- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
July 30, 2008 at 8:04 am #632293
JanSParticipanthmm…two decades ago Barack Obama was a young man in his twenties…just starting his foray into “politics”..
again, I ask everyone out there. The requirements to be president are…35 years of age(it doesn’t say you have to be an old man – lol), a natural born citizen of the US. I don’t believe it says that you have to be a war veteran, or even serve in the military. (we have seen a couple of Prez’s now who didn’t, so we need to get over that one). It doesn’t say one has to be a senator, or a governor, or any other position, but it does help.I suppose if some of you out there had trillions of dollars to spend on a campaign, you , too, could run…would you have all the right answers? Not hardly..I’m sure plenty of ideas, though.
I believe that the Republican candidate doesn’t have all the answers…being a prisoner of war didn’t give him the answers…being in the military didn’t make him an expert. It certainly didn’t make me one – lol. What I do see is a man who is doddering at times, who stumbles on words, facts, and has a questionable health history (yet another biopsy for melanoma). I see a man who, when he speechifies (love that word – lol), sometimes seems very disingenuous, and ill at ease. I see a man who has a very strange sense of humor when it comes to how to deal with some things in foreign policy (bomb, bomb, bomb Iran).I see a man who has no clue about the economy of this country…self-admitted…how in heaven’s name will he come up with budgets that make any sense, to get rid of our terrible national debt, if the man even admits that he doesn’t have a clue.
I don’t give a hoot what Tom Sowell says…we all have opinions. He gets paid to state his.
I can judge for myself who I feel will be better equipped to make decisions about our country. I go into this with my eyes open about Barack Obama. He is not a perfect candidate. He will have to compromise on things (compromise is a good thing, just look what it does for marital relationships). He will have to move to the center on some things…I see nothing wrong with that. He will have to work with Congress to get things done. Whatever either of them promise is a campaign promise, and subject to change..we’re not naive about that – at least we shouldn’t be.
I have a hard time with Faux news..I can’t stand Hannity, et.al…I can tolerate others on there, because it gives me perspective, it helps me to realize that what’s in my heart of hearts (whatever it may be) about our country and this upcoming election is the right thing.
July 30, 2008 at 8:08 am #632294
JanSParticipantsorry for length..it’s late…back to my hole now :)
July 30, 2008 at 8:11 am #632295
AnonymousInactiveWell said Jan. Agree on all points. You know, it’s not as if you’re predicting the weather. You can stay out of that hole :)
July 30, 2008 at 8:44 am #632296
AnonymousInactivewsblover,
I find your opinion of dems to be disheartening. The beauty and privilege of being Americans, is that we can criticize our government. It’s called freedom. My reply, ironically, comes from YOU on another thread. Perhaps you could practice your own beliefs.
“The Dems I know and who’s opinions I have read, not just here, are interpreted by me as stubborn, closed minded, and smarmy.”
“Just because someone posts a comment, it doesn’t translate to whatever you want it to mean.”
July 30, 2008 at 8:45 am #632297
TrickParticipantWell,
I guess the Neo-cons (since you keep using liberals) are quite happy with the state of the 2 wars (as long as you’re not there)
Thrilled about the economy and gov’t bailouts of the free Capitalist system you always flaunt ( Fannie, Freddie and Bear Stearns etc)
You demand your money be guaranteeed in your bank account by the government, but heaven forbid the government guarantee’s to provide health insurance to it’s citizens.
Joyous for slamming tree huggers decades ago about fuel efficiency vehicles and alternative power.
Ecstatic over the new term “Clean Coal Technology” (oxymoron)
Giggling over Corporate and personal bankruptcies at an all time high.
Can’t even acknowledge that FOX fought in court to be able to mislead, and falsely report their news.
These are not conspiricies, they’re tragic.
July 30, 2008 at 8:48 am #632298
TrickParticipantWell written JanS!
