MichelleO: If you don’t elect The One, children will be endangered!
Bitter Half Alert: Here she goes again. But don’t you dare breathe a negative word about what she says on the campaign trail, because she’s just a “civilian” whom you should lay off of–and if you don’t you’re a racist, wife-beating brute!
MichelleO, MichelleO, MichelleO:
Michelle Obama mixed a story about how her husband, the Democratic presidential candidate asked her out, with a solemn assessment of U.S. economic and social conditions during a visit to the Denver area Wednesday.
Obama spoke before a crowd of about 150 that paid from $1,000 to $10,000 apiece at a private fundraising dinner at a downtown Denver hotel. She earlier spoke briefly to volunteers for the Democratic National Convention after landing at Centennial Airport in the south-Denver suburb of Englewood…
…”I wish we had time to be divided. I wish we had time to be upset. To be angry. To be disappointed. I wish we did,” Obama said. “Because if we had time for that, then things wouldn’t be so bad right now. Instead, we’re in a place where another four or eight years of the world as it is will devastate the life of some child.”
Four, eight, ten, whatever.
Flashback: P. Diddy already has MichelleO and the children covered. Remember?
Photoshop: Tennyson Hayes
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Michelle-O! Make Time to Stop and Smell the Shit [Dan Collins; UPDATE]
- Bloodthirsty Liberal » John McCain is Dangerous to Children and Other Living Things
- Barack And Michelle Obama Bring A New ‘Peoples Temple’ : BigMouthFrog
- No Runny Eggs » Blog Archive » The Morning Scramble - 7/22/2008
- Vanity Fair Cartoon Parodies New Yorker Cover With The McCains : BigMouthFrog
- Daily Obama Worship Links : Stop The ACLU
- Michelle ‘O’ - Elect Obama! Save the Children! « Thoughts Of A Conservative Christian
- Michelle Obama Gives Speech in Denver « Dianej’s Weblog
- insignificant thoughts » Blog Archive » Michelle Obama Plays Politics of Fear
- MICHELLE OBAMA SAYS IF WE DO NOT CHOSE THE ONE THAT CHILDREN WOULD SUFFER « Hillarysmygirl08’s Weblog
- If Obama Isn’t Elected, Children’s Lives Will Be Ruined « Beltway Snark
- Aren't we all getting REALLY sick of Michelle Obama? | The TIW Blog
- Hubris (noun): excessive pride, arrogance. See: Obama, Barack » Pursuing Holiness
- Obama or Else?
- F3 Coalition - [Faith. Family. Freedom.] » Blog Archive » Obama or Else?
- Michelle says, “Elect Barack, Save the Children!” « Thespis Journal
- News & Opinion Roundup (23 July 2008) Ich Bein Berliner & My Wife’s a Bitter Beeatch Edition | Democrat=Socialist
- Heil Obama German Victory Tour - Narcissistic Fascism : BigMouthFrog
- Michelle Malkin » Or else what, Michelle?
- Another supernatural act by Obama « Right Minded Online
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Michelle Obama
NewsBusters.org
» Fox the Only Cable Newser to Air Pelosi's House Speech LiveRight Pundits
» Joe Lieberman: Fort Hood Shooter Is ‘Home-Grown Terrorist’Legal Insurrection
» Bruni de la Motte for Health Care CzarRiehl World View
» Obama: No Military Death Shall Go UnexploitedLegal Insurrection
» In The End: No Public Option, No Abortions, No Pelosi, No ReidThe Other McCain
» Paralysis by analysis
Rusty said:
In a word … YES
I am interested, since Barry was raised in Hawaii.
His daughter is named Malia.
Does anyone know the origin or meaning of her hame?
Is that a traditional Hawaiian name/word?
let me know what you’re worth, then I’ll get back to you on this…
and Bush didn’t hike gas prices–the Democratic-controlled congress did.
And the Democratically controlled congress has done what, exactly? Up until 2006, the economy was much better. It’s the Democrats who want high taxes, high gas prices, a stifled American economy, etc. It’s Democrats who like illegal immigration. It’s Democrats who spend like drunken sailors (even more than those stupid RINOs out there).
