September 14, 2008 9:26 pm at 9:26 pm #588214
Can someone please tell me, clearly, without screaming this and that, why Obama should not be president? And don’t give me the “he’s Muslim,” because he’s not.September 14, 2008 11:15 pm at 11:15 pm #715101
Inexperienced. Rookie Senator (only 3 years in Senate), and just a state legislator prior
Married to someone not proud to be American all her life (until her husband won the primary)
Anti-Semite/Anti-White Rev. Jerimiah Wright 20+ YEARS close association
Most liberal Senator
Associated with Chicago crooks
flip-flops on many issues
Europe likes himSeptember 15, 2008 12:20 am at 12:20 am #715102
A) I do not think he has the experience to run a country.
B) He’s a big talker, It feels like he would say anything to get into office.September 15, 2008 12:32 am at 12:32 am #715103
i took this from a website, but i completely agree with these wordsSeptember 15, 2008 12:37 am at 12:37 am #715104
I can only tryMember
Give Me a Break-
2) Obama worshipping with an anti-American, anti-Semitic pastor for twenty years.
4) His lack of experience.
5) His lack of a track record.
6) His position re: Iraq, which I disagree with.
7) His position re: Pakistan, which I disagree with.
9) His position re: oil exploration, both offshore and in the ANWR. Our dependency on unfriendly countries (OPEC, Russia) is killing our economy.
11) Despite McCain-Feingold, which I hate (first amendment abridgement).September 15, 2008 1:16 am at 1:16 am #715105
Leaving his middle name aside, Barack O. is pure and simple unqualified to lead the most influential country in the world. His lack of experience is appaling and quite frankly, democrats must be stupider than any one gives them credit for since they are aware of this and STILL nomitated him.
Think of it this way: if you were CEO of a company and were looking for a replacement, would you hire the likes of Obama based on his (paper thin) resume? why then, should he be hired as CEO of our country?
then there is the topic of his anti-semitic, terrorist leaning, american hating associations…. but i digress!
Still not convinced????!!!September 15, 2008 2:39 am at 2:39 am #715106
He is too inexperienced to be a president. Had he been someone’s VP running mate, I would have not been as scared of him, because he really would have little power. But the Dems picked the wrong person for the job. He is not a leader, he is not decisive, and he showed very poor judgment with the “lipstick on a pig, it’s still a pig” comment SPECIFICALLY because the word lipstick was used just the previous week by Sarah Palin (and if he feigns innocence of malicious intent, he is not very credible to me). There is no question in my mind that this was a dig at her. If his speechwriters or advisors told him to use that phrase (and it was not of his own doing), then he STILL comes up short, because it shows he has extremely stupid people advising him,and he hasn’t the seichel to override their poor advice. he is no president.
McCain is the lesser of two evils,and at least he has actually served his country and has kids who likewise have served. HIS wife is not busy saying arrogant things like this is the first time I have felt proud of my country. If she feels that way, why on earth would she want her husband to lead it?
I am not thrilled with either of the choices we are offered, but one clearly has more experience at leading than does the other.September 15, 2008 1:17 pm at 1:17 pm #715107
OK: He is a pin-head and a pea-brain.
He has said nothing to make me even consider him. All I hear is alot of “uh’s” when he speaks, and alot of “change”.September 15, 2008 1:27 pm at 1:27 pm #715108
Why not Obama?
Because Moshe Aryeh Friedman is not my rav, I do not believe in choosing the candidate who would be most welcomed by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his ilk.September 15, 2008 2:24 pm at 2:24 pm #715111
anon for thisParticipant
oomis, I often agree with you, but I disagree about the “lipstick on a pig” phrase, & here’s why:
Here’s the paragraph of Obama’s speech in which he used the phrase:
“That’s just calling something the same thing something different. You know you can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig. You know you can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change, it’s still going to stink after eight years. We’ve had enough of the same old thing.”
It’s clear from the context that he was saying that calling the “same old thing” something new didn’t make it different–his point is that McCain is more of the same even if he calls himself something else. The phrase “eight years” makes it clear he’s not talking about Palin, but rather that he’s trying to associate McCain with President Bush.
