that and infiltrate our government? Your response/question assumes that Muslims are aligned with our enemies and that it might be somehow illegal for a Muslim and/or a person aligned with our enemies to be legally and properly elected to the Senate.So I'm not sure I get your meaning with the first part, but I do get your other points. That was in response to mouthypf saying he was a "wolf in sheep's clothing', insinuating that he was aligned with the enemy. I'm saying, if that's so, don't you have trust that the administration makes sure those people aren't actually elected? My response doesn't assume Muslims are aligned with our enemies, my response is in response to mouthypf's assumption of it! I (unsuccessfully) was attempting to show how ridiculous that is! Most Muslims in this world are wonderful people. There are some fringe groups (just like in other religions) that are horrible. The point is, even if he was a Muslim (WHICH HE IS NOT!), it doesn't matter! |
| I'm a lot more concerned that he's a socialist than a Muslim. |
rdf wrote: my response is in response to mouthypf Yeah, I know. My point is that , well...
Let me just state that the administration would have NO BUSINESS in "vetting" members of the legislative branch of government. That's the job of the voters who put them in office... and MAYBE their state's attorneys general. I'm not sure that they should be arrested in bribary/correuption stings or anything else. How easy would it be for a (TRULY) corrupt administration either Presidential or DC to start arresting members of congress on trumped-up charges? How could the arrest of 10 senators (or sometimes even 1 or 2) affect the vote on bills under debate? I know there is some provision in the law or in custom that congressmen either can't be or shouldn't be detained by police during a vote, or some such.. I think this first came to my attention when Representative Kennedey claimed he was on his way to a vote to try to avoid being charged with DUI, and now claims he was on Ambien... |
| I'm more concerned with candidate's stance on the war and if it has been consistent rather than any religious affiliation or economic stance.
What I'd like to see is America elect a well qualified optimistic leader. I'm not sure we'll get all of the above with either choice, but at least we won't get none of the above. |
Ron wrote: rdf wrote: my response is in response to mouthypf Yeah, I know. My point is that , well... Let me just state that the administration would have NO BUSINESS in "vetting" members of the legislative branch of government. That's the job of the voters who put them in office... and MAYBE their state's attorneys general. Absolutely! And while it might not be an official capacity of the Administration, it's true that they control "hired guns" and have a say in all aspects of prodding through and publicizing candidates' lives. Let's say, for example....President Nixon wasn't too keen on a certain opponent...he will make darn sure that he utilizes all resources available to him to thwart that candidate's promise, right?!
My point is that if Obama was a threat to national security, he would have never made through the senate race, let alone become a candidate for the Presidency. The RNC alone would have made sure of that. Once a person is a candidate for anything, anybody with an agenda will manipulate whatever they can to thwart the campaign. |
shelby,corky,fergus wrote: I am very surprised at John Mccain. You would think all the suffering he endured as POW would make him more sympathetic to our soldiers. Why would he want them to suffer as he did? He is a scary candidate to me. I'm kind of confused by what you're getting at here. I'm sure he's extremely sympathetic toward our service men and women because of his military experience. In fact, he has a 20 year old son currently serving in Iraq so I'll bet he's had more than a few sleepless nights. Apparently he believes that it's in the best interests of America to stabilize Iraq. You can agree or disagree with that, but I think it says a lot about McCain's integrity that three of his sons have been/are in the military. Most politicians either get their own children out of military service or get them cushy appointments (Bush, Gore, etc.). |
| I vehemently oppose this war built on lies.
I also opposed & protested Viet Nam. I am not sure what McCain's motivation is to want to continue this mess. Having his sons included tells me that he is not a rational man. As I said "scary" |
Or dodge the military and go to Canada or England and write letters about how they loathe the military... then campaign to become the Commander in Chief...  |
shelby,corky,fergus wrote: I vehemently oppose this war built on lies. Would you approve of this war if it weren't "built on lies?"
