Aa
OBAMA WON !!!
Despite all these accusations and dirty smear campaign against him HE WON....I am thrilled.
I have to agree with Rachel on this one. McCain felt that Palin would come in and pull Hillary's voters over to the conservative side. I was amazed that he actually thought that she could pull it off, dingbat that she is. What really put me off of her is when McCain stood up and told the nation that she knew more than any other woman; what it was like to have a special child.
That upset me to no end. And it went downhill from there.
It feels good to be back.........................:)
gentle hugs
Angel
That upset me to no end. And it went downhill from there.
It feels good to be back.........................:)
gentle hugs
Angel
No...don't think he Powell would have done it. But it would have been stellar for McCain to have had him as a running mate.
...hee hee....we're BACK!!!!!! :)
You know, on a very elementary level, I feel that McCain chose Palin as his idea of an equal to Hillary Clinton - I guess maybe in her anatomy maybe. But, I think he saw (and this is MY opinion) was that because Clinton had such a following that if he picked a woman he would get the voters from the Hillary supporters. What he didn't expect (again in my opinion) was that people saw past the boobs and were looking at her brain.
I don't think Powell would agreed to run with McCain. (my opinion)....
Whatcha think?
You know, on a very elementary level, I feel that McCain chose Palin as his idea of an equal to Hillary Clinton - I guess maybe in her anatomy maybe. But, I think he saw (and this is MY opinion) was that because Clinton had such a following that if he picked a woman he would get the voters from the Hillary supporters. What he didn't expect (again in my opinion) was that people saw past the boobs and were looking at her brain.
I don't think Powell would agreed to run with McCain. (my opinion)....
Whatcha think?
It may be ironic but it's not the least bit surprising ....if you buy it that is.
Mike
Mike
Hmmmm...isn't that ironic.
"Yeah he was disowned by the GOP so much he was elected to run for the presidency by the delegates and with the full support of the party.
ML"
Uh...what choice did the GOP have? It was more about avoiding Obama being elected President than embracing McCain (as Limbaugh so eloquently put it on his show). That is why McCain made a mistake in Palin and by trying to align himself with the extreme faction of the republican party (Limbaugh and Hannity worshipers--he had those votes because Limbaugh and Hannity would never have encouraged their fans to vote for Obama or to not vote at all). If McCain had clung to his "Maverick-ness" and ran with Powell (who would have insisted on running a classier campaign), he could have likely won--because no matter how much the new republican base claimed they would vote for someone else (the lovely Ann Coulter comes to mind here), there is no way they would have done that. So McCain trying to target that base via Palin didn't help him. Common sense ruled in the end. He got as many votes as he did because he was trying to play both sides of the fence--the right-wing conservative Christian side and the Maverick side--and add to that the scare tactics about Obama (they surprisingly worked with many people, as you can see from the posts on this site). But had he played more to the Maverick side, the other side would have likely gone along for the ride because it's better than having Obama in their minds. That said, with Powell, all the nasty rhetoric about Obama that invoked fear and got McCain many of his votes would not have been in play--but then he would have likely picked up the votes of those who didn't like those tactics and admired Powell so it would probably have been a wash.
However, that is all just pointless speculation since we will never know for certain.
ML"
Uh...what choice did the GOP have? It was more about avoiding Obama being elected President than embracing McCain (as Limbaugh so eloquently put it on his show). That is why McCain made a mistake in Palin and by trying to align himself with the extreme faction of the republican party (Limbaugh and Hannity worshipers--he had those votes because Limbaugh and Hannity would never have encouraged their fans to vote for Obama or to not vote at all). If McCain had clung to his "Maverick-ness" and ran with Powell (who would have insisted on running a classier campaign), he could have likely won--because no matter how much the new republican base claimed they would vote for someone else (the lovely Ann Coulter comes to mind here), there is no way they would have done that. So McCain trying to target that base via Palin didn't help him. Common sense ruled in the end. He got as many votes as he did because he was trying to play both sides of the fence--the right-wing conservative Christian side and the Maverick side--and add to that the scare tactics about Obama (they surprisingly worked with many people, as you can see from the posts on this site). But had he played more to the Maverick side, the other side would have likely gone along for the ride because it's better than having Obama in their minds. That said, with Powell, all the nasty rhetoric about Obama that invoked fear and got McCain many of his votes would not have been in play--but then he would have likely picked up the votes of those who didn't like those tactics and admired Powell so it would probably have been a wash.
