Honestly, now that Obama is the nominee........

[Richard B]

Originally Posted by TrueFaith77

Where's the Nader option?

On the Presidential Ballot, just fill in the blank. I think he is running as an Independent.


Funny, how people are still battling between Republican and Democrat. Frankly, there will be other choices on the ballot besides the 2 major screwballs from the 2 main parties.

I generally vote Democratic, but I dislike Obama greatly. I was hoping Hillary would have taken the spot, and I am not a big fan of her either, but I had to pick the best of the worst.

So is it the Freedom Party candidate? The Green Party candidate? An independent?
I'll probably just fill in the blank with John Edwards or Snoopy.

[strandinthewind]

[QUOTE=BombaySapphire3;761802]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Bombay - does this make you like Obama less?
______________________________

I am not overly thrilled with any of his religious ties or notions being a huge proponent of the seperation of church and state .A seperation I know you believe doesn't exist.He is doing what politicians do in an election year to win .Will it deter me from voting for him or supporting him ? Certainly not.The day a flat out atheist can win the Presidency in this country will be a fine one indeed.

That interesting. So, you not only are for the separation of Church and State, but you are against people having faith at all? The reason I say this I think it is possible for a person of any faith to do their job despite their faith, so to speak. I sense you do not think that is possible?

[BombaySapphire3]

[QUOTE=strandinthewind;761823]

Originally Posted by BombaySapphire3

That interesting. So, you not only are for the separation of Church and State, but you are against people having faith at all? The reason I say this I think it is possible for a person of any faith to do their job despite their faith, so to speak. I sense you do not think that is possible?

If I believed that would I be supporting Obama at all?The thing that irks me is that an individual's faith has become such a litmus test for whether they are qualified to even be President at all and this should not be ..for example if Obama was indeed a Muslim would he now be the nominee ?..I highly doubt it but it would bother me no more than if he is a Christian as long as he kept it out of his politics . To me it is no different than if one would believe in Santa Claus the Easter bunny or the tooth fairy but if they allow those beliefs to influence their policy than that is a problem..Incidentally I must repeat my admiration for McCain for refusing to show up for that preposterous faith and compassion forum the way Hillary and Barack did.I never thought I'd have to see the day when the Republican nominee was more private and reticent about that issue than the Democratic one.

[strandinthewind]

^^^

I see. I was just curious and I misunderstood one of your earlier comments

And, to me, the thing is religion and organized religions have done so many gr4eat things. The Roman Catholic Church to this day feeds, clothes, and educates the poor in a way no government can compete with. Yet, they committed to this day such autrocities and to this day they still want their religion to be THE religion. Such is the ying and yang I guess.

[strandinthewind]

If they can get past the fact that he is black (which most cannot) -- How can anyone disagree with this op-ed. The sad thing is that people still cling to W and the R party even though they have bankrupted the nation in their foolish and misguided adventures in all of which their cronies made billions at the cost of our brave soldiers lives and the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi's. That they (the supposed Christian right) want four more years of it sickens me. I suppose hating those uppity fags and abortionists is worth the lives of the soldiers.

July 14, 2008.

Op-Ed Contributor

My Plan for Iraq

By BARACK OBAMACHICAGO — The call by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki for a timetable for the removal of American troops from Iraq presents an enormous opportunity. We should seize this moment to begin the phased redeployment of combat troops that I have long advocated, and that is needed for long-term success in Iraq and the security interests of the United States.

The differences on Iraq in this campaign are deep. Unlike Senator John McCain, I opposed the war in Iraq before it began, and would end it as president. I believed it was a grave mistake to allow ourselves to be distracted from the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban by invading a country that posed no imminent threat and had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. Since then, more than 4,000 Americans have died and we have spent nearly $1 trillion. Our military is overstretched. Nearly every threat we face — from Afghanistan to Al Qaeda to Iran — has grown.

In the 18 months since President Bush announced the surge, our troops have performed heroically in bringing down the level of violence. New tactics have protected the Iraqi population, and the Sunni tribes have rejected Al Qaeda — greatly weakening its effectiveness.

But the same factors that led me to oppose the surge still hold true. The strain on our military has grown, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated and we’ve spent nearly $200 billion more in Iraq than we had budgeted. Iraq’s leaders have failed to invest tens of billions of dollars in oil revenues in rebuilding their own country, and they have not reached the political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge.

