to foster relations with the Muslim voters...
Posted By: Amanda on 2008-10-10
In Reply to: Now why does Obama need a Muslim - advisor? sm
both campaigns are needing those votes - not just Obama. There are Muslims in this country that are American citizens and they do get a vote too.
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
yea, to foster relations.........uh, huh, that's right
xx
He is Muslim, born Muslim, raised Muslim
++
He was born to a Muslim father and raised Muslim
for a time. You don't get to choose to drop out of that religion. Doesn't matter if you were born into it and didn't choose it to begin with. Leaving earns you a death sentence, especially such a public conversion to another religion. Why does he get to be a Christian now and nobody in radical Islam is calling for his head on pike? Unless.......
Going to a Muslim school doesn't make him Muslim
And point of fact is that it was 2 years in Catholic school, 2 years in a "Muslim" school. He was living in Indonesia. He had to attend school in Indonesia. His mother, doing what mothers do, wanted him to get the best education available. She tried 2 years at the Catholic school and then determined at that point that the quality of education provided was better at the Muslim school. There was some teaching of Muslim philosophy but this more emphasis was paid to standard educational requirements, what's referred to as the 3 Rs (Reading, wRiting, 'Rithmetic).
Attending a school with some affiliation does not automatically confer the same status on you. Jews can go to Catholics without converting. Whites can go to those schools thought of as primary African-American without becoming black. Sometimes, folks, a school is just a school, and 2 years in an extremely secular school at the ages of 8-10 does not turn him into a radical Muslim.
Frankly, his education and family life seems like it makes him almost the perfect president to be able to understand and empathize with a much wider range of American citizens than any president before him.
I have studied U.S./Israel relations
I have studied U.S./Israel relations extensively. I fully understand that the protestors do not share my point of view as well as you. From reading your copious posts I am very clear on where you stand. I will not be so presumptious as to think I know your biography, but you obviously believe everything wrong in the world has U.S. origins. I believe you are wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt, but I will not try to change your mind. Since liberals in general are so worried about how the rest of the world thinks about us I will bring to your attention that it becomes ever more clear by your stances and views as with those on the extreme left that you all side with terrorism. You can spin it any way you want, but you come off as supporting terrorists.
Regarding his relations with Blago and his crooked wife, not O
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/10/AR2008121003232.html?hpid=topnews
Notice the part where he goes out of his way to dampen any speculation about Obama. As usual, you guys are grasping at straws that are not there....AGAIN.
Why is it racist to call a Muslim a Muslim?
A Christian doesn't mind being called a Christian.
Your phony indignation just proves how oversensitive people are to perceived slights these days.
Vince Foster...
You are right...I was not there. But I have read the public records, and it is pretty obvious to me the man did not commit suicide. The ME at the site said he had a big wound in his neck, not in the back of his head. The *official* autopsy mentions no neck wound, and says he had an exit wound in the back of his head. I have seen the picture they took of his hand holding the gun at the scene. No blood on the gun, his hand, or his sleeve. Not massive amounts of blood at the scene like you would expect if he was shot where they found him. You tell me how someone shoots himself through the roof of the mouth and gets no blowback on the hand, gun, or sleeve. Physically impossible. I guess you also don't remember that *someone* cleaned his office out before the Park Police could get there, and documents from his office were later found in the White House private residence with Hillary's fingerprints on them...even though she swore she had not been there nor had the documents...and the fact that her aide showed the park police Vince Foster's briefcase, they all thoroughly searched it including dumping it upside down, no suicide note; two weeks later one miraculously appeared in that same briefcase. The whole thing just reeks. If he was really their friend (and he had been with them during the Arkansas days) and they were NOT involved in it, they should have pushed to have it investigated. They did not.