Obama’s used the “lipstick on a pig” several times, as late as a year ago.
Also, as Obama later said, if the analogy in any way refers to Palin, it’s calling her the “lipstick” to McCain’s “pig”, which is no more sexist than McCain referring to Clinton’s health care plan as “lipstick on a pig” earlier this year.
That’s not to say that I think Obama’s a good candidate for president, just that this phrase proves nothing either way.September 15, 2008 5:17 pm at 5:17 pm #715112
“Can someone please tell me, clearly, without screaming this and that, why Obama should not be president?”
Because the most qualified people in the election are Sens. Biden and McCain. Only one is running for President.September 15, 2008 7:08 pm at 7:08 pm #715113
I do find it humorous that the same people who say Obama has no experience and wouldn’t know the first thing about changing things up in the way he proposes are simultaneously hailing Palin as the next coming of the moshiach (pardon the phrase) – as if SHE is going to be a real reformer!
This whole election is based on a lot of stupidity on both ends. It’s turned into a battle of the minorities.September 15, 2008 7:18 pm at 7:18 pm #715114
anon for thisParticipant
illini07, who of all the primary candidates do you think would have been the best president?September 15, 2008 7:27 pm at 7:27 pm #715115
illini – Your point is well taken, but Obama is not running against Palin, and Palin is not running for President.
The position of Vice President, which Palin is running for, has very few constitutional duties. In fact, the only constitutional duty it carries, is being President of the United States Senate. (And even there, only votes in case of a tie.)
So between choosing an inexperienced President and an inexperienced VP, who only becomes President in an unlikely event, the choice is clear. (Additionally, between the two, Obama’s “experience” is only legislative while Palin’s is executive — more appropriate for a Presidency.)September 15, 2008 11:59 pm at 11:59 pm #715116
re: comment #2 – Joseph:
Most liberal Senator – So?
flip-flops on many issues – like? Israel – is that all you care about?
Democrat – Most Jews are – even RELIGIOUS!
pro-abortion – Why should a pregnant mother suffer 20+ years for a child she doesn’t want? A fetus is a fetus is a fetus!
pro-toeiva – 1) Is that your business?; 2) Homosexuals have just as much right – who defines marriage, the Torah? This isn’t a Jewish state!
pro-tax increase – more taxes, more for the people; “what you give is what you get”
Europe likes him – What the heck does that have to do with anything? Or is it just something to complain about?September 16, 2008 3:51 am at 3:51 am #715117
I can only tryMember
Give Me a Break-
I feel that this thread that you started has been an ambush.
Those who replied did so, as per your request.
In my judgment (feel free to correct me) you are now screaming and being argumentative.
As far as Israel goes, I care very much about an administrations policy towards it. We are not talking about a policy that will affect how much Bamba we import, or how much grain we export. What we are talking about is a policy that determines weapons and technology that will be used to defend Israel, diplomatic pressure that will be used against Syria and Iran to diminish the arms they send to hezbolla and hamas, support for going after terrorist leaders even if they are across borders, support for invading Gaza as is necessary, support for destroying the Syrian nuke facility, and many other examples. This has nothing to do with being pro- or anti- the current medina or any Jewish medina in Eretz Yisroel – this is literally pikuach nefesh.
This is a free country, with secret ballots, and you have every right to vote for Obama.
Just realize that on this site most people will not.September 16, 2008 4:12 am at 4:12 am #715118
I got this from glennbeck .com and it has some insights that make some sense and are backed by real, true, fact-unadulterated by bias and the media. I read this and thought it would be perfect to add in more… the exact webpage is at the end.
Obama’s Experience and Qualifications
What the liberal (or in this case, misguided conservative) whiners say:
1. ‘Barack Obama will bring UNITY to our country to finally get things done!’
2. ‘Yeah well, Obama is a Washington outsider, which is exactly what we need right now’
3. ‘Barack Obama is one of the great communicators of our time, he’s a brilliant speaker who can fire up a crowd’
Your winning, logical, reasoned arguments:
1. Really? Can you name even ONE instance where Barack Obama worked in a united way with Republicans on ANY issue? His positions are so far to the left, there’s no way he could reach out to anyone but extreme left wing liberals. He’s never shown the least bit of interest working with members on the other side of the isle. On the other hand, John McCain has “reached across the isle” numerous times…McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, McCain-Lieberman to name just a few. If your really want UNITY or bi-partisanship, John McCain is definitely your man.