The good news is that Iraq’s leaders want to take responsibility for their country by negotiating a timetable for the removal of American troops. Meanwhile, Lt. Gen. James Dubik, the American officer in charge of training Iraq’s security forces, estimates that the Iraqi Army and police will be ready to assume responsibility for security in 2009.

Only by redeploying our troops can we press the Iraqis to reach comprehensive political accommodation and achieve a successful transition to Iraqis’ taking responsibility for the security and stability of their country. Instead of seizing the moment and encouraging Iraqis to step up, the Bush administration and Senator McCain are refusing to embrace this transition — despite their previous commitments to respect the will of Iraq’s sovereign government. They call any timetable for the removal of American troops “surrender,” even though we would be turning Iraq over to a sovereign Iraqi government.

But this is not a strategy for success — it is a strategy for staying that runs contrary to the will of the Iraqi people, the American people and the security interests of the United States. That is why, on my first day in office, I would give the military a new mission: ending this war.

As I’ve said many times, we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 — two years from now, and more than seven years after the war began. After this redeployment, a residual force in Iraq would perform limited missions: going after any remnants of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, protecting American service members and, so long as the Iraqis make political progress, training Iraqi security forces. That would not be a precipitous withdrawal.

In carrying out this strategy, we would inevitably need to make tactical adjustments. As I have often said, I would consult with commanders on the ground and the Iraqi government to ensure that our troops were redeployed safely, and our interests protected. We would move them from secure areas first and volatile areas later. We would pursue a diplomatic offensive with every nation in the region on behalf of Iraq’s stability, and commit $2 billion to a new international effort to support Iraq’s refugees.

Ending the war is essential to meeting our broader strategic goals, starting in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where the Taliban is resurgent and Al Qaeda has a safe haven. Iraq is not the central front in the war on terrorism, and it never has been. As Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently pointed out, we won’t have sufficient resources to finish the job in Afghanistan until we reduce our commitment to Iraq.

As president, I would pursue a new strategy, and begin by providing at least two additional combat brigades to support our effort in Afghanistan. We need more troops, more helicopters, better intelligence-gathering and more nonmilitary assistance to accomplish the mission there. I would not hold our military, our resources and our foreign policy hostage to a misguided desire to maintain permanent bases in Iraq.

In this campaign, there are honest differences over Iraq, and we should discuss them with the thoroughness they deserve. Unlike Senator McCain, I would make it absolutely clear that we seek no presence in Iraq similar to our permanent bases in South Korea, and would redeploy our troops out of Iraq and focus on the broader security challenges that we face. But for far too long, those responsible for the greatest strategic blunder in the recent history of American foreign policy have ignored useful debate in favor of making false charges about flip-flops and surrender.

It’s not going to work this time. It’s time to end this war.

Barack Obama, a United States senator from Illinois, is the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee.

[strandinthewind]

Yet another reason:

“I think that we’ve proven that both parents are important in the success of a family so, no, I don’t believe in gay adoption."

- Republican presidential hopeful John McCain tells The New York Times

What an idiot. I suppose that is a big FUKC YOU to all the single parents working their a$$'s off out there to make sure their kids have what they need. Moreover and more importantly, what he says has been proven has not -- he is playing on fear and lying - again I am sickened.


To wit:

The American Psychological Association has stated:

"Studies comparing groups of children raised by homosexual and by heterosexual parents find no developmental differences between the two groups of children in their intelligence, psychological adjustment, social adjustment, popularity with friends, development of social sex role identity or development of sexual orientation . . . ."

And - they are not the only ones mind you.

I guess McCain knows better than the experts - fukctard

Again, let's kill more soldiers in Iraq so my friends can make money - and BTW and pay attention here only -- I hate the queers (who are to blame for everything wrong in your life) -- so vote for me.

