reply to post by FlyersFan
doesn't Hillary's plan sound more 'nanny-like'?
Could be ... but Obama's leaves people out. I'm able to be swayed on this .. my mind hasn't been fully made up.
This topic is really off topic here, but luckily I have a on-topic thread for it. Try
I pick my close friends better than that. And if someone spews hate and/or anti-americanisms like that then I dont' bother with them. YES ..
my close friends are required to agree with my view of not being racist pigs and anti-Americans.
Then I submit to you, sir, that you are continuing the problem that made them into hateful people in the first place.
No one is born evil (unless their name is Rodham
), they are turned that way by their experiences. Knight is a hate-monger, yes. But where did that
hate come from? What was done to him, said to him, or shown to him that caused him to be that way? We can either try to ignore people like him (as we
already do) and thusly cause them to become more angry until they erupt into violence or die off, we can imprison and persecute them until the same
result happens sooner, or we can at least attempt to acknowledge that something is wrong and make some sort of an attempt to try and fix it. I say the
former hasn't worked; let's try the latter. That's what I heard in Obama's speech.
Okay - lets discuss honest. He's lied about his stand on the war. He's flip flopped back and forth and at one point even admits to having
held the same position as Bush and yet he claims that he's always been anti-war.
Again, I heard something different. He did state that "I may have been wrong" on the war early on, when we were toppling Saddam quickly and it
appeared we would accomplish our objectives quickly and with few casualties. But when that situation changed, he quickly reverted back to his original
opinion, and most of the country moved with him. Barack never supported the war; he questioned the wisdom of his lack of support when faced with
(temporary) evidence to the contrary.
Hillary did support the war. And if she was given bad information, she was given it by Bush, who, last I hear, was the dumbest man on the planet
So what does that make Hillary?
Tony Rezko. Honest? hmmmm ...
Tony Rezco is not running for President. Obama's relationship to him, while extant, is casual. He bought some land from the man. He had dinner with
him. They did some business together. That is a long cry from being an accomplice, and there is no evidence Obama was even aware of Rezco's shady
dealings, as Obama has steadfastly claimed he never heard the sermon Knight's comments were taken from while attending his church.
Guilt by association now? That would put me in some very bad legal trouble if I were responsible for every action taken or word uttered by someone I
knew well. Personal responsibility is a good thing; communal responsibility I have a hard time swallowing. Show me where Obama has agreed with Knight,
or assisted Rezco in anything illegal; that will sway me.
McCain has gone out of his way to be nice to the guy. He got on someone for using Obama's middle name (which I don't understand since it IS
his middle name) and he has gotten on people for giving Obama a hard time about Wright.
Yes, he has, and I applaud McCain for these actions. Barack HUSSEIN Obama means nothing; I didn't choose my (legal) name, and I assume neither did
he. It was Bill Cunningham who childishly tried to attack Obama that way, at a McCain rally. McCain condemned Cunningham and the remark. Bravo!
I speak of the recent call by the hypocrite Limbaugh, Hannity, I even think Levin was in on it, to get Republican voters to vote in the Democratic
primaries in TX/OH in order to win the nomination for Hillary. I speak of a once-favored opinionist, Glenn Beck, who recently has been examining every
syllable that Obama has uttered in order to find 'Freudian slips' or perhaps a pause that could mean something untoward. This is manipulation and
mudslinging at it's best (worst), and I despise and denounce it.
Even if he were being attacked by republicans - so what? The way this country is set up is that we have opposing parties who are supposed to
show that they are better than the other one. This isn't a hand holding spiritual moment kind of thing ... it's a political thing and we are
supposed to scrub down and get all the facts out.
That's the general election; the primaries are supposedly internal party decisions. But even if we agree that the purpose is to 'get all the facts
out', I don't see personal friendships, nit-picking words, or alleged rumors as accomplishing those goals. I am interested in two things from any
candidate: 1) Can I trust them? Obama, probably, Hillary, never, McCain, unsure. 2) What are their policies? That one I am still working on, trying to
sort through all the idiotic rhetoric.
Question - when the dems start picking on McCain, will you switch sides and give him your sympathy vote?
It will probably make me more sympathetic toward him, yes. That's how I view mudslinging; I place the mud on the slinger rather than the target. But
even if it does, I will not have 'switched sides'. I am on the side of the USA. I am looking for the best candidate for the country. At this point I
believe it is Obama.