will Obama be a good President?

[E B]

Date: 9/15/2008 4:12:31 PM
Author: beebrisk

I have however, just been called insane. Not that I care what I'm called, but if the post gets deleted for personal attacks, take a look at where it actually came from.

I did not call YOU insane. I called your statement insane, which I apologize for. But it was, as said before, inflammatory and untrue. And I feel sorry for you if you believe it to be true.

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 9/15/2008 4:12:31 PM
Author: beebrisk
Because it''s ridiculous to think that the thread would be deleted due to an unpopular opinion.

I did not insult you, or Moon, or Linda, or Loves or anyone else on a personal level.

I have however, just been called insane. Not that I care what I''m called, but if the post gets deleted for personal attacks, take a look at where it actually came from.

Actually, if you had been following this part of the forum for a while you would realize that threads have been deleted for inflammatory posts such as yours. We''re not exacty making this up. And your post was generally insulting. There are other PS members of a variety of faiths. You also lumped all liberals into the same category and came up with some outlandish assumptions. Many, not just us specifically, would find that offensive.

I really wish the mods could just delete specific posts instead of entire threads. That would solve this problem.

 

[mimzy]

Date: 9/15/2008 4:12:31 PM
Author: beebrisk
Because it's ridiculous to think that the thread would be deleted due to an unpopular opinion,

I did not insult you, or Moon, or Linda, or Loves or anyone else on a personal level.


I have however, just been called insane. Not that I care what I'm called, but if the post gets deleted for personal attacks, take a look at where it actually came from.

there's a huge difference between an "unpopular opinion" and something that is blatantly offensive to, well, just about everyone. not to mention the inflammatory nature, etc which WOULD potentially cause it to get deleted. nice attempt to set up some other posters though!




not that i personally believe you HONESTLY believe what you said (and i doubt others do too, i'm sure it was just for shock value), but i'd really like to hear what is going on in liberal politics that you consider to be "pro-islamic jihadist ideals".

 

[beebrisk]

Date: 9/15/2008 4:14:20 PM
Author: EBree

Date: 9/15/2008 4:12:31 PM

Author: beebrisk


I have however, just been called insane. Not that I care what I''m called, but if the post gets deleted for personal attacks, take a look at where it actually came from.

I did not call YOU insane. I called your statement insane, which I apologize for. But it was, as said before, inflammatory and untrue. And I feel sorry for you if you believe it to be true.

Whatevs...
No need to patronize or feel sorry for me. But thanks anyway!

 

[E B]

Date: 9/15/2008 4:19:33 PM
Author: mimzy

not that i personally believe you HONESTLY believe what you said (and i doubt others do too, i'm sure it was just for shock value), but i'd really like to hear what is going on in liberal politics that you consider to be 'pro-islamic jihadist ideals'.

S/he has no answers. S/he just wanted to stir the pot, which s/he did, though not as much as s/he'd have liked, I'm sure.

Now, we can return to discussing things semi-rationally.

 

[beebrisk]

Date: 9/15/2008 4:28:12 PM
Author: EBree

Date: 9/15/2008 4:19:33 PM

Author: mimzy


not that i personally believe you HONESTLY believe what you said (and i doubt others do too, i''m sure it was just for shock value), but i''d really like to hear what is going on in liberal politics that you consider to be ''pro-islamic jihadist ideals''.

S/he has no answers. S/he just wanted to stir the pot, which she did, though not as much as s/he''d have liked, I''m sure.


Now, we can return to discussing things semi-rationally.

It is my personal believe that the liberal philosophy is one that is antithetical to the American ideals, to freedom of religion, to freedom of speech and to the legacy of our founding fathers.

It is my personal belief that the liberal agenda (as promoted by Noam Chomsky, Peter Singer and others) is to destroy anything that resembles the Judeo/Christian ethic, to squelch dissenters and to pander to Anti-American Islamo-fascists. Perhaps you agree with Chompsky''s assertion that we ''deserved'' 9/11--I don''t know. But plenty of people do agree with him. In fact, he is considered a liberal icon.

It is my personal belief that the liberal agenda will ring in an era of Socialism in this country. An era where individual rights and responsibilities will be replaced by pseudo-Marxist philosophy and a state that feels they know better than I do how to live my own life.

