vol_scouter

Some observations on this thread that the resident attorneys might address: 1. Afghanistan and Iraq are not declared wars. The Senate authorized troops but did not actually declare war. 2. Only soldiers in uniform are covered by the Geneva convention. So the fighters are not covered by the Geneva convention. It is my understanding that since they are not in uniform, they may be executed as spies. 3. I agree that the Bush administration has been a disaster for the rights of prisoners and of our freedoms. His policies cannot be defended in my opinion (I am a conservative who usually votes republican).

Any comment from our attorney types?

Oliver North was in the military and was carrying out what he believed to be lawful orders. Mr. North used his positiom to obtain a security system for his house due to threats. He was ridiculed by the democrats for taking those actions because he was threatened by an obviously impotent muslim named Osama Bin Laden.

Mr. North may have been wrong but I would much rather associate with him than Ayers who wants to destroy this country, attacked this country, and killed its' citizens. Mr. North honors this country, its' soldiers, and its' flag. Ayers hates the country, its' soldiers, and stands on the flag.

Go ahead and associate with a true terrorist - a murderer and I will associate with an honorable though flawed man.

Lisabob,

I believe your assertion that threatening remarks have been made toward Obama. I hope that the Secret Service is investigating! Such remarks have no place in political discourse. All of the questions about Obama are fair game as are similar questions about McCain. First Amendment freedoms give people the right to call Obama a terrorist but I once again am against assertions which seem to have no validity just as the media asserting that Todd Palin is the father of Bristol's child. Neither are helpful.

As to the abortion issue, their is a video that I believe is on Ms. Jensen's website as well as youtube. In the video, Obama clearly states that a baby surviving an abortion should not be entitled to medical treatment because it might be 'inconvenient' to the mother. He is clear in his statement. I understand that there was existing Illinois law but he did not reference that in the clip. If he did reference that and it was not included in the clip, he still did not have to state that the baby is not entitled to medical treatment. One way or the other, he stated clearly that he was against requiring medical treatment for these defenseless babies. I appreciate the thoughtful reply but I am unmoved and still feel that Obama is unfit to be president. If he is elected (I shudder), I will support him and hope that he does well for our country.

AlFansome,

I understand the politics and reasons why a politician may vote against a bill that they may actually support many of the ideas. However, Obama was filmed saying that a baby should be denied medical treatment because it might be 'inconvenient' for the mother. In other words, a living independent being should be allowed to die for the convenience of another. That is what he said. That is inhuman. So someone has an elderly parent who is healthy and gets acutely ill. They say: "Don't do anything for them, it is inconvenient for me". That is ethically the same argument. Obama has an extreme view that is simply not defensible.

funscout,

I have raised this point twice eith no response. I think that since this is recorded and has at least been on youtube, that Obama supporters cannot respond. How can a scouter defend allowing a baby to die without medical intervention? Saying that it could be 'inconvenient' for the mother is no reason to allow a separate being to die without medical treatment. It is inhuman. Obama is not fit to lead.

Lisabob,

My beliefs are such that I believe that God does pay attention to such things as elections. In the Old Testament somewhere is a verse describing that all leaders come to power with His knowledge. That bothers me because why would a Hitler, Mussolini, Hirohito, or Stalin be allowed to come to power? I do not pretend to understand everything. At the same time, I agree with you about which candidates are who God would find most favorable. We do not know the mind of God and must ultimately prayer that his will be done. We do not know what is in the hearts of these two candidates. I believe that McCain is the better man by a long shot but I do not know. I will not pray that a particular candidate wins but rather the best for the country.

Lisabob,

In the short news clips that I have seen, people have called him a terrorist, a socialist, and a marxist. I have not seen or heard actual threats. I am sure that the Secret Service will investigate anyone making threatening comments. So that from what I know directly, there have been no threats at rallies. From your posts, you certainly appear to be trustworthy so if you say that people at McCain rallies have threatened Obama I believe you. I do not condone threats or violence toward any candidate or their families. The only racist comments that I have heard have come from the Obama campaign charging the McCain campaign which I have heard no racist comments from. I do not believe that this is about race. I think that the emotion is about ideology and the way the media has attacked Governor Palin and protected Obama.

