September 14, 2008 9:33 pm at 9:33 pm #588215
What right do we have to vote for a candidate based on either our Jewish values or Israel if it’s not good for America?September 15, 2008 5:16 am at 5:16 am #622940
Give Me a Break: simple one word answer – – – – democracy.
you can vote for any reason you want, hey all the libs are voting for “change”. they have no clue what that means, nor what he will change, but obama makes them feel good.
another point, what is good for israel, in definition is good for america. both are dependent on each other. there are times that america thinks that what israel did will harm america ( asirak nuclear generator) but in the long run, it was good for america.
it is not only jews who vote based on a stand for israel, many evangelicals believe stronger tehn jews for the state of israel.
also it is a very few that vote republican, which would be the party that stands up for israel most commonly. so technically most jews dont vote iwth the israel line.September 15, 2008 5:39 am at 5:39 am #622941
A. The right of an American- every citizen has the “right” to vote according to personal values, if he so chooses.
B. Some individuals may feel that certain “values” are what is “good for America”. You may feel otherwise, and that is your right as well.
I realize you’re very excited about Obama, and therefore suggest that you employ a greater level of sophistication in a dialogue on this topic. Perhaps try to highlight your candidate’s strengths or previous accomplishments.September 15, 2008 1:42 pm at 1:42 pm #622942
In general, I vote by the following order:
1) What is good for me
2) What is good for the Jews
3) What is good for the nation
Usually, 1 and 2 line up very well. My stance on number 3 doesnt always match up 100% with 1 and 2. Also, I look at the issues that are extremely important to me vs what is just ideally important to me.
For example, I am pro-choice for first trimester abortions (I think partial birth abortions are horrific). One reason I am pro-choice is because halacha allows abortions in certain situations. Although I would never have an abortion barring extreme circumstance and rabbinic approval, I need to be able to choose abortion if my Rabbi tells me to.
Also (and I may be stoned here for saying this), I am pro gay marriage. Gay marriage is SECULAR – I had a Jewish wedding and a secular wedding. With gay marriage in place, they would be able to get health coverage from their partner and help prevent/treat more diseased people in the gay community. In addition, assuming monogamy amongst the gay community is the same as the rest of the population, you would also possibly prevent the spreading of diseases to more people. Not allowing gay marriage won’t stop people from being gay and allowing gay marriage DOES NOT mean that you approve, which I dont.
So while that is my stance on those two (relatively) controversial issues, I won’t vote based on them, because they dont really affect my life. There are more important issues, which is why I am voting for McCain/Palin.September 15, 2008 2:37 pm at 2:37 pm #622943
Give Me a Break:
Don’t you mean “what right do you have not to vote for the Democrat?”
You are right. We should cancel the election, and hail King Obama and his Official Crier, the Huffington Post. 🙂
After all, you, the Elite, know better what is “good for the country” than the people. Next thing you know, only people with property will have a say 🙂
Perhaps people think McCain is better for the country? Maybe morality makes a better country? Maybe supporting Democracy is good for the country? Perhaps even supporting the Jewish state is good for the country.
Oops, you have already decided for all of us that it is not.September 15, 2008 3:01 pm at 3:01 pm #622944
That is not to say not to vote democrat, if you would like to do so.
I happen to (in general terms) like Joe Biden, and think he has a good plan for Iraq.
(Just wait if there is a partition plan for the Arabs, and see what happens)…
And we get out, and stop wasting money and soldiers on stopping the sides from killing each other.September 15, 2008 8:08 pm at 8:08 pm #622945
This thread isn’t for supporting Obama. It’s an ethics thread.
To all posters:
I don’t mean legal rights. I was trying to explain why it is ethically wrong to vote on a candidate because of religious values, if the opposed candidate may benefit America as a whole, i.e., to keep religion exclusive of elections. Whether Barack Obama will save America is not what this thread is about. The only reason why “Democrats” is in the title of this thread is because it is the liberal values that are usually out of touch with Jewish philosophies.September 15, 2008 8:25 pm at 8:25 pm #622946
Give Me a Break: who said that you cannot use religion when making a choice for a person running. you can usxe any litmus test you choose as a free thinking person in america. whether the rules of church and state exist in the way most people think is another issue, but it definitely does not apply to stopping a person from making a choice. morally it is no problem, as non jews make these decisions as well, whether it was kennedy telling people his catholicism wouldnt mean much as president, or that mitt romney was attacked as a mormon by some evangelicals. jews are by far not the only ones who use religion and support for other countries as a litmus test for nominees.
besides that, there are other things as well, nothing to do with religion, that jews, especiallly orthodox ones, tend to associate themselves nationally with republicans (not to mixc up locally supporting democrats). things like vouchers, lower taxes, marriage and children tax deductions, and more all appeal to orthodox jews as well. yes israel is a big one, but there are others as well.September 15, 2008 9:03 pm at 9:03 pm #622947
You seriously didn’t read my post. I said that it’s ethically wrong to vote based on religious values. Also, what do you mean by “marriage” in the second-to-last sentence.