The only thing Vince Foster had to do with Juanita Broaddrick was the fact that knowing what happened to him, would you blame someone for not wanting to cross the Clintons? I was making a comparison, not saying Vince Foster had anything directly to do with the sex scandal. What Vince Foster had to do with was Whitewater and that mess, because he had been a partner with Hillary in the Rose Law Firm. Vince's problem was he knew too much. All that was about to hit the fan when he so conveniently *committed suicide.*
As to Juanita Broaddrick, like I said...you don't know her. I do. And I believe her. There are women every day who do not press rape charges for many, many reasons. This would have been very high profile, he was the governor of Arkansas and no one much wanted to cross him and more importantly his wife. In that part of the country they had a lot of power, and yes, there are a LOT of people who have turned up dead around them. You say coincidence, I say you gotta be kidding to say that.
It is easy for you to say it is just her story about Juanita. You didn't see how it affected her and affected her family, good people who did not deserve what happened to them. And everything Clinton did afterward just proved to me again and again he was exactly what she painted him as and worse. God willing nothing like that will ever happen to you and someone will never minimize an already horrible thing by saying your story is just, well, your story.
Time to stop beating this dead horse. You cannot be objective about it, because as you said, you are more likely to trust your party. You are incapable of looking at it objectively. Well, my friend, I have no party. Especially one that will make me take leave of my common sense. And saying you are sure that if it is Bush, or Reagan, under these accusations I would defend them...you could not be more wrong. If you would take off your liberal party hat and think about it objectively...there are way too many stories involving Bill, way too many stories involving Hillary, sex scandals, dead bodies, you name it. For you to be able to pass that off as coincidence....again I say it, that is why people look at Democrats and call them Kool-aid drinkers. Whatever the party says...becomes the truth. It's like you join and relinquish common sense.
Trust me in this...if Bill Clinton were a Republican I would be saying the same things I am saying now. I am talking about a man who happens to be a Democrat. The man is morally bankrupt and as I said and will say one more time, that is not because he is a liberal Democrat. But BECAUSE he is a liberal Democrat, his party not only enables but encourages his behavior by making excuses for him no matter what he does. And the fact that none of you seem to be able to see that and blindly defend him is just freaking amazing to me.
I have criticized Republicans; I criticized Foley. He was a deviant and he should have resigned. I would never defend him. What I did point out was that several years early a Democratic congressman admitted to actually having sex with an underage page, but publically said it was consensual and had nothing to do with his job in Congress. And what did his Democrat colleagues do? Agree with him. Censure him? No. What did his constituents do? Re-elected him. Do you see what I am talking about? Burn Mark Foley at the stake but let the Democratic congressman who actually had sex with an underage male page go right on about his business. It is a nasty, nasty double standard. The big problem is, NONE of you seem to see that it is a double standard.
By the way, I am not a registered Republican. I registered Independent, and only registered as that because you have to register as SOMETHING to vote in this country. I vote my convictions, I don't care what party he or she belongs to. However, over these last years, I have to admit, I have not seen a Democrat I could vote for in good conscience, because of this seeming inability to think for themselves outside their party. Finally you admitted it when you said *we tend to believe our party.* Except it is more than tend...it is 99.9% of the time.
I worry for all of you. Not that you care if I worry...but I do. God bless!
Vince Foster....
THat is your side. This is mine...go to this site and read....documents, pictures are there. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/FOSTER_COVERUP/foster.html
And yes, I believe Ken Starr could have been induced to be part of a coverup. Perhaps guilt over that is what drove him after Clinton in later years. Who knows? But what is at that site is certainly enough for me to have very serious doubts about Vince Foster committing suicide. I think the picture of the gun in his hand is the most damning myself. There is absolutely no blood on the gun, his hand, or his sleeve, and his fingerprints were not on the gun. Come on now...he shot himself in the head and then wiped his fingerprints off the gun???
I never said international hit men killed him. I don't believe they did. I lean more toward some of the Arkansas contingent myself. Probably some of those who later ended up dead. We will just agree to disagree. I believe the evidence on the site I posted is much stronger than Snopes, who is presenting the *government* side of it.