If the President had said: "OK, that's it. You keep violating the cease fire you agreed to by shooting at our aircraft and denying unfettered access to weapons inspectors, so here we come." You would be OK with that? I'm assuming that isn't the real reason why you vehemently oppose this war. So, what's the REAL reason? |
| I just wish there was a way to make the candidates, all of them, tell exactly what they want to do. I do agree that they would benefit from having served in the military, but I don't believe it should necessarily be a high ranking officer, a lot (not all, but way too many) think they are better than everyone and pawn off work and are glory hounds, but thats a rant for another day. We need a president who will concentrate on helping our people. I understand that many other countries need help, but if we continue stretching ourselves so thinly, we WILL wind up being the ones that need the help, and I don't believe anyone will assist us. The situation in Iraq will not be resolved for a while. If we pull out too fast, things will get very bad, very fast, but we do need to find a way to pull out some, our military is being overtaxed. Religion isn't that big of an issue for me, as long as the person does not let their religious beliefs guide their choices for the nation. I was raised to believe that everyone should be respected, regardless of sex, race, religion, or age. Do the candidates want to help our nation? Yes. Will they do it to everyone's satisfaction? No way. You can please some of the people all of the time, or all of the people some of the time. That's just how it goes. Someone is always gonna feel like they got the short end of the stick. We need someone who will balance the highs with the lows and do their damndest to see our nation stay on top.
On the next subject, is this a war built on lies? No, its a war that was a long time coming, and will be fought for years to come, whether on the front pages or behind the lines. Did Iraq have weapons of mass destruction? Uh, lemme think, yes, his name was Saddam Hussein. Did the Iraqi people need our help? Yes. Has everything gone was well as it could have? Duh, of course not. Just remember people, for every bad story we hear, there are good ones that go unreported. The world revolves around the gore......it saddens me to know so much of the good the military does in Iraq goes unacknowledged. I will stop ranting now......but I could go on for days.....Thank you to everyone who supports our military, they really do appreciate your love, and it makes this life we lead a little less lonely to know people do care about the sacrifices being made. God Bless. |
rdf wrote: ...........This leaves me with some questions. 1.....Do you really think this lone man is smarter than the entire CIA/FBI/Secret Service/opponents' digging through his background and could bypass all of that and infiltrate our government? Answer: Possibly. It was one man's idea to board those jets on 911 and infiltrate our government. Yes, he needed help, but he found others more than willing to help put his plan in action. Were "they" smarter than the CIA/FBI/Secret Service? No, we just had a cocky, and comfy attidtude that NO ONE would dare attack the US on US soil! We paid a high price for that attitude. 2. Yes, I know Muslim is a religion. I know who we're at war with, and why. Iraq's population is 'about' 97% Muslim. Can you tell a difference between a good Muslim and a bad one? Check out what's going on in Britian and elsewhere with Muslims. Should we be concerned? It is said, to bring up a child in the way he should go, and that if he strays, he will surely return to the way he was taught. (Close, but not perfectly quoted.) rdf wrote: .......is therefore a "wolf in sheep's clothing"?
He was born to athiest/Muslim parents. Enters a Muslim stepdad. Attended a Muslim/Catholic school, and then shipped off to live with his grandparents. I have no problem with Catholics. He disassociaties himself from one pastor in the last few months, and recently quit the church he was attending because of the election. So I ask you......... knowing what you do about the Muslim belief, Do we have cause to be concerned? |
| Pam, I am not a big Obama fan but according to published reports he, or his parents are not muslim. Below is a quote from a yahoo site:
Best Answer - Chosen by Voters Barack Obama's GRANDFATHER was a Muslim - a Luo tribesman from Kenya. His father was born Muslim, but abandoned Islam as a young man. He was a secular agnostic, an educated man who came to study at the University of Hawaii, where he met Obama's American mother. Obama's parents separated when he was two years old. Barack Obama the presidential candidate has never been a Muslim. He is a Christian. |
mouthypf wrote: rdf wrote: ...........This leaves me with some questions. 1.....Do you really think this lone man is smarter than the entire CIA/FBI/Secret Service/opponents' digging through his background and could bypass all of that and infiltrate our government? Answer: Possibly. It was one man's idea to board those jets on 911 and infiltrate our government. Yes, he needed help, but he found others more than willing to help put his plan in action. Were "they" smarter than the CIA/FBI/Secret Service? No, we just had a cocky, and comfy attidtude that NO ONE would dare attack the US on US soil! We paid a high price for that attitude. Nobody infiltrated our government on 9/11! They hijacked private airplanes. That has nothing to do with becoming an elected official! mouthypf wrote: So I ask you......... knowing what you do about the Muslim belief, Do we have cause to be concerned?