You’re as conservative as I’m liberal, so I don’t know if I should bother arguing with you.
By the way, here’s the 2008 ticket
Democratic: Barack Hussein Obama II & Joseph Robinette Biden
Republican: John Sidney McCain III & Sarah Heath Palin
Libertarian: Robert Laurence Barr, Jr. & Wayne Allyn Root
Independent: Ralph Nader & Matthew GonzalezSeptember 16, 2008 1:00 am at 1:00 am #622948
“This thread isn’t for supporting Obama. It’s an ethics thread.”
We have different understandings of “ethics” in politics, but thanks for sharing your view.September 16, 2008 3:33 am at 3:33 am #622949
give me a break: i like the fact you arent getting personal. what i meant was marriage act under bush, where the penalty was made into a break under the newest irs tax codes. (not sure if it was an actual break, but it definitely gave us more money back then before.)
out of curiosity, can someone explain biden’s middle name, sounds feminine. i am not knocking him, just curious if that was a common name back in the day? or is it like heath in sarah’s name, his moms lat name?
Sarah, thats your problem, and like me, you dont understand how to take your religion out of your ethical code, while liberals dont understand how religion and ethics can be one and the same. again not knocking, just that is usually how it is, especially with the hard left.September 16, 2008 3:54 am at 3:54 am #622950
You are a racist if you do not vote for Obama. You want to bring back slavery. If Obama does not win, then the election was rigged!!! =) What about the people’s right to vote for whom they want? oops! ignore that part of being in a democratic republic!
=)September 16, 2008 4:12 am at 4:12 am #622951
“Sarah, thats your problem, and like me, you dont understand how to take your religion out of your ethical code, while liberals dont understand how religion and ethics can be one and the same. again not knocking, just that is usually how it is, especially with the hard left.”
Actually, I have no idea what you are talking about.
I did not share my view of ethics in politics; I simply stated that I do not share givemeabreak’s particular positions.
Your idea of ethics in politics is certainly not mine. Neither do I share givemeabreak’s perspective.
I did not present my view, nor do I intend to. I don’t discuss specific politics or my personal positions on these matters; just attempting to clarify givemeabreak’s intentions. In a number of threads, he/she promoted Obama, and I offered suggestions for how givemeabreak might do so more effectively. If this thread is about something else, that’s fine.
Happy politicking :). As for myself, I appreciate the secret ballot.September 16, 2008 5:30 am at 5:30 am #622952
While I am a fan of the “high wall of separation” between church (or shul) and state in this country, I cannot find any fault in voting based on religious viewpoints. That’s not to say I think it’s the smart way to vote, but I can certainly understand it. The beautiful thing about this country is that it’s the voter’s prerogative, and nobody can tell him/her what to think or why to vote a certain way. It’s left to the power of persuasion, and we hope and pray that the most persuasive party turns out to be the best…September 16, 2008 2:27 pm at 2:27 pm #622953
re Mariner and the left and religion: I don’t know how much the left separate religion and ethics. They tend to be drawn to religious institutions that are big on social action over personal introspection and responsibility on the micro level, so there may not be too much separation there either.September 16, 2008 4:38 pm at 4:38 pm #622954
I predict that you will appreciate the wisdom of the founding fathers even more as you grow older.
Freedom of speech, religion, and press, as well as the secret ballot are the prime ingredients of our democracy.
