I agree with Obama's decision to not show them. (sm)
Posted By: Marmann on 2009-05-20
In Reply to: To show the detainee photos or not - Opinions
It would embolden our enemies and help to recruit more terrorists. I thought Obama, once again, listened to both sides and then made his decision. If only Bush could have done that, instead of only hiring aides that would reflect HIS views and discarding those who didn't, including some of those "generals on the ground" that Bush claimed to honor.
I don't understand the posts below about Obama showing the photos. Last I heard, the complete opposite was true. Did something change, or are these comments just another attempt to completely ignore the truth in order to continue their assault on Obama, regardless of whether it's true or not?
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
I agree with O's decision. Showing this
awful tortures, yes, they were very awful, might endanger the American soldiers, especially if they get caught and might be exposed to the 'same' tortures.
sorry, Obama did not make this decision -
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/FTRIALS/conlaw/ButlervPerry.html
It was decided in 1916!
Obama Decision to Move Census to White House...
GOP Sounds Alarm Over Obama Decision to Move Census to White House
A number of Republicans are joining the fight to put the census issue into the political spotlight "before it's too late."
FOXNews.com
Monday, February 09, 2009
1 x
in order to recommend a story, you must login or register.
199 Comments | Add Comment
ShareThisPhotos
The Census Bureau's U.S. Population Clock (Census.gov)
PEOPLE WHO READ THIS...
Also read these stories:
Stimulus Package Clears Key Procedural Hurdle in Senate
[2009-02-09]
gop sounds off on 'spendulus', gop, gop sounds off on stimulus, stimulus, stimulus passes senate test vote
987 visitors also liked this.
Private Sector Likely to Have Role in Government Bank Bailout Plan
[2009-02-09]
84 visitors also liked this.
Leahy Calls for 'Truth' Panel to Investigate Bush Administration
[2009-02-09]
72 visitors also liked this.
Graham Says Obama Is 'AWOL' on Stimulus Debate
[2009-02-05]
graham slams obama calls him 'awol on leadership', this process stinks, obama, graham slams obama callshim 'awol on leadership', graham obama 'awol' on stimulus debate
6345 visitors also liked this.
Schumer Calls for Ticketmaster Probe Over Suspicious Springsteen Sales
[2009-02-09]
help find the 'spendulus' pork, help
298 visitors also liked this.
powered by BaynoteUtah's congressional delegation is calling President Obama's decision to move the U.S. census into the White House a purely partisan move and potentially dangerous to congressional redistricting around the country.
Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, told FOX News on Monday that he finds it hard to believe the Obama administration felt the need to place re-evaluation of the inner workings of the census so high on his to-do list, just three weeks into his presidency.
"This is nothing more than a political land grab," Chaffetz said.
Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, told the Salt Lake Tribune that the move "shouldn't happen." He and Chaffetz are trying to rally Republicans "before its too late."
"It takes something that is supposedly apolitical like the census, and gives it to a guy who is infamously political," Bishop said of Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, who would be tasked with overseeing the census at the White House.
The U.S. census -- a counting of the U.S. population -- is conducted every 10 years by the Commerce Department. Its results determine the decennial redrawing of congressional districts
As a matter of impact, the census has tremendous political significance. Political parties are always eager to have a hand in redrawing districts so that they can maximize their own party's clout while minimizing the opposition, often through gerrymandering.
The census also determines the composition of the Electoral College, which chooses the president. If one party were to control the census, it could arguably try to perpetuate its hold on political power.
The results of the census are also enormously important in another way -- the allocation of federal funds. Theoretically, a political party could disproportionately steer federal funding to areas dominated by its own members through a skewing of census numbers.
At this point the White House doesn't seem willing to say what Emanuel's role will be in overseeing the census, and White House officials say census managers will work closely with top-level White House staffers, but will technically remain part of the Commerce Department.
But critics say the White House chief of staff can't be expected to handle the census in a neutral manner. Emanuel ran the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in the 2006 election, and he was instrumental in getting Democrats elected into the majority.