Please, read what some of what these people are saying. They are saying it loud and strong and they are teaching it on our campuses.

I could go on and on.

So see, clearly I''ve done my homework. Clearly I''ve delved into this subject deeply. I am not here to get a rise out of anyone or ''stir the pot''.

You may not agree with my conclusions, but they are based on fact. And that ''fact'' is available to everyone who cares to read it. Pick up a book by Chomsky and then read what David Horowitz has to say about it. Two highly educated men, with two distinctly different ideas about this world. Then, come back and tell me how ''insane'' it really is and tell me what side you want to find yourself on.

 

[MoonWater]

Ok, perhaps you have an accurate view of SOME liberals. To label an entire group of people you do not know, some of which post on this board and do not agree with the things you have posted is insulting. Doing so using inflammatory language is more offensive and violates the rules of PS. Discussing religion in general, but especially in derogatory ways is in violationg of PS rules. I am not sure why you don't get that. More importantly, I'm not sure why you don't ACCEPT IT and MOVE ON. Some of us do not want this thread deleted. Perhaps you should start your own with this theme so the rest of us can avoid it.

 

[beebrisk]

Date: 9/15/2008 5:19:00 PM
Author: MoonWater
Ok, perhaps you have an accurate view of SOME liberals. To label an entire group of people you do not know, some of which who post on this board and do not agree with the things you have posted is insulting. Doing so using inflammatory language violates the rules of PS. Discussing religion in general, but especially in derogatory ways is in violationg of PS rules. I am not sure why you don''t get that. More importantly, I''m not sure why you don''t accept that enough to GET IT and MOVE ON.

I was not ''labeling'' people. I was referring to an agenda. Perhaps you are blind to it, but there IS a liberal agenda in this country...just as there is a conservative agenda. I personally believe the liberal point of view is dangerous.

If I''ve posted something that is offensive to "liberals" I''m sorry, but just like in the mainstream media, the only acceptable criticism is toward the right. Criticize the left and the crowd goes ca-razy! Criticize the left and you are told to stop and "move on".

Hypocrisy lives!

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 9/15/2008 5:28:53 PM
Author: beebrisk

Date: 9/15/2008 5:19:00 PM
Author: MoonWater
Ok, perhaps you have an accurate view of SOME liberals. To label an entire group of people you do not know, some of which who post on this board and do not agree with the things you have posted is insulting. Doing so using inflammatory language violates the rules of PS. Discussing religion in general, but especially in derogatory ways is in violationg of PS rules. I am not sure why you don''t get that. More importantly, I''m not sure why you don''t accept that enough to GET IT and MOVE ON.

I was not ''labeling'' people. I was referring to an agenda. Perhaps you are blind to it, but there IS a liberal agenda in this country...just as there is a conservative agenda. I personally believe the liberal point of view is dangerous.

If I''ve posted something that is offensive to ''liberals'' I''m sorry, but just like in the mainstream media, the only acceptable criticism is toward the right. Criticize the left and the crowd goes ca-razy! Criticize the left and you are told to stop and ''move on''.

Hypocrisy lives!

Look, I don''t care if you criticize the left, right, front, center, up or down. This:

It''s so sad that those pesky Jews and Christians keep getting in the way of the liberal''s hope for a Utopian universe. One where everyone lives happily together as long as everyone supports the same, politically correct, anti-Judeo/Christian, pro-Islamic Jihadist ideals.

Is freaking offensive and was a generalization of ALL liberals. It is inflammatory and insulting and violates the rules. Some of us do not want this thread deleted. Get it?

 

[beebrisk]

Date: 9/15/2008 5:31:13 PM
Author: MoonWater

Date: 9/15/2008 5:28:53 PM

Author: beebrisk

Date: 9/15/2008 5:19:00 PM

Author: MoonWater

Ok, perhaps you have an accurate view of SOME liberals. To label an entire group of people you do not know, some of which who post on this board and do not agree with the things you have posted is insulting. Doing so using inflammatory language violates the rules of PS. Discussing religion in general, but especially in derogatory ways is in violationg of PS rules. I am not sure why you don''t get that. More importantly, I''m not sure why you don''t accept that enough to GET IT and MOVE ON.