July 30, 2008 at 3:05 pm #632299
beachdrivegirlParticipantMy issue with Fox News is not with politics. I dont think people should chose to vote for a canidate b/c of what they hear on the *news*. My issue with Fox News is that they lie and falsify news and issues. My bigger issue is with the Supreme Court who actually ruled that the FCC RULES were not in fact rules/laws but in their *dream* world policies. Sure does seem wrong and imo sure should be a bigger concern with people.
July 30, 2008 at 4:26 pm #632300
charlabobParticipantFor heavens’ sake, they used “Larry Craig – D, Idaho” as a crawl when Craig was arrested in the Minneapolis airport for soliciting. And “baby mama” for Michelle Obama’s ID? Their entire strategy is predicated on making sure low information voters stay that way. Talk about elitist snobbery — seems like a pretty good definition of it.
That makes them purposeful dangerous liars and, on my most liberal days, that doesn’t fall under the rubric of protected speech.
July 30, 2008 at 8:09 pm #632301
AnonymousInactiveBDG – I agree with you. I think the fact that it is not “law” therefore unable to be enforced through a court of law, is disappointing.
The bigger concern, to me, as you said, is the fact that it is, basically, legal to falsify the news.
It falls under Freedom of Speech in the Constitution (the Amendments of) and I remember a thread started here awhile back titled “I Want My Constitution Back.” Well, this is part of it.
July 30, 2008 at 8:24 pm #632302
JanSParticipantso it falls under “freedom of speech”…that doesn’t mean that we should listen or accept, or believe it…hint, hint…perhaps if we all realized it, stopped supporting it, it would go away…uh oh…wishful thinking once again…
July 30, 2008 at 8:54 pm #632303
AnonymousInactiveI agree JanS. The most important thing, especially during an election year (but, always of course), is that people realize the news is not always 100% accurate or un-biased.
I think it would be naive to believe that no other news organization falsifies their news as well. Simply because we are unaware of any specifics, does not mean that it doesn’t happen.
Hopefully, that would go without saying.
July 30, 2008 at 9:26 pm #632304
JoBParticipantNewResident…
it was the republican appointed Florida supreme court that decided FOX news and the 5 other broadcast outlets that filed “friends of” briefs should be exempt from the whistleblower act.
if you want your constitution back.. probably you are looking to the wrong party to restore it.
“the Republicans would deserve the condemnation they are getting, after their years of wild spending and their multiple betrayals of the principles and the people who got them elected.”
No matter how many anti Obama quotes you find from Mr Sewell.. it doesn’t overshadow the truth of his above quote.
among those principles he was talking about… the constitution.
wild spending…
betrayal of principles…
betrayal of the people who got them elected…
No amount of “Yes, but” changes those charges from an honest conservative.
And McCain?
check his record. he has been hip deep in as much republican muck as he could get in…
July 30, 2008 at 9:57 pm #632305
AnonymousInactiveAt least he has an extensive record to check.
July 30, 2008 at 10:03 pm #632306
AnonymousInactiveJoB, you’re blaming the outcome of the appeal on a “republican supreme court”?
It is not a “law”, therefore no law was broken. It is a policy (as BDG stated).
You cannot order that a law was broken because you believe something so strongly that you feel it should be a law. I would hope that if it had been a democratic supreme court, that they would have returned the same verdict.
July 30, 2008 at 10:34 pm #632307
JoBParticipantNewResdient…
The Florida supreme court had a choice. they could choose to interpret the policy of the FCC in a broader context.. as a rule.. thereby upholding the whistleblower statutes…
or they could choose to interpret it in the most narrow fashion possible…. thereby denying the defendant the protection of the whistleblower statures designed to protect those who expose fradulant or illegal practices in the workplace.
They chose to interpret them in the narrowest fashion possible… thus exempting the news media from the intent of the statutes.
This is a decision that affects whether or not you can count on the truthfulness of the information given to you on the nightly news… and in your local newspaper as well…
Who do you think should be held accountable for their decision?
Although it can be argued that no “law” was broken because of a narrow interpretation of that law, there is no question that the intent of the law.. to protect whistleblowers… was circumvented…
on the other note.. LOL… i wouldn’t be so proud of the extensive record McCain has to check.. if you take a look at it, it doesn’t check out so well;>
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.