"The last thing the census needs is for any hard-bitten partisan (either a Karl Rove or a Rahm Emanuel) to manipulate these critical numbers. Many federal funding formulas depend on them, as well as the whole fabric of federal and state representation. Partisans have a natural impulse to tilt the playing field in their favor, and this has to be resisted," Larry Sabato, the director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, told FOX News in an e-mail.
Critics note that the method of counting can skew the census. Democrats have long advocated using mathematical estimates, a practice known as "sampling," to count urban residents and immigrants. Republicans say the Constitution requires a physical head count, which entails going door-to-door.
In 2000, Utah, which has three congressmen, was extremely close to landing a fourth House seat based on U.S. Census numbers, but the nation's most conservative state fell short by a few hundred votes because the Census Bureau wouldn't count Mormon missionaries from Utah serving temporarily overseas.
The GOP took the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, but was ultimately unsuccessful. Utah leaders had hoped the 2010 census would rectify the problem, but now worry that they will lose again if the census is managed by partisans.
When Obama nominated New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson to be commerce secretary -- he was later forced to withdraw -- he indicated that Richardson would be in charge of the census.
The decision to move the census into the White House was announced just days after Obama named New Hampshire Sen. Judd Gregg, a Republican, to be his commerce secretary. Gregg has long opposed "sampling" by the census and has voted against funding increases for the bureau.
Sabato said moving the census "in-house" will likely set up a situation where neither the Commerce Department nor the White House will know exactly what is going on in the Census Bureau. He said the process is "too critical to politics for both parties not to pay close attention."
"I've always remembered what Joseph Stalin said: 'Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything.' The same principle applies to the census. Since one or the other party will always be in power at the time of the census, it is vital that the out-of-power party at least be able to observe the process to make sure it isn't being stacked in favor of the party in power. This will be difficult for the GOP since I suspect Democrats will control both houses of Congress for the entire Obama first term," Sabato said.
Obama on his decision to deploy additional 17,000 troops in Afghanistan..sm
"There is no more solemn duty as President than the decision to deploy our armed forces into harm's way," Obama said. "I do it today mindful that the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan demands urgent attention and swift action."
Obama Justice Department Decision Will Allow Non-Citizens to Register to Vote in Georgia
Georgia Secretary of State Karen Handel issued the following statement following the U.S. Department of Justice’s denial of preclearance of Georgia’s voter verification process
Atlanta - “The decision by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to deny preclearance of Georgia’s already implemented citizenship verification process shows a shocking disregard for the integrity of our elections. With this decision, DOJ has now barred Georgia from continuing the citizenship verification program that DOJ lawyers helped to craft. DOJ’s decision also nullifies the orders of two federal courts directing Georgia to implement the procedure for the 2008 general election. The decision comes seven months after Georgia requested an expedited review of the preclearance submission.
“DOJ has thrown open the door for activist organizations such as ACORN to register non-citizens to vote in Georgia’s elections, and the state has no ability to verify an applicant’s citizenship status or whether the individual even exists. DOJ completely disregarded Georgia’s obvious and direct interest in preventing non-citizens from voting, instead siding with the ACLU and MALDEF. Clearly, politics took priority over common sense and good public policy.
“This process is critical to protecting the integrity of our elections. We have evidence that non-citizens have voted in past Georgia elections and that more than 2,100 individuals have attempted to register, yet still have questions regarding their citizenship. Further, the Inspector General’s office is investigating more than 30 cases of non-citizens casting ballots in Georgia elections, including the case of a Henry County non-citizen who registered to vote and cast ballots in 2004 and 2006.
“It is important to underscore that not a single person has come forward to say he or she could not vote because of the verification process. Further, while DOJ argues that the process is somehow discriminatory, the historic voter turnout among Hispanic and African-American voters in the 2008 general elections clearly says otherwise.
“This decision provides a specific example of the inherently illogical and unfair nature of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. It is a sad day for the rights of our state and for the integrity of our elections. I remain committed to continuing the fight for citizenship verification. In the coming days, I will consider every option available to the state, including the possibility of legal action.”
Background:
As required by law and ordered by federal courts in October 2008, the eligibility of new applicants to register and vote is checked against the Georgia Department of Driver Services (DDS) and Social Security Administration databases to ensure that individuals registering to vote report similar information. If information in these databases does not match information reported on the voter registration form, the applicant is asked to clarify the information. Additionally, if the applicant previously reported to DDS that he or she is not a U.S. citizen, that person is asked by a registrar to provide proof of citizenship.
