Brazil Times

Voting with all the facts

Posted Thursday, September 4, 2008, at 10:54 AM
<< Previous | Read comments | Respond | Email link | Next >>

Well I am dragging a bit. I am not a night owl and I am finding it difficult to stay up a second set of four nights in order to watch the Republican National Convention. Correction. I am finding it hard to get up the next morning in order to get lunches packed and kids off to school by 7 a.m. Though admittedly I am an Obama supporter, I feel that I have the obligation to learn all I can about the McCain ticket as well…and I was really curious to learn about Sarah Palin, a virtual unknown. Her speech last night was quite entertaining. I loved the one about how to tell the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull?…Lipstick! She held the crowd at attention a lot better than many of the other speakers at the convention. One reporter described the convention as "sleepy" until she stood at the podium. She really woke up the crowd. Compared to the Democratic convention last week, it had been quite low energy up until that point.

Ms. Palin did not talk about policy however. I did not get much about the details of her positions on several issues except for Alaska's governor's personal government spending. For all else I've had to search and google old news items though some is now surfacing in new reports as well. She did say that she did not accept federal money for the "bridge to nowhere" when in fact she did actually accept the money…just used it elsewhere for her state. A "technical" difference with slight detail left out. Not exactly a lie, but misleading. Not alone something to discount her completely as unfortunately it is common practice by many politicians as well as those who smear politicians. I don't make the statement to smear her on that one account, just to point out that she is in fact a politician and uses what she's got like all do so maybe not a complete breath of fresh air as claimed.

We have to look past that however. We have to look at Alaska's unique situation to see what difficulties the state has come across since she's been governor and how that might compare to dealings she might have on national level. Alaska's oil situation has made its economy less troubled than the other's. Jobs in the oil industry make jobs plentiful as they were here many years ago when coal was king in Indiana. I have to ask has she really had to deal with a crisis as she will certainly have to on national level?

I won't even go to the issue of her being a woman with young kids at home. She's got a perfectly able husband to take over in that area. When the woman of the household is better able to bring in a higher salary with her career, many a dad has become a Mr. Mom and done it well. I don't think we even need to point out associations/dealings with less than desirable people, childrens' mistakes, race, or other unimportant aspects of either of the candidates. Look to past decisions and future possibilities and ask yourself the following:

Which candidate/team would come across as the most credible to our foreign partners?

If elected president is incapacitated while in office, who would be most capable of taking over?

No single person in this election is for abortion. Only opponents to candidates have insinuated that. Pro choice is a lot different than pro abortion. Legal or illegal, some women will get abortions. Not until our society changes will the fact change that some women feel they have no other choice if they are to survive in this society. This issue is only a portion of the human rights issue. Look deeply into candidates' work on using the capitol punishment option more judiciously so as not to make that irreversible mistake that we have made before, awarding true equal rights to gay people [who we now know were born that way and not by arbitrary personal choice], and the choice to read the ideas from any books we choose from the library without censorship.

Which candidate wants America's policies to follow only their brand of Christianity and does not allow for the richness of traditional values and beliefs of others? A true Christian leads by example, not be enforcer of their personal beliefs upon others. We have seen how that works in the Islamic religion and it's called the Taliban. You live their way or no way under their fundamentalist rule. Yes that is the very extreme but it starts out slowly and blossoms to where everyone lives in fear of being caught breaking the religious rules and being punished. Would it be right to have to learn creationism and not evolution, to have certain books banned, or other actions taken just because one brand of Christianity in power thinks that is the way it should be? Personally I find that disrespectful and demeaning that one should take the stance that they know better than I how to live as I feel God would want me to. I go to my church for spiritual guidance as is my choice. You know; separation of church and state, Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and all that.

It's easy to smear and some might even think my writing is just that as well so I am ahead of your anticipated flames. I mean it to be thought provoking and leading the reader to investigate further. I admitted that I was biased towards Obama/Biden ticket back in the first paragraph. What I want to do though is make all aware that it takes a lot of time and effort to look past the sound bites to get to know the person behind them. Hopefully none of the candidates will do the same as many do when they vote, taking the short cut and only voting with the information from sound bites. Hopefully those in office will not pre judge a person by the group in which they are part, the religion they practice, the baggage their family carries, and the country from which they are or we as a nation and world are in big trouble. More trouble than we are already with failing economy, high inflation rate, and poor standing in the world.

