For the republicans...

Here's more... http://teleprompterinchief.blogspot.com/2009/05/maybe-obamas-radical-pro-abortion.html

gringaloca wrote:

You are going to have to excuse me for now because I'm not able to think clearly. I'm having some problems with my insulin and it gives me brain fog. I have a hard time processing things. Could you give me an example of his abortion record? And what makes it appalling? As far as them educating themselves about Christianity..I don't understand what you mean. I know that as a country of mostly Christians that we haven't been taught a great deal about Islam. But do you believe that they honestly don't know what Christianity is? As far as Obama being against legalizing marijuana. It would have been political suicide if Obama came out in support of legalization of marijuana while he was running. He would have been burnt at the stake. Now is the time to re-introduce the idea. It could very well make millions for the states that grow it and would be great news for farmers. As far as Korea goes, I didn't know we were apologizing to them about anything. I thought we were trying to be diplomat to avoid having to attack them. Diplomacy is the way to go. Once we have exhausted that only then should we stoop to their level and begin threatening them with military action. And as far as anyone apologizing for 9-11... Who do you want to apologize for it?

As far as the class warfare stuff. Do you think it's wrong to make rich fat cats pay their fair share? I guess I have a hard time feeling sorry for people who couldn't give a rats rear about me or my family. They aren't hurting, they can afford to pay the taxes (which many of them have avoided all together). Why does the common man come to the aid of the rich man, when the rich man could care less if the common man is starving? Doesn't make sense to me.

Obama and abortion:
He sent a $50 million check March 17th to the United Nations Population Fund, a pro-abortion group that has been accused of supporting and working in concert with Chinese family planning officials.
IN MARCH 2003, registered nurse Jill Stanek submitted a statement to the Illinois Senate Health and Human Services committee in which she reported that infants who survived abortions at her Oak Lawn hospital were sometimes "taken to the Soiled Utility Room and left alone to die." Stanek was lobbying the committee to approve the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002, which would have recognized any infant born alive after an abortion as a human being deserving legal protection. Barack Obama, then the committee chairman, defeated the bill with his fellow Democrats in a 6-4 party-line vote.
1997 Votes:
SB 230 Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. Senate approved bill 44-7, with five senators voting present, including Obama.

HB 382 Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. House version, passed Illinois State Senate, adopted as law. Under the bill, doctors who perform partial-birth abortions could be sent to prison for one to three years. The woman would not be held liable.

2001 Votes:
HB 1900 Parental Notice of Abortion Act. Bill passed 38-10, with nine present votes, including Obama.

SB 562 Parental Notice of Abortion Act. Bill passed Senate 39-7, with 11 present votes, including Obama.

SB 1093 Law to protect Liveborn children. Bill passed 34-6, with 12 present, including Obama.

SB 1094 Bill to protect children born as result of induced labor abortion. Bill passed 33-6, with 13 present, including Obama.

SB 1095 Bill defining "born alive" defines "born-alive infant" to include infant "born alive at any stage of development." Bill passed 34-5, with nine present, including Obama.
You can bet he will include taxpayer funded abortions in his upcoming health care reform legislation. I don't want my money going toward that!

Christianity:
I doubt that very many non-Christians care about what Christianity is or what it's about. Again, he could have made it more of a two way street.

Marijuana:
My point exactly is, where is he now? Too worried about re-election?

North Korea:
I didn't say he apologized to N. Korea, although it is getting rather hard to keep track. Do you think Korea is being diplomatic? How long does he let
North Korea continue to advance their nukes? What good will diplomacy do if they make good their threats?

9-11:
I don't know, he seems to think we owe the world an apology. When do we get an apology for anything? Or do we just keep bailing other countries out and continue getting spit upon after?

Class Envy:
What's their "fair share"? Do you care about them or their family? Those rich guys are the ones that give the common man a job. They also give to charity.
In a sense you just made my case, gringa. That's exactly the kind of envy that Obama has helped create.

