Obama or McCain or Beemerboy?

[christianscoasters]

I have never seen a candidate "flip-flop" as much as Obama over the past few weeks.

 

McCain has flip-flopped too.

is a video showing McCain flip-flopping. It shows a lot more, but I'm just trying to get the flip-flop part across.

 

My family gets too angry when we discuss politics, and yes, a lot of drama goes down, so politics isn't something I discuss with my family. But I've noticed most of them support Obama. My mom supports him. She was very interested, however, in Ron Paul when I shown her who he was. But she's back to Obama.

 

Poli=many

tics=blood suckers

Translation=Politics are bloodsuckers

 

"If Con is the opposite of Pro, is Congress the opposite of progress?"

 

Sorry, I just had to share

[dragsterfan420]

This thread has trouble written all over it.

 

Why does this thread have trouble written all over it? Because the truth about Obama might leak out?

 

I believe that I am entitled to my own opinion, and the only reason I am voting for Obama is because I like what he is standing for more than McCain. Also, a 16 year-old telling how a 23 year-old should vote is just strange. In 4 more years you can vote for whoever you want, instead of telling me that I'm not a Republican when you don't even know me

 

First off, being a conservative shouldn't be an "opinion" to you, it should be a lifestyle. Being a Republican and a conservative are 2 totally different thing; and now about my age. I think that I, meaning no offense to you, am more informed than you about the two candidates and politics in general. Maybe I'm wrong but I strongly believe that I am. I did not say that "[your] not a Republican." I said that there is no way that from saying "I am voting for Obama because I like what he is standing for..." that you can be conservative.

 

Now I'm going to type somewhat long but very informative "thing" on Obama and other topics circulating. If you are considering voting for Obama I highly suggest reading this. I give you my word that nothing will be thrown out of context or anything like that. You Obama supporters might not like me for writing this but I can assure you that everything I write it the downright truth.

 

All about Obama and other “hot” topics

----------------------

 

Obama promises “Change” and “Hope.” His foreign policy is 60 years old. His domestic policy is 30 to 35 years old. So where is this “Change” he’s talking about, and how are we supposed to have “Hope” in him? There is nothing new about his (and the rest of the Democrats) policies. The only distinguishable thing is that it’s failed everywhere it’s been tried. Yet they are willingly, purposely, and knowingly inflicting damage on the engine of the country, which is liberty and freedom, all for their own power and larger government to control the American people’s lives. To me it’s far more serious than people are willing to acknowledge. The left has set this up brilliantly, because this loss of freedom is based upon the allegation that we all have committed a sin by driving SUV’s or polluting in other ways, that we are destroying the planet and we have to pay for it, we are too big, we “steal” all of the worlds resources, and we do nothing fro the world. It’s genuine Anti-Americanism that has taken over the Democratic Party.

 

30 years ago Obama would have been disqualified from the Presidential race after the first Rev. Jeremiah Wright sermon had been heard. “Goddamn America?” it would have been “Goddamn you, buddy, you’re out of here”. The voters would have not of put up with it.

 

When Obama says that America is “3% of the population but uses 25% of the resources”, that’s nonsense. How we define resources is actually driven by ingenuity. The greatest resource today is American entrepreneurial ingenuity. That is the thing that finds cure for disease. That is the thing that insures when a tsunami strikes in Indonesia or Sri Lanka, that America can get aid there; the Belgians, God bless ‘em, are incapable of doing it. The greatest resource is American ingenuity and Americans can have 100% of it! Do we feed the world? Do we clothe the world? Do we help people in need? The Iranians can have an earthquake or a hurricane and we’re over there helping immediately. Our goodness, as a country, is totally ignored when it comes to Obama and the Democrats.

 

After Barack gave his “race” speech in the wake of the Rev. Wright “incident”, liberals rejoiced. Todd Gitlin, professor of journalism and sociology at Columbia University, told a newspaper, The New Republic, “This speech was a triumph on so many levels…Obama offered himself as the man who rises from flames and offers you to rise from your own. He took a grievous embarrassment and moved his lesson to the plane of prophecy. Talk about hope; talk about audacity. Tears came to my eyes.”

 

“The best speech given on race in this country,” Chris Matthews on CNBC’s “Hardball.” “A speech worthy of Abraham Lincoln…one of the greatest speeches in American history.” He wasn’t done. “This kind of speech I think first graders should see, people in the last year of college should see this before they go out into the world. This, to me, should be an American tract. Something you just check in with, now and then, like reading The Great Gatsby and Huckleberry Finn. Read this speech once in a while, ladies and gentlemen. This is us. It’s us with the scab ripped off…we have never heard anything like this.”