You are obviously resorting to an ad hominem attack as the left typically does when they have no reasonable response. If these issues are so silly, the mainstream media can send 30 attorneys to each issue to critically investigate and release a report that would make everyone feel better. Instead they spread totally unfounded rumors about Todd Palin and his daughter Bristol. If Obama is so guiltless, looking iinto by media entirely on his side should be of no consequence. Otherwise, he remains scary and is not fit to be president.

packsaddle,

I am not sure what you mean by those outbursts. If you mean "Am I frustrated and want the mainstream media to investigate Obama" then the answer is yes. If you mean any of the supposed calls for harm, then absolutely NO!! If Obama gets elected, I will try to support the president, pray for the president, and pray that my misgivings which the mainstream media wishes to ignore are unfounded. I always want the president to succeed for the good of the country. I lived through Carter and saw the damage that increasing the capital gains taxes did to the economy so I have little hope. It is unfathomable to me that so many educated people are not concerned that Obama has so many unresolved issues. I understand the frustration and angry toward the president and the republican party - I share in those emotions. That should not translate into blindly trusting someone with as many potential serious issues as Obama. All of these issues may be of not consequence but they should be investigated before we are expected to vote for him.

Paid for with a redistribution of wealth other wise known as socialism and marxism. Obama will fundamentally change America if he gets elected into a socialist/marxist state. Wake up before it is too late.

You are right. This is about a socialist or perhaps marxist getting elected. So fairy tale should be changed to nightmare. It has happened in other countries when the public refused to pay attention to warning signs as we have with Ayers, Odinga, Wright, Pfleger, ACORN, the Berg suit, radicalization of students, etc. with Obama. We are facing a nightmare from which we will likely not awake.

Much of the public is tired of the main stream media ignoring valid concerns about Obama. The ads from the McCain-Palin campaign raise valid concerns that the main stream media refuses to investigate in any meaningful manner. I totally agree that in a long career politicians will make meet and have their photo made with all sorts of people. Jimmy Carter had his photo made with a donor who was later found to be kidnapping children, killing them, and burying them under his house. Carter was not and should not have been held responsible. As far as the 3 senators that you brought up, only Byrd is unrepentant. Byrd is a colleague of Obama in the senate but I do not think that Obama would support those actions as you point out Senator McCain doesn't reflect the values of Helms or Thurmond.

Many in the public are angry about the mainstream media's sexism toward Governor Palin. Many wish to see teams of reporters and attorneys investigating Obama's involvement with Ayers, Odinga, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, ACORN, and the Berg suit like they have done to Governor Palin. Many feel that Obama is the one not properly vetted and many are truly scared of the man. He promises 'change' but the change exploits class envy, re-distributes wealth - that is Socialism or perhaps Marxism. He is scary!

You did not address him being against providing medical care for a baby that survives an abortion. He said that it might be "inconvenient" for the mother and voted against the bill 4 times. The baby is now a separate living being who he wishes to deny medical care. That is inhuman!

Obama is scary and not fit to be president.

I have seen An American Carol with 2 different groups, I thought that it was hilarious and a sad comment on our country at the same time.

Lisabob,

You are right in the sense that Byrd has never apologized for his involvement with the Klan. The other 2 were not that I am aware Klan members. Senator Thurmond and Helms were apologetic for some of their earlier stances, Ayers is not and in fact recently was photographed standing on a flag and in an interview said that he wished that he had done more. There is no comparison between the 2 cases. If you use your criteria of truthfulness, you can't vote for Obama either. As for racism, James Carville threatened the US with widespread riots if Obama loses. Neither candidate seems to be what the country needs at this time but Obama has too many bad relationships that are not casual for my tastes.

As a member of the healing arts profession, seeing a video in which Obama speaks against a Illinois bill (and later voted against) that would require medical treatment for a baby that has survived an abortion - I can not never support and I cannot understand how anyone can. I am not against all abortions but if the baby (this is no longer a fetus) has no right to medical care then we are a reprehensible society. Obama is not a fit leader and McCain is poor choice as well.