If you read the bill of rights today, you will be amazed at the foresight of those who designed it over 200 years ago.September 16, 2008 8:55 pm at 8:55 pm #622955
tzippoi, you have a point, but only those instituions that have very socialist ideals, which is actually what the framers were afraid of, religiona dn socialistic government working hand in hand.
i can only try: though you have the prime ingredients down, you do have one very very large mistakle. freedom of religion isnt technically the truth, its freedom to practice your religion with no intefernce from the government. not freedom from religion, like the left would like many to believe. and again, the religion aspect is only on technically for the federal govenrment, according to the framers. the terms in the constituion are clear on that. that the centralized government was not to have a relion officially tied to it.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”. meaning, congress, not state legislatures. the tenth amendment agrees, by stating “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people” as such, since the other amenments are for the people, the first was about congress (in regard to religion) and so it doesnt apply at the state level.
states atthe time did in fact have official religions, just like they do today in official animals, tress, fruits,etc. all 13 colonies and territories would later get rid of them for other reasons.
i would also hope you believe in the framers foresight when it comes to the right to bear arms. (2nd amendment). now that the supreme court has put the liberal mantra of it not being a personal right to sleep, i hope you also agree taht excessive infringement with high license fees and impossible rules to gun ownership in places like nyc have to be revoked to to it being an “infridgement”.September 16, 2008 9:30 pm at 9:30 pm #622956
tzippy..can you say this in plain language so pea size brain like me understands?September 16, 2008 11:25 pm at 11:25 pm #622957
BTW, nowhere in the United States Constitution does it say, or imply, anything about “separation of church and state.”
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .” (like quoted by mariner.)September 16, 2008 11:36 pm at 11:36 pm #622958
1) There is considerable debate between the view of “freedom of religion” and “freedom from religion”; it is not as clear-cut as you would like to think. Regardless, even if it is “of religion,” the problem then becomes who decides what is a “religion”? Religious beliefs vary widely, even within religions. Practically speaking, freedom of religion becomes freedom from religion in certain circumstances, because we don’t want to get mired in the sticky question of what is a religion.
2) The bill of rights has been incorporated to the states through the 14th Amendment. Whether you agree with it or not, the courts treat it as such today, under the doctrine of stare decisis. There is also considerable debate over the true meaning of the 10th Amendment.September 16, 2008 11:38 pm at 11:38 pm #622959
Freedom of religion is the freedom to practice your religion, or lack thereof, without government interference.
Freedom from religion, if enforced, is communism.September 17, 2008 1:04 am at 1:04 am #622960
I can only try:
“Freedom of religion is the freedom to practice your religion, or lack thereof, without government interference.
Freedom from religion, if enforced, is communism.”
That’s a pretty succinct, well-worded explanation.September 17, 2008 1:38 am at 1:38 am #622961
Thank you for your kind words.
Upon reflection I’d like to reword it as “Freedom from religion, if coerced, is a facet of communism.”September 17, 2008 3:20 am at 3:20 am #622962
illini07: for starters, name me one constitutional lawyer or historian that says we have a freedom from religion. second, the bill of rights ends at 10. was just stating that nowhere in the “bill of rights” do states not have the right to have religions. thats all.
i can only try: i agree with illini07 on this freedom from religion, as you said, when enforced is communism. never heard it better!
here is a list of official religions as colonies and when they disestablished ( youll notice some were after the war!:
* The colonies of Plymouth, Massachusetts Bay, New Haven, and New Hampshire were founded by Puritan, Calvinist, Protestants.
* New Netherland was founded by Dutch Reformed Calvinists.
* The colonies of New York, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia were officially Anglican.
Connecticut Congregational 1818
Georgia Church of England 1789
Maryland Church of England 1776
Massachusetts Congregational 1780
New Hampshire Congregational 1790
North Carolina Church of England 1776
South Carolina Church of England 1790
West Florida Church of England
East Florida Church of England
Virginia Church of England 1786
* plagiarized from wikipedia
now the disestablishment of the states from their official churches were under states rights, and had nothing whatsoever to do with becoming a state ( like utah having to give up polygamy.)
as for centrists voting to not have all 3 in one party, it was like that in the 90’s 70’s and 60’s. under bush, in early 2006 all 3 were republican. it happens sometimes, but i doubt anyone votes to make sure it doesnt. besides, 3 under republicans is fine, since republicans always have spineless garbage in their ranks who dont hold to conservative ideals. if reagans appointments to the supreme court were to be held true, conservatism would have a stronghold over their decisions, but they dont.September 17, 2008 4:55 am at 4:55 am #622963
1) By “freedom from religion,” I meant it as I Can Only Try so aptly stated it: Freedom of religion is the freedom to practice your religion, ***or lack thereof***, without government interference.