 

In “Obama’s Speech Moved Mere Politics,” The Sacramento Bee editorialized: “Barack Obama delivered the most profound and articulate speech on race in America since Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. proclaimed, ‘I have a dream,’ in 1963…Regardless of what happens in this campaign, the speech will be studied now and forever for it nuanced picture of race in America today…This was not a campaign speech, it was Barack Obama speaking to the ages.

 

The godless left has found it’s “Savior”-in- Chief. Liberals are in love, ladies and gentlemen, weeping and swooning at Obama rallies and prostrating themselves at his calls to belief. “I am running now because of what Dr. King called the ‘fierce urgency of now,’” declared the “Blessed” Barack to a crowd in Fairview, Ohio. “Our nation is at war. Our planet is in peril…I am in this fight to give a voice to you, to champion your cause.”

 

What “cause”? It’s in the eyes of the causee. Obama’s acolytes have projected onto him their wildest political fantasies, as demonstrated by these testimonials to the UK Times Online:

 

Phil Sowell, a retired government official, scarcely pauses for breath when asked what Barack will do if he’s elected President: “He will bring peace to the Middle East and anywhere in the world where there is tragedy.”

 

Yusuf Abdi, 55, says: “ He will change everything – health care, no war, education. He can do anything.”

 

Donny Murray, 21, says that Mr. Obama “has definitely got a better plan” for tackling global warming. How so? “I’m not sure about the specifics, I just think he’ll get more people involved,” he says.

 

Sarah Jaffy, 41, says: “I really like his health care plan. And theirs another policy – it’s my favorite – ooh, I can’t think of it now.

 

Likewise, Chris Matthews (of all people) had to ask an Obama endorser, Texas state senator, Kirk Watson, three times, “Can you name anything he’s accomplished?” His response, “No, I’m not going to be able to do that tonight.”

 

Listen, people see whatever they want to see in this candidacy that floats on vapid clouds of “hope, change, the future”. Obama admits as much in “The Audacity of Hope” (his book for all of you that don’t know) : “I am new enough on the national political scene…that I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.” On the campaign trail he has billed himself as “an imperfect vessel for your hopes and dreams.” Which is why Obama doesn’t have supporters, per se; he has followers. Note that Senator Jay Rockefeller’s (Democrat, WV) “rationale” why voters should make Obama Commander-in-Chief: “It’s just how you feel about him. I trust him.”

 

Folks, this kind of blind allegiance to America’s most liberal senator (as ranked by “National Journal”)- who has not a clue how the American economy works, who wants to meet with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hugo Chavez, who worships at a church that preaches that the U.S government created the AIDS virus, to wipe out blacks – is daunting. Intellectual “firepower” will not shatter his followers “faith.”

 

And that’s the point we’re dealing with here, faith. At this stage, facts don’t matter. Analysis doesn’t matter. Yet. It will, over time, with a significant number. Eventually. But it’s a very slow going process. Trying to disabuse people of their liberal “faith” is our challenge.

 

There is a direct parallel here to human caused “climate change.” The left have convinced millions of people around the world to accept the hoax of global warming. Perfectly harmless people, not even ideologically inclined, bought into Gore’s psuedo-scientific movie “An Inconvenient Truth.” You can recite chapter after chapter of factual refutation-it hits a wall. The global warming cult is just that: a religion. Yet, in the U.S., only half the country believes in the global warming pap. Why? We (the conservatives and other like minded people) are making progress, simply by telling the truth (like I am now). Some people have said that if it wasn’t for disputers, non-believers, skeptics, whatever they’d like to call us, 80 percent of the country would believe it, just as the rest of the world does.

 

So it can be done, separating people from their “faith,” when the faithfulls beliefs are bogus. The one thing I know is that it cannot be accomplished by agreeing to part of the hoax to show you’re a nice guy. This is a war, and you need warriors to fight wars. We’re warriors here.

 

The good news is it’s likewise possible, although tough, to expose the Obama “cult.” Though Obama has asked the media not to play any more clips of Rev. Wright, the repeated airing of the audio and holding Obama’s feet to the fire on Rush Limbaugh’s program has had an effect. One early CBS poll showed that a third of the former Obama supporters who have heard about the Wright “incident” now have an “unfavorable” view of the candidate. That’s a dramatic turnaround in very little time.