Judge Roy Bean wrote:

Class Envy:
What's their "fair share"? Do you care about them or their family? Those rich guys are the ones that give the common man a job. They also give to charity.
In a sense you just made my case, gringa. That's exactly the kind of envy that Obama has helped create.

Excellent point.. The rich already pay 90% of the taxes.. How much more do you want them to pay?? I love it when the rich get richer because when they do it creates more jobs and more revenue..

Here's another example of Obama's hatred of the rich.. Even though he admits that lower capital gains INCREASES revenue to the government, he's going to raise them anyway.. Now how stupid is that??? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpSDBu35K-8

Lucas McCain wrote:

Here's another example of Obama's hatred of the rich.. Even though he admits that lower capital gains INCREASES revenue to the government, he's going to raise them anyway.. Now how stupid is that??? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpSDBu35K-8

Obama is not a pauper...I really think that your characterization of him falls short of the mark.

^ Then why does it seem he wants to punish them so badly?? Even if it means hurting the middle class in doing so....

Lucas McCain wrote:

^ Then why does it seem he wants to punish them so badly?? Even if it means hurting the middle class in doing so....

Punish? Punish himself (again, he's very well off, not a pauper)? It's simply a different philosophy from what I assume yours to be. Whether or not this will hurt the middle class has yet to be seen.

Personally, I have been thinking more along the lines of a small flat tax, in addition to a national sales tax.

I would have to write a book to respond to all of that. Here is my response to the "born alive" propaganda.

Quote :

Obama and 'Infanticide'
August 25, 2008
The facts about Obama's votes against 'Born Alive' bills in Illinois.
Summary

Anti-abortion activists accuse Obama of "supporting infanticide," and the National Right to Life Committee says he's conducted a "four-year effort to cover up his full role in killing legislation to protect born-alive survivors of abortions." Obama says they're "lying."

At issue is Obama's opposition to Illinois legislation in 2001, 2002 and 2003 that would have defined any aborted fetus that showed signs of life as a "born alive infant" entitled to legal protection, even if doctors believe it could not survive.

Obama opposed the 2001 and 2002 "born alive" bills as backdoor attacks on a woman's legal right to abortion, but he says he would have been "fully in support" of a similar federal bill that President Bush had signed in 2002, because it contained protections for Roe v. Wade.

We find that, as the NRLC said in a recent statement, Obama voted in committee against the 2003 state bill that was nearly identical to the federal act he says he would have supported. Both contained identical clauses saying that nothing in the bills could be construed to affect legal rights of an unborn fetus, according to an undisputed summary written immediately after the committee's 2003 mark-up session.

Whether opposing "born alive" legislation is the same as supporting "infanticide," however, is entirely a matter of interpretation. That could be true only for those, such as Obama's 2004 Republican opponent, Alan Keyes, who believe a fetus that doctors give no chance of surviving is an "infant." It is worth noting that Illinois law already provided that physicians must protect the life of a fetus when there is "a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support."
Analysis
Republican Senate candidate Alan Keyes attacked Barack Obama over this legislation during their 2004 race for the U.S. Senate, repeatedly accusing him of favoring "infanticide." Because of this, Keyes said, "Christ would not vote for Barack Obama." Nevertheless, 70 percent of Illinois voters did vote for Obama, but now the issue has bubbled up again.

The National Right to Life Committee released a statement Aug. 11 saying it had obtained proof that Obama was misrepresenting his 2003 vote by stating that the Illinois "born alive" bill that he voted against in committee lacked a provision, contained in the 2002 federal law, that foreclosed any effect on abortion rights. Obama, in an Aug. 16 interview, then said critics of his "born alive" stance were "not telling the truth" and "lying." On Aug. 18, the NRLC updated its white paper and continued to accuse Obama of dissembling.