I wouldn't talk about *conspiracies if I were you...remember Hillary and her *vast right wing conspiracy* theory? Hillary obviously believes in them and no wonder....she has probably been in the heart of several.
Rationalizing and minimizing...excuse me. Try the truth. It is well documented that the woman who accused Bush (and also said she was gang raped by Bush and two FBI agents, who also raped her husband) was, to put it kindly, off her rocker. Kitty Kelley is the one who accused Reagan in a book about Nancy Reagan, and the actual accuser never did come forward. I have no way of knowing whether or not Reagan forced himself on that woman. I can look at the facts of the Bush case and I would highly doubt that he and two FBI agents gang-raped that woman and her husband....
gimme a break. All of Clinton's accusers knew him personally and contact with him and he paid one of them off to hush. Then there was Monica. That is a pattern of behavior, Democrat. Not anything similar to an isolated accusation made from a sick mind and someone wanting to get rich on a tell-all salacious book. Again you prove my point. To you they two are the same, and they are absolutely NOT the same. What you don't get is if it were reversed, and Clinton had the one accusation from a lunatic and Bush had women coming out of the woodwork accusing him of sexual harrassment and rape, I would be castigating Bush just like I am castigating Clinton. You have, however, proven that you WOULD NOT do so. And the majority of Democrats won't. I have NEVER heard a Democrat take Clinton to task for what we KNOW he has done, much less for what we SUSPECT he has done. And THAT, as I have said a gazillion times, IS MY POINT.
No, I have not checked out the Bush body count, was not aware there was one. Can't believe if there was anything credible it was not trotted out during the last presidential election. Are you talking about the executions while he was governor of Texas or what?
Foster her belief?????
His campaign has actually admitted they "overlooked" that information and failed to report it. Now you're saying his own campaign is a lie?
An Obama spokesman said Federal Election Commission reports would be amended to show Citizens Services Inc. -- a subsidiary of ACORN -- worked in "get-out-the-vote" projects, instead of activities such as polling, advance work and staging major events as stated in FEC finance reports filed during the primary.
You are the one who put forth the site to foster your belief. It ...sm
was a dead end.
Conspiracy theories about Vincent Foster...sm
Vincent's death will always be a mystery. I wasn't there, you weren't there, so who is to say what actually happened? Personally, I don't believe the Clintons are murderers, or at the top of some killing machine as some wing nuts suggest. That's not a small accusation, and to make the claim there should be lots of evidence to back it up.
If the Clintons were smart enough to have so many people murdered w/o a trace, then why in the world would he allow himself to be drug through the mud on a sex scandal and ML still alive to tell her story? Another mystery. And what does Vincent Foster have to do with the sex JB scandal anyway? Most of what I read is s-p-e-c-u-l-a-t-i-o-n. I had to say that slow because somebody going to miss it. Anyway, I have no doubt right wingers would give Regan, Bush Sr, and Bush Jr the benefit of the doubt with these type of accusations flying around. I've seen it done, over and over.
Check out the link below. I don't buy any of it, but it's tit for tat since right-wingers are so sure Clinton has a stack of dead bodies somewhere. The psychology of it all is that we are more likely to trust (give the benefit of the doubt or assume innocence until proven guilty) our party.
Albeit nearly 30 years after the fact, Juanita's story is the only one that makes me say *hmmmm, maybe.* I've seen her on interviews and she seemed genuinely distraught. It is unfortunate that she waited 20 years to speak out and did not press charges (that I know of). Now her story is just, well, her story.
The rest of the women, who *claimed* Clinton raped or harrassed them turned around then and took benefit from their claims in some monetarily or fame seeking fashion. Sorry if I think their stories hold little to no merit.
and more on Vince Foster...answers to some of your questions ala Ken Starr...
CLINTON’S LAST PHONE CALL TO FOSTER
All these inconsistencies in the Foster cover-up involve Bill Clinton’s conflicting versions of his final conversation with Foster. When first asked, Clinton said he couldn’t remember when he last spoke with Foster or what was discussed.