 

 

 

 

I can’t believe I just wrote that much. I think anyone who actually read the greater part of that has a better understanding of Obama and his “policies.” I’m going to right more I just can’t type anymore tonight. To all the true conservatives out there, thank you for your ideals and don’t let anyone turn you away from them!

[crispy]

^^^ Thats is alot of typing

 

And it should be clear to everyone that Barack Hussein Obama, yes Hussein is his middle name, is a media darling, I don't care how they speak, I care how they act and participate in politics

 

Actions speak louder than words

 

Obama has voted, in his very short time in the Senate,as an very liberal Democrat.

 

In fact for 2007, he was ranked as the most liberal democrat in the senate.

 

http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/

 

As for McCain

 

McCain is one of the ONLY politicians I have ever felt respect for, most of them are dogs, but McCains record is of doing what he feels is right, no matter what party he sides with, a few examples

 

McCain attacked what he saw as the corrupting influence of large political contributions - from corporations, labor unions, other organizations, and wealthy individuals - and he made this his signature issue. Starting in 1994, he worked with Democratic Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold on campaign finance reform; their McCain-Feingold bill attempted to put limits on "soft money". The efforts of McCain and Feingold were opposed by some of the moneyed interests targeted, by incumbents in both parties, by those who felt spending limits impinged on free political speech and might be unconstitutional as well, and by those who wanted to counterbalance the power of what they saw as media bias. Despite sympathetic coverage in the media, initial versions of the McCain-Feingold Act were filibustered and never came to a vote. The term "maverick Republican" became a label frequently applied to McCain, and he has also used the term himself

 

He also took on Big Tabacco in 1998

 

McCain took on the tobacco industry in 1998, proposing legislation that would increase cigarette taxes in order to fund anti-smoking campaigns, discourage teenage smokers, increase money for health research studies, and help states pay for smoking-related health care costs. Supported by the Clinton administration but opposed by the industry and most Republicans, the bill failed to gain cloture

 

And most recently

 

Working with Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy, McCain was a strong proponent of comprehensive immigration reform, which would involve legalization, guest worker programs, and border enforcement components. The Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act was never voted on in 2005

 

 

That folks is a HISTORY of working with democrats, and stickinh to what you believe in, no matter what party is involved, republican or not, McCain is change, Obama has never shown it, McCain has, he is FAR from a Bush third term, he pushed for Donald Rumsfield to be removed for his mismanagment of the war, and pushed for the surge in Iraq even though he felt it would riun his chance to be president, but he did it because he felt it was the right thing to do, along with the Generals on the ground

 

Now they are talking about drawing the troops down to only a few by 2010, McCain was right about the Surge, and Even Obama had to admit it!!!

[TheBannedKid]

Wow, dragsterfan420 that was a lot of typing and I almost skipped over it and ignored your rant. But being that this is my first election that I will partake in I decided to read your post...

 

I'm not going to argue for or against either candidate right now since I don't have enough knowledge on either one. But I would like to say this...single minded rants much like yours really make me sad.

 

I hate to see people offer up "dirt" on the other candidate while they never offer what their candidate will do. Election time should bring upon civil debates, not slanted opinions fed to others as "fact".

 

After reading your post I don't believe that is the 100% truth. It contains information that you have interpreted and regurgitated and I'm sure your sources are regurgitated. It's hard to come by truth in today's society.

 

Now I would gladly research both candidates and offer an opinion to this debate, but if people are going be single minded and rude then this thread will not be alive much longer.

 

Just thought I would point out...

 

Obama promises “Change” and “Hope.” His foreign policy is 60 years old. His domestic policy is 30 to 35 years old. So where is this “Change” he’s talking about, and how are we supposed to have “Hope” in him? There is nothing new about his (and the rest of the Democrats) policies. The only distinguishable thing is that it’s failed everywhere it’s been tried.

 

Change does not mean "new". the Obama campaign hasn't said that they will offer the country new policies, just a fresh change from the Bush administration. So what if the policies are old. If they work for the current situation then so be it. As for this quote, "There is nothing new about his (and the rest of the Democrats) policies.", you can't generalize that all Democrat policies are old. And once again, it doesn't help your argument to be single minded. Offer up what the Republicans have that's better than the Democrats. Neither party is perfect.

 

Anyways, that's all for now. I'd like to learn more though and look forward to everyone's thoughts.

[Teacups Make Me Sick]

I'm not about to put in a rant give my opinion on who to vote for.