Prior to the November 2008 General Election, Secretary Handel sent letters to 4,771 voter registration applicants whose records at DDS indicated they were not U.S. citizens, asking them to provide documentation of their citizenship. As of March 2009, 2,148 of these applicants still have chosen not to resolve the question about their U.S. citizenship.
In the November 2008 General Election, county election officials reported that 599 individuals cast a challenged ballot because the voter had previously indicated to DDS that he or she was not a United States citizen and had not resolved their status with county officials at the time of the election. Of those, 369 ballots were accepted because the voter provided documentation of their citizenship after the election; and 230 were rejected because the individual chose not to confirm his or her citizenship status.
On October 10, 2008, activist organizations including the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit to attempt to prevent Georgia from verifying the eligibility of applicants to register and vote in the November General Election, including whether those individuals were citizens of the United States.
On October 16, 2008, U.S. District Court Judge Jack Camp denied the motion by MALDEF and ACLU; directed the State to continue the verification process; and acknowledged the State’s requirements to verify information under the Help America Vote Act. In his order, Judge Camp stated:
HAVA requires that Defendant Handel match information in the statewide voter registration database with information from the Georgia DDS and the SSA databases “to the extent necessary to enable each such official to verify the accuracy of the information provided on the applications for voter registration.”
Judge Camp also stated: ...
I agree - this was actually a really good show.
And Beck wasn't acting - he's genuinely concerned about where America is headed and wants the people (you know, the ones that are supposed to be the largest part of the government - 'of the people, by the people and for the people') are atually being heard.
I may not agree with everything being said on his show, or O'Reilly, but these are opinion shows, not the news - they're allowed to say how they feel, just like any of the opinion shows on MSNBC or CNN.
During the news portions, Fox does have on Democrats to state their cases - I don't know how many times they talked to a Democrat congressman during the stimulus voting!
My advice is to either watch the entire program (not just a clip) or don't pay any attention to it at all because if you don't get the whole story, you just sound like a hateful left-winger spewing garbage.
I agree - show some leave Emily Ayn
Show me where Obama has said he would provide
did not earn income. Try to stay on task with this Sam. The associations argument is a one-way conversation headed toward a dead-end destination. Let's talk PROGRESSIVE TAX...which is the central issue here.
SP seems to be fine with windfall profits....call them what you like, rebate of whatever, but they are still windfall profits redistributed oil company revenues to the owners of "collectively owned resources"...her words, not mine.
Did you look at the chart? Do you have any comment on those telling historical rates? What about McCain's intent to keep the progressive tax structure as is...since it has serve our CAPITALIST economy well in the past.
Your argument is bankrupt. No soup for you.
Show us how her experience is "more" than Obama's.
Nothing wrong with serving local community, but never hurts to serve yourself while you're at it. Thing is, other than showing how squeaky clean she is and playing into the public perception of government corruption, what exactly did she do for the PEOPLE in the community?
Of course she pro-life. Of course she is against gay marriage. Anything less would have spelled political suicide for McCain, especially after all the uproar from the right when he was considering one of his own maverick choices…Tom Ridge. Towing party line ..despicable in democrats, according to you, but GREAT when the republicans do it. Double standards do not enhance one's credibility.
She got rid of him, all right, along 35 of his appointees (she was one among them). Just wondering on what grounds they were all fired. Guilt by association, perhaps? Like the poster said, beware the woman scorned.
Don't have to be careful about the lack of experience issue. McCain has killed that one by his own hand. Careful, Sam, your bias is showing again. By what stretch of the imagination does 8 years serving a tiny Alaska community and less than 2 years as governor with no identifiable benefit to the voters who put her there constitute more experience than 7 years as a state senator, 3 war on terrorism years in the US senate, and a successful bid for the party nomination for the highest office in the land (a position of popular mandate, NOT selection by one man)? Holds plenty of water now, thanks to your #1 chair. Enlighten us, please.
