I disagree, and apart from trying not to be too offended, I don't think you are fully looking at prayer. I can't say if prayer is necessarily helpful or not. However, even if there is no God, and the prayer is futile, at least psychologically it can, CAN, help people get through things. Even biologically, and this is something doctors have no explanation for, people have somehow survived unbeatable illness through sheer will. Well, if will can get you through that, and prayer can give you will, then maybe that can help. Also, think about doing hard work- if you do lots of charity work because you want to get to Heaven or whatever, who cares? The important thing is that you're doing it. The reason is less important than the end result. Personally, I believe in both hard work and prayer, but even from a secular point of view, it has at least some benefit.
Well, from a Jewish and therefore Christian and even Muslim perspective, both prayer and hard work (or acts of kindness) are two of the three pillars of religion. In Judaism, the three pillars are study, prayer, and acts of love and kindness. This argument is therefore fairly nonsensical unless someone goes into what takes precedence- and in that case, there is a debate to be had. Religiously though, at least in the Old Testament, they are equal and separate and if you believe that God can do things according to your prayer, then you would disagree with the above picture because then prayer does in fact solve the problem. Personally, I think a balance of all three is what people should be paying attention to and striving for. I also think that just praying, just studying, or just acts of kindness, are not enough.
Good ad, but I would say that the majority of those issues Obama was in agreement with McCain, sans the taxes. By the way, where did McCain think he was going to get the money to balance the budget if he was going the (allegedly) lower taxes?
Taxes should be way more proportional to income, like Obama has it. It would be nice to lower middle-income taxes as well, but we simply can't afford that right now. Solution? Make the rich actually pay their dues.
Yay Obama! He won... :D
Yeah, exactly. This is a video which shows the other side. It doesn't do what Stern did, and I think that should still be done, but it does indeed show misconceptions and beliefs of other parts of the country. That guy who was supporting Obama, I hope he does alright safety-wise...
I don't think that this is an accurate representation of the whole populace, but I do believe these voters are clueless. HOWEVER, I think that the exact same thing could be done in the south with white voters for McCain. You have to show both sides of the voters, and then make the conclusion about voters in general, not just one side. A small sampling is still indicative of nothing- any poll needs at least 33% to be deemed credible as a correlative relationship in political science, and over 50% in other sciences. Ignorance is apparent on both sides, but be aware that the American people elected to have a democracy where EVEryone votes, so we reap what we sow. C'est la vie.
Check out this video! Props to the McCain campaign for squashing this, but also check out this article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.
McCain doesn't want a Muslim representing the campaign on national television? Maybe, maybe... Thoughts and comments on both the video below and the followup article above would be greatly appreciated.
Oh, also I think we need to seriously look at our country's direction. If you replace the word Muslim with Jew, this country begins to look a lot like 1920's Germany. Just be aware of that and act accordingly- don't be sucked in by the propaganda.
Later!
Absolutely- I look forward to your response!
Check this out, too, by the way...
http://www.huffingtonpost.
Okay, first of all: It's Barack Hussein, not Husain (wrong spelling), Obama, not Osoma (which, again, is not correct- Osama bin Laden is spelled Osama, not Osoma). McCain was a POW- FACT. Correct. Obama is not, was not, and will not be a terrorist, and is not related to Saddam Hussein. I don't know what your point is. Plus, insulting Iraq by insinuating that switching Barack with Iraq is somehow insulting disregards the whole nation and I think you owe a country much older than ours a little more credit. Barack means blessing in Hebrew, just so you know. Slandering him with nonsense is just that: nonsense. Furthermore, I don't care who is aggravated by this but while McCain was indeed a POW, and no one disputes his courage and fortitude, he really was not the best soldier. He barely squeaked through his military schooling, and remained while he was there at the bottom of the class rankings. He was behaviorally challenged while there and also crashed a plane or two- the only reason he wasn't kicked out and forgone his free education was because of his father. And, whether or not you choose to believe all of what I just said, he was only shot down and taken as a POW because he was flying in the wrong place. He was never supposed to be where he was. I AM NOT DISHONORING HIM- he is a war hero for remaining in the camp and everything, I understand, but he is not the man for president.