 

My only suggestion for new voters is to make a list of what issues are important to you and see which candidate makes sense.

 

Here is a pretty good site that might be helpful in making your decision based on the candidates voting record:

 

www.issues2000.org/default.htm

[Wes]

Folks, this kind of blind allegiance to America’s most liberal senator (as ranked by “National Journal”)-

 

In fact for 2007, he was ranked as the most liberal democrat in the senate.

 

http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/

 

You guys can keep throwing that out there, but the methodology for figuring that out is flawed...

 

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/31/625886.aspx

 

National Journal magazine is reporting that Obama was the most liberal senator of 2007, according to the vote ratings it does every year for members of Congress. Clinton, meanwhile, ranks as the 16th most-liberal senator.

 

But a bit of context here: National Journal used 99 Senate votes in 2007 as the basis for its rankings, and because he was on the presidential campaign trail, Obama missed a third of those votes. (According to the magazine, Obama voted the liberal way 65 out of 66 votes. Clinton, meanwhile, voted the liberal way in 77 out of her 82 votes).

 

National Journal's vote ratings became an issue in the 2004 general election, when Republicans used the magazine's ranking of John Kerry as the most liberal senator of 2003 to label the then-Democratic nominee as the "most liberal senator" -- even though that was his rating for just that one year, when (like Obama did) he missed quite a few Senate votes due to being on the presidential campaign trail.

 

As National Journal's editor wrote back then, "[O]ur magazine -- or, more precisely, our annual congressional vote ratings edition -- has become a Republican talking point in the 2004 presidential campaign. And that's been a fascinating, and disconcerting, experience. Fascinating because we're more used to being cited in congressional hearings than on the Today show. Disconcerting because the shorthand used to describe our ratings of Kerry and Edwards is sometimes misleading -- or just plain wrong."

 

Indeed, while Obama ranks as the magazine's most liberal senator of 2007, his ranking was 16th in 2005 and 10th in 2006.

 

Another question that might come up is why the magazine released its voting ratings now -- just days before Super Tuesday. In fact, the magazine says it full congressional ratings won't come out until March. But, according to the editor in a Q&A published in the magazine: "Back in December, we decided that we would publish the ratings of the presidential candidates as soon as they became available, rather than wait until our annual Vote Ratings issue on March 8. We thought it would be irresponsible to keep those scores under wraps during the height of the presidential primary season."

 

As for McCain, the magazine says that he didn't vote frequently enough in 2007 to get an overall rating. Per National Journal, "He missed more than half of the votes in both the economic and foreign-policy categories. On social issues, which include immigration, McCain received a conservative score of 59."

[mcjaco]

Why does this thread have trouble written all over it? Because the truth about Obama might leak out?

 

I believe that I am entitled to my own opinion, and the only reason I am voting for Obama is because I like what he is standing for more than McCain. Also, a 16 year-old telling how a 23 year-old should vote is just strange. In 4 more years you can vote for whoever you want, instead of telling me that I'm not a Republican when you don't even know me

 

First off, being a conservative shouldn't be an "opinion" to you, it should be a lifestyle. Being a Republican and a conservative are 2 totally different thing; and now about my age. I think that I, meaning no offense to you, am more informed than you about the two candidates and politics in general. Maybe I'm wrong but I strongly believe that I am. I did not say that "[your] not a Republican." I said that there is no way that from saying "I am voting for Obama because I like what he is standing for..." that you can be conservative.

 

Now I'm going to type somewhat long but very informative "thing" on Obama and other topics circulating. If you are considering voting for Obama I highly suggest reading this. I give you my word that nothing will be thrown out of context or anything like that. You Obama supporters might not like me for writing this but I can assure you that everything I write it the downright truth.

 

This is precisely why these threads turn into trouble. It's every American's right to be able to vote which ever way they choose. Force feeding opinions on how we should all vote, is just as narrow minded voters that don't vote.

 

That being said, let's keep this civil, as it was for five pages.

[BeemerBoy]

I will once again be writing in a vote for myself, since I'm the only candidate I know I could trust.

[crispy]

Folks, this kind of blind allegiance to America’s most liberal senator (as ranked by “National Journal”)-

 

In fact for 2007, he was ranked as the most liberal democrat in the senate.

 

http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/

 

You guys can keep throwing that out there, but the methodology for figuring that out is flawed...

 

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/31/625886.aspx

 

National Journal magazine is reporting that Obama was the most liberal senator of 2007, according to the vote ratings it does every year for members of Congress. Clinton, meanwhile, ranks as the 16th most-liberal senator.