Service to the people? What programs here directly served her citizens instead of her own personal agenda? Slashing funds for local construction projects? Where's the meat here? Ethics clean-up her main claim to fame? She's going to have to come out and play with the big boys now. Whistelblowing not likely to win her any Miss Congeniality contests in DC. How many of us "little people" want her to be on the other end of that 3 a.m. phone call? What's will she do, tell them to go clean their house? Pitiful.
Check the new show about Obama at 9EST
Studies show that Barrack Obama
has had a major advantage in this election because of the liberal leaning media. Here is how balanced the news media has been.
Including all the media in one lump....there were 57% negative McCain articles and only 29% negative Obama articles.
In newspapers.....69% negative McCain and only 28% negative Obama.
NBC....54% negative McCain and only 21% Obama.
MSNBC.....73% negative McCain and only 14% negative Obama.
Fox News.....40% negative McCain and 40% negative Obama.
Looks to me like the only media that seems to be fair to each candidate would be.....would you look at that.....Fox News. At least Fox News covers both sides and lets their viewers decide instead of just showing more negative Obama articles to try and swing our decisions like all the other news media appears to be doing in favor of Barrack Obama.
Why wont Obama just show his long-form
nm
Just goes to show the j@ckas@es/crooks running the show!
nm
Beck says - almost every show - that he is NOT doing a news show.
He does an opinion show - meaning HIS opinion. As such, he's entitled to stick pins in little Obama dolls for all I care.
I can hear Chris Wallace laughing at you folks from here because it's pretty obvious whoever wrote that knows zip about Beck, or Wallace for that matter. In fact, I can't think what Wallace has to do with Beck anyway. Everyone of INTELLIGENCE who watches Beck and Wallace is perfectly aware that one does one type of show and the other does another.
But what do you expect from one of George Soros' puppet sites like Media Matters and Move Bowels.org?
You really should delete your Favorites list and start over.
what decision?? nm
nm
Well, are you saying it should be O's decision? (nm)
x
Not O's decision...(sm)
the supreme court's decision.
Obviously, the right decision. I'm sure you still
Here, the cruel choice would have been to let this poor infant go to term.
Let not your heart be troubled; this child is with God and has been made whole. You'll be reunited one day, I'm sure.
But who and how would that decision be made
From a legal perspective? Say "convenience" abortions are made illegal. I get pregnant and decide I want to have a "convenience" abortion. However, I know these are illegal, so I say the guy raped me. Who gets to pick in which cases abortion is permitted and in which cases it's not?
This is my main concern. You're preaching to the choir on the rest of it, because it used to disgust me when I would type reports and a woman would've had 15 abortions. I do not agree with that at all, and I don't think there are many who do. But, logistically speaking, again, it's either legal or illegal.
Seems like a logical decision
to reject a man who would guarantee that the election would be lost. There is a lot at stake here. I think that is a good example of him putting Country First, not his own personal preference, if indeed his preference was Lieberman. 
making right decision
This is my first post on the Politics board. I'm struggling with my decision between voting D or R.
I'm a registered Democrat and have been pro O'Bama 100%... until this past week when I read "They Must Be Stopped" by Brigitte Gabriel, founder of ACT! For America at www.actforamerica.org.
First, I am in no way saying O'Bama is Muslim, I do not believe that, but I am concerned with his voting record regarding bills that would protect us here at home. I'm middle class and believe me, I want to support the tax cuts and programs he is talking about...
I do not understand why either side will not stand up and call the "War on Terror" what it really is. I see the American traditions I grew up with disappearing and being replaced with "politically correct" traditions. A supposedly holy book (Koran) calling for my death or to strip me of my rights as a woman. On and on and on.
I haven't seen anything mentioned about this issue and I am interested in how other women/men feel.
I'm happy for you and that your decision
Had your family or the father tried to force you to abort, you would have acted accordingly and not listened to them, rather to your inner voice. There is no one-decision-fits-all when answering this question. For that reason, it is only fair that each woman is given the same consideration, to listen to their own gut and act in accordance to what it is telling her. She too will face the outcome, regardless of what the resolution will be and that is as it should be. If you are "tired" of hearing "my body, my right," don't listen. You made your choice. Let others have the same.