Number 1 version:
Date of call: Unknown
Purpose of call: Unknown
When he was asked a second time he claimed he spoke with Foster Sunday night, 2 days before his death.
Number 2 version:
Date of call: Sunday, July 18
Purpose of call: Invite Foster to movie
Clinton redrafted his story a third time, changing the date of his call to Monday, the night before Foster’s death. According to Time Magazine, at this point Clinton still maintained he was unaware of Foster’s depression.
Number 3 version:
Date of call: Monday, July 19
Purpose of call: Invite Foster to movie
When the White House Press Office announced depression as the reason behind Foster’s suicide, Clinton then redrafted a 4th version claiming the purpose of this call was to cheer up his friend.
Number 4 version:
Date of call: Monday, July 19
Purpose of call: To cheer up Foster
The question becomes, not if Clinton lied, but why he lied.
Excerpt Below: The Secret Life of Bill Clinton - Ambrose Evans-Pritchard:
I once asked a gathering of thirty Washington journalists what they considered to be the most compelling evidence that Vincent Foster committed suicide. There was a brief silence, then somebody said: ‘Well, he was depressed.’
It was a very good answer. The depression is all they have, and by ‘they’ I mean Fiske, Starr, the Justice Department, the White House, The Washington Post, the governing class. Take that away, and there is nothing left to sustain the ruling of suicide. Nothing.
‘Pontius Pilate of the Potomac’ –is how Starr was described in a blistering denunciation by James Davidson, the editor of the newsletter Strategic Investment. ‘Starr will fade, but he will not be forgotten. Historians will certainly have something to say about him. ‘When The Decline and Fall of the United States’ is written, Starr will merit a chapter. He will be seen as a weak, temporizing man who lacked the force of character to confront a corrupt system.’
Where were all the voters before?
Good point. I vote in every election, whether it be for president or town dog catcher. It is really pathetic to see the low turnout time after time unless it is the presidential election or a tax overide on the ballot. And I live in a town with a majority of senior citizens, can't imagine how low the turnout would be without them.
When my Dad was alive and we lived in the same town, he would check the list when you first signed in to make sure our names were crossed off indicating that we had voted. Look out if you had not. He was a big bad Boston police officer and you did not want to cross him!
It also comes down to those voters
who had no clue what they were voting for and did no research at all and just voted for the celeb candidate. How many people did interviewers stop and question about Obama and McCain and they had no clue who was for what or who their VPs were, etc......but they were voting for Obama.
I know that all people have a right to vote but I think sometimes we should really restrict that. LOL! Too may ignorant people not knowing who they are voting for but they are voting just to vote.
All voters should consider this regardless of which side
It should be very troubling that the mainstream media has been in the tank for Obama since day one. Ask Hillary Clinton or anyone else who ran (again, R, D, or I).
With that in mind, who gave them the right to choose our next President?
Incidentally, the media (left-wing, of course) actually selected McCain, too. They were absolutely certain that he would be the weakest candidate. Mitt scared the holy hanna out of them. I personally hoped for a Rudy-Fred ticket, in no particular order.
It should be interesting as to how many honest people there are reading this stuff to see how they'll react. Based on what I've read since Palin's speech, she's certainly changed quite a few minds.
The thing that surprises me the most is that the bulk of people on this board is women, yet so many of them put party above the person. I personally don't vote by genitalia. I think it's foolish.
tell that to the voters who are only voting for O
There were thousands of voters........ sm
who voted in this election who were not informed or educated on the issues or the candidates. I don't see much of a difference, do you?
American voters do not trust
the fact that this is a real "crisis". Don't want to allow Bush to force congress into another debacle like the funding for the war before he is dragged from the WH kicking and screaming. McCain is asking for time out so he can rest and catch his breath.
the voters don't decide the election- sm
Perhaps you forgot, or don't even know, that it isn't the voters who actually decide the election anyway. It is the electoral college. We could all boycott (although that would be stupid beyond belief as our voices would not be heard at all) and it would not affect the election results anyway. Get it??