As originally proposed, the 2003 state bill, SB 1082, sought to define the term "born-alive infant" as any infant, even one born as the result of an unsuccessful abortion, that shows vital signs separate from its mother. The bill would have established that infants thus defined were humans with legal rights. It never made it to the floor; it was voted down by the Health and Human Services Committee, which Obama chaired.

Earlier versions of the bill, in 2001 and 2002, had met with opposition from abortion-rights groups, which contended that they would be used to challenge Roe v. Wade. Because the bills accorded human rights to pre-viable fetuses (that is, fetuses that could not live outside the womb) as long as they showed some vital signs outside the mother, abortion-rights groups saw them as the thin edge of a wedge that could be used to pry apart legal rights to abortion. Obama stated this objection on the Senate floor in discussion of both bills.

However, Obama has said several times that he would have supported the federal version of the bill, which passed by unanimous consent and which President Bush signed into law Aug. 5, 2002, because it could not be used to challenge the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision granting a legal right to abortion. On Aug. 16, the candidate repeated that again to David Brody of the Christian Broadcasting Network. He also prefaced his remarks with an attack on those who said he had misrepresented his position on the state bills, saying they were "lying."

CBN Correspondent David Brody: Real quick, the born alive infant protection act. I gotta tell you that's the one thing I get a lot of emails about and it's just not just from Evangelicals, it about Catholics, Protestants, main – they're trying to understand it because there was some literature put out by the National Right to Life Committee. And they're basically saying they felt like you misrepresented your position on that bill.

Obama: Let me clarify this right now.

Brody: Because it's getting a lot of play.

Obama: Well and because they have not been telling the truth. And I hate to say that people are lying, but here's a situation where folks are lying. I have said repeatedly that I would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported – which was to say – that you should provide assistance to any infant that was born – even if it was as a consequence of an induced abortion. That was not the bill that was presented at the state level. What that bill also was doing was trying to undermine Roe vs. Wade.

Who's "Lying?"

NRLC objects. They point to evidence that SB 1082, the bill Obama voted against in committee, was amended to contain a "neutrality clause" that is identical to one contained in the federal law. (The Illinois government's legislative information Web site shows the proposed amendment, but doesn't give results for votes in committee. NRLC's documents show that the amendment was adopted.) Since he voted against the state bill, NRLC says, his claimed worry about Roe v. Wade is a smokescreen, intended to cover up his unconcern with the protection of infant lives.
In the NRLC white paper, Legislative Director Douglas Johnson writes that Obama "really did object to a bill merely because it defended the proposition, 'A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law.' And it is that reality that he now desperately wants to conceal from the eyes of the public."

NRLC posted documents – which are so far undisputed – showing that Amendment 001 was adopted in committee and added the following text: "Nothing in this Section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being born alive as defined in this Section." That wording matches exactly the comparable provision in the federal law.

The documents NRLC put out are a "Senate Republican's staff analysis" and a handwritten roll call confirming that the amendment was adopted. We contacted Patty Schuh, spokesperson for the Illinois Senate Republicans, who stated that both documents are genuine. We also contacted Brock Willeford, who was the staff aide whose name appears on the "staff analysis." He stated that he wrote the document immediately after the committee meeting and that he was in the room at the time of the votes. We asked Cindy Davidsmeyer, spokesperson for the Illinois Senate Democrats, about this. She declined to answer our questions but did not dispute Willeford's firsthand account.

A June 30 Obama campaign statement responding to similar claims by conservative commentator William J. Bennett says that SB 1082 did not contain the same language as the federal BAIPA.

Obama campaign statement, June 30: Illinois And Federal Born Alive Infant Protection Acts Did Not Include Exactly The Same Language. The Illinois legislation read, "A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law." The Born Alive Infant Protections Act read, "Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being 'born alive' as defined in this section." [SB 1082, Held in Health and Human Services, 3/13/03; Session Sine Die, 1/11/05; BAIPA, Public Law 107-207]

The statement was still on Obama's Web site as of this writing, Aug. 25, long after Obama had accused his detractors of "lying." But Obama's claim is wrong. In fact, by the time the HHS Committee voted on the bill, it did contain language identical to the federal act.
Same Words, Different Effect?