I have made my decision -
I have tried to educate people about Obama and his christianity - the fact that he is NOT muslim, his health care plans - the fact that it is NOT universal healthcare he is proposing, his tax programs - the fact that he is NOT going to write a check to people who are not working... and it is NOT working. They just do not want to believe. And for the most part, it is not even the economy people are picking on him about now - everyone is still on this muslim crap, mad because he is getting his girls a dog, just nitpicking! It is ridiculous.
I will no longer try to help people see the truth. If they want to be miserable and think bad thoughts and harbor suspicion and hatred in their hearts, then it is their life and nobody can change those folks anyway. I am sure it is not just the election that makes them mean and nasty - probably are that way in every aspect of their lives...
I myself choose to look on the bright side of things and the hope that this country is turning around and will be AMERICA THE GREAT once again!!! The America that other countries envy and want to be!
But it isn't your decision to make, is it?
Trot yourself down to DC and make a REAL difference if you feel so strongly about it. It is an attorney's job to represent his client's INTERESTS. Get it? They are in it for the money - just like you work for money. I'm not too worried about his moral compass after witnessing Larry Craig, Foley, Abramoff, Libby......need I go on?
I think he made the right decision...
in not releasing the alleged abuse photos yesterday.
Other than that, I've not been his biggest fan and have to agree with A. Nonymous as to where he's taking this country.
Saw the show. It was a guest on the show....
not a commentator. Why don't you post the link to the clip so everyone can decide?
Show me who your friends are and I’ll show you who you are.’
This subject is not old, and is very, very relevant.
Obama's friends/associates (supposedly former friends and associates, only since this campaign):
Ayers
Wright
Dorhn
Michelle
Khalidi
The company he keeps:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YThjYTU1ZDBjNmQ2YzcwNzU1MmYwN2JiMWY0ZGI0NDA=
I find it very, very troubling, that this man has no visible friends, other than the ones above (not Michelle, although she has been kept under lock and key out of public sight for some time now, so as to keep her from embarrassing herself again).
Does this man not have any other friends/associates, other than the ones above?
Please don't base your decision on who you vote...sm
for on this or any other board. Look at the issues and make your decisions based on them, not personalities or rhetoric.
It shouldn't be. It's a private decision, not one to
.
Roe vs . Wade is a decision handed down...
by the Supreme Court invalidating a state law which made abortion illegal. At that time many states had an abortion law on the books. And from that all abortion law was abolished. The Constitution of this country clearly states that only the legislative branch can enact law. The Supreme Court superceded that and made law. Rowe vs. Wade is unconstitutional on its face and should be overturned. Then, the Congress of the United States can inact a real abortion law, or leave it to the states to decide. It should reflect the will of the people, not a few judges. Of course, the pro CHOICE people run backward at the thought of people actually having a CHOICE as to whether or not carte blanche abortion should be legal. Pro choice...right. Where is the baby's choice in all this?
The fact of the matter is, if put to state discretion, there are several states that would enact carte blanche abortion law. But there are some who would not. As with any law, it should be the will of the majority...is that not what democracy is all about? CHOICE?
I don't know the whole situation, so won't judge his decision nm
nm
There was no decision to be made. I was dealing with a
human life and no way would I ever have killed that baby. We will never agree, so we should probably just agree to disagree on this one. Have a blessed day!
Thank you and I have equal respect for your decision. s/m
We can all only vote for what we hope (there's that word HOPE again) that we have made the right decision. I do have FAITH in the American people that all of us will come together and take it in our hands to clean up this country at some point. Neither candidate nor member of Congress is going to look out for "we the people" until we stand up on our hind legs and DEMAND it. That is our right under the Constitution of the United States of American and I HOPE we will do it. We did it on a small scale after 9/11. I say "small scale" because while everyone came together, it didn't last long and we all went back to business as usual. If the prediction of us being in such dire straits as we are "warned" about on a daily basis if Obama is elected, I think we ain't seen nothing yet as how the AMERICAN people will band together and DEMAND change. However, if McCain gets in the White House, as I think he will, we'll continue right on down the garden path just as we have the last 8 years. AND it won't surprise me if before this election is done Bush declares martial law and then we are for sure in a fine fix. Use your noggins for a change instead of just trying to get McCain elected, we ain't rid of George W. Bush YET.