With regard to Obama being president? Of course not. That's silly. |
Tasker's Mom wrote: Pam, I am not a big Obama fan but according to published reports he, or his parents are not muslim. Below is a quote from a yahoo site:
Best Answer - Chosen by Voters Barack Obama's GRANDFATHER was a Muslim - a Luo tribesman from Kenya. His father was born Muslim, but abandoned Islam as a young man. He was a secular agnostic, an educated man who came to study at the University of Hawaii, where he met Obama's American mother. Obama's parents separated when he was two years old. Barack Obama the presidential candidate has never been a Muslim. He is a Christian. Everything I've read about him says the above, but, it goes on to tell about his mother getting remarried to a Muslim. They moved to Indonesia, where Obama attended a Muslim/Catholic school until he was about ten. (I think it was ten.) I understand he says he isn't Muslim, but my point is that he was "taught and lived" as a Muslim in his stepfathers house. I also read where his mother (an athiest) shipped him off to his grandparents home later. "IF I remember correctly" he was about ten years old, and it had something to do with her disapproval of her husbands (religious) rules. I accept the fact that he says he's not Muslim. I just find it difficult to believe that he would able to live in a home with a Muslim stepfather, attend a Muslim school for several years, and some of those beliefs not be carried over into his adulthood. It also bothers me that because of the election, he disassociated himself from one minister (a long time friend), and then quit his church because of that minister. From what that minister said about Clinton, what kind of church has he been attending? Doesn't sound like one I'd want my children to be attending if the minister acts that way. Of course, this is just my opinion, but I'm still in the process of trying to learn more about this man, so your information gives me other areas to check out. Thanks! But, reguardless of what I learn.... I'm not an Obama supporter.  |
mouthypf wrote: From what that minister said about Clinton, what kind of church has he been attending? Doesn't sound like one I'd want my children to be attending if the minister acts that way.
Actually the Clinton comments were made by a priest who was a guest at that church that day. |
although I don't like this thread - I work in government I'd like to escape it here  a good place to learn about obama is either of his books - he is a frank and easy writer to read.
he is also open about his childhood and the influence of his parents and grandparents. |
mouthypf wrote: I accept the fact that he says he's not Muslim. I just find it difficult to believe that he would able to live in a home with a Muslim stepfather, attend a Muslim school for several years, and some of those beliefs not be carried over into his adulthood.
Why does it matter to you even if he is Muslim or was raised in a Muslim household being that his relatives are not at all associated with the fundamentalist extremists??? Again, there are many various "sects" of Muslims, just like there are of Christians. Why do you think that all Muslims are bad? There are between 1 billion to 1.8 billion Muslims, making Islam the second-largest religion in the world, after Christianity. Do you think ALL of those people are extremists out to kill everybody else in the world? |
ButtersStotch wrote: I'm a lot more concerned that he's a socialist than a Muslim.
+1 Though proud to have voted for Perot in the only state in the Union that put Bill Clinton in third place, I despise both major candidates. Ron Paul was my man, but Bob Barr will likely get my November vote. Ironic that Paul was a real Libertarian in Republican clothing whereas Barr is a real Republican in Libertarian clothing. It is really time for a strong third party to come in and shake up the status quo. I'm awfully pessimistic about it, regardless. |
chowderdawg wrote: +1
[...] It is really time for a strong third party to come in and shake up the status quo. +2 |
Willowsprite wrote: mouthypf wrote: From what that minister said about Clinton, what kind of church has he been attending?... Actually the Clinton comments were made by a priest who was a guest at that church that day. Oh... Then, I stand corrected. I was under the impression that it was the minister of the church.  |
| I'll be looking at Ralph Nader with a serious eye........at least we might get cars that get more than 20 mpg! |
rdf wrote: .... Nobody infiltrated our government on 9/11! They hijacked private airplanes. That has nothing to do with becoming an elected official!... Seeing how the federal government is responsible for the the security of our borders............ and they are also responsible for the security and regulations of our airlines...... and the buildings that were targeted on 911 were all federal buildings, I think the federal government was infiltrated quite well that day. My point has been that we should just be cautious of who we elect as public officials. I'm not asking you to agree with me. I never said all Muslims were bad. I asked if you could tell a good one from a bad one (meaning from appearances.) rdf wrote: .......Why does it matter to you even if he is Muslim ..... Why do you think that all Muslims are bad?..... Do you think ALL of those people are extremists out to kill everybody else in the world?