I urge all to invest the time in really finding out all they can about each candidate. Listen to their speeches and then go read news articles from different sources [yes, go beyond The Brazil Times, grin] so you can have proof of what they say is true. Use various web sites and discussion groups and notice which ones have whole truths that can be backed up and which are just attacks on the opposite party or candidate because of something their family or associates have done. It's time consuming and difficult but if we make a mistake and put the wrong team into office, it can cause us as a nation to make many others in the future as we have repeatedly for the past eight years.

Good Luck.

Comments
Showing comments in chronological order
[Show most recent comments first]

Laughingly, I agree and disagree with parts of your article.

I agree with the fact that a lot of "information" gets dragged into politics that has no bearing on how a candidate can or will handle the nation's business.

I have to disagree that any one person can find out all of the facts about a person. There are too many "spin-doctors" at work and taking quotes of context often puts different meaning to them.

The fact is that the choice of whose name to mark on the ballot is always a "shot in the dark". We cannot look into the future and predict how a candidate will react to all of the unforeseen things that may crop up, so we try to guess which one will be the best. Good Luck!

-- Posted by FlyinLion on Thu, Sep 4, 2008, at 12:09 PM

Well I have plenty to say but don't feel like typing that much. Besides, I have learned that I will not be able to change your mind, nor will you be able to change mine. They main part I have a problem with is this line " I have to ask has she really had to deal with a crisis as she will certainly have to on national level? " Did you also evaluate the other candidates using this criteria? If so, please tell me what that would be, because like you, I have a passion to educate myself about the issues, and I am at a loss to answer this one, for the other ticket. Thank you,

-- Posted by Conservative Dad on Thu, Sep 4, 2008, at 7:32 PM

Leo:

Though I agree nothing can be certain but I would hope that at least voters would research and not take the soundbites only in making their decision so that "shot in the dark" is at least and educated guess and not a complete roll of the dice determined solely on ten second TV ads.

Conservative Dad:

There are many sites that report Biden's work abroad. As recently as last month he was in Georgia to meet with President Saakashvili in order to report back to senate foreign relations committee first hand as to what was occurring over there. He's got first hand experience in foreign relationships and negotiations.

Here are a couple of the sites. There are more for both "sides". Yes I looked.

http://obamasresume.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama_Barac...

http://www.kvbc.com/Global/link.asp?L=33...

http://usliberals.about.com/od/liberalpe...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biden,_Jose....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain

Though impressive, I fear that some of McCain's past decisions and his stand on current foreign policy issues contradicts TRUE Christian values. His incessant view that Power and fear of attack is what it takes to bring other countries to the table is outdated and contrary to Christian beliefs. That might have worked during the cold war when the US surpassed the USSR in technological weapon and space race advantages, but now the US is barely treading water economically and has had to go in debt to China BIG TIME in order to finance the military in the Middle East. We need to come across as a partner in the world, not give empty threats of aggression when we can no longer [and shouldn't as true Christians]back them up. While I realize each person has to rationalize their own personal "brand" of Christianity as to which issues are more important to them, the rule I have to adhere to is "love your neighbor as yourself" as the highest with regard to the entire human rights and foreign affairs packages. Comes down to each making their own pro and con list for each candidate.

If you actually research the term McCain uses for himself, "Maverick", it is for a rancher in Texas who did not brand his cattle, so therefore could round up any other's non branded cattle for his own. This caused quite a lot of problems as calf branding was done only seasonally and many a young calf not yet branded could easily been "taken in" by Maverick's cowboys. I wonder if the adoption of this term is because McCain wants to "take in" not yet committed voters or countries as his own[lol]. Certainly he uses it as trying to be portrayed as not going along with other Republicans as the original Maverick did not go along with other ranchers who branded their cattle for clear ownership under the pretense of the practice being inhumane...but he did still castrate his calves which I think could be considered just as inhumane as both procedures were done without anesthesia...hmmm? Is there a double meaning for McCain's use of the term as well?? I cannot help but be troubled by his claim to be a Republican in spirit but still opposing them?? Can one truly be both in practice or is this just an appeal to "take in" those not yet officially "branded" as Republicans? For me at least this is the unknown factor that Leo mentions that I cannot get past.