Obama’s tax policies (which would raise taxes on *everyone* not just the “rich”), his environmental policies will surely devestate our economy, his unfettered love of abortion amounting to infanticide (and you cannot call his votes against the “Born Alive Act” anything *but* a love of infanticide – even Ted Kennedy voted for the bill, for cryin’ out loud).
Mark my words: within the first 9 months of the next administration, there will be a terrorist attack on American soil.
How will Obama act? Will he care more what the world thinks or about defending Americans?
Because I don’t give a crap what the rest of the world thinks of us when jihadis are threatening us. Or when stupid environmental policies cripple our economy.
Yes – I do not see a place for me, my family, or those share my beliefs (read: a majority of us here, including Michelle Malkin) in Obama’s America.
Where do we stand? Or are we going to be shut up, put out, and marginalized?
oldcollegeguy1980
Malia is the Hawaiian version of Mary
and its meaning is “perhaps, probably”.
thats closer to obama’s hope-n-change.
#92 Rusty
The dollar is worth less and less every day, gas prices are soaring
Happened after 2006, when the Democrats took control of Congress.
he stood watch over the worst terrorist attack against civilians in American history
Bill Clinton stood watch over how many terrorist attacks, and did diddly squat (well, okay, he did launch some missles at a couple of empty training camps and an asprin factory).
we’re stuck in a quagmire in Iraq
Actually, conditions in Iraq are improving.
North Korea has the bomb
Do you remember who gave Kim Jong Il that technology? Bill Clinton!
our international prestige is shot
Many countries have voted out their anti-American leadership and have voted in pro-American leadership, such as France.
itching to get in one in Iran
Iran seems to be itching to get into one with us, too.
illegal immigration remains unchecked
I’ll grant you, you’re correct there. But Barack HUSSEIN Obama is pro-illegal.
I think Bush has made a lot of mistakes. But, I think electing an out-right socialist, like Barack HUSSEIN Obama would be a disaster.
Rusty never heard of the Great Depression.
Rusty, do you know any history that occurred before you were born?
Additionally, many Clinton backers are vehemently opposed to Obama. Polls taken in March indicate they’d vote for McCain if Clinton wasn’t the nominee.
They still aren’t a happy bunch.
Mind you, it’s not to my liking that their argument is McCain and Clinton are basically the same, but Obama is not embraced by Clinton supporters.
And he won’t be making her Veep anytime soon.
Additionally, a gentleman I know in Norway indicated most there do not think Obama’s experienced enough and would prefer McCain over him.
On July 22nd, 2008 at 9:27 am, DBNinKY said:
Doesn’t the sun ever shine in the Obama’s America?!
But… but… the sun don’t shine in there where they keep their heads!
Actually the economy started to decline in 2005 and the current Democrat-led congress didn’t take office until 2007. Not only that, it takes a very naive view of the relationship between the economy and government to believe that any policy changes would have such an immediate impact. The dollar has been in decline since 2003 (hmmm what happened in 2003), but I’m sure you can find a way to blame the Democrats for thats as well. Whether Democrats spend “like drunken sailors” or not, history has proven the Republican administrations have much larger deficits and smaller GDP growth.
Excuse me for reposting here a post I made on another thread (#59 and 60) but it addresses TOS #104 …
Wait! Did I miss something? Since when are Liberals NOT any of those things? They have been divided, angry, disappointed, and upset for the last 7.5 years! For a bunch of people that don’t have time to be that way, they sure as heck have wasted a great many years doing it.
Yes!
Oh, wait. Were you asking a rhetorical question? Sorry.
dems protect children? WHA? Nice try michellobama but most of us know what side the dems are of “the children”. They are no friend. I’d like to invite you to come to california where a nice little democrat ring tried to stop Jessica’s law. Boy would I LOVE to see the “type” of porn that is on that ring’s computers. Luckily, the california voters bypassed them and put Jessica’s law into effect….and yeah, it was actually FOR the children, unlike the demobrats in charge.