 

But a bit of context here: National Journal used 99 Senate votes in 2007 as the basis for its rankings, and because he was on the presidential campaign trail, Obama missed a third of those votes. (According to the magazine, Obama voted the liberal way 65 out of 66 votes. Clinton, meanwhile, voted the liberal way in 77 out of her 82 votes).

 

National Journal's vote ratings became an issue in the 2004 general election, when Republicans used the magazine's ranking of John Kerry as the most liberal senator of 2003 to label the then-Democratic nominee as the "most liberal senator" -- even though that was his rating for just that one year, when (like Obama did) he missed quite a few Senate votes due to being on the presidential campaign trail.

 

As National Journal's editor wrote back then, "[O]ur magazine -- or, more precisely, our annual congressional vote ratings edition -- has become a Republican talking point in the 2004 presidential campaign. And that's been a fascinating, and disconcerting, experience. Fascinating because we're more used to being cited in congressional hearings than on the Today show. Disconcerting because the shorthand used to describe our ratings of Kerry and Edwards is sometimes misleading -- or just plain wrong."

 

Indeed, while Obama ranks as the magazine's most liberal senator of 2007, his ranking was 16th in 2005 and 10th in 2006.

 

Another question that might come up is why the magazine released its voting ratings now -- just days before Super Tuesday. In fact, the magazine says it full congressional ratings won't come out until March. But, according to the editor in a Q&A published in the magazine: "Back in December, we decided that we would publish the ratings of the presidential candidates as soon as they became available, rather than wait until our annual Vote Ratings issue on March 8. We thought it would be irresponsible to keep those scores under wraps during the height of the presidential primary season."

 

As for McCain, the magazine says that he didn't vote frequently enough in 2007 to get an overall rating. Per National Journal, "He missed more than half of the votes in both the economic and foreign-policy categories. On social issues, which include immigration, McCain received a conservative score of 59."

 

I found the news story and read it, and posted it, it may be flawed, but Obama is still liberal

 

I do think this has been a very civil discussion, and it certainly needs to stay that way, I believe in MY post I just expressed my views about why I was supporting McCain, I am certainly not here to attack anyone else's choice, it is theirs to make, and everyone has a diffrent set of values that they hold dear, and far be it from me to tread on them, I respect everyone's opinion

 

That said, Obama has only been a Senator for 3 years, almost 4, that is not alot of experience, nor is it alot of time to show how you will work in washington. McCain has a proven record, A record of Pissing off Republicans AND democrats when he feels something is the right thing to do, who else would attack BIG TABACCO in '98. I think he's awesome

[larrygator]

No conservative would vote for Obama.

 

A perfect example of an overgeneraliztion that make politics so difficult to discuss in this forum.

 

For the record, there are conservatives that are sick and tired of the current direction of Republican leadership and are considering voting for Obama.

 

Some people still think for themselves these days.

[Wes]

I do think this has been a very civil discussion, and it certainly needs to stay that way, I believe in MY post I just expressed my views about why I was supporting McCain, I am certainly not here to attack anyone else's choice, it is theirs to make, and everyone has a diffrent set of values that they hold dear, and far be it from me to tread on them, I respect everyone's opinion

 

I fully and completely respects your views and opinions, I was just pointing out the inherent flaw of the "most liberal" title, which was brought up twice.

 

I will once again be writing in a vote for myself, since I'm the only candidate I know I could trust.

 

Make PMW your platform, and you'll win by a landslide!!!

[BeemerBoy]

Make PMW your platform, and you'll win by a landslide!!!

 

It's like you're reading my mind! If I'm in office, "stimulus checks" are gonna take on a whole new meaning, America!

 

Wes, if you'd accept my offer to be my running mate, then I think I'll officially announce my intentions to run for office later today. Of course, then we'd have to be added to this poll.

[larrygator]

^Scott - sorry, you can not run. You are not 35 years of age yet.

[BeemerBoy]

^ I'm lying about my age, Larry....like any good politician would.

[mcjaco]

^ Either that, or you're trying to be a major league ballplayer from Cuba or the Dominican Republic.

[Louise]

^^ Not that I'm eligible t to vote in the US, but if you were running, Scott, and PMW was prominent in your propoganda... I WOULD FIND A WAY.

[Moose]

^Better get started on marrying Hector.

 

 

Obama gets my vote.