I was not ''labeling'' people. I was referring to an agenda. Perhaps you are blind to it, but there IS a liberal agenda in this country...just as there is a conservative agenda. I personally believe the liberal point of view is dangerous.


If I''ve posted something that is offensive to ''liberals'' I''m sorry, but just like in the mainstream media, the only acceptable criticism is toward the right. Criticize the left and the crowd goes ca-razy! Criticize the left and you are told to stop and ''move on''.


Hypocrisy lives!

Look, I don''t care if you criticize the left, right, front, center, up or down. This:

It''s so sad that those pesky Jews and Christians keep getting in the way of the liberal''s hope for a Utopian universe. One where everyone lives happily together as long as everyone supports the same, politically correct, anti-Judeo/Christian, pro-Islamic Jihadist ideals.

Is freaking offensive and was a generalization of ALL liberals. It is inflammatory and insulting and violates the rules. Some of us do not want this thread deleted. Get it?

Enough with the hyper-sensitivity and hysteria already. You don''t like my choice of words? Get over it. It''s seems you''d be much happier responding only to those posts you agree with.

I responded to the OP''s original question. You didn''t like it. Oh well....

Perhaps later on I will start a thread with nothing but quotes found on PS by those who have made wide, sweeping generalizations about conservatives and Republicans. Does anyone here have a problem with *those* statements? Does anyone here start screaming "STOP", "Move On" and "Get It?"

Nahhhh... A few do, but in most cases an attack of Conservatives and a generalization about "all" Republicans is for the most part, met with resounding support.

 

[MoonWater]

Good lord. People have voiced their complaints to generalizations made about conservatives and Republicans as well.

The problem here, which for some odd reason you do not understand, is that Ali has been to this part of the forum several times posting warnings (search Ali''s posts) and has just recently deleted a thread that had a posting similar to your own. The regulars in the political threads are trying desperately to avoid continued deletion. We have already been told that it is possible for political talk to be banned altogether. You can twist it any way you want about how you feel like your view is being oppressed, it won''t change the facts I''ve laid out for you. I suggested starting your own thread regarding this topic so that if something goes wrong, *that* thread can be deleted and the rest of us will not lose the information we''ve found in this particular thread. You are obviously very passionate about this view so please start a seperate thread to discuss it.

Can I be more clear? Or would you like to continue looking at this from a biased perspective?

 

[Linda W]

Moon,

I am beginning to wonder, if she is deliberately trying to have this thread deleted!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 9/15/2008 6:54:25 PM
Author: Linda W
Moon,

I am beginning to wonder, if she is deliberately trying to have this thread deleted!!!!!!!!!!!!!

OMG Linda! I thought the same thing not long after I first tried to explain why people were complaining. Perhaps this is correct. I''ll just ignore her from now on. Hopefully others can as well.

 

[beebrisk]

Date: 9/15/2008 6:51:59 PM
Author: MoonWater
Good lord. People have voiced their complaints to generalizations made about conservatives and Republicans as well.


The problem here, which for some odd reason you do not understand, is that Ali has been to this part of the forum several times posting warnings (search Ali''s posts) and has just recently deleted a thread that had a posting similar to your own. The regulars in the political threads are trying desperately to avoid continued deletion. We have already been told that it is possible for political talk to be banned altogether. You can twist it any way you want about how you feel like your view is being oppressed, it won''t change the facts I''ve laid out for you. I suggested starting your own thread regarding this topic so that if something goes wrong, *that* thread can be deleted and the rest of us will not lose the information we''ve found in this particular thread. You are obviously very passionate about this view so please start a seperate thread to discuss it.


Can I be more clear? Or would you like to continue looking at this from a biased perspective?

You know something? You were quite clear...and I was actually respecting your statement.
Until that is, you came up with this:
Can I be more clear? Or would you like to continue looking at this from a biased perspective?


I''ve made my point. You can carry on about it as you wish.

 

[HollyS]

beebrisk:

At the risk of heaping more derision upon my own head for sticking up for you, let me say . . . thank you. Someone besides myself needed to find their voice and stop pussyfooting around the word ''socialism'', and all its very ugly connotations. If we want to look at how well socialism works, we need only to turn our eyes to Cuba. And yes, because of the very nature of Obama''s background, his viewpoint, and how he plans on ''changing'' America, I would say that both his socialist ideals (and he certainly has them), and his indoctrination with Islamic traditions/beliefs (starting as a young child at an Islamic-run school), should not only be part of the conversation about him, but a cause for concern among educated peoples. But you are preaching to the crowd who cites Rolling Stone as a legitimate source. Like the world doesn''t know that Jan Wenner is a contributor to the Obama campaign.