#105
DesertLover,
Correction, when Reid/Pelosi took over the national average was $2.30. If you take a look at a graph of historical gas prices, you’ll see that number was a nadir in a turbulent cycle (gas was over $3.00 just months before. Also, notice the relative flatness of gas prices up until 2003. Sure, the Democrats haven’t lived up to their promises but I would not say they are solely to blame.
My wife stopped at a restaurant with our youngest the other night. When she went to pull in, the car next to her had one of these stickers in the middle of the back window and one of these on each side of it.
She wanted to know where that “patriotic” fever pitch was when Clinton perjured himself and was impeached.
Oh no, you don’t!
These things are the result of your “guy,” Bill Clinton spending eight long, self-centered, egotistical, debached years defiling and profaning an office he neither appreciated nor deserved. They are an inheritance to President Bush from a man who cared more for his own below the belt indulgences than the general benefice of beltway bi-partisanship! Bill Clinton’s preoccupation with Monica, along with his avarice and hedonism, set into motion the events that created the economic and political atmosphere we find ourselves in today.
As a supporter of arguably the most sinful, forgettable and uneventful American President in history, you have NO right to criticize President Bush!
I don’t want either of the Obamas anywhere NEAR my son!
What they’re offering-he doesn’t need.
How about you go here and then click on the 18 month view, which will take you back to 1/21/07, about the time the new Pelosi-Reid Congress came to power.
The price per gallon was, actually, $2.13 per gallon, lower even than what you cited at the onset of their taking office. However, as of 7/21/08, the price per gallon was $4.03. What’s that, about $1.97 per gallon more than when they took office or almost two-fold, when they were coming in on a promise to get fuel prices lowered?
Rusty said:
Everything you have listed happened and happens with the policies of dems over the years so laying this at Bush’s feet just shows you honestly don’t know cause and effect all that well. Bush is the only one who actually DID something about it.
Korea didn’t just develop their bomb since 2000. Gas prices are soaring because the dems refuse to do a thing about it and block any type of drilling on our own soil in the name of whatever…they lick their finger and decide why they are against it when a new bill comes up to try to drill. Our international prestige is not shot. You need to learn how it is when you are at the top..people will always use tons of propaganda to bring you down. YOU fell for it. We aren’t stuck in a quagmire in iraq. It needed to be taken care of and America showed the world what you do to the bad boys when they decide to become a threat. Maybe they’ll think twice. Ignoring it is not an option which is what dems and the terrorist country supporters want to do..delay delay delay. Itching to get one in on Iran eh? Iran is developing something that will blow you to smithereens…I’m pretty glad that a President of the USA is willing to put OUR safety first. So yeah, if Iran insists on trying to be a world peace threat, then they need to be handled…Iraq style. And we know the dems really know how to handle deficit (they are the biggest spenders of my pocketbook anyway) and they really head up most of the sanctuary cities so don’t think the dems will be taking care of this any time soon. Economies go up and go down. Not to say there isn’t fixes that need to happen but you identify them and work through them which is something clearly the dems have no interest in doing. They want to keep adding too it…adding more gas tax, adding universal health care…..lovely.
Now, your efforts will do much better for our America to help it move forward instead of going all chickenlittle on us. If our forefathers were chickenlittle’s, we’d not have a great nation.
So yes, a dem can make this much worse. THINK.
$1.97$1.90Sorry. Typing too fast again.
TOS …
OK … that says the news article on TV that gave the other number was in error … but as for your link … I prefer the DOE numbers rather than those posted on Wikipedia …
Barry F.
Yep … the numbers differ on all the sites … all depends on whether they are really quoting only the regular octane or whether they are averaging all the prices as in the DOE link I just posted …
The one I cited is for regular unleaded in U.S. gallons, DL.
On July 22nd, 2008 at 5:54 pm, diaphanous said:
You said it, Diaphanous! President Bush is the first true Alpha-male President we have had since Reagan!