If it weren't for uninformed voters
NEITHER candidate would have a chance.
VOTING BY WRITE-IN VOTE FOR LOU DOBBS!!!!!!!!!
Too bad that over half the voters disagree with you.
.
There are a lot of voters across America who make
$250,000 or more who are voting for Obama. These are the same folks who will pay more taxes under Obama's tax plan. It goes to show even the wealthy who will be taxed more by Obama's tax plan, still want him to be President. I hear JTP complain but he is not making much money and he owes back taxes. There must be something right about Obama if the wealthy who are going to get a tax increase, are voting for him.
Of course they did. But at issue here is showing voters
I did not call you an imbecile. I said your posts are imbecilic. Being a hot-headed Obama supporter, according to the red camp, I have no character to degrade, so evidently I have nothing to lose by calling it like I see it. BTW, I've probably done all the growing I'm gonna do by age 64.
Belittling intelligent voters
just end up making you and yours look very, very small. It is sad to see the other party's apparent complusion to tear down something they cannot quite understand. Better luck next time with your candidate, your campaign strategy and your capacity to muster up the hope and inspiration so many Americans are feeling today. Maybe you too can find a way to feel a bit more proud of who you are and who seeks to represent you.
Speaking of stupid voters....(sm)
http://www.break.com/index/redneck-woman-rails-on-obama.html
stupid voters are an embarrassment to all of us huh!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUC3ORbhjTg
Voters Send a Pro-Choice message
I read this in my local paper this evening. The entire column is a bit too long to post, but I personally found it interesting. Some highlights:
In three states, abortion was literally on the ballot. In South Dakota, a ban amounting to outright criminalization of the procedure was defeated soundly, going down by a yawning margin in a deeply red state. In California and Oregon, voters turned back efforts to mandate parental involvement in abortions for teenagers -- it's the second time California has rejected the proposal.
---
As Democrats seized control of the Senate, abortion-rights supporters gained ground. Incoming Sens. Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Jon Tester of Montana, Claire McCaskill of Missouri and Jim Webb of Virginia all support abortion rights. They all are set to replace anti-abortion Republicans -- and will vote in the chamber that decides on the fate of nominees to the Supreme Court.
In the House, at least 22 new pro-choice members are to replace lawmakers whose records were either anti-abortion or mixed on the issue, according to a count by NARAL Pro-Choice America. Final results in a few races still are unknown.
---
In Arizona's 5th Congressional District, where anti-abortion Republican incumbent J.D. Hayworth was defeated by Democrat Harry Mitchell, residents received fliers mocking Hayworth's support for letting pharmacists who say they personally oppose contraception to refuse to fill birth-control prescriptions. ``Sleeping pills? I don't believe in sleeping pills,'' a genial-looking middle-aged man in a white coat says in the flier. ``Try counting sheep.'' Tying incumbents to the pharmacist-refusal issue, as well as to their widespread opposition to emergency contraception, showed these lawmakers to be precisely where they are: Outside the mainstream.
Any comments?
Voters do this when candidates spout fvalues.
nm
I do not think there will be anything negative from family values voters...
I do not believe they will react negatively to this. What kind of man would McCain have been to decide not to choose her just because her daughter was pregnant and not married. What if she was pregnant and married? This whole thing just reeks. Like Obama said...children should not be involved in politics and this will not affect her ability to function as governor or as vice president. At least one on the left is being decent about this.
Yeah, and a large number of those new voters are
coming out saying they will vote for McCain now.