However, that is all just pointless speculation since we will never know for certain.
Here's a slightly different perspective on Reagan and mental health - just another talking point perhaps but interesting nonetheless.
".....Perhaps what is most interesting about the change in policies of involuntary commitment is the coalition that helped bring it about: a combination of "law and order" conservatives, economic conservatives, and liberal groups that sought reform in the provision of mental health services. But the policy shift had hardly anything at all to do with the mentally ill or the practitioners who treated them. It was designed to lower taxes and shift responsibility away from the federal government. Ironically then , the need for reform perceived by those involved and concerned with the mentally ill (practitioners and families) was co-opted by the interests of capital.
Reagan's social policy is best seen as an abdication. Reagan's economic policy was to adjust government regulation so that it favored business once again, and social policy was merely an outgrowth of this larger issue. While family groups and
professional groups and patient groups did clamor for respect, the real struggle was between the state and the business community. Reagan worked to lessen the tax load for the rich, and the social policies were meant to match this goal. Business needed a more favorable corporate climate, and Reagan worked to that end. The coalitions that were necessary for election were either gratified (the elderly) or abandoned (the poor). As for the mentally ill, certain changes that their families and practitioners wanted were gained, and the administration pointed this out. Even though these changes came about primarily through state governments and the courts, the Administration would take credit. All in all, business interests were served. Families and doctors were appease d. Patients were forgotten."
Ronald Reagan and the Commitment of the Mentally Ill:
Capital, Interest Groups, and the Eclipse of Social Policy
Alexandar R Thomas
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Northeastern University
See: http://www.sociology.org/content/vol003.004/thomas.html
".....Perhaps what is most interesting about the change in policies of involuntary commitment is the coalition that helped bring it about: a combination of "law and order" conservatives, economic conservatives, and liberal groups that sought reform in the provision of mental health services. But the policy shift had hardly anything at all to do with the mentally ill or the practitioners who treated them. It was designed to lower taxes and shift responsibility away from the federal government. Ironically then , the need for reform perceived by those involved and concerned with the mentally ill (practitioners and families) was co-opted by the interests of capital.
Reagan's social policy is best seen as an abdication. Reagan's economic policy was to adjust government regulation so that it favored business once again, and social policy was merely an outgrowth of this larger issue. While family groups and
professional groups and patient groups did clamor for respect, the real struggle was between the state and the business community. Reagan worked to lessen the tax load for the rich, and the social policies were meant to match this goal. Business needed a more favorable corporate climate, and Reagan worked to that end. The coalitions that were necessary for election were either gratified (the elderly) or abandoned (the poor). As for the mentally ill, certain changes that their families and practitioners wanted were gained, and the administration pointed this out. Even though these changes came about primarily through state governments and the courts, the Administration would take credit. All in all, business interests were served. Families and doctors were appease d. Patients were forgotten."
Ronald Reagan and the Commitment of the Mentally Ill:
Capital, Interest Groups, and the Eclipse of Social Policy
Alexandar R Thomas
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Northeastern University
See: http://www.sociology.org/content/vol003.004/thomas.html
what a nightmare...
God be with us ! !
God be with us ! !
"What a historic day in America"
I'd be curious to hear what you think made this election so historic ?
ML
I'd be curious to hear what you think made this election so historic ?
ML
"And Republicans disowned a great man (McCain) who has been a Republican longer than many Republicans today have been alive." Double groan.
Yeah he was disowned by the GOP so much he was elected to run for the presidency by the delegates and with the full support of the party.
ML
Yeah he was disowned by the GOP so much he was elected to run for the presidency by the delegates and with the full support of the party.
ML
"Sure, Regan is great, we will just forget about him dumping hoardes of mental patients onto the cold streets. Shhh, no one will remember that!"
Well, you seem to have all of the talking points down from the leftist sources. Unfortunately, there is a downside to believing everything someone in your club tells you. This is one such case.