It matters to me because there are many US Service members fighting a war for a Muslim country. Can they tell just by looks who they can trust or not? No. Does it matter? Yes. If they make a judgement call and they're wrong, they could very well pay for it with their lives. And, believe it or not, the same applies here. Some of those brave men and women on those planes on 911 probably returned a smile to one of the terrorist on those planes. Trusting that all was fine. All I'm saying is, Think about it. |
Tasker's Mom wrote: I'll be looking at Ralph Nader with a serious eye........at least we might get cars that get more than 20 mpg!
Nader's always been my choice! My dad wrote his master's thesis on him way back in the 70's, so I guess I'm a little partial... |
VerveUp wrote: so I guess I'm a little partial... So is Nader...
(I really have no idea what that means... it just sounded funny in my head.) |
Girls Rule but not anymore since Hillary Conceded 
Living here has nothing to do with American Politics, but it would of been wonderfull to see a first ever FEMALE president. Best wishes to the two candidates now running for future president of the USA, the demorcats and republicans nominations, it is going to be interesting what happens world wide from an outsiders view. |
mouthypf wrote: Can they tell just by looks who they can trust or not? No. Does it matter? Yes. If they make a judgement call and they're wrong, they could very well pay for it with their lives. And, believe it or not, the same applies here. Some of those brave men and women on those planes on 911 probably returned a smile to one of the terrorist on those planes. Trusting that all was fine. All I'm saying is, Think about it. It doesn't matter if you agree with him or vote for him, just be sensible. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080612/ap_ ... ama_smears Quote: Obama site confronts rumors By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON - Democrat Barack Obama's campaign said Thursday that Michelle Obama never used the word "whitey" in a speech from the church pulpit as he launched a Web site to debunk rumors about himself and his wife. The rumor that Michelle Obama railed against "whitey" in a diatribe at Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ has circulated on conservative Republican blogs for weeks and was repeated by radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh. The rumor included claims of a videotape of the speech that would be used to bring down Obama's candidacy this fall. "No such tape exists," the campaign responds on the site, http://www.fightthesmears.com. "Michelle Obama has not spoken from the pulpit at Trinity and has not used that word." The site is a response to the realities of a brave new world, where information travels 24 hours a day on blogs and voters are increasingly turning to the Internet for information. It's a particular problem for Obama, a relative newcomer to national politics who is still unknown to many voters and has been the target of persistent misinformation campaigns online. In another sign of the campaign moving into the general election race, the Democratic National Committee's spokeswoman said Thursday its political and field operations are relocating to Chicago, where Obama's campaign is based. While other departments will remain in Washington, it's an effort to streamline the campaign and party efforts in one strategy instead of the overlapping efforts of past presidential elections. E-mails about Obama rank No. 2 on the list of "Hottest Urban Legends" on snopes.com, an Internet rumor-debunking site, behind e-mail greeting cards that could expose computers to viruses. Michelle Obama has often been the target of conservative attacks, prompting Obama to demand his rivals "lay off my wife." Much of the criticism came from her comment that her husband's campaign has made her proud of her country "for the first time," a remark that inspired a Tennessee Republican Party Web video questioning her patriotism. There have also been more insulting attacks, and not just limited to the Internet. The Fox News Channel recently labeled her as "Obama's baby mama" and also raised the inflammatory suggestion that she gave her husband a "terrorist fist jab" when they bumped knuckles the night he clinched the nomination. The Obamas recently resigned from Trinity, where the Rev. Jeremiah Wright was the longtime pastor. Wright came under fire for sermons in which he cursed America and accused the government of conspiring against blacks. Video of the sermons spread quickly on the Internet and threatened great damage to Obama's campaign. Other false claims about the Illinois senator _that he's secretly a Muslim who refuses to say the Pledge of Allegiance and is intent on destroying America — spread widely during the primary campaign, and the candidate made it a habit of telling audiences to respond to e-mail