#113
Barry, what is your point? I stated in my early post that I agreed that the Democrats (Reid/Pelosi) have not lived up to their promises. But a rational look at historical gas prices shows me that the increase really started back in 2002 (Feb. 25, 2002 – $1.09). Four years later it was at $3.00 (Aug. 7, 2006). That’s nearly a 3-fold increase. The Democrats can be blamed for not doing enough to lower gas prices, but they should not be blamed for the overall rise in gas prices.
I’m sorry, but you’ve outed yourself. You obviously do not know what you’re talking about if you think this is even remotely close to true.
That gigantic hyperlink has an easy to read chart for your convenience. I don’t know how much you and your family earn, but I know I’m saving a considerable chunk of change with a President Obama.
Ok, let me get this straight. There was a terrorist attack nine months after President Bush took office. Republicans blamed Bill Clinton.
But if there is, God forbid, a terrorist attack nine months after President Obama swears into office, it’s Obama’s fault.
If that doesn’t expose the pitfalls of blind partisan thinking, nothing ever will.
Gee Rusty, must have missed this gem on your link from the liberal news:
I’m sure free healthcare for all will be really cheap and not boost everyone’s taxes at all
Moron.
Obama is weak – and the wrong people know it. Because of this, there would be little to impede their[terrorists] acting against us under – Heaven forbid – an B. Hussein Obama presidency. Clinton and Carter have already showed our enemies that Democrat administrations do not take the pre-emptive offense, and seldom exact any defense; we don’t need Obama drive the point home! Obama is weak and naive. President Elect McCain will keep us safe!
Actually, you and I can probably agree, TOS, that it does not all rest at the feet of Pelosi and Reid. But, now that the executive order banning domestic oil exploration has been lifted, the ball is clearly in their court to do something to increase our domestic oil production to reduce our dependence on the ever increasing price of oil from the Middle East.
Hey Rusty
The reason why the story is absent from here is because it’s an older view and McCain is talking about a permanent force like we have in Mecca and Medina, not a prolonged occupation that the media twists it up to be.
In case you haven’t noticed, this is a conservative blog. But if want to play that game, well, where’s all the Oil for Food news and rampant success from the surge on the daily kos, move on, the NY times, Huffington Post and San Fran Chronicle? And what about the major news stations? Why, the barely talked about it all.
McCain simply wants stability, and I thought Obama was going to do an immediate withdrawal?
Oh, but wait! If you’re BLACK and a LIBERAL, I guess you get to change your mind as much as you want, and since the media has a secret crush on Obama, they’ll swoon along right with it!
But we should be involved in Rwanda, Sudan and Myanmar, right? I mean, the same people on the left who oppose Iraq think it’s okay to militarily intervene over there, despite the fact those are/were INTERNAL affairs and it would be a VIOLATION of the UN Charter.
Places that don’t benefit us so people who think like you can bring the world into a depression and enjoy your self-hating party that is so grand on the left?
So many Western liberals aren’t interest in justice, what they want is to have the UN rule the world and have every living thing to be micro-managed and under the umbrella of government.
In other words, all they care about is POWER and are just really good at masking their real primal desires.
Oddly enough this web site says the name Malia means “bitter”. I’m not an expert though…
You are willfully misinformed as EQ. Senator Obama’s health care plan doesn’t mandate people to have health care. I hate this and think it’s bad policy. Still, “free health care for all”? Not even close. It’s reduced cost health care for people under a certain salary threshold.
And no matter how “socialist” Obama’s plan is, it’s light years better than McCain’s status quo plan. Our health care system is an embarrassment and it’s time for change. Dare I say…change…we can believe in?
Rusty also failed to mention that those numbers do not reflect the difference between the 2 regarding the Bush tax cuts …
McCain says they should be permanent while Obama wants them ended …
Ending the Bush tax cuts is a tax increase that would be in place before Obama’s numbers were applied … meaning your base tax would be higher than now … effectively wiping out the Obama tax cut …
Making the Bush cuts permanent would mean that the McCain numbers would be applied against what the current tax is and would actually be a reduction over what you pay now …
So that means that actually the bottom line is that the McCain tax reductions put more in your pocket because you won’t lose the Bush cuts … while Obama will actually mean no real tax reduction because you lost the Bush tax cuts …
Oh yeah, she’s right.