[strandinthewind]

To be fair - here's some 411 on McCain and the gays:

In an interview published on Sunday in The New York Times, presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain made his feelings clear about gays and lesbians adopting children—he’s totally against it. However, he stated the subject of gay marriage is an issue best left to the states, not the federal government and he won’t attempt to overturn same-sex marriage in California if elected. Once again, McCain’s feelings about equal rights for the LGBT community seem mixed, but are they really?
Arizona Senator John McCain, who portrays himself as a staunch conservative Republican, has never felt shy in sharing his views on LGBT rights issues. Currently McCain is regarded as a strongly anti-gay Republican presidential candidate. Yet, earlier in his career, he seemed almost more of an ally than an enemy to the gay community.

McCain does not support federal legislation to outlaw job discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. He also voted in the Senate against extending the definition of hate crimes to include sexual orientation. On the other hand, McCain signed a statement with 70 other senators in 1994 agreeing not to discriminate against gays and lesbians in hiring practices on Capitol Hill.

McCain is also strongly against gays and lesbians serving openly in the military, calling homosexuals in the armed forces an “intolerable risk” to national security, according to a statement to the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN). In the early 90’s, the former senator seemed to have a very different view than he has now, saying that he felt gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve honestly in the military. Now, however, he is totally opposed to overturning “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

In a letter to SLDN, McCain said he now believes “polarization of personnel and breakdown of unite effectiveness is too high a price to pay for well-intentioned but misguided efforts to elevate the interests of a minority of homosexual service members above those of their units.”

Unlike some of his fellow conservative Republicans, McCain has never advocated a federal ban on equal marriage rights for same-sex couples in 2004. In fact, McCain voted in the Senate against a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. Yet, McCain states that his opposition to a federal ban has nothing to do with supporting marriage equality for gays and lesbians. Instead, McCain opposes a federal ban because he feels marriage is an issue best left up to the states, not the federal government, calling such a ban “un-Republican.”

Although McCain has opposed a constitutional amendment against same-sex marriage twice, he did vote for the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage under federal law as a union only between a man and a woman. DOMA also supported the legal right of states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages in other states. He also supported an amendment to the Arizona state constitution banning same-sex marriage and denying government benefits to unmarried couples.

In 1999, McCain said in an interview with Reuters that he would be entirely “comfortable with a homosexual as president of the United States.” But while a gay president apparently isn’t appalling to the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, a possibly gay Alabama Attorney General as part of one of his campaign “leadership” teams is apparently a no-no.

This week, in an interview with The New York Times published on Sunday, McCain reaffirmed his belief that the issue of marriage should be left up to the states, a very Republican viewpoint. Regarding the same-sex marriages now taking place legally in California, McCain said he would continue to support the right of the states to regulate their own marriage legislation. “I respect the right of the states to make those decisions,” McCain said.

However, McCain did come out publicly in the interview to say that he believed gay couples should not be allowed to adopt. McCain, who has an adopted daughter with his wife Cindy, told the Times that “I think we’ve proven that both parents are important in the success of a family so, no, I don’t believe in gay adoption.”

When it comes to receiving the endorsement of some of those gays he does not believe have the right stuff to be parents, however, he is all for it. McCain's campaign has disputed extremely negative ratings he received regarding his stances on gay rights issues from the Human Rights Campaign. His campaign also released a statement saying Senator McCain was “proud to receive an endorsement form the Log Cabin Republicans” during his 2004 re-election campaign to the Senate.

The Log Cabin Republicans, in fact, argue that McCain’s record on LGBT rights is “inclusive and shows positive signs.” When his track record is evaluated, however, it seems the only “positive” views McCain has ever had regarding gay rights is that the states should have the power to discriminate against same-sex marriage without interference from the federal government.

Regardless of any semi-supportive sounding statements toward the gay community McCain may have made in the past, it is clear the presumptive Republican nominee is not at all “mixed” up in his views about the LGBT community’s place in society.

Gays can get married in California, as long as the federal government never has to give them equality under the nation’s highest laws. Gay and lesbian soldiers are perfectly fine in the military just as they are dying in service to our country, but allowing them to be open about their sexual orientation might doom America to disaster of the highest proportions.

And let’s not forget, a homosexual would be just fine running the White House and protecting America’s citizens at large against everything from national disasters to terrorism, according to McCain, but God forbid they should be allowed to raise a child.

© 2008 GayWired.com; All Rights Reserved

[SuzeQuze]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Yet another reason:



What an idiot. I suppose that is a big FUKC YOU to all the single parents working their a$$'s off out there to make sure their kids have what they need. Moreover and more importantly, what he says has been proven has not -- he is playing on fear and lying - again I am sickened.