Probably because after 35 years, voters probably feel confident
Guess Biden's appearance in front of 3875 University of Northern Colorado students earlier today was just our/their collective imaginations. Tune in tomorrow for his 8:30 am stop in Colorado Springs, his afternoon stump in Pueblo or perhaps Thursday's in Raleigh NC rally. There is no reason whatsoever for Biden or the campaign to blink an eye over Biden stating the obvious about a new president being tested. He can also comfortably shine light on the experience issue (double-digit lead an all) since McCain gave up any credibility on that subject the minute he picked SP. Did you see the new polls top pick regarding what McCain's greatest liability is? But there should be no suprise there. Voters would have to be crazy to think she is ready to lead when she does not even understand her own job description and didn't have the sense to read the Constitution after the last 2 times she botched that question.
Typical pub. Underestimates the intelligence of US voters.
x
Obama has played the voters for fools...
http://exposingliberallies.blogspot.com/2008/10/obama-has-played-voters-for-fools.html
To think that conservatives have viewed Bill and Hillary Clinton as unethical politicians who would do anything to get elected. When we are as disgusted as we think we possibly can be, on to the political stage steps Barack Obama. The senator from Illinois makes Bill and Hillary look “not quite so bad”.
Though they enjoyed paling around with Yasser Arafat, we didn’t have the all-consuming fear that they would completely sell-out Israel, nor did we have to worry about them supporting infanticide, though they saw nothing wrong with partial-birth abortion.
Yes, Obama keeps his pants on when away from his “bitter-half,“ Michelle, but that’s not much comfort when he has campaigned for Kenyan Prime Minister Raila Odinga who made a pact with Kenyan Muslims to institute Sharia law.
http://exposingliberallies.blogspot.com/2008/10/obama-funds-odinga-who-promises-sharia.html
Thomas Sowell has written an article in National Review describing how Obama has played the American people for fools.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTQ5YTM3M2UzMjY3N2M3YWRiMDI0NzNmMTNhNjJlNTc=
“Although Senator Barack Obama has been allied with a succession of far-Left individuals over the years, that is only half the story. There are, after all, some honest and decent people on the Left. But these have not been the ones that Obama has been allied with — allied, not merely ‘associated’ with.
ACORN is not just an organization on the left. In addition to the voter frauds that ACORN has been involved in over the years, it is an organization with a history of thuggery, including going to bankers’ homes to harass them and their families, in order to force banks to lend to people with low credit ratings.
Nor was Barack Obama’s relationship with ACORN just a matter of once being their attorney long ago. More recently, he has directed hundreds of thousands of dollars their way. Money talks — and what it says is more important than a politician’s rhetoric in an election year.
Jeremiah Wright and Michael Pfleger are not just people with left-wing opinions. They are reckless demagogues preaching hatred of the lowest sort — and both are recipients of money from Obama.
Bill Ayers is not just ‘an education professor’ who has some left-wing views. He is a confessed and unrepentant terrorist, who more recently has put his message of resentment into the schools — an effort using money from a foundation that Obama headed.
Nor has the help all been one way. During the last debate between John McCain and Barack Obama, Senator McCain mentioned that Sen. Obama’s political campaign began in Bill Ayers’s home. Obama immediately denied it and McCain had no real follow-up.
It was not this year’s political campaign that Obama began in Bill Ayers’s home but an earlier campaign for the Illinois state legislature. Barack Obama can match Bill Clinton in slickness at parsing words to evade accusations.
That is one way to get to the White House. But slickness with words is not going to help a president deal with either domestic economic crises or the looming dangers of a nuclear Iran.
People who think that talking points on this or that problem constitute ‘the real issues’ that we should be talking about, instead of Obama’s track record, ignore a very fundamental fact about representative government.
Representative government exists, in the first place, because we the voters cannot possibly have all the information necessary to make rational decisions on all the things that the government does. We cannot rule through polls or referendums. We must trust someone to represent us, especially as President of the United States.
Once we recognize this basic fact of representative government, then the question of how trustworthy a candidate is becomes a more urgent question than any of the so-called ‘real issues.’
A candidate who spends two decades promoting polarization and then runs as a healer and uniter, rather than a divider, forfeits all trust by that fact alone.