By the way, lostmma, check out fightthesmears.com where there is a detailed explanation for every attack against Obama, including accusations that he is a Muslim (not that there is anything wrong with that, but he's not), that he is not an American-born citizen (which he is; his birth certificate is online on that site), and that he [still] has ties to Bill Ayers- also disproved on the site.
Let me just mention that that fact of the day was completely irrelevant to the debate; atheism and religiousness period has nothing to do with politics. Please don't bring that into this, and I'm saying that as a Jew who wants to become a rabbi. I'm no stranger to religion, but it has no place in politics. I love my faith- but it really needs to be a separate "entity", as Palin likes to say. She likes that word, "entity".
What was Bush faced with aside from 9/11? Debt that HE put us in? A war that HE got us in? A hokey, clueless, messed up administration that HE brought in?
I really have no idea what you're mad about when you refer to morals. What are you going on about? What did I say? The only time I mention morals is when I'm referring to the GOP in general. They still support this man who will not come out and say, "Obama is not a terrorist. Stop saying 'kill him'." Personally, I think that if my representative wouldn't come out and say that simple phrase, then he's not my representative, bevcause his inactions suggests he supports those views.
Also, I know you didn't say that Obama voted with Bush, I understand; it was a preemptive argument in retaliation to the common argument that Obama didn't vote with Bush because he couldn't vote at all (in Congress). The GOP often says that.
How are liberals psychotic? Define liberal, as well, while your at it. It's lost all meaning since the right has abused the word.
My comments on the slander and lashon hara going on about Obama I stand by. However, I apologize if you think that was aimed at you specifically. It was supposed to be towards the whole party.
NEVERTHELESS, the Republican party WAS known for it's morals. Up until 1900- look, we haven't had a good Republican president since then. And morals, ha- I'm not saying either democrats or republicans are moral- but don't try and tell me these neo-conservative crazies are sane and/or moral. They most certainly aren't.
How have I offended you? Really, I would like to know. It isn't moral to stand idly by while your constituency has openly said "Kill him!", "Terrorist!", and other terrible remarks towards your opponent, as McCain has done. I'm sorry. But I wasn't referring to you, just McCain and the republican party in general. Geez, even some republicans are calling McCain out for his inaction and refusal to renounce the remarks. And then, he posts ads connecting Obama to a terrorist, insinuating that he is a domestic terrorist. UNTRUE. He also is not a Muslim, nor is he an extremist. And yet, when people call McCain out for not saying anything, he gets all mad and is outraged that they spoke up. It's pathetic, and the GOP should be ashamed that this man whom they want as president will not stand up and say, "Look, this slander against Senator Obama has got to stop. He is not a terrorist, nor is he a 'secret Muslim [extremist]. We can challenge his character, his politics, but not his patriotism, nor his faith." I feel bad for YOU all, really.
Please answer and tell me what I've said, so that I might recant. Thank you.
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/
Check that site and get back to me?
No, Obama couldn't have voted against Bush's policies since the beginning of the Bush administration because he wasn't even in the Senate yet. I know- but while he wasn't doing anything (because he couldn't), McCain was actively voting for Bush's idea on the economy, etc. And now you're suggesting that one vote doesn't matter. There are only 100 people in the Senate, "my friend". If you think it's not important, take a look at our current Senate, where the only reason democrats cannot get anything passed is because there is about a 50/50 split of democrats and republicans, and Lieberman is the tipper in favor of the republicans (he deserted his party- you want a traitor, there you are). SO if you say one vote doesn't count, the Joe's shouldn't matter. AND YET- it does...
BY the way... if anyone calls Obama a traitor, terrorist, secret Muslim, or threatens him any way I think I'll blow my top and have whoever says it banned. Same in the media; if someone says any of that absolute garbage, then I think if McCain doesn't rise up and officially renounce those remarks, I fear for this country more than I ever had previously.