To wit:

The American Psychological Association has stated:

"Studies comparing groups of children raised by homosexual and by heterosexual parents find no developmental differences between the two groups of children in their intelligence, psychological adjustment, social adjustment, popularity with friends, development of social sex role identity or development of sexual orientation . . . ."

And - they are not the only ones mind you.

I guess McCain knows better than the experts - fukctard

Again, let's kill more soldiers in Iraq so my friends can make money - and BTW and pay attention here only -- I hate the queers (who are to blame for everything wrong in your life) -- so vote for me.

These idealogues somehow ignore science. I don't think they even understand it. My dad says there's no common sense anymore in politics. Maybe there never was but lately logic and reason seem to have no place in the R's policies. This is so dangerous as we are seeing now with this endless war and the plunging value of the dollar and our sliding economy. The Rs actually just left the war cost out of the budget. Imagine if you just left some part of your monthly expenses out of your budget? Where is the common sense there? It's so frustrating as a thinking person to witness this bullsh*t.

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

These idealogues somehow ignore science. I don't think they even understand it. My dad says there's no common sense anymore in politics. Maybe there never was but lately logic and reason seem to have no place in the R's policies. This is so dangerous as we are seeing now with this endless war and the plunging value of the dollar and our sliding economy. The Rs actually just left the war cost out of the budget. Imagine if you just left some part of your monthly expenses out of your budget? Where is the common sense there? It's so frustrating as a thinking person to witness this bullsh*t.

However, Obama is NO alternative.

The basic problem is that Bush has tried to be all things to all people. Most people don't understand enough basic economics to know that there is a tradeoff for everything you do. The dollar has fallen because we have lowered interest rates to help stupid homeowners who got themselves foreclosed on. The REAL republican position would have been to do nothing at all and let the market correct itself and let prices fall so that regular people can afford to buy houses again.

Obama isn't any better as far as economics goes, in fact, he's much worse. He keeps saying we're in a recession, but he also says he wants to raise capital gains taxes. That would destroy what's left of the value of the dollar and drive new businesses overseas. He also says he wants blanket "windfall profits" taxes, but complains about manufacturing going overseas. He says "we can't drill our way out of this mess" as far as oil goes and complains about how long it will take to extract oil out of the ground, but he wants to continue dumping billions of dollars into fuel alternatives that haven't yielded results in the 20 year life of some of these programs. He also said that he wasn't upset by the price of oil, but by how quickly it rose. He offers no real alternatives, other than more of the same throwing money at the problem via government grants. He wants to use wind power, which is notoriously inefficient. He wants to continue using corn ethanol, which it is said would take a field the size of Texas to fuel the US for one month, to replace oil. Not to mention, again Obama is ignoring supply and demand, as using our corn for fuel drives up food prices, as well as crowds out wheat and other substitute crops.
Social Security is bankrupting the country and we will have no social security for my generation at all. YET! Obama wants to implement a national health care system and he is ignorant enough to think that using the funds for the wars would pay for it. If just (very poorly) paying for the elderly is bankrupting the country, do we really think we can realistically pay for every man, woman and child in this country?! He also wants to give "middle class" tax cuts as he spends us further into oblivion.

It appears Obama has never cracked an economics textbook in his life! I have a Master's from a top 30 school on the subject and his basic ignorance of economics, as well as history, is staggering beyond belief. I guess his popularity is a reflection of how poorly educated our own society is anymore. No doubt Obama would suggest nationalizing education to fix it. No wait, that's already been done..... and it is the reason some arrogant and ignorant clown like Obama can become president.

[ajmccarrell]

[QUOTE=strandinthewind;761823]

Originally Posted by BombaySapphire3

That interesting. So, you not only are for the separation of Church and State, but you are against people having faith at all? The reason I say this I think it is possible for a person of any faith to do their job despite their faith, so to speak. I sense you do not think that is possible?

I have to laugh at the people who don't like government funding of religious programs, because usually they want gay marriage. By definition, government involvment in marriage at all is a violation of separation. We only started having marriage licenses about 150 years ago as a means to raise revenue. In some places, marriage licenses used to expire, so you were automatically divorced unless you paid the renewal fee. Government sanctioned marriage is the ultimate violation of separationg of church and state.