I cannot truly believe that he is truly the Maverick who is above typical Republican partisanship that is in power currently, but only wants to get more voters as the original Maverick wanted to get more calves in his herd.

I could give you more but all can google as I have. ...and yes I realize that some of the sites like Wikipedia can be edited but you can also look at the sited reference sites listed in the information to check on the facts listed there. As with all other research, you need to look at the source of the information.

Have "fun".

-- Posted by Jenny Moore on Fri, Sep 5, 2008, at 7:56 AM

Joe Biden is the example of people who have years of being on the take in Washington, we need reform, it begins with new blood, new ideas and Sarah Palin will be great at that. John McCain has proof positive in his record, he's not for sale.

-- Posted by Blu8 on Fri, Sep 5, 2008, at 5:54 PM

I was thinking about this last night trying to decide what I thought about Obama. Like Sarah Palin he has come out of the woodwork as well. I really don't know much about him. the only things I do know about him is only because he has been a nominee longer than Palin. In that regard all of these presumptions that Sara Palin couldn't lead because she lacks experience point back at Obama as well. In fact, in my yes, it is more of a problem fo Obama than Sara. She isn't at the top of the ticket and will have several years as VP to gain experience.

I know it's a Republican talking point but in my mind it's a good point. Sara has actual leadership experience that Obama lacks. It alsmot even surpases McCains experience but at least McCain has taken a leadership role in tehSenate. Obama has yet to do that. He is a good orator for certain but he has not proven himself a leader in my eyes. In his painfully short time as a Senator he hasn't really done much of anything except run for president.

Even through all of that Obama had me at the beginning of this year. His charisma drew me in but he couldn't keep me because his rhetoric has nothing underneath it. He always seems to speak with a broad stroke of the brush. He tells me he wants change. I say great. What do you want to change? Just because Bush is doing it doesn't mean it needs to be changed. I want specifics. He says he wants Americans to have affordable health care. Great. How do you plan do do that? He wants to provide Americans with decent paying jobs. Again Great. How? It's as though he thinks these are goals original to him when in truth all presidents past present and hopeful want that very thing.

This applies to both sides. I don't want to hear what the opponent is doing or what you think the opponents agenda is or how you think it's the same as something else. I want to know the candidates Ideas. I don't need a narrative of what to think of a canadates ideas or of his opponents ideas.

Even so I try to listen to him. I want to know more about him but the longer this campaign has gone on the less details I keep hearing from him. He seems to stick to the same talking points regardless of what McCain does and it's now gotten to the point that it appears the Obama campaign has lost touch with reality. The day Sara Palin was announced as the VP pick The obama campaign seemed to have this universal answer already written about how its a pick that is just more of Bush or whatever when the truth of the matter is no one really knew much about Sarah Palin.

What really turned me off from Obama for good was yesterday while he was talking at the Glass Plant. He was speaking at a town hall meeting that, to attend, he had to hand pick you. Translation: It was full of people who supported him. He began speaking about the latest unemployment numbers, (fair enough) and he went on to say "I don't know how many of you heard My opponents speech last night." Considering his audience I would suspect not many "But I didn't hear one work about what he was going to do about the employment situation." He then goes on talking about mcCains policies are the same as what has been and so forth.

I DID watch his speech and I can recall at least 3 different times McCain did talk about the unemployment situation. I was actually intentionally listening for McCain to talk about that particular subject matter because there was alot of criticism about Plain not speaking about those issue. (As though it was somehow her responsibility to outline McCains policies) He spoke about it the most while he was talking about education. Obamas statement was so ludicrous I was left shaking my head. He is either lying or living in some sort of fantasy land that any fact that does not support his presumptions can't possibly be true.

If It's the latter I don't want him anywhere near the white house. If it's the former is he really going to bring much change?

-- Posted by Inquizitor on Sat, Sep 6, 2008, at 7:12 PM

Although you touched a lot of interesting points and I too agree that educating oneself is of most importance when it comes to casting your ballot. I'm sitting here reading all this and scratching my head on a couple of topics mentioned. I did a little research myself on the whole "Maverick" title. No where did I find that a Maverick was a cowboys from Texas that gathered cattle that wasn't his but I did find the term for Maverick as "Maverick, unbranded or feral horse or cattle"

The true definition of a Maverick, "A maverick is a person who shows independence of thought or action; a non-conformist or rebel." Hence he was given the title by mendia as the "maverick" due to his tendancy to not completely conform to his Republican party. Just courious as to where the whole cowboy spin came into light.