I would encourage to leave this thread to those who want to carry on as they have been, and start whatever conversation you feel is pertinent on another thread. And since they ''asked'' you to leave and do just that, maybe they''ll play nice and not join you there.

 

[beebrisk]

Date: 9/15/2008 7:03:23 PM
Author: HollyS
beebrisk:


But you are preaching to the crowd who cites Rolling Stone as a legitimate source.

That made me guffaw!

Thanks for the support and voice of reason, Holly.
Rolling Stone, NBC, Katie Couric and most of the mainstream media preach the same agenda and it''s sad how it''s all taken at face value.

I really do wish more people here would understand what we are facing with the "Obama Doctrine".

Thanks again!

 

[goobear78]

Date: 9/15/2008 5:06:56 PM
Author: beebrisk

Date: 9/15/2008 4:28:12 PM
Author: EBree

Date: 9/15/2008 4:19:33 PM

Author: mimzy


not that i personally believe you HONESTLY believe what you said (and i doubt others do too, i''m sure it was just for shock value), but i''d really like to hear what is going on in liberal politics that you consider to be ''pro-islamic jihadist ideals''.

S/he has no answers. S/he just wanted to stir the pot, which she did, though not as much as s/he''d have liked, I''m sure.


Now, we can return to discussing things semi-rationally.

It is my personal believe that the liberal philosophy is one that is antithetical to the American ideals, to freedom of religion, to freedom of speech and to the legacy of our founding fathers.

It is my personal belief that the liberal agenda (as promoted by Noam Chomsky, Peter Singer and others) is to destroy anything that resembles the Judeo/Christian ethic, to squelch dissenters and to pander to Anti-American Islamo-fascists. Perhaps you agree with Chompsky''s assertion that we ''deserved'' 9/11--I don''t know. But plenty of people do agree with him. In fact, he is considered a liberal icon.

It is my personal belief that the liberal agenda will ring in an era of Socialism in this country. An era where individual rights and responsibilities will be replaced by pseudo-Marxist philosophy and a state that feels they know better than I do how to live my own life.

Please, read what some of what these people are saying. They are saying it loud and strong and they are teaching it on our campuses.

I could go on and on.

So see, clearly I''ve done my homework. Clearly I''ve delved into this subject deeply. I am not here to get a rise out of anyone or ''stir the pot''.

You may not agree with my conclusions, but they are based on fact. And that ''fact'' is available to everyone who cares to read it. Pick up a book by Chomsky and then read what David Horowitz has to say about it. Two highly educated men, with two distinctly different ideas about this world. Then, come back and tell me how ''insane'' it really is and tell me what side you want to find yourself on.

Can I ask for some decency and please NOT bring 9/11 into this conversation. For the sake of people like me, who lost loved ones that day, who watched the towers fall from the roof of my building a few blocks away as people jumped to their deaths, I take personal offense at your statement above. This is not the place for those kind of hateful statements. I’m sure NO ONE on this forum believes that ridiculous statement. I’m not commenting on the rest of your post, just the 9/11 section. Thank you.

 

[beebrisk]

Date: 9/15/2008 10:09:46 PM
Author: goobear78

Date: 9/15/2008 5:06:56 PM

Author: beebrisk

Date: 9/15/2008 4:28:12 PM

Author: EBree

Date: 9/15/2008 4:19:33 PM


Author: mimzy



not that i personally believe you HONESTLY believe what you said (and i doubt others do too, i''m sure it was just for shock value), but i''d really like to hear what is going on in liberal politics that you consider to be ''pro-islamic jihadist ideals''.

S/he has no answers. S/he just wanted to stir the pot, which she did, though not as much as s/he''d have liked, I''m sure.



Now, we can return to discussing things semi-rationally.

It is my personal believe that the liberal philosophy is one that is antithetical to the American ideals, to freedom of religion, to freedom of speech and to the legacy of our founding fathers.