You really do need to study this issue of Reagan and mental health as you are very misinformed. First of,f let's talk about the mental health systems in America, not just CA since what Gov Reagan did was done in ALL of the states in response to FEDERAL legislation. The feds decided to get out of the mental health business. They instead gave money to the states to administer programs. Back in those days a family member could get you committed to an institution because you had DEPRESSION. That's right. Depression. Our mental institutions across America were filled with those who could do well on the outside by using the new classes meds to treat mental health issues. More efficacious and better safety profiles of new anti-d meds,and anti-psychotic meds that were now becoming widely available made this possible. This allowed not only CA, but the rest of the states to purge their institutions of those who with the proper meds could lead a full productive life without being locked up. You call this inhumane, probably. I call it lifesaving. Those instituions kicked no one out. If the patient did not feel like they could cope outside they were allowed to remain. Nothing changed in this regard. By eliminating all of the costs associated with housing so many who did not need to be locked up it freed up even more money to help those who really needed to be under supervision. New mental health centers were built in CA and laws changed so your family alone couldn't put you away. You cannot BEGIN to comprehend the looting that went on by family members who had someone locked up. For depression.
You really need to research before making assertions like you have been throughout this thread. This is pure rookie stuff---parrotting what you hear from biased sources does nothing to support any argument---it weakens it. I have to tell you that you have made many incorrect assertions, played loosely with the truth, and your personal accusations read like they came from Huffington's Warehouse of Misinformation.
Try to use non-biased sources. Not only will the truth free you, but you'll be a much better debater.
ML
Well, you seem to have all of the talking points down from the leftist sources. Unfortunately, there is a downside to believing everything someone in your club tells you. This is one such case.
You really do need to study this issue of Reagan and mental health as you are very misinformed. First of,f let's talk about the mental health systems in America, not just CA since what Gov Reagan did was done in ALL of the states in response to FEDERAL legislation. The feds decided to get out of the mental health business. They instead gave money to the states to administer programs. Back in those days a family member could get you committed to an institution because you had DEPRESSION. That's right. Depression. Our mental institutions across America were filled with those who could do well on the outside by using the new classes meds to treat mental health issues. More efficacious and better safety profiles of new anti-d meds,and anti-psychotic meds that were now becoming widely available made this possible. This allowed not only CA, but the rest of the states to purge their institutions of those who with the proper meds could lead a full productive life without being locked up. You call this inhumane, probably. I call it lifesaving. Those instituions kicked no one out. If the patient did not feel like they could cope outside they were allowed to remain. Nothing changed in this regard. By eliminating all of the costs associated with housing so many who did not need to be locked up it freed up even more money to help those who really needed to be under supervision. New mental health centers were built in CA and laws changed so your family alone couldn't put you away. You cannot BEGIN to comprehend the looting that went on by family members who had someone locked up. For depression.
You really need to research before making assertions like you have been throughout this thread. This is pure rookie stuff---parrotting what you hear from biased sources does nothing to support any argument---it weakens it. I have to tell you that you have made many incorrect assertions, played loosely with the truth, and your personal accusations read like they came from Huffington's Warehouse of Misinformation.
Try to use non-biased sources. Not only will the truth free you, but you'll be a much better debater.
ML
"All I'm saying is that you can't judge a person by who they are taught by, who they've worked with on charitable organizations, who has lived in their neighborhood, or who preaches in their church.
Groan....you can't be serious. So, if someone belonged to the KKK for over 20 years we shouldn't hold that against them ?
When you go to church it is to learn the philosophy of Christianity as explained by your pastor. If you disagree with the pastor's sermons and religious philosophy you leave. It's that simple. You stay for 20 years that is definite proof that you are not offended by the racial rantings and anti-U.S. sentiment that came down from the pulpit for years.
If Obama had a friend in Wright, a pastor in Wright, a spiritual advisor on his campaign in Wright (until Obama saw potential problems with it) , and all over a non- interrupted period for over twenty years and did not know how the man viewed the world then that would make Obama the biggest idiot on the planet, wouldn't it ?
ML
Groan....you can't be serious. So, if someone belonged to the KKK for over 20 years we shouldn't hold that against them ?
When you go to church it is to learn the philosophy of Christianity as explained by your pastor. If you disagree with the pastor's sermons and religious philosophy you leave. It's that simple. You stay for 20 years that is definite proof that you are not offended by the racial rantings and anti-U.S. sentiment that came down from the pulpit for years.
If Obama had a friend in Wright, a pastor in Wright, a spiritual advisor on his campaign in Wright (until Obama saw potential problems with it) , and all over a non- interrupted period for over twenty years and did not know how the man viewed the world then that would make Obama the biggest idiot on the planet, wouldn't it ?