2. Unfortunately, Obama has spent SO much time outside Washington, that we have absolutely no idea what he would do once he was inside. He was a “community organizer in Chicago, an Illinois state legislator, and a U.S. Senator since 2005. From that to President of the United States? Asked what Barack had accomplished to recommend him for the job, I was told recently that Barack Obama had “organized the Black people.” Hmm. First, I hadn’t realized the Black people were DISorganized? There’s nothing worse than an entire minority group running around helter skelter, is there? So, thank you for that, Barack. That must have been during the “community organizer” days? But when pressed to name specifics on a legitimate accomplishment, Obama supporters are stumped. Even staunch Obama supporter, Texas state senator Kirk Watson, when asked by Chris Matthews on national television this past February 19th, to name just one thing Obama has ever accomplished, Watson couldn’t come up with a single thing. Not one. This was of course, before Chris Matthews felt the “thrill going up his leg” for Obama, and pledged him his troth.
3. Adolph Hitler could fire up a crowd too. I’m not comparing the two, I’m just saying that’s not necessarily the best recommendation for president. I went to a Barry Manilow concert with my wife once, he had the crowd (well, the WOMEN in it, anyway) pretty fired up. As for Obama’s communication skills, I still like the fact that he communicated to us that we have 57 states, plus one he hasn’t visited yet, plus Alaska and Hawaii…for a total of 60? Had he not communicated that information, I’d be under the mistaken impression we still had just the 50 states. Also the priceless tire inflation communication, just might save our nation, as well as the planet.
from: (exact webpage) : http://www. glennbeck. com/content/articles/article/198/13814/September 16, 2008 4:57 am at 4:57 am #715119
McCain was moser nefesh for his country(P.O.W. for over ten years)don’t you think he’s more fit! (besides being more experianced).September 16, 2008 1:52 pm at 1:52 pm #715120
Joseph, you are correct. I just think that the soaring rhetoric about Palin from people who decried such rhetoric about Obama is humorous.
veimloachshuv: Yes, he was a POW, however I fail to see how that in and of itself makes someone more fit to be president. It has nothing to do with the President’s job. That’s not to say he shouldn’t get any credit for it, but it’s kind of irrelevant to the debate.September 16, 2008 7:05 pm at 7:05 pm #715121
obama REALLY thought there are fifty-seven states?!? Or is that just a joke???September 16, 2008 11:05 pm at 11:05 pm #715122
As for Obama’s communication skills, I still like the fact that he communicated to us that we have 57 states, plus one he hasn’t visited yet, plus Alaska and Hawaii…for a total of 60?
Maybe someone in his family is registered to vote in all 60 states, including the state of confusion and nine others that I just may have visited myself last Purim :)!September 16, 2008 11:36 pm at 11:36 pm #715123
Perhaps Obama had thought the United States had at some point annexed the 10 Canadian provinces, giving us 60 states. (In the 1800’s the was some agitation for the U.S. to annex Canada.)September 17, 2008 1:49 am at 1:49 am #715124
No, no, you see, we white people are too straight-minded to see things correctly. Didnt you know that there are 57 states? Doesn’t every child in grade school know that? They dont? What is going on in the school systems today that they dont know basic geography!!!September 17, 2008 1:56 am at 1:56 am #715125
What about his wife? When interviewed at Saddleback, he mentioned the three people that would influence his presidency (if Chas Vashalom he gets elected)and the first one he mentioned was his wife! Oh, she loooooooves America, doesn’t she? Barak said so”No one loves this country more then Michelle!” But what about what she said? “For the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country….” Not after 9/11? Not every election day? Not every day when she can say what she wants? Not every single day in her adult life???
oh, and the other people he mentioned were his aunt and Ted Kennedy…. now that is going to impress us…. Ted Kennedy…..September 17, 2008 4:04 am at 4:04 am #715126
illini07, no one ever said that is why he should be president. it does, though, tell us of his character. that is very important in a president. as for palin, she is still more qualified then obama, and she isnt the presidential nominee. obama is.
funny thing about statistics, its all how you make them sound.
the one being knocked around today is that their is a 40% chance mccain wont make it. ok, lets take a look.