And in ‘04, Cameron Diaz said that if Bush was re-elected, rape would become legal. That was the last time (of many previous) that I watched “Something About Mary”!
And who picks up the tab for the other part of the reduced tab (ie subsidizing, because I doubt docs and nurses are going to take a voluntary pay cut in half)? Oh, that’s right, you and I the taxpayer.
I stand by my moron statement. Come back with your pretty chart once the study is complete and no longer has the disclaimer at the bottom of waiting to figure in health care costs.
Do you think Rusty, who is really the woefully misinformed one here and wants total free communist health care, will listen to real numbers and facts? Pfffft.
alaskangrizzly
no … not usually … but I still like to give others fresh ammunition to use to help refute some of the liberal arguments when away from here …
I know Desert, and thank you for that, it was a rhetorical question because Rusty is so hooked on liberalism that the mental disease has taken over and there is little hope left to save him from himself and his ilk.
alaskangrizzly
no problem … I get blind-sided once in a while but I try my best to present real facts that can be verified … I find it comforting to know that I am dealing from facts and not from emotion and knee jerk reactions …
Rusty, your description of Obama’s “health care for people under a certain salary threshold” sounds eerily like TennCare, Tennessee’s Medicaid program. That particular version of socialized medicine, which qualifies recipients to be below a certain “threshold” ended up being the cash cow of the state’s budget process each year, constituting about 1/3 of the total state budget. And, that program was only supposed to be for people who did not have access to other insurance, supposedly, through their employment and came in under the “threshold”.
Those types of programs don’t come cheap. It takes deep pockets to fund something like that. And, it was so bad that even the Democrat governor here started dismantling part of it to reduce costs, even at the cost of lawsuits by a TennCare recipients’ advocates.
Shouldn’t you be looking for a job instead of playing on the computer? You’d make a great Captain of the SS Deep Fat Fryer at Long John Silver.
No. I never said that. The terrorist attack will be a test of Obama – how will he handle terrorist demands and how will he defend this nation?
In this regard, my fear is he’ll fail spectacularly.
Which reminds me – you never answered another question I posed. How would your liberal ideals like gay marriage and abortion and feminism and the like fair under sharia law? And don’t you think we have an obligation to defend our nation against such atrocities?
I’m surprised more hasn’t been said about her first line. I know her entire paragraph is loaded with Trinity United HATE and Black Liberation Theology rhetoric, but the first part????
She wants us DIVIDED?!?!?!?!?!
Now, how is B. Hussein gonna UNITE us, bi-partisan and all that he is, if he really wants us DIVIDED?????
Oh, and she wants us disappointed as well.
She got that one right. I’m extremely disappointed in the ahab & jezebel team of gloom and doom and the reception by my country to their magic act.
The one and only time I ever felt shame in our nation – real, gut-wrenching shame – was during Carter’s handling of the Iranian hostage situation. (Now that was shame you could believe in!)
Yet the least things seem to cause you to feel shame and embarrassment for our mighty nation – and believe me, you’ve enumerated more than a few – so I’m beginning to wonder if you have ever felt faintest bit of pride in your country?
I thought you were a Hillary-ite? How’s she gonna run in ‘12 if B. Hussein Obama wins in ‘08 – with your support? That’s very little disloyal of you.
Make that “little/disloyal”
VERY VERY WELL DONE!
And the left wont quit w/the impeachment crap until they get ‘even’. Shameful.
I am MUCH more afraid of BHO than I am of Clinton(s), either clinton or even both clintons combined.
Mishallow hussein jezebel obama even tells us how afraid to be, but that’s off limits to talk about.
For someone who isn’t meant to be criticised, she seems to be doing a lot of speeches these days.