2)You are incorrect in your second statement. States cannot establish religion. As I previously mentioned, the Bill of Rights has largely been incorporated against the states. In Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947), the Supreme Court incorporated the establishment clause against the states, meaning that no individual state can establish a religion, or do anything that Congress couldn’t do under the First Amendment. It’s well-settled precedent.September 17, 2008 8:48 pm at 8:48 pm #622964
OK, OK. I’m trying to say that it shouldn’t affect our vote. Of course there’s no problem with it, but it shouldn’t be a top priority. Then again, what do I know?September 17, 2008 9:27 pm at 9:27 pm #622965
illini07: i said that states had religions, this is correct, i said that states not being allowed to have religions is nowhere in the bill of rights. this is correct. the 14th amendment is not the bill of rights, its 4 amendments too late! as for a 1947 ruling, that has nothing to do with the fact that states did at some point have religions. my point was that when the first time separation of church and state was written, it was prior to the 1947 ruling, so it has to be pertaining to the federal government, not states. this is historical fact. it could not have pertained to something that did not exist yet!
as far as freedom from religion goes, what case are you citing that claims you have a freedom from religion. freedom from religion, and freedom to practice atheism are two totally different things. heres an example.
a shabbos observer working for the city of new york wants off saturdays. the boss says no. the boss wants freedom “from” religion, and the employee wants freedom of religion. freedom to practice atheism cannot be guaranteed, as it is nothing. you arent practicing anything to have rights for. atheism is a anti-religion, in that it is no religion at all. no practices, rules, or customs. so what freedoms are there to be protected. none. that is why freedom from religion can only mean freedom against religion, and that is not anywhere in the constitution!September 18, 2008 9:15 pm at 9:15 pm #622966
Interesting – the whole America, especially Jews, have a great Republican to thank: A member of the Bull Moose Party, it was President Theodore Roosevelt that instituted the 5-day workweek.September 19, 2008 1:53 am at 1:53 am #622967
Re jent: we frum Jews tend to focus inwardly, on the micro level if you will. (I remember a Jewish Observer from years ago called something like The Good Guy vs. the Tzaddik.) The secular world focuses on changing the world on a macro level, like saving the whales, rain forests, etc. Often worthy causes, but ignoring inner life at the expense of the outer life. A lot of religious institutions and leaders these days focus so much on social action that there doesn’t seem to be much difference between social action and religious life.
Not a phrase by phrase parsing of my earlier post, but just trying to explain my train of thought.September 19, 2008 4:01 pm at 4:01 pm #622968
I can only try- why take a pass on the second amendment? It was put there for a reason- wasn’t it? If you are allowed the right to say what you want and practice whatever religeon you want, making the 1st amenment suitable and correct, why is the 2cd amendment not correct? Just like you have the constatutional right to be a Jew (freedom of religeon), go to shul (freedom of assembly), teach Torah in schools (freedom of speech) and write what you want on this post (freedom of the press)why cant you have the second amendment right? The same people wrote and passed them!!!
” A well regulated militia, being necessary to the freedom of the state, The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed”. I quoted it from the Constitution of the United States. It says nothing about “only in this case or only in that circumstance”. And dont tell me “militia=army” a militia was comprised of regular people who owned guns who protected their family and community.September 19, 2008 10:36 pm at 10:36 pm #622969
havesomeseichel: “And dont tell me “militia=army” a militia was comprised of regular people who owned guns who protected their family and community.”
yo, you havent heard the news! libs cant say this anymore, teh supreme court ruled already that it is a personal right, and it may not be infriged. not only that, but the licensing of such weapons may not be considered a hinderance either! NYC’s laws will be defeated soon. the nra is going after phili and chicago, and nyc is next. they hate bloomberg with a passion, he has been on their cover of their magazine about 4 times as a bad 2nd amendment rights hater.September 21, 2008 10:07 pm at 10:07 pm #622970
You people are veering SERIOUSLY off topic.September 21, 2008 11:23 pm at 11:23 pm #622971
That’s the nature of a forum. One needs to relinquish the soap box at least some of the time…September 22, 2008 1:41 pm at 1:41 pm #622972
I know, but it’d be nice if we could get back on topic.September 22, 2008 10:30 pm at 10:30 pm #622973
How about if we start this up again?September 22, 2008 11:13 pm at 11:13 pm #622974
Give Me a Break: your original topic was answered many times. it is totally moral to vote with any agenda one may wish, including religion, security of another nation besides the USA (israel), etc. the reason is because those decisoins in of themselves are of moral fiber, and leads to ones moral character. to separate that from ones decisions would actually be immoral. this has nothing to do with having a national church.September 24, 2008 8:42 pm at 8:42 pm #622975
Yes, but don’t you think that it’s not fair to decide based on religion?September 24, 2008 11:00 pm at 11:00 pm #622976
Thank you Mariner- now I know that there is some hope for some of the major cities in America… Can we do something about the others?