ML
Actually, Vance, the Republican party has morphed and become very extreme, or narrow, as Colin Powell said (and some Republican friends of mine have said the same thing, too). The extreme perspective, imo, has forced the Democrats into a more extreme perspective. I don't see either party as the party of years gone by. Twenty plus years ago, people voted but no one was devastated when the other party won. I think that was because we weren't so far removed from each other.
One of my senators is Harry Reid and I really like him. I know some Democrats who can't stand him because he's not liberal enough for them. And Republicans disowned a great man (McCain) who has been a Republican longer than many Republicans today have been alive. That's just really weird to me. That's what I mean by the extreme perspective.
I have heard someone refer to Obama as "far left" and I know some very liberal people who wanted Kucinich because Obama wasn't liberal enough. So perspectives are pretty extreme, imo. I hope we can come together and have parties that are more closely aligned and closer to center. I think if McCain had hung on more tightly to his "Maverick-ness" and chose a better candidate for VP (Powell, perhaps?), the election may have turned out differently. The neo-con Republicans CLAIMED they wouldn't vote for McCain, but they did--if for nothing else, as an attempt to prevent Obama from getting in since they viewed that as worse. But McCain and Powell could have picked up Independents, non-partisans, many Democrats, and likely many of the black voters, too.
Years ago the Republicans could not get the votes of the poor or middle class or union people or minorities. But they found a common denominator in Christianity. They took possession of Christianity and redefined it. But Christ was much more in line with the Democrat party--for helping your brother, loving thy neighbor, feeding the poor, forgiving, peace, caring for the sick and the elderly, etc.. The trump card was abortion. Before this ownership of Christianity and abortion took place, I never knew a Catholic who voted Republican. During the election between Bush and Kerry four years ago, I came out of Church to propaganda against Kerry tucked under my windshield wiper--telling me how a "good Catholic" will vote. I never experienced anything like that before. Catholics used to vote Democrat more often because of the reasons I mentioned above as well as the fact that many I know are middle-class, hard working, many union members, etc. All the aspects with which the Democrat Party aligns itself.
Couple the Christianity ownership with the NRA and you have a recipe for success. Until now. So, yes...they'll have to regroup and redefine themselves. It will be more difficult to do if Obama does as expected and unites people.
The Parties have changed. I hope they change again--to encourage a more united people.
One of my senators is Harry Reid and I really like him. I know some Democrats who can't stand him because he's not liberal enough for them. And Republicans disowned a great man (McCain) who has been a Republican longer than many Republicans today have been alive. That's just really weird to me. That's what I mean by the extreme perspective.
I have heard someone refer to Obama as "far left" and I know some very liberal people who wanted Kucinich because Obama wasn't liberal enough. So perspectives are pretty extreme, imo. I hope we can come together and have parties that are more closely aligned and closer to center. I think if McCain had hung on more tightly to his "Maverick-ness" and chose a better candidate for VP (Powell, perhaps?), the election may have turned out differently. The neo-con Republicans CLAIMED they wouldn't vote for McCain, but they did--if for nothing else, as an attempt to prevent Obama from getting in since they viewed that as worse. But McCain and Powell could have picked up Independents, non-partisans, many Democrats, and likely many of the black voters, too.
Years ago the Republicans could not get the votes of the poor or middle class or union people or minorities. But they found a common denominator in Christianity. They took possession of Christianity and redefined it. But Christ was much more in line with the Democrat party--for helping your brother, loving thy neighbor, feeding the poor, forgiving, peace, caring for the sick and the elderly, etc.. The trump card was abortion. Before this ownership of Christianity and abortion took place, I never knew a Catholic who voted Republican. During the election between Bush and Kerry four years ago, I came out of Church to propaganda against Kerry tucked under my windshield wiper--telling me how a "good Catholic" will vote. I never experienced anything like that before. Catholics used to vote Democrat more often because of the reasons I mentioned above as well as the fact that many I know are middle-class, hard working, many union members, etc. All the aspects with which the Democrat Party aligns itself.
Couple the Christianity ownership with the NRA and you have a recipe for success. Until now. So, yes...they'll have to regroup and redefine themselves. It will be more difficult to do if Obama does as expected and unites people.
The Parties have changed. I hope they change again--to encourage a more united people.
Actually, they both had a dirty smear campain....But I'm glad Obama won....What a historic day in America
yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA
Congratulations to Obama..I really liked his speech.