43 presidents. 8 died. ok, to me i cant see how its 40% percent. that makes it 20 percent. now they use charts to figure out the rest of the 40%, past smoking habits, previous melanoma. fine. all good. except:
the original 20% isnt accurate at all! here is why, and i see no-one talking about this. this is why i hate statistical proofs, they are nonsense in teh wrong hands.
8 dead presidents. no say as to how.
4 were killed (lincoln 56, garfield 49, mckinley 58 kennedy 46), making obama the biger risk i would think. nothing to do with age, but by being a political or racial target, and he is clearly a bigger one. the 4 assisinated were, by the way, were of the younger of the 8.
now we put that original number to 10%.
out of the the 4 remaining ones lets take the 2 that died before 1850 (harrison 68, taylor 65), 56 & 47 years before the invention of anti-biotics and modern medicine as we know it. pneumonia and gastroenteritis are both now curable.
now we put teh number down to 5%.
one more: heart attack (harding). ok, ill give you that.
last: cerebral hemorrhage which has nothing to do with age, but ill give that one too.
so we are at 5% chance, plus the 20% possible points. i will argue agains ttaht also, that his mothers long healthy life was not taken into account, the fact that he is fit as an ox , as well is not taken into account. the tables drawn up by so called actuaries, have not seen his medical reports, and are talking out of their tachtonim. i will be fari and take of 5 points for partisan politics. so we are left with 20% chance. now you want me to believe that 10 minutes after taking oath, mccain will die?
doubtful. she will get more experiance as vp, flying around the world meeting people. executive skills she has aplenty.
now obama has no executive skils, nor really any legislative, since he has not written one piece of important legislation, not in illinois, nor the us senate. and he has to take the oath on day one. as hillary said, the presidency doesnt lend itself to on the job training.
(about the 57 states and 3 more he was going to, ill chalk it up to tiredness).September 17, 2008 6:57 pm at 6:57 pm #715127
No, no, you see, we white people are too straight-minded to see things correctly. Didnt you know that there are 57 states? Doesn’t every child in grade school know that? They dont? What is going on in the school systems today that they dont know basic geography!!!
Even though grade school geography was the only subject in which I ever failed a test, (having achieved one point less than 57 on my map of the states test in grade 5), I do remember that there were only 50 spaces on the map that had to be filled in, even though I had Rhode Island out west, bordering on Hawaii and South Carolina.
Or do Affirmative Action educational programs also set up extra states for their participants?September 17, 2008 8:10 pm at 8:10 pm #715128
Where did this thing about 57 states come from? Or am I out of touch with the faux pas of the presidential candidates? Regardless, Barack wouldn’t even be a senator without knowing that, so I HIGHLY doubt he thinks that.
Interesting Q – 50 states or 51? What IS Washington, D.C., exactly?September 17, 2008 8:33 pm at 8:33 pm #715129
The District of Columbia, as its name implies, is a fedral district and not a State.
Article One, Section 8, of the United States Constitution:
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;–And
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.September 17, 2008 8:39 pm at 8:39 pm #715130
You guys can rant on about Obama’s gaffe, but then the Bush haters can outtalk you when it comes to recounting HIS gaffes. There is an entire website dedicated to “Bushisms”.
Obama said that he had the chance to visit almost all the US states in his campaigning. He said that he got to all but one, excluding Hawaii and Alaska (because his campaign did not allow him to go to either), so that makes 57 states.