[ParkTrips]

And it should be clear to everyone that Barack Hussein Obama, yes Hussein is his middle name, is a media darling, I don't care how they speak, I care how they act and participate in politics

First off, his name is a name, it happens to be arab. Big deal. My name is hebrew, that doesn't mean I'm a wealthy Jew with a small penis.

 

I'm pretty darn conservative myself, but can't stand the name issue being brought up.

 

As for him being a media darling, you are correct - he most certainly has been. But CBS news ran an article this morning about how this is changing, and how Obama's response to criticisms hasn't been so good this far. It will be interesting to see how he takes real critiques over time. Honestly, I have expected Obama to win the election in the fall with his public speaking skills, but if he can't take the heat, it could prove to be a fatal flaw. God knows as President every little thing he would do would be subject to criticism. Who wants a President who can't folds in under criticism?

 

For the record, there are conservatives that are sick and tired of the current direction of Republican leadership and are considering voting for Obama.

or a third party, like the Libertarian candidate Bob Barr. He could seriously benefit Obama in some of the more Libertarian-friendly states. In Georgia, with 15 votes, McCain has a slight edge but with Barr looking to get 5-10% of the vote, Obama may win the state with Barr mostly taking votes from McCain.

 

If I'm in office, "stimulus checks" are gonna take on a whole new meaning, America!

PMW 08!

[crispy]

And it should be clear to everyone that Barack Hussein Obama, yes Hussein is his middle name, is a media darling, I don't care how they speak, I care how they act and participate in politics

First off, his name is a name, it happens to be arab. Big deal. My name is hebrew, that doesn't mean I'm a wealthy Jew with a small penis.

 

I'm pretty darn conservative myself, but can't stand the name issue being brought up.

 

Calm down, i just thought it was funny, i agree his name has NOTHING to do with his ability to lead the country

 

If he was supremly qualified, and his name was Poocrap Stinkbutt, besides wondering why the hell he didn't change his name, I think people would vote for him, I feel the american public is smart enough to look past that.

 

 

BTW, this is AWESOME!!!!!!

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjOO2B-J-3k&feature=related

[TheBannedKid]

I know I've seen a few news casters interview citizens about Obama after he finished a speech. A few of them didn't even consider him due to his name. So I wouldn't put it past some people.

[dragsterfan420]

A perfect example of an overgeneraliztion that make politics so difficult to discuss in this forum.

 

For the record, there are conservatives that are sick and tired of the current direction of Republican leadership and are considering voting for Obama.

 

Some people still think for themselves these days.

 

I'm one of those conservative tired of most Republicans leadership. Bush has his flaws but he has done greater things for this country than anyone is willing to open there mind to. McCain is one of the flawed Republicans but he's definitely a better choice than Obama.

 

 

 

 

To all you people who think I was "ranting" I was defiantely not! I was not sayin' stuff like "Get that retard out of there!" or something like that. I was giving precisely cited statements and "cutouts" from articles. I in no way changed anything to better my statements.

 

All I did was say truth and now people are saying I'm ranting. That BS. I'm not trying to change your peoples minds I'm just giving you FACTS and leaving the judgement up to you. Like I already said most of you will not disbar from your faith to Obama and the Democratic Party but it's all up to you.

 

And for the record if you truly are a conservative (not Republican not Democrat, just overly a conservative) and truly believe Obama is the best man for the job I really think you should sit down and assess your goals and what you believe in.

[crispy]

I know I've seen a few news casters interview citizens about Obama after he finished a speech. A few of them didn't even consider him due to his name. So I wouldn't put it past some people.

 

Even though i am not for Obama, if thats really true, thats sad, I guess I shouldn't expect much, I think Bill Richardson should have gotten the democratic nomination, he, by far and away, has the best set of skills to deal with our current situation

[TheBannedKid]

^^The world is not black and white with nothing in between, it seems you need reminding. There are many gray areas in life and politics.

 

I for one am a supporter of the 2008 Presidential Election, that's all for now. Really dude, you need need to calm down and realize that there are many views out there, all with valid points.

 

EDIT: I know she isn't part of the race for president anymore, but I'm just glad Clinton isn't the Democrat nominee.

[ginzo]

I'm not trying to change your peoples minds I'm just giving you FACTS and leaving the judgement up to you.

 

No, there's plenty of opinion/value judgments mixed in with your posts. You should learn the difference.

[cfc]

I think Emerson summed it up best when he wrote "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." In other words, I don't believe that one side, left or right, "red" or "blue," has all the answers. The truth is most likely to be found somewhere in the middle.