It is my personal belief that the liberal agenda (as promoted by Noam Chomsky, Peter Singer and others) is to destroy anything that resembles the Judeo/Christian ethic, to squelch dissenters and to pander to Anti-American Islamo-fascists. Perhaps you agree with Chompsky''s assertion that we ''deserved'' 9/11--I don''t know. But plenty of people do agree with him. In fact, he is considered a liberal icon.


It is my personal belief that the liberal agenda will ring in an era of Socialism in this country. An era where individual rights and responsibilities will be replaced by pseudo-Marxist philosophy and a state that feels they know better than I do how to live my own life.


Please, read what some of what these people are saying. They are saying it loud and strong and they are teaching it on our campuses.


I could go on and on.


So see, clearly I''ve done my homework. Clearly I''ve delved into this subject deeply. I am not here to get a rise out of anyone or ''stir the pot''.


You may not agree with my conclusions, but they are based on fact. And that ''fact'' is available to everyone who cares to read it. Pick up a book by Chomsky and then read what David Horowitz has to say about it. Two highly educated men, with two distinctly different ideas about this world. Then, come back and tell me how ''insane'' it really is and tell me what side you want to find yourself on.

Can I ask for some decency and please NOT bring 9/11 into this conversation. For the sake of people like me, who lost loved ones that day, who watched the towers fall from the roof of my building a few blocks away as people jumped to their deaths, I take personal offense at your statement above. This is not the place for those kind of hateful statements. I’m sure NO ONE on this forum believes that ridiculous statement. I’m not commenting on the rest of your post, just the 9/11 section. Thank you.

I live in NYC. I saw it all as well. I hurt just thinking about that day and I hurt for your loss.

Please understand I was referring to someone else''s statements. With all due respect, I don''t believe an honest discussion of what some Americans (such as Chomsky) believe about that day, is by any means "hateful".

 

[goobear78]

Date: 9/15/2008 11:23:41 PM
Author: beebrisk

Date: 9/15/2008 10:09:46 PM

Author: goobear78

Date: 9/15/2008 5:06:56 PM


Author: beebrisk

Date: 9/15/2008 4:28:12 PM


Author: EBree

Date: 9/15/2008 4:19:33 PM



Author: mimzy




not that i personally believe you HONESTLY believe what you said (and i doubt others do too, i''m sure it was just for shock value), but i''d really like to hear what is going on in liberal politics that you consider to be ''pro-islamic jihadist ideals''.

S/he has no answers. S/he just wanted to stir the pot, which she did, though not as much as s/he''d have liked, I''m sure.




Now, we can return to discussing things semi-rationally.

It is my personal believe that the liberal philosophy is one that is antithetical to the American ideals, to freedom of religion, to freedom of speech and to the legacy of our founding fathers.



It is my personal belief that the liberal agenda (as promoted by Noam Chomsky, Peter Singer and others) is to destroy anything that resembles the Judeo/Christian ethic, to squelch dissenters and to pander to Anti-American Islamo-fascists. Perhaps you agree with Chompsky''s assertion that we ''deserved'' 9/11--I don''t know. But plenty of people do agree with him. In fact, he is considered a liberal icon.



It is my personal belief that the liberal agenda will ring in an era of Socialism in this country. An era where individual rights and responsibilities will be replaced by pseudo-Marxist philosophy and a state that feels they know better than I do how to live my own life.



Please, read what some of what these people are saying. They are saying it loud and strong and they are teaching it on our campuses.



I could go on and on.



So see, clearly I''ve done my homework. Clearly I''ve delved into this subject deeply. I am not here to get a rise out of anyone or ''stir the pot''.



You may not agree with my conclusions, but they are based on fact. And that ''fact'' is available to everyone who cares to read it. Pick up a book by Chomsky and then read what David Horowitz has to say about it. Two highly educated men, with two distinctly different ideas about this world. Then, come back and tell me how ''insane'' it really is and tell me what side you want to find yourself on.

Can I ask for some decency and please NOT bring 9/11 into this conversation. For the sake of people like me, who lost loved ones that day, who watched the towers fall from the roof of my building a few blocks away as people jumped to their deaths, I take personal offense at your statement above. This is not the place for those kind of hateful statements. I’m sure NO ONE on this forum believes that ridiculous statement. I’m not commenting on the rest of your post, just the 9/11 section. Thank you.