If Ronald Reagan had attempted to run for president of the United States as a liberal, the media would have been all over him. His support for Barry Goldwater would have been in the headlines and in editorial denunciations across the country.
No way would he have been able to get away with using soothing words to suggest that he and Barry Goldwater were like ships that passed in the night.
If Barack Obama had run as what he has always been, rather than as what he has never been, then we could simply cast our votes based on whether or not we agree with what he has always stood for.
Some people take solace from the fact that Senator Obama has verbally shifted position on some issues, like drilling for oil or gun control, since this is supposed to show that he is ‘pragmatic’ rather than ideological.
But political zigzags show no such moderation as some seem to assume. Lenin zigzagged and so did Hitler. Zigzags may show no more than that someone is playing the public for fools.
Some people who see the fraud in what Obama is saying are amazed that others do not. But Obama knows what con men have long known, that their job is not to convince skeptics but to enable the gullible to continue to believe what they want to believe. He does that very well.”
Right on, brother! Right on! It’s refreshing to see a black conservative who stands on principle and doesn’t support Obama just because of his dark pigment. I’m speaking of you, General Powell.
To all well-educated voters and free thinkers...
On Tuesday night, If and when Barack Hussein Obama wins the 2008 United States Presidential Election, please join me in announcing that "The tribe has spoken, and that John McCain, Sarah Palin, and the ubiquitous Sam have officially been voted off the island!"
No, Obama voters will be stomping and kicking
nm
I think Obama will ask his voters to vote for who he wants in; I hope not though! nm
Voters who actually read party platforms and plans
the distinctions between $250,000, $200,000 and $150,000. The figures apply to a variety of tax structures which have been clearly laid out for those interested in something other than basing their vote on dead-end issue-dodging, obsfucation, misinformation, character slurs and the like. You can read up or not. The information is there for the taking.
If it weren't for uninformed voters, Obama wouldn't have a chance.
Did you happen to catch John Stossel's report on 20/20 last night?
Uninformed Obama voters....brought to you by the biased media...sm
Unfortunately, I know a lot of people who voted for Obama, several of my relatives included....and they don't know even half of the answers to these questions either. They believe exactly what the media tells them to believe (or not to believe....)
The voting machines is a must to make voters confident their votes are counting...sm
But the Democrat party needs to delineate what separates them from the republican party as terms of what direction they will take the country. That is definitely uncertain. The chances of them getting their voters out to the polls will be better, I think.
It's a dark day in America when voters dare to feel inspired and hopeful?
rasberries
Young Voters Fall for Obama’s Promises Without Any Historical Perspective..sm
Election 2008: Young Voters Fall for Obama’s Promises Without Any Historical Perspective
By Liz Peek
Financial Columnist
Today we will almost surely elect Barack Obama President of the United States. A new generation will vote for Mr. Obama –- a generation that has grown up with the Internet. This new crop of voters has access to more information than any that came before, and yet has swallowed Obama’s impossible campaign promises and contradictory policies just as trustingly as those who in earlier times looked for a chicken in every pot.
Welcome to the disillusionment of another generation. I don’t anticipate this inevitable consequence of today’s election with any glee, believe me. To see young people turning out in droves to vote for this eloquent, attractive young man is inspiring. To hear them buy into his promises, though, is sobering.
For instance, we are told that the image of the United States has suffered mightily under George Bush, and that Obama is going to usher in a veritable global love-fest. Would those falling over themselves to herald our new president include the peoples of South Korea and Colombia –- allies both — whose much-needed free trade agreements with the U.S. Obama has opposed?
How about our neighbors in Canada or Mexico; will Obama’s promised re-write of NAFTA endear them to the U.S.? Is it possible that Obama’s opposition to free trade demonstrates his gratitude to labor unions –- groups that aroused his ire by donating to the Clinton and Edwards campaigns but suddenly were much more warmly welcomed when they began shifting funds his way?