And if you read the previous decision on this
the judge raled on and on for pages about Berg and frivolous law suits.
Could be, but it's their decision to make, not yours, not the govt
x
I commend you on a courageous decision
It doesn't sound like it was an easy decision for you to make. But sounds like you did what was right.
you made the right decision, I, too, commend you....nm
nm
War is a Partisan Decision (and more on amnesty for terrorists)
Now here's an honest Republican. Very refreshing!
URL: http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/state/article/0,1406,KNS_348_4781865,00.html |
Duncan: War is a partisan decision
Knox Republican opposed successful GOP bill aimed at testing Democrats
By RICHARD POWELSON, powelsonr@shns.com
June 17, 2006
WASHINGTON - War should not be a partisan decision by Congress, but it generally appears to have become that, Knoxville Rep. John J. Duncan Jr., a war opponent, said on the House floor Friday.
I believe 80 percent of Republicans would have opposed the war in Iraq if it had been started by President (Bill) Clinton or (Al) Gore, and probably almost all the Democrats would have been supporting it, as they did the bombings in Bosnia and Kosovo (during the Clinton administration), Duncan said.
Under Democrat Clinton's presidency, when he planned bombings in Bosnia and Kosovo, 80 percent of Republicans, including Duncan, opposed it, Duncan noted.
In a vote Friday, Duncan was the only Tennessee Republican and one of just three Republicans nationally to oppose a Republican-drafted bill aimed at questioning Democrats' commitment to national security several months before the November general election. It passed 256-153. Democrats voted 149-42 against it, and one Independent opposed it.
The nonbinding legislation refused to set any dates for changing troop strength in Iraq, labeled the Iraq war part of the global war on terrorism, and praised U.S. troops' sacrifice in Iraq.
Duncan, one of the most conservative House members, said everyone supports the troops. It is certainly no criticism of them to criticize this war, he said. I am steadfastly opposed to this war, and I have been since the beginning. We need to start putting our own people first once again and bring our troops home - the sooner the better.
Two other Tennessee members opposed the resolution: Democrats Harold Ford Jr. of Memphis and John Tanner of Union City.
Voting in favor were Republicans Bill Jenkins of Rogersville, Zach Wamp of Chattanooga, and Marsha Blackburn of Brentwood; and Democrats Lincoln Davis of Pall Mall, Jim Cooper of Nashville, and Bart Gordon of Murfreesboro.
Ford and Tanner said they strongly support the troops. But they noted that current Iraqi government leaders reportedly are considering granting amnesty to Iraqis who killed U.S. troops as acts of resistance and defense of their homeland. They cannot support a government that would grant such amnesty, Ford and Tanner said in written statements.
Ford, a U.S. Senate candidate, called the Republican resolution a gimmick that fails to recognize that 'stay the course' is not working and that amnesty for terrorists is unforgivable.
Tennessee supporters generally said they wanted to demonstrate confidence in U.S. troops in Iraq.
Premature withdrawal is not an option, Wamp said in a recorded statement. It's an effective surrender. It's important that we stand firm and that we finish what we started and that the world sees that we're going to honor our commitments to the people of Iraq and the people of the Middle East.
Davis, the only Democrat serving part of East Tennessee, accused Republican leaders of using the legislation as a political tool to try to make Democrats look sheepish. In a written statement, he said he has visited Iraq four times to show the troops that Congress supports their work.
But Davis said federal officials now should focus on how we stabilize the country ... and how we get our troops home safe as soon as possible.
Richard Powelson may be reached at 202-408-2727.
Have you been watching the convention and does this help you in your voting decision
Have you been watching the Democrat convention and what do you think so far? I watched it last night. Lots of commentaries that were a little boring. I will definitely NOT watch when both Hillary & Bill speak (they will have nothing interesting to hear), but I will watch everything else. Loved the tribute to Kennedy. His health condition is tragic. He's done so much good while in the senate. Also found Michelle to be a wonderful speaker and a very good hearted person. She grew up and was raised similar to my beliefs and how I was raised. She knows the struggles we Americans face every day. I think Barack and Michelle are just a couple of very down to earth, well grounded individuals and their daughters are simply adorable.