I live in NYC. I saw it all as well. I hurt just thinking about that day and I hurt for your loss.


Please understand I was referring to someone else''s statements. With all due respect, I don''t believe an honest discussion of what some Americans (such as Chomsky) believe about that day, is by any means ''hateful''.

I also live in NYC. So we are neighbors. I''ve been an NY for 12+ years.

With all due respect, it didn''t come off as "an honest discussion of what some American''s (such as Chomsky) believe about that day," it appeared to me that you were insinuating that a PS member believed that American deserved 9-11 and even more so that liberals believe this because Chomsky is a "liberal icon" (in your words, not mine). Your exact quote is "Perhaps you agree with Chompsky''s assertion that we ''deserved'' 9/11--I don''t know. But plenty of people do agree with him. In fact, he is considered a liberal icon." To me that is a hateful comment to make against another PS member, but I thank you for explaining your point.

 

[Anna0499]

Sorry to break this up but...just curious as to how Obama supporters view his inconsistent voting pattern in regards to the federal & IL Born Alive Infant Protection Act. I understand that he *says* he's opposed because it undercuts Roe v. Wade, but the Acts contain explicit clauses that state otherwise. Even the most liberal politicians supported the federal one & the IL one had identical language. I guess I don't understand the reasoning behind letting a baby die. Link

 

[beebrisk]

You are certainly entitled to think that questioning someone''s philosophy is "hateful", but please understand that is precisely the mind-set of the people who committed that horrendous act seven years ago.

You see, the Islamo-Fascists do not allow discourse, they do not allow questions, they do not allow dissenting thought. And when (in their infinite wisdom) they deem something "hateful" they take care of it in a swift and deadly manner.

Thank you, but as a free and blessed American, I will not prescribe to the "thought police" mentality.

 

[Ali]

Please keep the policies in mind when posting on the forums. Discussions about religion are not allowed on Pricescope. The link to policies can be found at the bottom of every forum page.

https://www.pricescope.com/idealbb/faq.asp?mode=policy

 

[partgypsy]

I personally think it would be a shame if an entire thread (which many members have contributed their thoughtful responses to) is deleted because the unthoughtful actions of a few. Or is that the intent? I really don''t know. Either way, please consider this is Pricescope, and we are guests here. If there are very inflammatory things to post there are probably better places on the web to post them, as this is supposed to be a friendly place where certain topics which have caused problems before are not discussed.

 

[Anna0499]

Another question for Obama supporters (since my last one was never answered)...do you think Obama should''ve picked Hillary as his VP? Do you think she would''ve accepted? Why or why not for both questions? I think it would''ve been a "dream ticket" for many Democrats...

I think if Obama would''ve picked Hillary things wouldn''t be so close now & McCain wouldn''t have chosen Palin because he wouldn''t need to cater to the very right as much (Democrat ticket would be very left and they would vote for McCain by default).

 

[SarahLovesJS]

Date: 9/16/2008 9:41:34 AM
Author: IndyGirl22
Sorry to break this up but...just curious as to how Obama supporters view his inconsistent voting pattern in regards to the federal & IL Born Alive Infant Protection Act. I understand that he *says* he''s opposed because it undercuts Roe v. Wade, but the Acts contain explicit clauses that state otherwise. Even the most liberal politicians supported the federal one & the IL one had identical language. I guess I don''t understand the reasoning behind letting a baby die. Link

I''d like to learn more about this as well. I saw Gianna Jessen''s story and I''d like to know if Obama really supports allowing what happened to her to happen to others. Here''s Stanek and Jessen''s website...obviously very slanted, but it''s their stories nonetheless: http://www.bornalivetruth.org/.

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 9/16/2008 2:00:43 PM
Author: SarahLovesJS

Date: 9/16/2008 9:41:34 AM
Author: IndyGirl22
Sorry to break this up but...just curious as to how Obama supporters view his inconsistent voting pattern in regards to the federal & IL Born Alive Infant Protection Act. I understand that he *says* he''s opposed because it undercuts Roe v. Wade, but the Acts contain explicit clauses that state otherwise. Even the most liberal politicians supported the federal one & the IL one had identical language. I guess I don''t understand the reasoning behind letting a baby die. Link

I''d like to learn more about this as well. I saw Gianna Jessen''s story and I''d like to know if Obama really supports allowing what happened to her to happen to others. Here''s Stanek and Jessen''s website...obviously very slanted, but it''s their stories nonetheless: http://www.bornalivetruth.org/.