Obama’s campaign now has a different explanation for his vote against the 2003 Illinois bill. Even with the same wording as the federal law, the Obama camp says, the state bill would have a different effect than the BAIPA would have at the federal level. It's state law, not federal law, that actually regulates the practice of abortion. So a bill defining a pre-viable fetus born as the result of abortion as a human could directly affect the practice of abortion at the state level, but not at the federal level, the campaign argues.

And in fact, the 2005 version of the Illinois bill, which passed the Senate 52 to 0 (with four voting "present") after Obama had gone on to Washington, included an additional protective clause not included in the federal legislation: "Nothing in this Section shall be construed to affect existing federal or State law regarding abortion." Obama campaign spokesman Tommy Vietor says that Obama would have voted for that bill if he had been in state office at the time.

But whether or not one accepts those arguments, it is not the reason Obama had been giving for his 2003 opposition. He told Brody that the federal bill "was not the bill that was presented at the state level." That's technically true; though the "neutrality clause" was identical in the federal and state bills, there were other minor wording differences elsewhere. But the Obama campaign statement says that "Illinois And Federal Born Alive Infant Protection Acts Did Not Include Exactly The Same Language." That's true for the earlier versions that Obama voted against. In the case of SB 1082, as it was amended just before being killed, it’s false.
A Matter of Definition

The documents from the NRLC support the group’s claims that Obama is misrepresenting the contents of SB 1082. But does this mean – as some, like anti-abortion crusader Jill Stanek, have claimed – that he supports infanticide?

In discussions of abortion rights, definitions are critically important. The main bills under discussion, SB 1082 and the federal BAIPA, are both definition bills. They are not about what can and should be done to babies; they are about how one defines "baby" in the first place. Those who believe that human life begins at conception or soon after can argue that even a fetus with no chance of surviving outside the womb is an "infant." We won't try to settle that one.

What we can say is that many other people – perhaps most – think of "infanticide" as the killing of an infant that would otherwise live. And there are already laws in Illinois, which Obama has said he supports, that protect these children even when they are born as the result of an abortion. Illinois compiled statute 720 ILCS 510/6 states that physicians performing abortions when the fetus is viable must use the procedure most likely to preserve the fetus' life; must be attended by another physician who can care for a born-alive infant; and must "exercise the same degree of professional skill, care and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as would be required of a physician providing immediate medical care to a child born alive in the course of a pregnancy termination which was not an abortion." Failure to do any of the above is considered a felony. NRLC calls this law "loophole-ridden."
On the Record

While we don't have a record of Obama's 2003 comments on SB 1082, he did express his objection to the 2001 and 2002 bills.

Obama, Senate floor, 2002: [A]dding a – an additional doctor who then has to be called in an emergency situation to come in and make these assessments is really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion. … I think it’s important to understand that this issue ultimately is about abortion and not live births.

Obama, Senate floor, 2001: Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a – a child, a nine-month-old – child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it – it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute.

Obama's critics are free to speculate on his motives for voting against the bills, and postulate a lack of concern for babies' welfare. But his stated reasons for opposing "born-alive" bills have to do with preserving abortion rights, a position he is known to support and has never hidden.

-by Jess Henig
Sources

Johnson, Douglas. "Obama Cover-up on Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Continues to Unravel After Sen. Obama Says NRLC is 'Lying,'" 18 Aug. 2008.

Illinois Senate Republicans. "Staff Analysis, Senate Bill 1082," 13 Mar. 2003.

Illinois General Assembly Committee on Health and Human Services. "Senate Committee Action Report," 12 Mar. 2003.

Obama for America. "Fact Check on CNN and Bennet's [sic] Inaccurate Claim That IL 'Born Alive' Legislation Obama Opposed Was the Same as Federal Legislation He Supported," 30 Jun. 2008.