I also ponder the topic about abortion when you made the statement "Pro choice is a lot different than pro abortion." What is the difference? Not to open a can of worms and take away from the important topic of the presidential candidates butI'm a bit baffled by this statement? I am a huge Pro Life advocate because the life of a child that was not wanted or unable to be cared for by it's birth mother yet she made that decision to bring forth that life within her blessed my life in numerous ways. So I feel I need to take this opprotunity to educate myself further on the differences. Thanks!

-- Posted by hoosiertwins on Sat, Sep 6, 2008, at 8:23 PM

In reading the reaction to Jenny Moore's blog, I am starting to find some hope in this election. Perhaps people are starting to see that Obama is just an empty suit - a typical politician.

Ms. Moore, as most liberals do, is blindly following the democrat talking points. She is also insulting our intelligence by quoting from questionable internet sources like Wikipedia!

-- Posted by bman796 on Sun, Sep 7, 2008, at 5:31 AM

Hoosiertwins:

I know people don't like me quoting Wikipedia but right now I don't have time to google any farther

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Augu...

It shows origen of the word, maverick. A rancher who didn't brand his cattle. Or do a google for him, but no matter where you look, he is the reason for the use of the word. I think even in dictionary.com it is listed as origen of the word.

As far as prochoice statement. As I said, abortion is here due to our society, not whether or not it is legal or illegal. Prochoice position gives the woman a choice IF she chooses abortion to have a legal and safe one. Yes I know the argument about it never being safe for the child. Personally I don't think I could ever choose an abortion for that reason alone, but we must realize that unless certain women feel that they have other viable choices for their child, abortion will exist. That is the sad fact we must face. My upbringing tells me that it is wrong but fact is that it is here and it's been proven that legislation does not stop them, so why not give women a way to get one so at least she is less at risk? I know it's a terrible cunundrum, just as capitol punishment, as we are told that only God can take a life, but some justify that people who have done bad things, terrible things, or have killed a police officer that taking one life warrants the taking of another. As a Catholic it is one of the hardest things for me to deal with. I abhor the taking of any human life, but our society seems to think that in some instances it is "ok". And then there is the issue of human rights...When we brand a woman who is "judged" by pregnancy as having had extramarital relations while those same relations are quite acceptable so long as not brought to fruition of bearing a child in the same culture, that same woman is prejudged and stereotyped as being inferior to others who practice same. It's that double standard that still exists that is what continues the practice of abortion, not the laws. I think instead of in the legal arena, we have to take the issue into the social arena and practice what we preach so to speak so women don't feel the need to abort their child. Maybe the man who fathers the child needs to wear a scarlet letter as did Hester Prine so society will know that he was guilty of same act as Hester? Maybe each month of pregnancy that letter is doubled in size so as time passes it gets more noticeable? I know a poor analogy but do you see what I'm trying to say?

Maybe that is why I have such a problem with McCain...His stand with regard to foreign policy is to display power, shock and awe, to get others to come to the bargaining table. He voted in agreement with Bush over 90% of the time. I just don't see that as a Christian premise and find it not only scary, as so many are killed doing that [over 30,000 civilians so far in Iraq plus over 6,000 US military for example because Bush thought that they would just fold when we went in there] way, but reality is that we are not the superpower we used to be and WE are the ones who could be the conquered in the future.

Not being afraid to go to the table first is the stand of Obama and Biden. No matter what the expereince factor, I have to side with the more peaceable efforts due to my beliefs. McCain has the methodology of the Crusades. Conquer and make them all like us. They too claimed to be Christian but in truth were only man driven for power.

-- Posted by Jenny Moore on Sun, Sep 7, 2008, at 2:26 PM

Thanks Jenny for taking the time to explain your views on the differences between Pro Choice and Pro Abortion.