I mean, how STUPID MORONIC IGNORANT and yes, I think I might add in slightly retarded (because I am referring to the actual mental disability and slowness/diminished mental capacity) could you be? It's really sad for the entire republican party. If I were part of that party and I heard all that, if I had any moral standing whatsoever, I would immediately leave the party. How could someone say all that?
Ridiculous.
Yes, and might I quickly add that Mr. Bush was president of Texas, also one of the largest states. What good did that do? And Jeb Bush, governor of Florida? Imagine if that cheat of a man were in the Whitehouse? Size of state means nothing.
Um, no? Honestly, I'd like you to do some research, as well. Who has a controversial background? Obama? What are you TALKING about? The propaganda from the Far Right? Come on... He's not a secret Muslim, he isn't Muslim, nor does he plan on becoming a Muslim.
There are no terrorists in Iraq. There are no terrorists in Iraq. There are no terrorists in Iraq. There are no terrorists in Iraq. There are no terrorists in Iraq. How else can I say it? Iran is evil, I know. I'm Jewish; I really love hearing how the Holocaust never happened and how Israel should be annihilated from the face of the Earth. I get that. And yet, a major JEWISH, and therefore CHRISTIAN opinion on war is to respond defensively when attacked, but more importantly, avoid violence unless absolutely necessary. Turn the other cheek? Sound familiar? We must try and negotiate. This is not Osama Bin Laden, although he's about as crazy. It may not work, as Obama has stated very clearly, but it's worth a shot. If it doesn't work, no loss- we do what we have to. But to suggest talking to them is somehow an admittance of fear is ridiculous.
Look, we both know we had no business in Iraq. At all. We never should have gone in. But who's unpatriotic here? Do you realize that you're suggesting that if the troops were pulled out now, they wouldn't be considered war heroes, veterans who have so nobly served our country? Your brother? Yes, I would say that we HAVE had needless casualties where no conflict should have taken place. We must pull out. We must honor our veterans and those who have died fighting for the country. But we cannot afford MORE lives, MORE death, MORE money in this economic and financial crisis. Would you feel the same if (God forbid, of course) something were to happen to your brother? I don't know the answer to that question, I really don't. But it's important to empathize with families who have lost loved ones in a war we should never have started. It's a shame. Plus, other countries have pulled out, and cut their losses while they could. There is no end in sight if McCain is elected...
You have no idea what you're talking about with Georgia, nor do many Americans. Georgia was the aggressor to start with when they invaded RUSSIA, striking South Ossettia. This attack prompted retaliation from Russia, and because we're a democracy supporting democracy, we took Georgia's side. Was it right? Decide for yourself, but make sure you know your history, at least a little.
All right, enough with this Obama is not a patriot stuff. You watch WAY too much FOX news; Barack Hussein Obama (first name meaning "blessing", by the way) is most definitely a patriot. What sort of man runs for president of a country he doesn't like? You how much of a waste of time and money and effort and energy that would be? Come on! That saluting the flag was a foolish mishap, but don't be so ignorant and think he doesn't support your grandfather, or your brother. My grandfather was in the Navy, as well. Obama has plenty of times saluted the flag and placed his hand on his heart; this was insignificant and trivial. The comment he made was also not his words; if you bothered to ever check what you say before you say it, you would know that it was a FALSE statement from a CONSERVATIVE newspaper satire column by John Semmens.
Read,
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/o/
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/o/
Also check http://fightthesmears.com/ to read up on LIES from people on either side of the debates.
Putin endorses Obama? Come on, think before you type, man. That's just plain dumb.
Palin has done nothing- NOTHING- with her political career. I challenge you to name one thing she has done in her office positions as mayor and governor. Obama beat (15? Something like that) democratic nominees and the republican candidate for senator, and then the democratic candidates (and Hilary) in the presidential election.
The one thing I WILL agree with you on is the economy; it's both our faults. But it was the Reagan administration and Bush, Sr. who got rid of the programs that Roosevelt put in to fix the Depression. Granted, Clinton didn't help in the 90's when he signed off on that and deregulation, but y'all have had eight years in office and have done nothing for it- most recently, you're to blame.