Yeah, I don''t even understand how there could be any question about passing a bill like that; especially given the huge distinction that viability was given in justifying Roe v. Wade & its progeny.

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 9/16/2008 1:54:01 PM
Author: IndyGirl22
Another question for Obama supporters (since my last one was never answered)...do you think Obama should''ve picked Hillary as his VP? Do you think she would''ve accepted? Why or why not for both questions? I think it would''ve been a ''dream ticket'' for many Democrats...

I think if Obama would''ve picked Hillary things wouldn''t be so close now & McCain wouldn''t have chosen Palin because he wouldn''t need to cater to the very right as much (Democrat ticket would be very left and they would vote for McCain by default).

Hey Indy, I haven''t had a chance to read the link in your other post so I can''t answer it at the moment. However this one (for me) is easy. No, I do not think Obama should have picked Hillary. The Clintons have a lot of baggage that I believe would have been more harmful for Obama than Biden. Some Dems remember the 90s as a glorious time but not all of them (which is how we ended up with Obama in the first place, some are absolutely sick of the Clintons).

I think a lot of the GOP had their mouths watering at the thought of going up against the Clintons again. All the old scandals would have been brought up for a whole new generation to absorb. The sketchiness surrounding the funding of the Clinton library and how Bill makes his cash would have come up. Rumors about Hillary''s lesbian relationship would have come up. The anti-Hillary movie would have gotten more attention. And lord knows if Bill has been having more affairs. So yeah, I just don''t think it would have done well. It''s a "dream" only superficially.

 

[partgypsy]

Hmm, we got the religion conversation, the sex ed, abortion. You haven''t yet mentioned guns yet (he''s hails from Chicago which is a gasp gun-free city). And ya''ll haven''t brought up about Obama''s view on homosexuality yet. Shouldn''t that be next on the list, to cover all the bases?

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 9/16/2008 2:14:26 PM
Author: MoonWater
Hey Indy, I haven''t had a chance to read the link in your other post so I can''t answer it at the moment. However this one (for me) is easy. No, I do not think Obama should have picked Hillary. The Clintons have a lot of baggage that I believe would have been more harmful for Obama than Biden. Some Dems remember the 90s as a glorious time but not all of them (which is how we ended up with Obama in the first place, some are absolutely sick of the Clintons).

I think a lot of the GOP had their mouths watering at the thought of going up against the Clintons again. All the old scandals would have been brought up for a whole new generation to absorb. The sketchiness surrounding the funding of the Clinton library and how Bill makes his cash would have come up. Rumors about Hillary''s lesbian relationship would have come up. The anti-Hillary movie would have gotten more attention. And lord knows if Bill has been having more affairs. So yeah, I just don''t think it would have done well. It''s a ''dream'' only superficially.

Thanks for your insight MW. I didn''t follow the Clintons after Bill''s White House days so I wasn''t aware of all the scandal that has ensured. I guess Hillary would be absorbing a lot of criticism but I don''t think it would be anything new for her. The McCain campaign isn''t necessarily having a field day defending Palin but it hasn''t hurt him in the polls. I realize that Biden was a safe choice, but do you think Obama would be worse off in the polls than he is today? Obviously, hindsight is 20/20. Do you think Hillary would''ve accepted?

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 9/16/2008 2:17:28 PM
Author: part gypsy
Hmm, we got the religion conversation, the sex ed, abortion. You haven't yet mentioned guns yet (he's hails from Chicago which is a gasp gun-free city). And ya'll haven't brought up about Obama's view on homosexuality yet. Shouldn't that be next on the list, to cover all the bases?

Well, this *is* a thread about Obama, isn't it? I think these questions are very pertinent to his possible presidency; that's why I asked. The Palin thread has hit many more "issues" than this one in its very short run, so it's only fair, is it not? FWIW, I think the questions posed here about Obama have been more respectfully discussed than over there...

ETA: I realize this thread has taken a nasty turn lately, but I've been trying to focus more on factual Obama-related questions that I have gotten no answers to from my "Obama friends."