rumors to set the record straight. Barack Obama bristled when a reporter asked him about the "whitey" rumor on his campaign plane last week, saying it was nonsense that shouldn't be repeated in questioning by a mainstream reporter. "It is a destructive aspect of our politics right now," Obama told his traveling press corps. "And simply because something appears in an e-mail, that should lend it no more credence than if you heard it on the corner. And you know, presumably the job of the press is to not go around and spread scurrilous rumors like this until there's actually anything, one iota of substance or evidence that would substantiate it." At the same time, his campaign was preparing the debunking site in a recognition that refusing to address rumors only perpetuates them. The site explains that Obama is "a committed Christian" who never attended a radical madrassa during his childhood in Indonesia. With chain e-mails falsely claiming Obama was sworn into the Senate on the Quran, the holy book of Islam, the Web site includes a photo showing him taking his oath of office on the family bible. It shows C-SPAN video of Obama leading the Pledge of Allegiance with his hand over his heart as he presided over the Senate on June 21, 2007. It encourages people to send e-mail to friends and "spread the truth." "The Obama campaign isn't going to let dishonest smears spread across the Internet unanswered," said Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor. "It's not enough to just know the truth, we have to be proactive and fight back." |
| In all fairness, it should be noted that I have seen several videos of Senator Obama with his hands folded or by his side and standing silent during recitation of "the Pledge of Allegiance", so the anti-smear site is just another spin machine if they counter such a claim by showing a video of him participating once and during his presidential campaign to boot.
If a site like that wants to become a mainstream respected truth-telling resource can't be disingenuous like that. Oh well, I guess politicians and campaigns ARE all like. |
Ron wrote: In all fairness, it should be noted that I have seen several videos of Senator Obama with his hands folded or by his side and standing silent during recitation of "the Pledge of Allegiance",
Do you have links to them by chance? http://thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com ... gone-fool/ http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/anthem.asp http://www.theurbantwist.com/news/117/A ... 11-09.html |
| Frankly I cannot STAND either Hillbilly or Obama.....
I don't believe in Social Health Care for all..... we work hard to pay for our health care and I don't want to pay for someone else's health care. If i want to live in a socialist coountry i'd move to Cuba! That being said, I'm not crazy about McCaine either, but he is the lessor of the evils i believe at this point, even as liberal as he is. yes I am an extreme right wing Republican usually just go in and vote a straight Republican ticket...... but this is one year i won't even do that.... and people wonder why i am considering moving to Mexico in 2 years now when i get out of school........ |
Ali wrote: but he is the lessor of the evils i believe at this point, even as liberal as he is.
yes I am an extreme right wing Republican usually just go in and vote a straight Republican ticket...... but this is one year i won't even do that.... and people wonder why i am considering moving to Mexico in 2 years now when i get out of school........ Funny, just substitute Kerry for the lesser of 2 evils, and liberal where you have republican, and Canada where you have Mexico. That is exactly how I felt during the last election with the Bush/Kerry ticket...
I am so sick of our country's political crapola.... sorry for the rant! |
VerveUp wrote: Ali wrote: but he is the lessor of the evils i believe at this point, even as liberal as he is. yes I am an extreme right wing Republican usually just go in and vote a straight Republican ticket...... but this is one year i won't even do that.... and people wonder why i am considering moving to Mexico in 2 years now when i get out of school........ Funny, just substitute Kerry for the lesser of 2 evils, and liberal where you have republican, and Canada where you have Mexico. That is exactly how I felt during the last election with the Bush/Kerry ticket... I am so sick of our country's political crapola.... sorry for the rant! hey be careful who you are calling names there |
| lol |
kerry wrote: hey be careful who you are calling names there
I would have voted for Kerry, if they actually counted the popular vote vs. the electoral votes. Since I knew Kerry was winning NJ anyhow, I still voted for Nader and the good 'ole green party.
 |
Didn't find exactly what you're looking for? Search again here:
Custom Search
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|