Obama's father split when Barack was two years old, so he was a non-factor. If you're going to insist that he's a Muslim, you're only going to be laughed at, and rightfully so.

Then again, if he is a Muslim, as you suggest, I have a hard time understanding why you then get so twisted over Rev. Wright. Wright's not a Muslim, so nothing he would've said would've had much of an impact on Obama.

You don't let that stop the hissy-fits, though, do ya'?

And I know plenty of people who are Christianfor no other reason than their parents were Christian, so your "birthright" argument falls flat on its' face...

__________________



For those who have fought to defend it, freedom has a taste the protected will never know...



If it wasn't for double standards, liberals would have no standards at all...

My nephew was born a Muslim because his father was Muslim. He was from Somalia. My nephew has never practiced his religion. He is a converted Christian.

Obama even attended Islamic classes in Indonesia. According to Muslims your faith is a birthright.

__________________
It's hard to stay mad at someone who makes you laugh - Jay Leno

Hello everyone! Don't you I think that Israeli Jews began to take too much interest in Barack Obama? What is amazing me most of all, their U-turn attitude toward the Dem. nominee for US President. Only some two months ago Israeli news media reported he was not eligible to run for president, now they welcome him in Israel with open arms. Isn't that weird? It is immediately obvious that Israeli Jews are plotting something. Perhaps, they understood that Obama has a fair chance of being elected. That's why they decided to patch up relations with him. Or even worse - he came to Israel and Mossad has hooked him already or is planning the thing! Why should Israeli Jews do it? Why, don't you know that they have always dreamed of having loyal US president! Have we been not dancing to Israel's whistle? Now America will get under total control of Israel with pro-Israel head of state! We will wage new anti-Arab wars for Israel, and do all other dirty job for them! As for Israeli Jews, they would as usually pull the chestnuts out of the fire with our hands! Now you see, it was not for no purpose said earlier this year that Obama's going to be the first Jewish President. So will be it, assuming he wins the November election and all. And I have no doubt he will, having that strong support of Israeli Lobby.

Come on, not the "Jewish conspiracy" crap.

Well, according to you and your "logic", he's not a Christian of any stripe; he's a Muslim.

Have you disowned him yet? Blamed him for 9/11? The USS Cole?

Hey, if he was born a Muslim, and being Muslim is a "birthright" nothing can change that, right?

Of course, if it's a "birthright", it really casts a shadow over those who convert to Islam. Are they really Muslims, or do they just recite the lines and wear the costumes?

__________________



For those who have fought to defend it, freedom has a taste the protected will never know...



If it wasn't for double standards, liberals would have no standards at all...

You're not even worth debating with. I'm not entangling myself with you any longer.

Obama's been against the war in Iraq the whole way dude.

And the surge had everything to do with bringing the Sunnis and Baathist militia guys back into the fold and paying them once again, since it was our stupid ass leaders who decided to disband the Iraqi military in the first place.

Everything you have to say comes from a closed-minded point of view. You've got it all decided beforehand out of hate and spite for the other political party, and it's boring.

Anyone who doesn't let reason and facts swoosh around in their head before making up their mind is just another partisan fool.

Goodbye.

I'm just being realistic.

Obamamaniacs aren't.


Another fact that shows Obama doesn't know a thing about the job he's aspiring to do is his questions to the press on his plane about why the troops seem to be watching a lot of Fox News everywhere he goes on overseas bases. He actually thought maybe that they were required to watch Fox News.

He was told it was up to the troops what they watch.

What a surprise.

Our troops have a choice what they can watch. This seriously......must have been news to Obama. He thought that it was something that the President decided. Then somebody implied that this was most likely the case since Bush became President.



Since Fox News tends to give them the news that they know is more honest rather then negatively slanted they tend to watch Fox News more then CNN.

After all.....who knows what's happening in Iraq and Afghanistan more then the troops?

__________________
It's hard to stay mad at someone who makes you laugh - Jay Leno

I love how Mud dodges my post about his nephew...

__________________



For those who have fought to defend it, freedom has a taste the protected will never know...



If it wasn't for double standards, liberals would have no standards at all...

My most recent thoughts about Obama is that he needs to buy Bush some really nice champaign for undermining McCain twice this past week. But then I forgot that Bush doesn't drink anymore and that Obama will have to get him some near-beer.

I think he would settle for a Dr Pepper.

__________________
It's hard to stay mad at someone who makes you laugh - Jay Leno

as seen by the sith lord. I know I know, but he did get bush elected 3 times, so even if you hate him, you gotta give him his due.

A Tale of Two Flip-Floppers
By KARL ROVE
July 24, 2008; Page A13

John McCain and Barack Obama have both changed positions in this campaign. That's OK. Voters understand that politicians can and, sometimes, should change their views. After all, voters do. Witness the wide swings in their answers to opinion polls.

But before accepting the changes, voters typically ask themselves three questions: Does the candidate admit he's shifting? What's the new information that altered his thinking? Does the change seem reasonable and not calculating?