Link to article

Regarding Christianity...

You do realize that Muslims are taught Christianity along with their religion because Christianity is a part of Islam, right? They probably know more about Christianity and it's beliefs than many Americans do. The Bible is actually a part of their religion, along with Jesus, etc.

Regarding Marijuana. I guess that he can only do so much at once. He's been quite busy with other more important issues. Legalizing marijuana is on the horizon though. I believe it will end up being a state issue rather than federal. California is imploding and marijuana may be the answer to bring them out of the horrible mess they are currently in.

gringaloca wrote:

Regarding Christianity...

You do realize that Muslims are taught Christianity along with their religion because Christianity is a part of Islam, right? They probably know more about Christianity and it's beliefs than many Americans do. The Bible is actually a part of their religion, along with Jesus, etc.

I'm not only speaking about Muslims and the only Muslims I'm really talking about are the ones that hate Christians.

Regarding North Korea. Some would say that N. Korea wouldn't even be a problem today if Bush had of stepped in and stopped them. They have been going forward with their nuclear program for years and Bush didn't do anything. He was too busy invading Iraq that had all those pesky WMD. lol Just because N. Korea isn't rolling out the welcome mat, doesn't mean we can't try to talk them down. Diplomacy is always the first step. If diplomacy doesn't work, it will be time to move on to something else. Pres Obama has only been in office five months. Situations like this take months and even years to resolve. He isn't exactly patting Kim Jong Il on the back and telling him that we are buddies. Obama has been very harsh about his feelings towards N. Korea and their weapons program. Personally, this always takes me back to the question, what makes it ok for us to have nuclear weapons but everyone else isn't allowed? It's quite hypocritical and I think that Obama is addressing that by showing our interest in a nuke free world.

Regarding 9-11. We aren't apologizing to the world. So far we haven't really apologized for anything. We've trying to mend some of the wrongs we have done since we totally went nuts after 9-11 and started attacking countries that had nothing to do with it. We've held people in prisons for years without trials to prove they are actually guilty of something. We have tortured people which is against the Geneva conventions. We've done some pretty crappy things and it has created more people than ever who hate us. We need friends. We need the world to understand that we don't believe we are above the rule of law. I am not suggesting that we get down on our hands and knees and beg for forgiveness from terrorist. That is just silly. But we do need to let the global community know that we do actually care and want to fix what we have broken. If anyone thinks we can continue being a super power and prosperous without the help of other countries, they are living in a dreamworld. We live in a diverse, complex world that we rely on to survive. Making more enemies by behaving as if we can do no wrong isn't the answer. It doesn't show weakness, it shows that we actually have brains and want to continue being a country that the rest of the world looks up to. And if you are waiting for Osama Bin Laden to apologize, you'll probably be waiting for the rest of your life. It ain't going to happen and that is fine. He is what we don't want to be. If people want justice in that situation, they need to bring Osama Bin Laden in and put him on trial. That will bring closure to that situation.

Regarding the rich..
The rich pay less in taxes then they did in 1944. Many of them find loopholes to avoid paying taxes at all. Yes, these big, rich suckers do provide jobs to the rest of us peons but they also lay us off, don't provide decent benefits, have multiple mansions throughout the world while their employees lose their retirements because of their lies, etc. The republican party wants to tax the middle class more and reduce the taxes of the rich even more. This theory of trickle down economics has been proven not to work and the only people who really benefit from it are the rich. I don't think that asking the rich to pay their fair share in taxes is class warfare, it's simply trying to even up the scales. In the past when our country was at war, everyone was expected to give equally to keep our country afloat. Even big corporations because they didn't want to lose their wealth. Now the tax codes are made in a way to benefit the rich with carefully written loopholes to keep them from paying what they should thus putting the fate of this nation squarely on the working class poor. There has been class warfare going on for fifty years and the group that has been attacked the most is the average American, not corporations. The rich now owns many senators and representatives so they can continue to benefit. The average Joe doesn't have the money to buy legislation that will protect them like the rich. It's been going on for far too long and as you can see from the past few months has ended up bankrupting our country. If the rich felt more of a sting and realized that they were a part of this system and not above it, we wouldn't be in the shape we are in today but the difference is, they don't feel the pain for the most part. They still have their mansions and will continue to live their life of luxury while the average American has lost their entire savings and will have to work until the day they die because nobody can actually live off of social security. Not to mention that SS may not even be around by the time I retire. I wonder if CEO's are wondering if they can survive off of SS?

