I think I made my position very clear. I do not intend to vote for a johnny come lately that IMO does not have the experience or record that would make me comfortable enough to vote for him.
Regarding McCain and Clinton, they both have the required maturity and backgrounds and as for Guiliani being Mayor of NY prepares one for just about any major position.
It's very clear that you don't want to vote for him. It's less clear why.
How is Hillary more mature than Obama? (And how much maturity is needed to become president, exactly?) How does Obama lack the required background (which Hillary has)?
If you don't wish to answer those questions, that's fine, it's just that more and more it seems like your actual answer is "I just don't like Obama," which is also fine if unsatisfactory.
No, au, you didn't make yourself clear. You said you didn't know enough. You were offered more information.
You said you didn't like 'party line votes'. More information was offered.
Now you don't like Mr. Obama because he's too young. If you'd started with that, it would have been a bit more believable.
I wouldn't hesitate to say that Au will vote for whoever he/she feels will protect Israel's interests to the highest degree. And that's Clinton/Guiliani.
Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn
I wont even dignify your last remark by responding. Except to say I have no idea how, if push came to shove, how anyone of them would respond the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
If that's the case Au definitely won't be voting Obama who wants to send more support to Palistinians.
Excerpt:
Quote:Obama remark draws fire from Jews
'Nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people,' he said in Iowa.
Source
au1929 wrote:Cycloptichorn
I wont even dignify your last remark by responding. Except to say I have no idea how, if push came to shove, how anyone of them would respond the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
Mmm. You've made noises in the past about protecting Israel and how important it is for the US. It's fine with me if you choose not to remember them now.
Cycloptichorn
au1929 wrote:Cycloptichorn
I wont even dignify your last remark by responding. Except to say I have no idea how, if push came to shove, how anyone of them would respond the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
I would add however, in a pinch the liberal democrates are for more likely to throw Isreal to the wolves than the republicans. That is pretty much a given.
au1929 wrote:au1929 wrote:Cycloptichorn
I wont even dignify your last remark by responding. Except to say I have no idea how, if push came to shove, how anyone of them would respond the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
I would add however, in a pinch the liberal democrates are for more likely to throw Isreal to the wolves than the republicans. That is pretty much a given.
And why not? They are hardly an ally of ours. All the aid seems to flow one direction, all the benefit seems to flow one direction.
Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn wrote:au1929 wrote:Cycloptichorn
I wont even dignify your last remark by responding. Except to say I have no idea how, if push came to shove, how anyone of them would respond the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
Mmm. You've made noises in the past about protecting Israel and how important it is for the US. It's fine with me if you choose not to remember them now.
Cycloptichorn
That i support Isreal and you do not is an unquestionable truth. However, I have never made noises about the US protecting Israel and how important it was to the US.
Dang, au. Can you be any more specific? That link is to multiple other links of pages and pages of text, none of what I read touching Palestine.
The furor over General Pace's comment that homosexuality was "immoral" wasnt kind for Hillary Clinton.
Asked whether she thought homosexuality was immoral, she, typically,
first tried to duck the question, and then give in after all when protestations followed.
Unfortunately, it appears that
Obama failed to pass the no-waffle test just as blatantly.
Another potential problem
here (or perhaps it's just me)
Anyone of you Obama robots know if this is an official vid of his campaign?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6h3G-lMZxjo
Robot?
It came up earlier, (that video), and no it's not.
As I've said before, Obama's position on homosexuality is one area where I disagree with him (while recognizing that if he agreed with me down the line he'd probably be unelectably liberal). I think he's kind of caught between a personal ick factor and a moral standpoint, which he's still struggling with. The "struggle" could be illusion of course and he might not ever get further than he is now (for civil unions, for repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," against gay marriage, seems ambivalent about morality or lack thereof).
Weird!
I'd guess that some major media outlet did something on it and it went from there...?