Good luck to him when he takes office.
Good luck to him when he takes office.
It sounds like you're not attacking Obama, as much as possibly having bought into the image that Palin has created of Obama. So I will try my best to help allay your fears of Obama. If I believed that you really didn't have an open mind, I wouldn't even try (as I have ignored many others on this site).
You should read wikipedia, which states the actual facts about the relationship between Ayers and Obama. Here's a link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ayers#Obama-Ayers_Controversy
If you're not familiar with wikipedia, it's like an encyclopedia. It's not news or editorial content (no opinions). According to wikipedia, the two have worked on charitable organizations. There has been no link between Obama and Ayers since 2002 which is way before he started his run for the Presidency. That was before he was even Senator. So without any contact in the last 6 years, it's highly unlikely that Ayers could actually plan any strategy on Obama's candidacy. I would also like to point out that Ayers is now a professor at a well-respected university.
I think when Palin started talking about Obama's reverend, that was pretty much the pot calling the kettle black. There are plenty of videos on the Internet showing a "witchhunter" performing a "ritual" on Palin before she was elected governor. She actually goes back and thanks him after the election and says that he contributed to her winning.
If you're worried about Obama's relations to terrorist, I will have to admit that I was once taught by and know Dr. Harry Edwards, a former Black Panther, an activist, and also a Professor Emeritus of Sociology at the University of California, Berkeley.
All I'm saying is that you can't judge a person by who they are taught by, who they've worked with on charitable organizations, who has lived in their neighborhood, or who preaches in their church. You often can't control these things or what these people might say or do. You can only control your own actions and Obama has done nothing even closely resembling terrorism.
You should read wikipedia, which states the actual facts about the relationship between Ayers and Obama. Here's a link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ayers#Obama-Ayers_Controversy
If you're not familiar with wikipedia, it's like an encyclopedia. It's not news or editorial content (no opinions). According to wikipedia, the two have worked on charitable organizations. There has been no link between Obama and Ayers since 2002 which is way before he started his run for the Presidency. That was before he was even Senator. So without any contact in the last 6 years, it's highly unlikely that Ayers could actually plan any strategy on Obama's candidacy. I would also like to point out that Ayers is now a professor at a well-respected university.
I think when Palin started talking about Obama's reverend, that was pretty much the pot calling the kettle black. There are plenty of videos on the Internet showing a "witchhunter" performing a "ritual" on Palin before she was elected governor. She actually goes back and thanks him after the election and says that he contributed to her winning.
If you're worried about Obama's relations to terrorist, I will have to admit that I was once taught by and know Dr. Harry Edwards, a former Black Panther, an activist, and also a Professor Emeritus of Sociology at the University of California, Berkeley.
All I'm saying is that you can't judge a person by who they are taught by, who they've worked with on charitable organizations, who has lived in their neighborhood, or who preaches in their church. You often can't control these things or what these people might say or do. You can only control your own actions and Obama has done nothing even closely resembling terrorism.
If you were a republican you would understand what Rush was saying. republicans were always about being conservative. McCain was not a conservative. The country has been identified as middle right and still is, but republicans have lost their way.
Nothing Rush said was creting divisiveness because Liberals and Conservatives do not agree on policy. That is the way things are, and if Obama does not work across party lines then America will not buy into his liberal adjenda,
Nothing Rush said was creting divisiveness because Liberals and Conservatives do not agree on policy. That is the way things are, and if Obama does not work across party lines then America will not buy into his liberal adjenda,
I just saw a clip of Elisabeth Hasselbeck (who I normally find extremely annoying), but, like McCain, she said uniting things--I really hope it all rubs off on McCain supporters.
That said, I listened to Rush Limbaugh for a bit this morning and he was basically saying, "The Republicans didn't lose yesterday--we weren't even running." And he went on about how those who voted for Obama were pseudo-Republicans and they can stay away because they aren't real Republicans. How sad that he will work tirelessly to keep the flames fanned and create divisiveness.
That said, I listened to Rush Limbaugh for a bit this morning and he was basically saying, "The Republicans didn't lose yesterday--we weren't even running." And he went on about how those who voted for Obama were pseudo-Republicans and they can stay away because they aren't real Republicans. How sad that he will work tirelessly to keep the flames fanned and create divisiveness.