Sen. McCain has changed his position on drilling for oil on the outer continental shelf. But because he explained this change by saying that $4-a-gallon gasoline caused him to re-evaluate his position, voters are likely to accept it. Of course, Mr. McCain doesn't explain why prices at the pump haven't also forced him to re-evaluate his opposition to drilling on 2000 acres in the 19.2-million-acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. But, then, what politician is always consistent?

Mr. McCain flip-flopped on the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. He'd voted against them at the time, saying in 2001 that he'd "like to see more of this tax cut shared by working Americans." Now he supports their continuation because, he says, letting them expire would increase taxes and he opposes tax hikes. Besides, he recognizes that the tax cuts have helped the economy.

At least Mr. McCain fesses up to and explains his changes. Sen. Obama has shifted recently on public financing, free trade, Nafta, welfare reform, the D.C. gun ban, whether the Iranian Quds Force is a terrorist group, immunity for telecom companies participating in the Terrorist Surveillance Program, the status of Jerusalem, flag lapel pins, and disavowing Rev. Jeremiah Wright. And not only does he refuse to explain these flip-flops, he acts as if they never occurred.

Then there is Iraq. Throughout 2006 and early 2007, Mr. Obama pledged to remove all U.S. troops, even voting to immediately cut off funds for the troops while they were in combat. Then, in July 2007, he started talking about leaving a residual U.S. force, in Kuwait and elsewhere in the region, able to go back into Iraq if needed.

By October, he shifted again, pledging to station the residual U.S. troops inside Iraq with two "limited missions of protecting our diplomats and carrying out targeted strikes on al Qaeda."

Last week, writing in the New York Times, Mr. Obama changed again. He increased the missions his residual force would perform to three: "going after any remnants of al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, protecting American service members and, so long as the Iraqis make political progress, training Iraqi security forces." That's not all that different from what U.S. troops are doing now.

And just how many U.S. troops would Mr. Obama leave in Iraq? Colin Kahl, an Obama adviser on Iraq, has said the senator wants to have "perhaps 60,000-80,000 forces" in Iraq by December 2010. So much for withdrawing all combat troops.

It's dizzying. Yet, Mr. Obama acts as if he is a paradigm of consistency. He told a Georgia rally this month that "the people who say [I've been changing] apparently haven't been listening to me." In a PBS interview last week he said, "this notion that somehow we've had wild shifts in my positions is simply inaccurate."

Compounding all this is Mr. Obama's stubborn refusal to admit the surge was right and that he was wrong to oppose it. On MSNBC in January 2007, he said more U.S. troops would not "solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse." Later that month he said at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing that the new strategy would "not prove to be one that changes the dynamics significantly." In fact, the surge has done far more than its advocates hoped in a much shorter period.

Yet Mr. Obama told ABC's Terry Moran this week that even in retrospect, he would oppose the surge. He also told CBS's Katie Couric that he had "no idea what would have happened" without the new strategy. And he still declares, in the New York Times last week, "The same factors that led me to oppose the surge still hold true." Given all that has happened, it's hard to understand how Mr. Obama can say, as he did Tuesday in a story on NBC Nightly News, that "I don't have doubts about my ability to apply sound judgment to the major national security problems that we face."

Americans have seen both candidates flip-flop. Mr. McCain at least has a record of being a gutsy leader willing to take unpopular stands who admits his shifts and explains the new information that caused them.

Mr. Obama has detached himself from past positions at record speed. And in doing so he runs the risk of being seen as a cynical politician, not an inspiring leader. If this happens, voters in large numbers may ask -- despite his rhetorical acrobatics -- if he is the change they've been waiting for.

A Tale of Two Flip-Floppers - WSJ.com

__________________

"The captain has turned off the `No Dubbing' sign. You are free to speak any language you choose."

I think the electorate hasn't been sufficiently well educated or informed. Just as it is not Congress' job to micromanage the executive, it is not the populaces' job to micromanage the "molehills" instead of the "mountains" of political platforms. Sure, safety and security, and lower taxes are issues, but those issues can be resolved during the course of normal business by our elected representative to government.

In my opinion, all that "fluff" detracts from the real goals the candidates should be addressing. What we still haven't heard from the candidates is how they will achieve zero percent official poverty in our faux first world economy. The reason this is more important that micromanaging foreign policy is that it directly affects us here in the United States.

A public policy of zero percent official poverty would not hinder infrastructure development or lower our standard of living, unlike the Wars on Drugs and Terror. A public policy of zero percent official poverty could result in better infrastructure development (e.g urban renewal) that could raise our standard of living. Such a public policy would also have the effect of ensuring better equality among the populace in our mixed-market economy where economic discrimination is legal.

A public policy of zero percent official poverty could also necessitate less foreign entanglements that have only increased our costs, not improved our standard of living, and have done nothing to ameliorate conditions in the US that have been around since before we realized we had sufficient economic knowledge to actually solve our domestic socioeconomic problems in a more ethical and moral manner.