To me he clearly meant to say 47. 50 – AL – HI – 1 = 47. Unless you think that he was subtracting from 60.September 17, 2008 8:43 pm at 8:43 pm #715131
Thanks “squeak.”September 17, 2008 8:46 pm at 8:46 pm #715132
Thanks for what?September 17, 2008 9:29 pm at 9:29 pm #715133
For telling you to shut up about “The 60 States of Obama’s America.”September 17, 2008 9:31 pm at 9:31 pm #715134
Give Me a Break: you thought dc was a state? it is the only place constitutionally that can not become a state on planet earth! tecnically, if a country wanted to join the unites states in europe, it could be voted it with a majority vote of congress! it would need to be an america protectorate first, like us virgin islands, and guam, etc, but it could be done. dc can never becoem a state without 45 congress vote, and that will never happen.September 17, 2008 10:25 pm at 10:25 pm #715135
GMAB, I thought it was for explaining to you about the status of DC, in response to your question.
But none is necessary.September 17, 2008 10:27 pm at 10:27 pm #715136
What does “by 45 congress vote” mean? A constitutional amendment would be necessary to achieve that objective.September 17, 2008 10:42 pm at 10:42 pm #715137
No, I did not think the District of Columbia was a state. I just wanted to know what its status was.September 18, 2008 7:32 pm at 7:32 pm #715138
Question: Who has anything pro-Obama to say?September 18, 2008 8:35 pm at 8:35 pm #715139
I never want to hear another word on affirmative action. If Obama gets elected, I never will. It will show an African can pull himself up if he wants, and even get the highest job in the land. All those who don’t pull themselves up are just lazy. All non Africans will agree, and affirmative action will be over forever.
I think that qualifies as somewhat pro Obama, Kit Kat. (or should I say Dukakis ?)September 18, 2008 8:47 pm at 8:47 pm #715140
“Question: Who has anything pro-Obama to say?”
Rev. Jerimiah WrightSeptember 18, 2008 9:40 pm at 9:40 pm #715141
Be quiet, Joseph.September 18, 2008 10:24 pm at 10:24 pm #715142
Anything to make you happy…September 18, 2008 10:26 pm at 10:26 pm #715143
It’s JerEmiah, not JerImiah. Get your spelling “wright.”September 19, 2008 5:42 am at 5:42 am #715144
jospeh, you heard the lib, be quiet. dont talk your nonsense! jerimiah wright isnt the only one who speaks good about obama. there is rezko, farakhan, and the entire weather underground.September 19, 2008 10:35 am at 10:35 am #715145
“Question: Who has anything pro-Obama to say?”
I do. He would make a great ex-Senator from Illinois in a couple of years’ time!September 19, 2008 1:48 pm at 1:48 pm #715146
mariner, Thank You. I stand corrected!September 19, 2008 2:55 pm at 2:55 pm #715147
* * * * * * * * P r o – O b a m a P o s t i n g * * * * * * * * *
2) “Barack Obama is a wily player of pickup basketball” – New York Times
3) “Cool first name” – Ehud Barak, former Israeli P.M.
4) “Never thinks about Torah in the bathroom” – M. A. Friedman, respected QuislingSeptember 19, 2008 5:15 pm at 5:15 pm #715148
Hmmm…I think all those secular Jews who were arranging that demonstration against Iran near the UN might be pro-obama…. in case you didnt know- Clinton and Palin both were invited as prominent guests but when Clinton found out that Palin was going to be the main speaker, Clinton backed out. Now they univited Palin because they dont want to make this a “campaign issue”…. hmmmm… I wonder what political party they belong to?September 19, 2008 5:31 pm at 5:31 pm #715149
Who would be pro Obama?
Please take this short quiz to see if you are pro obama!
1) Do you want your taxes to be raised, because they are just not high enough?
2) Do you belive that racism still exists today against Blacks and we need affirmative action to stop it?
3)Do you want someone with little experience to be the leader of the World Power?
4) Are you pro-abortion?
5)Do you agree with the following statement: Helping the enviornment is more important than saving America from terrorism
6)Do you belive that someone who cannot figure out what stance he took on Iraq (when he wasnt even in office yet and while he was there) should be in charge of our department of defense and military?
7)Do you find yourself thinking “Who cares who his minister was…he claims he never heard any anti-semetic rhetoric from him for the 22 years he was there!”?
If you answered yes to the above questions, you support Obama’s campaign (unless he switched his stances again…). You are a Obama-nik!September 19, 2008 9:28 pm at 9:28 pm #715150
1) Not for the reason you posted, but yes. Because what goes in is what goes out.