I just dont get the anti-gun advocates… are they dyslexic or are they just illiterate? But then again, they only care when YOU have the gun, but when THEY have it- its self defense and completly necessary… Diane Feinstein (D-CA)-just one of many examples-is one of the few to have permits in CA, but she protests that anyone should OWN one, while she can CARRY one. If she feels the need, when she has personal security, what about the rest of us? I dont know about you, but I dont have bodygaurds. I need to be able to protect myself.September 25, 2008 12:34 am at 12:34 am #622977
havesomeseichel: you forget, people like diane feinstein , well, they know what is good for you, so you are supposed to just let them tell you how to live. whether its where and when you may mention god, or carry a gun, or to shove corn down your tailpipe (ethanol in gas). the reason we are allowed to have guns, is so that when these socialist try to take our government away from us we can fight back. that is the sole reason for the second amendment, not militias, and every other piece of garbage the libs try to claim.
from the mongolians to the communists, the first thing the government does is take away the right to self defense by outlawing weapons. (hence in martial arts, all forms of weapons are that of farming tools.)September 25, 2008 4:24 am at 4:24 am #622979
illini07: i suffer from dellusions? you are the one that obviously cant think for him/herself, and you want your liberal know better then thou senaters and congressman to do it for you. i am not deluded. i am of clear mind when i say give me my rights back. i wan tmy guns to protect my family, i want my money that i work hard for, and i dont want to be told what to teach my children, while paying for an education i cant eve use.
i dont want to bail out idiots who bet the house on stock and bonds that had no yield. i dont want to bail out semi government agencies that go belly up because the government made them give out mortgages to minorities regardless of the fact that they had no income. the liberal clinton had his liberal janet reno threaten criminal actions if banks didnt make these “predatory” mortgages. the same idiots in washington who are calling for the heads of these ceo’s caused this problem to begin with. they blame bush, he tried stopping this 3 times, in 03, 4 and 5. the democrats blocked em all! instead of outlawing guns, we should outlaw stupidity, and then we can arrest all the liberals in both houses, and get OUR government back!
by the way, what flavor is the liberal kool-aid?September 25, 2008 9:42 pm at 9:42 pm #622980
Blueberry.September 28, 2008 12:44 am at 12:44 am #622981
Give Me a Break: cute, then again the left always did like a blue fruit!October 2, 2008 8:39 pm at 8:39 pm #622982
I prefer strawberries and cherries, though. Irony of all ironies?October 2, 2008 9:36 pm at 9:36 pm #622983
1) I oppose the bailout myself. It is out-and-out socialism.
2) I am in favor of gun rights, but I also believe that they can and should be subject to some restrictions. Unless you want felons to own guns as well.
3) I want to keep the money I work hard for as well. I also want a fire department, police force, national security, public transportation, and everything else that our taxes pay for.
Finally, you are right on one thing: I want elites in the White House. I want people that are smarter, more educated, and higher-functioning to be running this country and representing it to the rest of the world. What happened as a result of the Russian Revolution of 1917, when the people decided to get rid of the aristocrats and put people “just like us” into office? Nearly a century of dictatorship, corruption, and murder. They still haven’t picked themselves up off the ground.
I don’t want someone “just like me” running this country – if I did, I’d run for President.October 3, 2008 5:44 am at 5:44 am #622984
illini07: 1) good to hear.
2) felons already can not own guns. felons have many of their rights stripped, including voting for the president. that has nothing to do with gun laws. laws only are there for law abiding citizens, so passing more laws is in fact no way in fact to curb violence. there is though one way to curb violence efficiently, arm the populace. works statistically every time.