It is important to remember that Senators Byrd, Helms, and Thurmond were never terrorists. They were racists at least during part of their lives. McCain worked with them in the senate but he did not choose them as a member - all elected by others.

Obama worked with and for Ayers who is an unrepentant terrorist who hates this country. The comparison to McCain and other Senators does not hold water. McCain was one of the Keating 5 and was found to have exercised poor judgment. Obama listened to a racist anti-American minister for 20 years but I am asked to believe that he does not agree with those views. Obama campaigned for a Marxist, Odinga in Kenya. Obama sued banks for ACORN causing part of the current financial mess. ACORN is being investigated in several states for voter fraud. Obama worked for Ayers to bring radical education to American children.

I do not like McCain but as someone just wrote: Who is Obama? we know little of him. The more that is found out about him, the more I find that is disturbing. People are flocking to him because of the economic crisis (in my mind caused by congress - both parties and several presidents) even though he has never run a business or anything else except his campaign. I understand being angry at Republicans but I do not understand the reason to vote for Obama except for appeals to class envy.

Governor Palin did as ALL politicians and altered some questions to answer what she wished to answer. When she said that she was not going to answer a particular question, it was because the moderator had asked her a different question than had been asked to Biden. The rules of the debate were violated by Ifill who stnad to profit by a Obama win and who on mic congratulated Biden on a good job. Governor Palin merely wished to answer the question Biden had answered and not a different one. Did you notice Biden reading from his notes prior to answering a question but seldom in the followup questions? Why would he reference his notes then and not on followups?

Sarah Palin had a difficult job. She had to defend John McCain's long record in the face of someone who has been in the Senate much longer than McCain. Biden has lived that history while Governor Palin had to learn about it. Biden had to defend a short and undistinguished Senate record of Obama (who has yet to have sponsored a major piece of legislation and has spent much of his time in the Senate running for president). So Biden had a considerable advantage because he has been there for the votes involving the 3 Senators.

As to qualifications, Obama asks us to trust that he has good judgement because he has little experience. Governor Palin is the same except she does have executive experience.

Furthermore, even though she is well qualified and a politician, she has only been running for the office for five weeks not the years for the other candidates. If she had been doing this for 18 months, I suspect that she would have been even more decisive. Her life experiences come closer to matching the rest of us than any other candidate in the race. In fact, I think that both Biden and Governor Palin would be better candidates for president than the 2 actually running.

ScoutmomSD,

I am also interested in politics. If it didn't affect us so much, it would be funny. The interesting thing to me is that I likely would agree with the 5 values that you allude to but I have a totally different conception on how best to get there. It is my belief that while we may have differing solutions, we don't care that much which is used as long as it works. For example, we all wish affordable, comprehensive, health care with choice of hospitals and physicians with coverage expanded to the currently uninsured. We may disagree which plan is best but if one were to be enacted and it fulfilled our criteria, I do not believe that the public cares which plan was chosen.

We are tired that our congress doesn't compromise to solve our problems but rather play politics. President Bush has not performed all that well but he has warned that Social Security will go broke i the middle of this century and proposed a plan. The Democrats criticized the plan which is fine but they never offered an alternative. Nothing has been done and the clock is ticking. President Bush also warned of the current economic crisis and once again nothing was done. There are many such examples. I expect that both parties must give some to move forward but they both stick to strict ideologies. This is destroying the country. The examples provided were issues that the Democrats have failed to work out but they were just what came to mind. The root cause of our current economic crisis is the Community Re-investment Act change that was pushed by President Clinton but passed by a Republican controlled congress in 1999. Both parties are ti blame.

Enough ranting. May whoever we elect be truly the best for our country.

Packsaddle,

In regards to GM or other American companies (which can be difficult to ascertain which are actually American), we agree that the government should not do anything except to assure fair trade practices.

I lived in a foreign country for awhile. It is a wonderful small country. Its' citizens are proud of their products and buy preferentially from their companies. They understand that it is better to buy from their own companies rather than foreign companies. So where we will likely differ is that I believe that not buying from GM is short sighted on the part of our citizens. Certainly, if American products are clearly inferior or considerably more expensive, they will suffer in the market place. If the American products are reasonably priced though maybe a little more expensive and comparable quality, I believe that we should support American firms.