-- Posted by hoosiertwins on Sun, Sep 7, 2008, at 3:08 PM

Thank you for your time. Biden goes on a fact finding mission to Georgia, then reports back his findings. This makes him qualified to handle foreign affairs crisis? Try reading this short speech that Mike Pence had prepared for the RNC, but because of Gustov, was cut out. www.mikepence.com He tells a personal 1st hand story about John McCain and his experience with dignitaries from the Middle East. "True Christian values". What does that have to do with McCain. I have NEVER heard him talk about his faith, except that he does believe. So when all else fails, we bring out the Bible. Luke 22:36 Christ says "if you don't have a sword, sell your clothes and buy one." So would that be used as an accessory or for protection?

Your whole we need to be friends with other countries, doesn't fly either. The reason we enjoy the liberties that we have even now, is because of our ability to protect ourselves, and protect our friends. I suppose that NATO is out dated too. We all know that the UN is useless. Lets put it on a island somewhere and get all the covert agents out of USA. Philosopher George Santayana-" Those who don't learn from history, are doomed to repeat it". I kinda like that we learn from our past. You know General Swartzkopf said that the first Iraq was would not be like Vietnam because he was there and we will do this one better. We learn from our history. Do the Muslim fundalmentalist (terrorist) learn from their history? Obviously not.

I tried to explain this to someone else on a previous blog. "Power and fear of attack", got us where we are today with our own personal liberties in this country. I don't want to give that up, because if you do, we will become subjects of some power hungry dictator who will first want to take away my guns.

I heard Carter say the other day that McCain was milking his military experience. If you stop and listen, he is not the one that talks about it, it is everyone else. The RNC speech is the exception.

"Republican in spirit, but opposing them", wouldn't that make him a liberal? "Can one truly be both"? I don't know how about Liberman, Zell Miller,Specter, Justice Kennedy, and our own Lugar. Mr. McCain isn't the only one that plays both sides of the fence. He isn't my first choice either, but we have to play with what we got. We have the cross over democrats to thank for that. Just like the cross over Republicans tried to give you Hillary. Even Obama has taken both sides of several issues. Biden voted for the war, and now opposes it. Again, thank you for your time.

-- Posted by Conservative Dad on Sun, Sep 7, 2008, at 4:31 PM

Found an article by Dr. Thomas Sowell on Foreign Policy experience you might read. Thanks, http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTI...

-- Posted by Conservative Dad on Sun, Sep 7, 2008, at 7:14 PM

Bman:

Here is an interesting article on liberals. Maybe not the blind followers that you propose them to be?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/09/opinio...

Conservative Dad:

Interesting article. I suggest this one to you.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/09/opinio...

Maybe a little more balanced as gives good points from each side of the discussion with regard to dealing with foreign policy. To be totally honest, I feel that the issue is not so much the candidate's experience, but their position on foreign affairs, economy, human rights, and health care. McCain's march in first and talk about it later attitude scares me more than a little. Palin's extreme fundementalist right position where books banning attempts, diverting designated spending, and gag rule for her underlings does not sit well with me either.

Those who are critical of Obama for the acts of his former pastor could do the same for Palin's congregation who plan a prayer fest inviting gays to come be "transformed" into heterosexuals via prayer when we know that they are just wired differently. Let's also be aware that the war in Iraq is NOT God's plan like Sarah Palin states. War is generated by Man. Man just uses God's name for an excuse. That's the way it's always been with all "Holy Wars", including the Crusades.

If we are to continue successfully as a pluralistic society, we need to do more than tolerate those different from us. We need to respect them and welcome them instead of leaving them as an unmentionable "fringe" of our society as we are missing out on people who could contribute much to our society. The Republican ticket talks about right to life, but to whom? Only the Christian Right or to all Americans of all socioeconomic levels???

I say keep reading to learn about all the issues.

The candidate's backgrounds are not so much about what they have done directly but where they stand on issues AS WELL. Many good points have come out of this discussion but let's keep it to the issues and not the posters.

Have a good day.

-- Posted by Jenny Moore on Tue, Sep 9, 2008, at 6:50 AM

I see we could go on and on and never change each others minds. I think it is funny that the left wants to slam Palin for the doctrine of her church, and yet BHO has a religious background that is at least as scandolus. I guess it is all where you get your news and information.

Here is an article by a popular magazine bebunking the claims you might be concerned about Palin http://www.newsweek.com/id/157986

I don't have a problem with her religion. The media will do BHO no favors if they attack her faith. It will come back to bite them. Thanks for the dialogue.

-- Posted by Conservative Dad on Tue, Sep 9, 2008, at 6:25 PM

An op-ed from the New York times as your retort? Thanks for making me laugh!