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Pandering and obviously trying to correct the Wright situation. I wonder what the left will have to say about their golden calf now.

Personally, whatever initial reservations I had about it, I think in effect, it has not been a bad thing. And, I do think the chruches (all denominations and faiths) do a much better job than the govt. in administering to the poor. Sadly, the far right can use that charity in a non-charitable way.

Who know though - maybe Obama can be the one to unite the country from a secular and religious angle. He certainly has astounded before

Bombay - does this make you like Obama less?
_______________________________________________

Obama to expand Bush's faith based programs

By JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press Writer

Reaching out to evangelical voters, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is announcing plans to expand President Bush's program steering federal social service dollars to religious groups and — in a move sure to cause controversy — support some ability to hire and fire based on faith.

Obama was unveiling his approach to getting religious charities more involved in government anti-poverty programs during a tour and remarks Tuesday in Zanesville, Ohio, at Eastside Community Ministry, which provides food, clothes, youth ministry and other services.

"The challenges we face today ... are simply too big for government to solve alone," Obama was to say, according to a prepared text of his remarks obtained by The Associated Press. "We need all hands on deck."

Obama's announcement is part of a series of events leading up to Friday's Fourth of July holiday that are focused on American values.

The Democratic presidential candidate spent Monday talking about his vision of patriotism in the battleground state of Missouri. By twinning that with Tuesday's talk about faith in another battleground state, he was attempting to settle debate in two key areas where his beliefs have come under question while also trying to make inroads with constituencies traditionally loyal to Republicans.

But Obama's support for letting religious charities that receive federal funding consider religion in employment decisions could invite a storm of protest from those who view such faith requirements as discrimination.

Obama does not support requiring religious tests for recipients of aid nor using federal money to proselytize, according to a campaign fact sheet. He also only supports letting religious institutions hire and fire based on faith in the non-taxypayer funded portions of their activities, said a senior adviser to the campaign, who spoke on condition of anonymity to more freely describe the new policy.

Bush supports broader freedoms for taxpayer-funded religious charities. But he never got Congress to go along so he has conducted the program through administrative actions and executive orders.

David Kuo, a conservative Christian who was deputy director of Bush's Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives until 2003 and later became a critic of Bush's commitment to the cause, said Obama's position on hiring has the potential to be a major "Sister Souljah moment" for his campaign.

This is a reference to Bill Clinton's accusation in his 1992 presidential campaign that the hip hop artist incited violence against whites. Because Clinton said this before a black audience, it fed into an image of him as a bold politician who was willing to take risks and refused to pander.

"This is a massive deal," said Kuo, who is not an Obama adviser or supporter but was contacted by the campaign to review the new plan.

Kuo called Obama's approach smart, impressive and well thought-out but took a wait-and-see attitude about whether it would deliver.

"When it comes to promises to help the poor, promises are easy," said Kuo, who wrote a 2006 book describing his frustration at what he called Bush's lackluster enthusiasm for the program. "The question is commitment."

Obama proposes to elevate the program to a "moral center" of his administration, by renaming it the Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, and changing training from occasional huge conferences to empowering larger religious charities to mentor smaller ones in their communities.

Saying social service spending has been shortchanged under Bush, he also proposes a $500 million per year program to provide summer learning for 1 million poor children to help close achievement gaps with white and wealthier students. A campaign fact sheet said he would pay for it by better managing surplus federal properties, reducing growth in the federal travel budget and streamlining the federal procurement process.

Like Bush, Obama was arguing that religious organizations can and should play a bigger role in serving the poor and meeting other social needs. But while Bush argued that the strength of religious charities lies primarily in shared religious identity between workers and recipients, Obama was to tout the benefits of their "bottom-up" approach.

"Because they're so close to the people, they're well-placed to offer help," he was to say.

He also planned to talk bluntly about the genesis of his Christian faith in his work as a community organizer in Chicago, and its importance to him now.