American cars are now among the top-rated for quality and if you price all features, they tend to be less expensive. Buying foreign cars ultimately damages our country. We are better off with Ford, GM, and Chrysler with their payrolls and profits here than totally without. Japanese companies build factories in area in which there is a young work force and close the plant to avoid paying retirement - is that good for us? Our council is getting ready to buy a new fleet and I voiced the opinion that we should try to buy American. I was told not to worry because the foreign companies will not give a good fleet discount. So without American companies, we will pay more for our fleet. Without American company profits, our economy will fail (if both parties in DC don't doom us before).

Well said by both Packsaddle and Beavah. To be fair to both candidates, since the bail out plan was just completed, they could not respond to the question posed by Leherer about how it will change their plans. Still I would have appreciated more candor. Whether one liked President Reagan or not, he did well by being more direct and saying what he thought [though he was far from perfect in that regard either]. I think that we as the public tend to like candidates who are direct and consistent.

Also, as in these post, most of us want the same things for our country though we may differ on how to reach those goals. The goals are national security, more energy independence, 'protection' of the family so that more families are successful [i.e. policies that encourage families], some level of economic prosperity, peace, concern for the environment, access to reasonably priced healthcare, good public education, and control of crime. While we may disagree with the way to achieve these goals, we would all be happy if our elected officials would make these goals their job and forget some of the ideology.

Packsaddle,

I will vote for who in my opinion is the best for our country, without regard to the opinion of foreign governments. I re-read my post, I did not refer to protectionism or tariffs. I did not call you a liberal or any other name. GM gave the consumer what they wanted at the time. Electric cars are still not a viable option for many Americans though hybrids might be reasonable. As long as the leaders of or country (both state and national) insist on larger and larger tractor trailer rigs, people will and should for the safety of their families drive the largest vehicles that they can afford. Until both parties work on an energy plan in the interest of the country (meaning us), then we will respond in the ways that seem best.

Packsaddle,

Once again you have made the argument that one should vote for Senator McCain because the world leaders believe that Obama will give them more of what they want not what is best for the US. Clearly, it is best that we have a president more interested in our best interests than those of other countries.

As to GM, it made a mistake. However, the profits come here rather than to other countries. It is in the best interest of our country for profits to come here rather than somewhere else.

I agree that Senator McCain should have been more polite, make some eye contact, and address his opponent at times. I have watched Senator McCain for years and some of this is just who he is. He gets focused on an issue and seems to have trouble with standard decorum.

As far as working across the aisle, Senator McCain's record speaks for itself. His problems with his base is entirely because he works with the democrats, compromises with them, and tries to move legislation forward. If he didn't work across the aisle so much, he would not have had such issues with his base.

Senator Obama, according the MSM, has voted with his party 100% when he has voted. I have known many who talk about working in a bipartisan manner who never do so. Actions speak louder than words. If Obama was interested in working in a bipartisan manner, I would expect at least one vote out side of the party line.

packsaddle,

I will vote in the actual election here, nothing else counts. As your post attests, many take into account what other countries want but they scream if there is any hint of Americans preferring one candidate in their own election. So if we are arrogant, then they are much more so. As far as loans, etc., countries do these things for their own benefit not because they like or dislike the president. If your situation were to be the case, then either the world likes President Bush much more than the liberal press says or it makes no difference. Once again, I want a president that always puts the interests of the US first - NO EXCEPTIONS. Often, the best interests of the US involves good relationships with countries - friends and foes.

It is not arrogant to be concerned about the US over all others. It is the only reasonable course since NO other country have our best interest at heart. If Obama is so concerned about the opinion of other countries, then in my opinion he is unfit to lead.

Who cares what the rest of the world thinks - they do not have to pay our taxes, it is our soldiers who serve our Armed Forces, etc. In fact, other countries would want whoever will do what is best for them not for us. That map is on of the best reasons why McCain should be elected rather than Obama who will pander to the interests of other countries rather than our own.