Over a year ago I wrote a tongue-in-cheek column defending the status quo against the pressing demand for “Change” writ large. While politicians of all stripes were heralding new directions, they were ignoring, for example, that the U.S. has been blessed for many years with low inflation. Voters in their 30s and 40s could not be expected to remember the devastating inflation of the 1970s. They couldn’t be expected to understand how double-digit price hikes threw the fear of God into retirees on fixed incomes and created the same kind of paralysis in lending that we are witnessing today.
They might not connect the dots between Obama’s enthusiasm for the Employee Free Choice Act, a resurgence of unionization, and wage-driven inflation. They might not realize that restricting trade with China, re-writing NAFTA and barring adoption of free trade agreements with Colombia and South Korea will indeed drive prices higher.
The United States has also enjoyed a period of stable employment. The new generation has never seen serious unemployment. True, they have witnessed shifts in employment as manufacturing jobs have been lost to lower-priced locales. But they have never seen unemployment rates go much above 6%, where it is now. In 1982, when unemployment reached 9.7%, Obama was 21 years old. I doubt he was much focused on the dismal state of the economy. Voters, however, were focused, and gave Ronald Reagan a mandate to set the country on a new course –- one which encouraged growth through lower taxes, expanded trade and deregulation.
That program was adopted by both Democrats and Republicans because it worked. People in their thirties and forties cannot imagine that raising taxes on successful people might harm the economy. That’s because they weren’t around to witness the exodus of talent from England –- a country wherein punitive marginal tax rates squashed incentives and drove out anyone who could locate elsewhere. Margaret Thatcher didn’t just join the Reagan Revolution –- she clung to it for dear life.
What young voters have seen, and have responded to, is the collapse of Wall Street. Because bankers, politicians and speculators conspired to create the worst investment bubble in modern times, we are about to abandon the policies that brought millions of people around the world into the middle class. Policies that gave people real hope –- not just its rhetorical facsimile. This is a tragedy.
http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/11/04/lpeek_1104/#more-2415
He has a Muslim name and comes from
stretch, really, and the fact that Dems want to completely disown that are just as asinine as the Repubs that keep harping on it. He has Muslim in his background and went to a Muslim school, this is fact. He might not be a practicing Muslim NOW, but he was taught Muslim beliefs at an impressionable age. Hard to say if any of it stuck, and of course he'd never say if it did. Muslims planned attacks against us for YEARS, right under our nose in our own country. It's beyond me how anyone can ignore the idea that they also might be capable of taking a young man, shaping him and his background to one day become POTUS, thereby accomplishing precisely what they continually threaten: To destroy us from within. They probably laugh at how quickly Americans embraced someone with Muslim name and former Muslim ties, and even if Obama's not their man, now they know how easy it would be.
I don't believe that every Muslim
is a terrorist. I believe that there are good people and bad people....just like every other race, religion, etc. However, when it comes to Jihadists who can come over to our country and blend in with good muslims who reside in our country and are willing to kill themself as long as they take out as many "infidels" as they can.....that is what gives us all fear. You can't look at Muslims and pick out the ones who would willingly befriend you and the one who would much rather blow you up. It has made many of us scared of ALL muslims and not just the ones responsible for these horrible acts.
Not a Muslim
He's not a Muslim. Think about it - how many muslims do you know are pro gay rights and pro choice?
he is a muslim
He said so himself on TV.
he is a muslim
His full name is Barrack Hussain Obama.
If he is a Muslim then why has he ...sm
practiced Christianity for 20 years, I believe it is? Muslims do not practice Christianity. His father was a Muslim from Africa. He was raised by his grandmother and mother and was a Christian.
Okay, he is not muslim, but
I'm not Muslim, but...
...the very first time I heard Obama speak at the Democratic convention, I remember thinking that he will be President someday.
Maybe it's more of an "Obama" thing than a "Muslim" thing. 
|
!["](http://www.blogger.com/img/icon18_edit_allbkg.gif"){kind=icon}
0 comments:
Post a Comment