On the republican side I am equally anxious to watch that convention. I need to hear Cindy McCain talk before I can decide what kind of a person I think she is. I want to hear about her and John McCain's story and what their family is like.
Does the convention help you in your choice of who you will vote for.
It is a fair question. The decision will have to be made during the next...
President's administration. All I asked is, would you support him? Why are you afraid to answer?
I need more than "shock and awe" to make an intelligent decision on this one...
As far as the fairness of evaluating a nominee who is a lawyer based on the argument that they advocated for a client or who they represented and the standard it sets for future nominees, I’m a big believer in reciprocity. If Obama ever opposed or criticized any of then President Bush’s nominees or any other President’s nominees because of who they represented or the arguments they made on their client’s behalf, then what’s good for the goose. . .
You're right about the Supreme Court decision,...
but I have to wonder if it's just a nice little motto, why do so many who seek to remove anything even appearing religious from the government or anything to do with the government still look at that dollar with In God We Trust and scream separation of church and state? If there's no religious meaning anymore, why the arguments?
JMHO, there is still religious meaning to those who are religious and everyone except the Supreme Court knows that. I agree that religion doesn't belong in the government, but only in the sense that government shouldn't be involved in matters of religion, such as where we can pray, whether or not I can say Merry Christmas without offending anyone, what church I can attend, or which God I pray to.
Typical, let someone make a decision in a free country..
to support the person he believes is best and his party turns on him like he is a traitor. How can you call yourself Democrats with a straight face?
I am raising my hand...I certainly give a flying frito if someone wants to send this country down the road to a Marxist government. How is that working for Cuba? For Venezuela?
I agree. Mr. Obama is also, and the...
Jeremiah Wright thing brought that into light but...if you read these posts, it IS scary. I am reminded of the Pied Piper....while I am not 100% on John McCain, cannot vote for a man whose morality is the polar opposite of my own and I feel, personally, mmoves us even further down the path of destruction. When the moral fiber of a country goes south...you figure it out. This has become a country who views killing the unborn is nothing more than a medical procedure to the tune of millions every year, an "oops" method of birth control, and many of these people are wanting to install a President who believes it is ok to put a baby who survives an abortion (it happens) in a closet alone to die, and is still able to sleep at night. Never in my lifetime would I vote for a man or woman of ANY party who would vote in favor of that. Just my two cents. And yes, he did, while he was Illinois state senator. Beware of the wolf in sheep's clothing.
The center of this man's popularity is old as time itself. Class warfare..."I am going to punish all those nasty rich people (one of whom he is by the way) and give it all back to you poor oppressed bless your hearts, going to get you off welfare and get you a job (what a joke, half of the Democratic base would be gone), going to give you all free health care (even if the quality of said care tanks) and playing to that petty human emotion of "why should I have to work so hard when they have so much money" syndrome. Sigh. Who do they think employ most of the people in the United States? Those nasty rich people. Who do they think pays 75% of the taxes that are paid in this country already? Those nasty rich people. Why do they think those nasty rich people offshore? Because the Democratic tax and spend folks have been taxing them to DEATH in their own country for years. Here's a news flash for them! Have all the nasty rich DEMOCRATS pay more taxes. There is no law that says you can't. Let them put their money where their mouth is. If these people think only rich Republicans offshore or take every tax loophole the law allows...well, I won't even go THERE. Just wish folks would realize they are being led down the garden path. Can't see past the words and see the man. Can't put all the stuff together that has come out about the man, his behavior over several years and see him for what he is. They actually buy the story that he went to Wright's church for 20 years and never heard one of those sermons. Oh, COME ON. You cannot tell me he has lived with Michelle lo these many years when they do not share the same views on race and politics. Oh, COME ON. These "Obamaites" are being hijacked and led down the garden path by, I will admit, the best snake oil salesman I have seen in years...which is bad enough...but they are THRILLED to be led. LOL..sigh. I am reminded of the man who whistled on the way to the gallows...
i agree with that ... just not obama
x
I agree Obama is a breath
of fresh air and I love that he inspires people. However, I would encourage all Democrats, Independents, et al, to consider Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico. On the Democratic side, he has by far the best resume. He is a superior negotiator, served as head of the Department of Energy, sat at the UN, was an ambassador. Here is a link to his web site. It is quite lengthy, but you can scan over it and just look at the positions he has held and the things he has done.
http://www.governor.state.nm.us/governor.php
I agree with M Obama - here is my post
This is the message I said I would post here.