I also will say that the senate hasn't done much, but that's for two reasons. One is Nancy Pelosi is a moron, and two it's because we don't really have a majority. It's like split evenly, with the swing vote on Lieberman (two-timing #$)@!) who often votes republican. Without a real majority, it's hard to accomplish anything of importance.
By the way, don't speak for all women; not all women agree with you. That doesn't mean they're right, but some women feel that they don't need any change in the US for women, nor do they feel a feminist advocate need be in the "Whitehorse".
Okay, I'll take each point apart at a time. First off, I want to get this point across about Palin. There is no evidence to say that she is a supporter of women's rights. Sure she's a woman, but time and time again people have gotten to positions of power and forgotten about who they are. Don't be so naïve to think that she is going to help you out as a female. If you really were a Democrat, and so was your family (which I find hard to believe if they support McCain now), then you will remember Clinton and his beliefs. If you think that Hilary and Bill are out of the picture, you are sadly mistaken. Chances are, either one of the will end up as a major influence over Obama. Irregardless of that, Obama has openly stated when talking about Hilary that he supports women's status changes in society. Palin has yet to say anything of the sort. As a bumper sticker on Facebook stated so cleverly, and I'm quoting, "Just because she has a vagina doesn't mean she cares about yours."
Palin does not have more experience. He has more time in office- however, I would admit that he has no executive experience. But, while she will have an executive position, her job will be to preside over the senate (if you know your Constitution), which is legislative. She has no experience there. By the way, a lot of Alaska hates her now. Not all, but a lot. Check polls in Alaska and her approval ratings. It reminds me of Bush; he was so popular (God knows why...) and then after his first couple of years, his ratings dropped.
Palin ran a tiny, insignificant company and then became mayor of a tiny, insignificant town and people call her some kind of genius. The she became Governor and has had that position for LESS than 2 years. HOW WILL SHE SAVE OUR COUNTRY? SPECIFICALLY? Nobody can tell me that. WHAT will she do? Whatever is written on her cue cards? Hmmm....
Undecidedgal, I appreciate your opinion. But I invite you to take a look, and stop reading either mine or others' arguments. Check and research- watch the debates, the news. Watch the commentators after debates. Read newspapers. That's how you formulate an opinion, not by looking at these incredibly biased idiotic statements. The thing is, I could say that "Oh, McCain cares about women because he picked Palin" (which is NOT true at ALL), or I could say that "Palin wants to kill polar bears". Both statements are untrue, but they could sway an undecided if they haven't done their homework. Read CNN, MSNBC, (FOX, but don't take them too seriously), BBC, and others. It'll be worth it, trust me.
You know, I enjoyed your response. It made me realize that once you leave the Northeast, you really hit a completely different way of thinking. Having said that, I really don't understand anything you just said. How is it that raised taxes will affect a teenager's ability to go to the movies? That is, pardon my saying, the dumbest thing I think I've heard someone say in awhile. What sort of change is McCain offering, exactly? How will Obama ruin our country? I'd like some specifics, because I could get into facts if you'd like. I actually do research without making ridiculous general statements like that.And about that stupid 57 states thing, I would forgive either McCain or Obama for saying that. He meant 47; I know, I saw the video, but when you work as tirelessly as both McCain and Obama have been working, you're bound to make a mistake. You have no idea the effort that goes into this crazy campaigning. And Obama openly has stated support for offshore drilling (unfortunately, but he did). And BY THE WAY, I'm sorry for you and people like you who fall for those stupid gimmicky WWE style slogans like DRILL BABY DRILL, because it really distorts your views on reality.
I love Biden, but I would agree when you say he didn't really help the ticket. He does have more experience than both republican nominees and Obama put together, but again, you're right. Nevertheless, who would YOU have chosen for democratic vice presidential nominee? Edwards, whose wife has cancer and whom he cheated on, Richardson who got little to no votes? Nope, I can't really see who would've helped him.