Tangentally related – and it really is a huge stretch, so take this as the 3am british musings that it is
– in my idle moments, I’ve wondered if in the back of her mind she’s planning to set herself up to have the option of emulating Hillary’s career path. Both came from a law background, and assuming BO gets in both will be comperable ages as first lady, with not *hugely* dissimilar prior political experience. Once Obama’s kicked out again in 4/8 years, assuming she’s proactive during that time she’d probably have a high enough profile think about aiming for the senate. Wait another 8 or so years for the political barometer to swing back from GOP to dems… and in she comes, with all the strengths of the current Obama campaign, plus a claim to experience, as well as most of the groundwork on the question of the electability of a female candidate having been done this year by Hillary. She’d be practically unassailable in the eyes of media – pretty much the only thing they could pick on would be Obama’s record as POTUS, and she’d throw that under the bus faster than you can say “This is not the Obama I knew…”. You’d barely feel the bump.
Yeah, a million and one assumptions in there, so hardly realistic. But it’s maybe juuuuust credible enough to be unnerving
.
Touche! But if said attack happens, you will be there pointing the finger at a President Obama, right?
The finger of blind accusations exists on both sides:
So, it is/was advisable to invade NK, ex post facto, with no resources and close proximity to China, and, of course, the bomb, but inadvisable to try and negotiate and keep Iran from having the bomb?
I don’t believe Obama will be the cure for illegals (the expulsion of which might help address the health care problem by lowering costs).
Barrel prices for oil have been tumbling (to use the media’s word) and the dollar is strengthening. The point made about several governments (France, Italy, and Germany come to mind) electing conservative pro American leaders is quite relevant to your point about “international prestige being shot.”
Neither party is directly responsible for fuel prices (except for taxes of course), but if the Democrats continue to prevent drilling on our own soil while demanding more of other oil producing nations, then they will have a serious problem that the Republicans can and should exploit. Recent polls show that the gross majority of U.S. citizens agree.
Obama is like Carter, but without the experience. Those were very bad years, far worse than anything the liberals accuse Bush of.
I don’t, along with 80% of the country, don’t make enough money to be included in that “you and I the taxpayer” comment. If you’re in the top 2% of earners then, yeah, vote McCain. It’s in your best interests. Everyone else would be better served voting for my candidate.
Frankly, your question is stupid. I have never supported fundamentalist Islam or fundamantalist anything. I think fundamentalist Islam is evil.
So what’s your point? You think we’re going to allow honor murders or stoning or burqas? Please.
EQ, I liked you a lot more when it wasn’t election season. You’ve gone off the rails. Remember back when we could respectfully disagree? That’s out the window now that you’re willing to believe any piece of crap you pick up from a conservative “news” source.
If you think abortion is the most important moral issue facing us today, fine. Vote pro-life/anti-choice. That’s your duty.
But at least have the guts to admit that’s why you’re vooting the way you do. Saying that Obama will invite terrorist attacks and lead to tax increases for all paints you as a crazy person with no grasp fo the facts.
EQ, are you a blind partisan or someone who values certain issues above all else. The latter I have nothing but respect for even when we disagree. The former, no.
I have to wonder who is worse: Michelle Obummer or T. Heinz Kerry. Damn.
tbear44
flip a coin … heads or tails doesn’t matter … loser either way
Believe me, she doesn’t make sense to a lot of us. Does she have speechwriters? Which ivy league college did she graduate from, again?
The latter you’re right on. I won’t vote for Obama solely on the fact he has a 100% favorable rating from NARAL and PP. It’s inexcusable, and the fact that he – out of left-leaning senators such as Ted Kennedy – not only voted against, but spoke against the Born Alive act is inexcusable.
But, honestly. *I’m* the blind partisan here? That’s rich, considering your candidate votes the party line 100% of the time and, seriously, would you ever consider voting for a Republican?
I think not.
Obama’s called for a doubling of the capital gains tax.
He’s considering an increase to the payroll tax.
He voted in favor of a resolution raising taxes three percentage points for people making $32k/year.
He’s considering removing the cap on Social Security taxes.
During his three years as Senator, he’s voted nearly 100 times to raise taxes – again on individuals making as little as $32,000.
He’s voted to increase taxes on businesses – not the least of which is “big oil”.