In reply to the Clinton’s had nothing to do with the last 8 years. This is absolutely correct, but the Clinton administration was just as bad before that. The Clinton years were the worst of my adult life (and my friends and family who are staunch democrats). So we’ve actually had 16 years of garbage for Presidents (20 if you consider Bush Sr.). Government grew and paychecks shrunk. Promises broken, tax increases (with the Clinton administration). The Clintons did nothing for the middle income people. Their “1% wealthiest” friends continued to receive more benefits. Our families friends were losing their houses and had to go back to living with their parents as they could no longer afford to live anymore. I think a lot of people forget the following:
Somalia – another unnecessary war
Kosovo – another unnecessary war
Elian Gonzales
Receiving money funded from china (treasonous tradeoffs I think it was called) for his re-election
Bill & Hillary stating they never heard of people (criminals who gave them money) when indeed they have pictures.
Hillary’s financial and other records sealed so nobody would find out the stuff she did (why?)
Monica Lewinski
Jennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Kathleen Wiley, Juanitta Broderick, etc, etc,
Vince Foster (untimely passing)
Ron Brown (untimely passing)
Hillary pulls Bill off of D. Morris as Bill is getting ready to punch him in the face yelling at him “Bill, think about what your doing”. Then walked around telling D. not to say anything to anyone.
Numerous times secret service had to pull Hillary of Bill
Hillary’s foul language
Hillary’s “female” relationships
Bill’s “female” relationships
Lying under oath
Impeached
Decimating our military within two weeks of being elected
Whitewater
Ban lifted on gays in the military
They destroyed and stole white house furniture and artifacts on their way out. Urinated on carpets, walls, etc. It was a real mess to clean up.
And those are only a few of the highlights of the Clinton administration. She wants to take credit for anything good that happened, then she better take credit for the bad too. Especially when she was running the show while Billy was off with his girlfriends.
They are both a couple of criminals and should have gone to jail for half the stuff they did. So while the last eight years have been bad, the previous eight were just as bad. - And all my MIL can say to me is.... "oh but he's so good looking".
kind of have to agree with Obama on the
I'm sure the preacher is controversial. But for a person to maintain membership in a church for two decades, he or she cannot be supporting controversy all that time. The man seems to address past racially charged issues, some of which did go to the fact that Gosh did indeed darn America from a black perspective. It all depends upon one's point of view.
I do agree that Obama needs to speak more strongly in opposition to some of the more inflammable rhetoric Wright has used.
And Obama's closing words are good, too. Judge him and his views; not someone else's.
I think ABC is politicizing something.
Totally agree with you about Obama...sm
You wrote:
>> Saying he can't make speeches without a teleprompter or planned statement is just not true. He has spoken at several events without a teleprompter or prepared speeches and he can think on his feet just fine. I didn't hear him stumble over questions given by audience members or media.>>
I've seen Obama many times in interviews (on Nightline, for example, long before he was even the presumptive Dem. nominee) and he answers questions thoughtfully and intelligently. It's funny to me that anyone would criticize his speaking ability of all things.
Well, if Obama WOULD agree with your posts...
yet another huge reason not to vote for him. But I do not think for 1 minute he would. I cannot imagine this sort of ... tripe ... issuing from Barack Obama's mouth. If it did, he would be maligning a good portion of his base. But even that said...I don't believe he would. I believe he is a basically decent man...and basic decency should preclude anyone from posting this ... well to call it crap elevates it.
I agree, but congress will never let Obama
do everything he wants to do anyway. They never do for any president. When they do agree on something, congress will always have something in it for them or their interests and the middle class pays out nose for it.
|