3) fire dep, and the rest are all state (city) level, not federal. so again, your ideas of high taxes for things we need are flawed. taxing me for social security which i will never see, and taxing me to pay for social welfare programs that dont ever work is not only no fair, but criminal.
your comparing us to the russians is nothing more then idiotic. sarah palin, who i assume you are talking about, has had more experience then obama in an executive role, and she is the vp, not the pres nominee. btw, the president is an executive position, not legislative, no matter how much biden thinks so. sarah palin has an approval rating in her state higher then any other elected official in a state capacity.
i do want someone like me in the white house, who knows that it is hard to pay the gas prices, and high food prices. who knows that a quarter of my earned income not staying in my pocket is ludicrous. the difference between wanting someone like her, and say a communist would be the penchant for communists to want more government, like obama (who is a marxist, btw), and conservatives to want less (present president not included). she decreased the size of the govt in alaska, and fought corruption in her own party. how is she the same old…..? obama, he may actually be to blame for freddie mac and fannie mae! community organizers are used by organizations like acorn to intimidate corporations like banks to give “equal” products to people who cant afford it. in this case, houses.
only an insane person would think obama is better for this country. even biden doesnt think so, except he wants to be vice president, so he is going on the obama bandwagon.October 3, 2008 3:46 pm at 3:46 pm #622985
1) I’m sorry, but mayor of a teeny-tiny town in Alaska, and then governor for less than two years is NOT executive experience. Alaska is not so consequential that her experience there is all that impressive. When it comes down to it, she’s just as inexperienced as anyone. Not to mention that she attempted to ban books, and may have well abused her authority in causing a state trooper to be fired. I don’t want someone like that to be second in command. I also don’t want someone who can’t name more than 1 supreme court case to be one geriatric heartbeat away from nominating the next Justice.
2) Your last few paragraphs completely miss the boat. Why is my comparison to the Russians “idiotic?” I laid out what they did, which is put people “just like them” into office. Mayhem ensued. What is stopping the same from happening here? You think Palin knows anything about your life? When she owns a $1 million dollar house? Please, she’s no more “like us” than the rest of them. She gets away with this ploy because she comes off as STUPID (which unfortunately makes her like a lot of people in this country).
3) Obama isn’t a Marxist. Get over it.
4) Where exactly did you get your degree from, if I may ask.October 5, 2008 5:15 am at 5:15 am #622987
anon for thisParticipant
I too am concerned that Sarah Palin thinks banning books from a public library is a good idea. And I also don’t think that assault victims, or their insurance companies, should be charged for forensic testing intended to apprehend their attackers. Yet when Ms. Palin was mayor of Wasilla her town was one of only a few in the the state that continued this practice.
Like illini07, I think that those running the country should be smarter & more capable than the rest of us. Obviously this includes knowing basic historical & political facts.October 5, 2008 5:20 am at 5:20 am #622988
Mariner, I agree with you!
Every Jew a 22!!! (caliber gun minumum that is.. i say go for the higher powered ones as the smaller ones will not do much damage if someone wants to attact you… maybe a 45? )
Here is a quote I read: “Our streets will be safer… for the first time in history a civilized nation has full gun registration….”
After saying this, Adolf Hitler (IM”S) went out to plan the deaths of 11 million people!
How could 5,000 German soldiers take over France so quickly in WW2? Simple- France had gun registration. The Germans took the lists, confiscated the weapons and controlled the country! No one was able to stop them!!!October 5, 2008 5:24 am at 5:24 am #622989
By the way, dont blame Bush for the mortgage crises… it was CLINTON himself who allowed deregulation which caused the whole problem! Yes, bush makes an easy target since the collapse came in his term. But the cause was CLINTON… of course you liberals like to paint him as a rosy picture and an angel. Clinton caused a lot of our issues today- but of course he never did ANYTHING wrong including commit perjury!!!October 5, 2008 5:37 am at 5:37 am #622990
so Obama has more experience then Palin? What did Obama do? He was senator for how many years? He was a “community activist” and did what during that time? resume fluff job 101!!! By the way- when do you compare Presidents to VPs (unless someone is planning an assasination…)? Compare Obama to MACAIN for goodness sakes! And who has more experience there, might I ask? Hmm. I thought so. Compare VPs to VPs and Pres to Pres!!! Palin got rid of the plane she should have had for her job, saying “it was unnecessary and too much of a luxery for the people to pay for”…One candidate actually didn’t want something?!?! and Biden… he’s an old legistlative member of gov.. no new “change” there!
Obama says he stands for change and hope and doesnt want the experience ticket? I guess He “changed” his mind again and “hopes” the american people dont see it! (ok, i got that line from somewhere else. I have to be truthful about that one. But it is true)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.