Judge Roy Bean wrote:

gringaloca wrote:

Regarding Christianity...

You do realize that Muslims are taught Christianity along with their religion because Christianity is a part of Islam, right? They probably know more about Christianity and it's beliefs than many Americans do. The Bible is actually a part of their religion, along with Jesus, etc.

I'm not only speaking about Muslims and the only Muslims I'm really talking about are the ones that hate Christians.

Who else are you speaking about other than Muslims? And if you are only talking about the Muslims that hate Christians...well, that's a small extreme group that is not specifically connected with any nation.

gringaloca wrote:

I would have to write a book to respond to all of that. Here is my response to the "born alive" propaganda.
Link to article

If you take Obama at his word, I guess. I don't.

gringaloca wrote:

Who else are you speaking about other than Muslims? And if you are only talking about the Muslims that hate Christians...well, that's a small extreme group that is not specifically connected with any nation.

What I'm getting at is he's quick to put the finger on Christians or on Americans, it doesn't sit well. How about telling the rest of the world to be more understanding of the U.S.? To learn more about our culture?

gringaloca wrote:

Regarding Marijuana. I guess that he can only do so much at once. He's been quite busy with other more important issues. Legalizing marijuana is on the horizon though. I believe it will end up being a state issue rather than federal. California is imploding and marijuana may be the answer to bring them out of the horrible mess they are currently in.

Mark my words, it won't happen under Obama or the next administration. I hope I'm wrong.

Judge Roy Bean wrote:

gringaloca wrote:

I would have to write a book to respond to all of that. Here is my response to the "born alive" propaganda.
Link to article

If you take Obama at his word, I guess. I don't.

Obama can spin his stance on abortion any way he wants but the only FACTS we have is his voting record. Straight down the line, pro-murder...

Lucas McCain wrote:

Judge Roy Bean wrote:

gringaloca wrote:

I would have to write a book to respond to all of that. Here is my response to the "born alive" propaganda.
Link to article

If you take Obama at his word, I guess. I don't.

Obama can spin his stance on abortion any way he wants but the only FACTS we have is his voting record. Straight down the line, pro-murder...

It's not cut and dry or black and white. You can't vote for something unless you agree with the entire thing. He wasn't going to sign something that would weaken Roe vs. Wade. That's a no brainer. Doesn't mean he gets some sort of sick thrill out of dying babies. That's just absurd. He's not the devil for heavens sake.

Judge Roy Bean wrote:

gringaloca wrote:

Who else are you speaking about other than Muslims? And if you are only talking about the Muslims that hate Christians...well, that's a small extreme group that is not specifically connected with any nation.

What I'm getting at is he's quick to put the finger on Christians or on Americans, it doesn't sit well. How about telling the rest of the world to be more understanding of the U.S.? To learn more about our culture?

Maybe it's just my sugar problems lately but this particular line of conversation seems blurred to me. Until you actually know what you want him to do, how is he supposed to do it? First it's religion and now it's culture? As I've said before, those people have seen enough of our "culture" from television to know that we've got something fundamentally wrong with us.

Nobody's perfect, but there is nothing "fundamentally" wrong with me.. Nor most of the people I know.. There are a few nuts to the far left and a few to the far right... We are not the bad guys in this instance.. We don't wish to wipe all Muslims off the earth...