Palin is out of her mind. And she has NO FOREIGN POLICY EXPERIENCE, but is okay with going to war with Russia. When there's a 1 in 3 possibility of McCain dying in his first term in office, and Palin is next in command, that really, really scares me. Condoleezza Rice would have been a FAR superior choice; she is incredibly intelligent and has PhD in RUSSIAN studies! Come on! All Palin has is "Oh, I can see Russia from my house!" It's pathetic. I had problems with McCain, but I wasn't scared. Now, I think that I'll leave the country if that ticket is elected in. I'm not going to war with a country that has an army when we have no way of defending ourselves, barring nuclear weapons. Canada, here I come!
You should read my blog and submit something- we need more republican contributors. uhsdebate.blogspot.com - read the first post for instructions.
I think you misunderstand hockeyhound. He definitely supports neither McCain nor Obama. He is a socialist at heart, and while I don't support the socialist viewpoint, I do appreciate some of their stances. Nevertheless, I am an Obama supporter. Obama has slipped on many issues to a more republican way of thinking, but I don't believe for a moment he is anything like McCain. And Joe Biden is a person I support 98% of the time.
Regime is defined in the dictionary as a government in power, yes. But you know that in modern society the current dogma is that regime has a negative connotation. So yes, he meant regime in a negative sense.
While Biden did support the war in Iraq in the beginning, it's a foolish statement when you suggest flip-flopping. It's ridiculous to assume that when a person makes a declaration at one point in their life they will be held to that until they die. Biden has recanted his vote, and McCain has not.
And Palin is one truculent chick. She seriously said in a recent interview that she would go to war with Russia if it cam to it. We are in no shape to be going to war with another country, especially one as massive as Russia. Her experience is lacking, her stances on common issues disturbing, and she is gaining support purely from the religious right because of her social views on abortion.
I would love for you to be a poster on my blog. We need teens and first-time voters to tell their stories and speak their minds. Go to uhsdebate.blogspot.com/ It's definitely worth checking out- read my first post and the blog description on it for instructions.
HAHAHA Palin was an excellent choice for vice presidential nominee? And your citing one of her die-hard supporter's BLOGS as evidence? Really? Dude, get over the fact that she is in no better position that Barack Obama. She brings the gender card to the table, he brings the race card, and they both have about equal experience. I did think that Energizer Bunny comment was funny, but a mere sidestep around the fact that while he has overused the word, he has plans to back it up. And Palin only has had two years worth of experience as well, so I have no idea what you're talking about. That comment about beating out an incumbent was stupid, too. Obama beat FIFTEEN other candidates for senator when he first ran. He beat the closest democrat by around 30% and then the republican candidate conceded the race.
How do you like them apples?
By the way, getting rid of corruption in a state where anyone you pointed to who was an elected official would be guilty of something is nothing special. I mean, literally, you could just walk in, start reading roll call and transfer that list of names over onto a criminal list. Whatever. To add to that, she was not in charge of the National Guard, as some people keep saying. First of all, the extent of her "control" was that she could pick up a phone and decide to call them. Secondly, she never had to. So that whole "defense" experience she brings is a load of crap. Plus her family life is in shambles.
YES. I agree with you 100%. But I need a new message to be started throughout the Democratic party. We are in danger of losing this election, and to stop it we have to stop saying it is going to be more of the same if McCain is elected. It probably will be, but we must focus on the future, and stop talking about the past repeating itself here. Obama should be talking more about his plans to stop the war, about health care, and about the economy. He is losing supporters needlessly who are realizing that he hasn't really gone into depth on his issues, on his plan of action. He uses "encourage" and "change" so much, but while he does have a plan, for some reason does not go into what those words mean. Please, Barack- tell us and win this election for the good of the country.
I didn't admit that Obama was "no change" candidate, I just said he may not live up to everything he's promising. No candidate has really ever done that aide from maybe Roosevelt and Washington.
And there's nothing, NOTHING wrong with her being a woman. I wasn't saying that. I was saying that she was only pick because she's a woman, and that's all. I know she doesn't have any real experience, much like Obama. So it takes away from McCain's "experience" argument, as does Obama's wise choice in Biden (experience-wise). And conservativeness has nothing to do with male/female. McCain is a conservative, and I think Palin would consider herself one as well. How do you mean it changes it around? Since when can conservatives not be women? Now who's 18th century?