Now is a time to come together, Democrats and Republicans, as Americans. When we agree on nothing else, we all agree that we love this country, as do the two men who engaged in rigorous campaigns to lead our nation.
Let us put the rhetoric of those campaigns behind us and pull together as a country behind the man elected to lead us. We are facing grave challenges as a nation. I pray that our country is able to unite to confront these trials, as that is when we are at our best as Americans.
I hope that we, as a community at MedHelp, can come together and begin to find common ground and the common good that exists in each of us.
Let us put the rhetoric of those campaigns behind us and pull together as a country behind the man elected to lead us. We are facing grave challenges as a nation. I pray that our country is able to unite to confront these trials, as that is when we are at our best as Americans.
I hope that we, as a community at MedHelp, can come together and begin to find common ground and the common good that exists in each of us.
Sure, Regan is great, we will just forget about him dumping hoardes of mental patients onto the cold streets. Shhh, no one will remember that!
And I am defending the notion that Ayers is the anti-christ. This man has made a significant change in his life. He has grown, the same cannot be said for many.
He was given Citizen of the Year in Chicago in 1997, not an honor bestowed lightly I do not imagine.
To make the leap that he will somehow be charged with governing our country because of his "associations" with Obama is akin to saying that his mailman or plumber will be to. It is simply ridiculous.
It is time to move on as graciously as your fallen candidate did.
And I am defending the notion that Ayers is the anti-christ. This man has made a significant change in his life. He has grown, the same cannot be said for many.
He was given Citizen of the Year in Chicago in 1997, not an honor bestowed lightly I do not imagine.
To make the leap that he will somehow be charged with governing our country because of his "associations" with Obama is akin to saying that his mailman or plumber will be to. It is simply ridiculous.
It is time to move on as graciously as your fallen candidate did.
All I can say Suzi, is to look at what a total eff up the last 8 years have been. Its time for change.
And the majority of Americans agree, and could look past the Republican sound bites that were deployed to distract and sway. So far, I do not see Rev. Wright or Bill Ayers being invited to be part of the Cabinet. I highly doubt we will.
Lets do what we can to push this country out of the devastating decline its in. Lets be positive, not just "give him a chance".
And the majority of Americans agree, and could look past the Republican sound bites that were deployed to distract and sway. So far, I do not see Rev. Wright or Bill Ayers being invited to be part of the Cabinet. I highly doubt we will.
Lets do what we can to push this country out of the devastating decline its in. Lets be positive, not just "give him a chance".
Peek- I can understand your feelings about him cheating on his wife and losing respect for him...that is your decision to make.
But how can that be questioned when Obama's relationships with Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers are acceptable???
These associations make me question Obama's integrity.
I hope that Obama turns out to be the best president in US history! I would love to be part of an America that is prospering again like it did in the 80's (under Reagan) (I had to put that in!)
But how can that be questioned when Obama's relationships with Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers are acceptable???
These associations make me question Obama's integrity.
I hope that Obama turns out to be the best president in US history! I would love to be part of an America that is prospering again like it did in the 80's (under Reagan) (I had to put that in!)
Andi....he is a known terrorist....period...he said that he didn't do enough 40 years ago...he got off from being put in jail for life on a technicality....I wonder how forgiving you would be if it were your home that he targeted to blow up 40 years ago....forgive and forget? not a chance! He has not regreted nor apologized for what he had done.
It is amazing how you want to defend William Ayers!!! Are YOU that radical or just looking for a fight?
Obama won the election...I will live with it, and I will give him a chance...but my concerns are the concerns of many and I have the right to speak it.
Also, remember, in the popular vote, Obama only one by 5%. That means many dissatisfied Americans. I hope as well as all the others that he will improve our economy and our way of life.
Actually, I feel the republicans are handly our defeat very well, considering what was sure to happen if Obama had lost. The filfh spewing from the dems lips would have been disgusting.
It is amazing how you want to defend William Ayers!!! Are YOU that radical or just looking for a fight?
Obama won the election...I will live with it, and I will give him a chance...but my concerns are the concerns of many and I have the right to speak it.
Also, remember, in the popular vote, Obama only one by 5%. That means many dissatisfied Americans. I hope as well as all the others that he will improve our economy and our way of life.
Actually, I feel the republicans are handly our defeat very well, considering what was sure to happen if Obama had lost. The filfh spewing from the dems lips would have been disgusting.
You are reading content posted in the MedHelp Social Community
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