"In time, I came to see faith as being both a personal commitment to Christ and a commitment to my community; that while I could sit in church and pray all I want, I wouldn't be fulfilling God's will unless I went out and did the Lord's work," he was to say.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080701/...pr/obama_faith

Astounded before?! Exactly how? He has a very minute record in the senate at all, because he's been running for president the whole time and has missed so many votes. Uniter? He's NEVER crossed the isle until recently to pander to the center, despite claiming he has always done so. He has a record number of absences from his seat in the state senate for votes. What exactly has this guy done besides read well from a teleprompter, while spewing vacuous phrases such as "hope" and "change" to astound anyone? LOL! I'm not a huge McCain fan, but at least he HAS a record of crossing the isle, even when I think he should have sat down. I just don't get this "messiah" complex that people have over Obama. He's a charismatic panderer. As far as his religion goes, in Dreams of my Father, he outright admits that he hooked up with his church to further his political career. This guy is a huge fake that is attempting to appeal to the people he insulted only a few months ago.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

However, Obama is NO alternative. . . .

On the human and civil rights front, he is a huge alternative If not - let's see the evidence supporting McCain. Please start with a non-religious reason why gays cannot get married and/or adopt. I submit there are none.

As for the economics - I think America is rightfully disgusted with the R's economic plan and rightfully so. You raise all these R talking points, but the bottom line is W has spent money like a silly housewife who cannot balance the checkbook and now someone has to pay the bill. Do you really trust the R party to do anything other than what it has done to us, which is screw us, for the last eight years

Also, the capital gains argument is a right wing BS talking point and you know it. But, if you really want to argue it accurately, raise the tax on stock market gains and lower or delete it from start up/venture capital gain tax.

[strandinthewind]

[QUOTE=ajmccarrell;763308]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I have to laugh at the people who don't like government funding of religious programs, because usually they want gay marriage. By definition, government involvment in marriage at all is a violation of separation. We only started having marriage licenses about 150 years ago as a means to raise revenue. In some places, marriage licenses used to expire, so you were automatically divorced unless you paid the renewal fee. Government sanctioned marriage is the ultimate violation of separationg of church and state.

Believe me, I am for the word marriage being in no law book at all. If you want to get married, get whatever church you belong to to marry you. Then enter into contracts and wills for the disposition of propery. And, if we have the fair tax, that proposition is even more available.

The problem is, the R's do not want sep. of church and state. So, the gays are forced to work within that. It's a vicious cycle. But, your argument is specious because prohibition of types of marriages and benefits given to married people is far older than 150 years Also, the R party wants to put gay people in jail for having sex, not to mention unmarried people and, also, married people if they perform fellatio (sodomy) on each other. That is just fukced up

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

Astounded before?! Exactly how? He has a very minute record in the senate at all, because he's been running for president the whole time and has missed so many votes. Uniter? He's NEVER crossed the isle until recently to pander to the center, despite claiming he has always done so. He has a record number of absences from his seat in the state senate for votes. What exactly has this guy done besides read well from a teleprompter, while spewing vacuous phrases such as "hope" and "change" to astound anyone? LOL! I'm not a huge McCain fan, but at least he HAS a record of crossing the isle, even when I think he should have sat down. I just don't get this "messiah" complex that people have over Obama. He's a charismatic panderer. As far as his religion goes, in Dreams of my Father, he outright admits that he hooked up with his church to further his political career. This guy is a huge fake that is attempting to appeal to the people he insulted only a few months ago.

Blah Blah Blah - please comment on the accuracy of his message. Do you really think we should stay in Iraq forever? Maybe your one of the ones who actually believed W and his cronies when they flat out said Iraq's oil would pay for the war and the recovery. What utter cr*pola.

That you support the R's in any capacity is amazing. I get that Obama is no walk in the park, but can't you see what the R party has done to us and will continue to do to us if McCain is elected. It is sort of like you are Fox News, you acknowledge out of hand that W has done bad things, but you never really address what exactly McCain is going to actually do that is any different. Moreover, even if you can't vote for Obama, why are you going to vote for McCain (assuming you are)?

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

. . . I have to laugh at the people who don't like government funding of religious programs . . . .

For the record, I am for the churces doing the charity work. I am also for the taxpayers not really paying that much for it. I think the churches should rely on private donations with some sort of large govt. well for, say, buildings etc. I mean all these so called religious people are all for cutting welfare until it comes to paying the Churches to do it. Then, govt. assistance is okay.