He’s voted for a tax on coal and oil, which he calls “dirty energy”, which would raise the cost of heating American homes.
He can say it’s “on the rich” all he wants, but who exactly is going to force the rich to stay here and pay taxes? Who is going to force companies to stay here, create jobs, and pay those tax rates? No one.
The policies he supports would make America one of the highest taxed industrialized nations in the world.
And that’s not even including taxes for socialized medicine and any other program he could think of.
For example, his plan to increase Social Security taxes would only make the program solvent for three years. After three years, and when the “rich” are taxed to the max, who’s he going to go to in order to keep the program solvent? The middle class. Me. You.
Bush’s tax cuts do something radical – they allow people to keep more of the money they earn.
Barack Obama himself admitted his tax policies could hurt the economy (Source).
Bush screwed up in a lot of ways, but the solution is not to elect someone so left wing he flies in circles. That’s not what we need. All it creates is a cycle of left-right undulating (and nothing will change that) with people who have lost touch with 90% of America. McCain is as guilty of that as Obama – neither really has the best interests of America as a whole as a campaign plank.
You’re completely missing the point on terrorism. Whether McCain or Obama is in office, there will be an attack. It’s no one’s “fault” except the jihadis who attack us. Clinton saw attacks, most notably the WTC in 1993.
The question of who will be better prepared to react to the attack is of vital importance. Barack Obama’s already promised talks with no pre-conditions with Iran, North Korea, etc. and that he would put the opinions of the world in a place of importance regarding how America acts (and reacts) to world situations. Would he wait for the UN’s stamp of approval before going after terrorists? Would he follow UN rules regarding human rights and things like gun control? Would he put the laws of another nation before the US Constitution?
Those are all valid questions.
He’s also a freshman Senator. With no executive experience. To be fair, Clinton didn’t have experience either – being First Lady for eight years made her as qualified to be President as being in the hospital for a week would make me qualified to be a surgeon.
I’m guilty of not articulating my positions as clearly as I should. And I’ll admit you’re right – I won’t vote for a pro-abortion candidate. I can’t. It is an inexcusable belief, and the sick irony of his wife claiming children will be harmed if Obama doesn’t win is not lost on me. For the record, a child born alive after a botched late-term abortion is often dispatched by dying alone like trash or – in a case like this – stabbed by the abortionist. If I did that at home to my newborn, I’d be in jail for murder. But Obama defends this as “choice”. That is not the kind of man I want running my country. Ever.
To whom? You? The Canadians that come here for hip surgery? The illegal women that have their babies in the Texas border town hospitals?
‘Our health care system’ works really well for me; and I don’t make much money at all.
EQ, not voting for a pro-choice candidate is a moral duty to many and I respect that.
The tax votes you refer to regarding Senator Obama are a whole ‘nother ballgame. I understand that it paints a broad picture of someone who doesn’t take cutting taxes seriously. But his platform matters too. No candidate has the cajones to throw out the tax plan he/she was elected on.
I have voted for a Republican in the past and I abstained from voting for a very prominent liberal in my home state.
And I would vote for Democrats. Pro-life ones.
Someone I worked with has a relative with alot of health problems. He always talked with the hospitals and they’ve *always* worked with him to make his treatment affordable. And this guy had kidney failure – still got treatment, still got assistance.
When I said I ‘don’t make much money’, I didn’t intend to have it appear that I need assistance of some sort…I’m just not one of the top 2% in income!
I have a job that pays for part of my coverage & I pay for the rest.
My point is, with the job I have, I have coverage & it is good.
And from the looks of my co-workers—-anyone can work here.
Michelle Obama offers very little “Hope” in her speeches and comments about our country.
Instead, she sounds like a pessimist.
Exactly what is this “hope” that she and Barack offer, anyway. Hope for what?
I’m not hopeless. I don’t know anyone who is hopeless.
The War Against Islamic Jihad is going quite well (except in England, where it is all but lost). We’re still not in a recession (despite media reportage to the contrary). And,McDonald’s still offers a $1 Value Meal menu.
Life is gooood.
Unless you’re MO, that is.