2) Sure do! Haven’t you ever heard the Jewish term “Schwarze?”
5) No, but I do feel that it’s EXTREMELY important.
6) Not quite.
7) Yes.September 21, 2008 7:22 am at 7:22 am #715151
Give Me a Break,
There are numerous reasons why I wont be voting for BHO. I think you have to ask yourself which party is more in line with your personal political thinking.
Generally the liberals (aka the democratic party) is more interested in big govt which means the govt can do no wrong and the govt is the solution to all problems. What this ends up doing to the country is we have higher taxes in order to pay for all that they give away, more unemployment etc. Of course they will throw the line out to you that they are only taxing the rich but that isnt true. Given Obama’s plan no matter what he tells you he considers ‘rich” to be about 75k which even if you are making that money, as a frum person, that is not too much considering tuition etc.
If the ‘rich’ are taxed more keep in mind that its the ‘rich’ that employ you and if they are paying more in taxes you could kiss your raise or your possible bonus good bye. He also wont be hiring anyone new either which means you could be working harder for the same amount of pay.
A friend of mine recently married a girl from Britan and she was amaized that people liked this country. In the UK she noted people are so downtrodden because they pay so much in taxes so they could support all their programs, the biggest of which is national healthcare. Can you imagine the govt being in charge of when you can go to a doctor, when you can have certain medical treatments etc?? This is what the Democratic party keeps talking about. I have seen the results of nationalized healthcare, what it did to a family member of mine and I promise you its NOT good at all. No one is being denied medical care! That is simply a complete lie being told to you by the left. The proof is that the ERs are so full of people who run there for non emergencies exactly because they are not turned down in the ER!
Other items to consider are where they stand “hashkofikly” with you. Are you pro life or pro the murder of babies in the womb? Lets put it simply, open a chumash Va’yikra and whereever in Achray Mos / Kedoshim it says “NO,” the liberals say “YES.” That is the long and short of it. They stand for all the to’ayva and they are of course proud of it. As a yid I dont understand how anyone could be pro murder of babies in the womb.
Do you feel we need a strong national defense? That we need to be on the offensive when it comes to fighting the yishmaelim yemach sh’mom? That we CANNOT cut and run from a war, any war, no matter how ‘unpopular’ the war may seem to be and WE MUST DEFEAT THE ENEMY? BHO has said he will pull out of Iraq right away. We cannot do that because if we do, the enemy will grow again and they will come here AGAIN. Too many people have forgotten that the muslims STARTED UP WITH US on many occasions. They highjacked planes and flew them into the WTC!! REMEMBER THAT?????? For goodness sakes we are still in Europe and Korea despite the wars being ‘over’ 50 & 60+ years ago. You cant just leave.
Very rarly will you agree 100% with a particular candidate. My political leanings are Conservative so as much as I like President Bush, I will disagree with some of his spending habits which are not what we call fiscally conservative. I dont agree 100% with Senator McCain either especially on immigration but you have to take some of the bad with the good. I dont think he was the best Republican candidate out there but since he is left over and I learned more about him, I am supporting him.
I read your last post and I have to comment on some of your answers. Do you really feel you are not paying enough in taxes? I dont know how old you are but as I recall history the tax rate was up about 60% before being cut by President Reagan. Can you imagine losing more than 2/3 of your check just to taxes?!! To me, 33% is too much. You dont get it back because the dems will use it for some wasted program.
Affirmative Action is something which in reality is breeding racism b/c the people who dont deserve the jobs based on their credentals are getting them bec of their color. That is not fair and causes more hatred. Just the facts. The Yiddish word for Black shouldnt come into play here. Nothing will change that or the feelings people have when they see some of them (black, white, green, purple… makes no diff) running around acting like the lowest level of b’haimas.
You answered you are for the killing of babies in the womb?! So G-d gave us the wrong law there I guess?!!
Some people think they have to vote for Obama bec it will make them feel good to vote for a shvartza. I have no problem voting for a black person but NOT THIS ONE!
BTW, if you are still going to vote for OHO, please remember that Election Day is Nov 5 this year.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.