-- Posted by bman796 on Wed, Sep 10, 2008, at 9:54 PM

Our girls need a great role model, Sarah Palin fills the order for this. Who else do they have as a public figure to emulate, certainly not Brittany, Jessica Simpson, etc. The example of a strong woman is necessary today, when role models are'nt always found in the home. John McCain has the love of his country to guide him in the direction we need to go and the experience our country direly requires at this time.

-- Posted by Blu8 on Fri, Sep 12, 2008, at 9:30 AM

Blu8:

So you want someone who wants to tell you that you have to follow her brand of religion? No problem so long as it's the same brand you follow? If that practice becomes established and the next elected official practices a different brand, will you feel just as good about it? Our country was established to separate church and state for that reason...so rulers can't enforce their personal beliefs on others in the country. Heck she says that the soldiers in middle east are fighting God's war!!! God doesn't back any war I am pretty certain. This would set a dangerous precedence. Senator McCain is a hawk who instead of extending his hand, draws his sword. He said it himself. Show a display of power to scare others so that they come to the table. Doesn't sound at all like any sort of love to me. There are plenty of women role models, scientists, astronauts,teachers, today.

Sarah Palin is not one I want my daughters emulating as she is controlling and narrow minded with regard to freedom of religion.

-- Posted by Jenny Moore on Fri, Sep 12, 2008, at 3:53 PM

LOL.....this is a good example of why I hate the neccessary evil of campaign politics and election campaigns. "He said, she said, they said, but then he said this here and that there", yada, yada, yada, three bags full!

Going to the polls, no matter how much you have looked at the candidates and the situation, you are going to have to guess.

Here's to hope that we guess right and a prayer that we guess right.

Still, having to vote on a guess is still infinitely better than not having a vote at all.

-- Posted by FlyinLion on Sat, Sep 13, 2008, at 2:06 PM

Jenny: If we are free to choose our religion and are free to express ourselves why is it a christian expressing his belief is so wrong? Someone could stand up from practically any other religion and be held out as an example of what america is al about but when a christian express himself he/she is being bigoted?

You also may want to go back and read teh bible if you think God has never backed any war but that is neither here nor there. God did not command this war be fought. There is no passage in teh Bible 'Thou shalt goto war with terrorists' In fact the bible makes a clear distinction between the laws of God and the laws of man.

however, Setting all that aside Why is it We are to rake a christians stance on the war by pointing at his religious beliefs? I thought religious beliefs were to have no part in policy making?

-- Posted by Inquizitor on Sat, Sep 13, 2008, at 8:27 PM

Inquizitor:

It's not the belief itself but making the belief part of a public policy that others have to follow. Let's say our next president is Muslim [just because that is a religion not followed by as many in this country]. If he were to put into public policy that women had to have hair and faces covered and men could not cut their facial hair, would you agree with that? You see it doesn't matter what religion it is as it will infringe on someone's rights if enforced as part of government. Individuals have a right to their own faith and I am behind that. I do not agree with putting rules of one's faith into public policies or laws.

Sarah Palin has a history of attempting to make her belief part of public policy. Further more she has a history of making policy for reasons of personal vendettas against people she doesn't agree with. Combine the two and electing her would be a dangerous precedent. Christian religion varies greatly due to all the breakaway sects due to laws man has made within various Christian churches. It has developed varying traditions and rules depending upon the sect. I don't think anyone wants another's sect regulating their actions. So no this isn't about slamming the expression of a Christian. It's ensuring that all sects of Christianity continue to have the right to practice in their own way.

One example: I am a Christian but I don't believe in Creationism so don't want it taught in schools as it is a religious belief. I don't want passages being read from the King James Bible as it is not the Bible I use is another. Do you understand? It's not the expression of ones religion, it's the forcing it upon others I feel is an act that limits others' freedom of religion.

HAve good day

-- Posted by Jenny Moore on Sun, Sep 14, 2008, at 1:28 PM

Ms. Moore,

Now you are making up charges that have been debunked by credible sources in order to further your support of Barry Obama. Wow!

Let's face it - you do not represent the majority in this area. Perhaps where you came from but not here. Thankfully, we tend to vote conservatively.

-- Posted by bman796 on Tue, Sep 16, 2008, at 11:03 AM