Lucas McCain wrote:

Nobody's perfect, but there is nothing "fundamentally" wrong with me.. Nor most of the people I know.. There are a few nuts to the far left and a few to the far right... We are not the bad guys in this instance.. We don't wish to wipe all Muslims off the earth...

Poor choice of words.. I realize that not all Muslims wish us harm..

Good to know, Lucas. I'm afraid that some do.

Only time will tell regarding marijuana. There are many out there on both sides that will have a real problem with it because it's been illegal for so long and carries a stigma. I will be very surprised to see any front runner support it. It isn't as bad as alcohol in many ways but it sure can make people act goofy so it's hard to say. I guess it all depends on how bad things get economically before it will become a real option to governors.

And there are some extreme crazy Muslims who want us dead but overall the religion is a very peaceful one. There are going to be extreme nutcases in every religion, just like the crazy person who felt it was his Christian duty to take down an abortion doctor as he walked into church. I just think that Muslims have got a bad name because they are different than what we know. I think that a lot of Americans are xenophobic (not accusing anyone of that on here) but I think the fear of something we aren't familiar with does make us more afraid of them than we should be.

Lucas McCain wrote:

Nobody's perfect, but there is nothing "fundamentally" wrong with me.. Nor most of the people I know.. There are a few nuts to the far left and a few to the far right... We are not the bad guys in this instance.. We don't wish to wipe all Muslims off the earth...

True but what they see of us is very much against their beliefs. It's bad enough that we have women walking around practically nude on regular tv but we have pornography and other things that don't exactly make us look like the most Christian nation on Earth. I'm sure that hypocrisy of it all makes them question us. I get sick myself of some of the things I see on tv and I'm not talking about HBO, I'm talking about regular ole television. I consider myself pretty liberal in most respects so if what I see is making me sick, I can only imagine how they feel.

gringaloca wrote:

There is nothing this man says or does that some will agree with. Every move he makes certain people belittle. I don't think it really matters if he turns out to be one of the greatest presidents of our time, there will be certain people who will never like him simply because he's a democrat. It doesn't matter if he fixes every problem that the previous administration left for him. It doesn't matter if he creates thousands of jobs and decreases taxes for the middle class. It doesn't matter if he makes sure that all American citizens can get health-care and doesn't end up in bankruptcy court afterwards. It doesn't matter if he calms tensions with our enemies. Nothing he does will ever be good enough. It's a sad fact.

First of all I could say the exact same thing about some liberal democrats and the way that they slammed Bush for 8 years. Some of them are still doing it although Obama has won the election and came in and in just as few months inflated an already very high national debt (which btw all the dems were screaming about) and multiplied that "terrible" number four times what it built up to in 8 years. All of a sudden that talk quieted down when Obama was the one driving it even more out of control with no end in sight.
Next, I really don't think that anyone will be considering him one of the greatest presidents in history either, not even close. I am not concerned with him saving all of us from bankruptcy, I am more concerned about him sending America into bankruptcy. I am not sure about the so called tax breaks either, don't anyone think for one second that all of those "cuts' aren't going to be added in and made up for down the road. There is enough hidden "pork fat" taxes (that he was supposed to be against) added that will cause the middle and lower class more when they go to pay for things like gas, groceries and other services. As for the nationalized healt care, if you think that health care is expensive now just wait untill it's free . I don't know if what he ends up doing will be enough or not. Right now it sure hasn't been.
What it boils down to is that the dems were and still are just as guilty of slamming past administrations as you say that some are of slamming this one. There is no difference except for the spin that some liberals put on it to excuse it and sugar coat it.

I really don't see the point in discussing anything else on this or anything else for that matter....is useless , you probably feel the same way and that is fine . We probably will never agree on much of anything so I don't see any point in going back and forth.
Should I ever agree with you on anything I will post it. Untill then and if that ever happens...... see ya.