VP Debate

[Jonthefishguy]

Children of this era are such weak, narrow minded, spoiled brats.

Thats because of the way these kids think. Kids today feel they are intitled to have certain things in life versus privileged to have it. Ultimately thats the parents fault.

As for the debate, it doesnt matter who wins. Neither side does everything they state they will do. They still have to get Congress and Senate to approve. If they dont, it generally never happens. Realistically you are voting for the best liar, plain and simple......

Both sides have good and bad points. Whats unfortunate is that many wont vote on the opposing side because they are on the opposing team. I have heard people say how they are a DIEHARD Rep or Dem. And thats just narrowmindedness. Many bills in this country get shot down because the opposing side wont vote on them because the "other side" thought of it regardless on whether it was a good bill that would be beneficial to all.

Reality is that Obama will more than likely win, the popular vote. However having the most votes doesnt get you elected in this country, just ask Gore.

[Kannorsk]

As a former School Teacher, I think manditory community service would be great. Maybe it would give the self consumed youth of america the opportunity to gain a perspective other than there self consumed parents point of view. Children of this era are such weak, narrow minded, spoiled brats.

The problem with this argument is that we, the parents, pay OUR taxes which sends OUR children to school. The parents are the ones who should be making decisions how our children are to be raised and what activities they are involved in, not the school, not the government and certainly not Mr. Obama. Despite one's general opinion of the state of the youth today, it is dangerous to hand our youth over to the state for more state control.

If suddenly it was teachers who had to be expected "volunteer" 50 hours of community service per year, I wonder what the thought process would be. Or if Mr. Obama suggested that for the right to drive on the our roads, which our taxes pay for, the citizens would be expected to "volunteer" 50 hours of community service. If "voluntary" community service is good for one group, our children, isn't good for all?

I think it is important to remember, the officials of the government are elected to serve us, not vice-versa.

[captexas]

Parents are responsible for raising and teaching values to children. Schools are responsible for educating children. Government is responsible for protecting children and making sure they get a fair opportunity to a decent education. The attitude and problems seen in today's children is due to the PARENTS, not the schools and government. And we don't the government stepping in to tell us how to raise our kids, although it seems some people need it.

As far as Mr. Obama's community service program, the things I've heard sound more like his program is set that you either have to work for a certain time period serving the community or you enter military service, similar to some European countries. So I'm confused what he is really up to. Of course we won't really know the truth until he gets elected, if he gets elected.

Overall, socialism eventually leads to communism.

[RayAllen]

[captexas]

LOL, yeah, they have been swinging hard at each other the past couple days. Should be an interesting debate tonight.

[jc]

I don't think children today are that bad. It's a generational thing. I'm sure parents in the 40's, 50's, etc. said the same things about "kids today." One thing I wish the government would do is to leave teaching to the teachers. It seems to me that the more government control over the curriculum the worst students we turn out. How does a politician thousands of miles away know how best to educate a child. No more standardized testing please! Also, every few years we hear about making sure teachers are qualified. They want to give exams to people that have been teaching for years in order to see if they are qualified. Ridiculous.

[himegs]

Again, not taking sides becuase I dont really think it matters who I vote for, but I do stay informed, and Obama is clearly a life long Christian, and his ties with a terrorist are manufactured.

With regard to William Ayers, the terrorist aspect is a red herring. What is of tremendous importance is who Ayers is today. He and his wife are are self-avowed communist revolutionaries. Don't try and tell yourself that someone else labeled them Communists because they lean to the left. Ayers and his wife are True Believers in communist ideology. It virtually defines, and comsumes their existence. And their terrorist past, egregious as it is, is simply a sign of their unwavering conviction that the ends justify the means, and the desired end is a communist society. They have taken on a mantle of respectibility, but they are simply pursuing the same agenda by different means.

I hate the thought of questioning another person's faith. But regardless of the name of the church he heads, Jeremiah Wright is not a Christian minister. His is what is known as a "syncretic" religion. A short definition of syncretism is: "Syncretism is the process by which elements of one religion are assimilated into another religion resulting in a change in the fundamental tenets or nature of those religions. It is the union of two or more opposite beliefs, so that the synthesized form is a new thing. It is not always a total fusion, but may be a combination of separate segments that remain identifiable compartments. Originally a political term, "syncretism" was used to describe the joining together of rival Greek forces on the Isle of Crete in opposition to a common enemy." If Wrights mission is at all spiritual, that aspect is overshadowed by his political agenda. As to Obama being a "life-long" Christian? His father was Muslim, as was his step-father. His mother was, at most, agnostic. He describes his grandparents as "non-practicing". I don't know when he acquired his claim to Christianity, but I find no evidence that it was before he entered the congregation of Jeremiah Wright. That has nothing to do with anything, except that he does and says what is politically expedient.

That Obama has had much more than casual involvement with Ayers and Wright is beyond question. For him to even suggest that he "had no idea" about their radical ideologies is not only ridiculous, it is insulting. It is no more plausible than suggesting you could spend an hour with Richard Simmons and not be aware that he was into fitness, or used to be overweight. I honestly believe that if Obama could be oblivious to their political agendas and rantings, that alone would disqualify him from becoming President, on the grounds of mental deficiency.

Obama could have attended Wright's church without subscribing to every hate-filled message he delivered. But to sit for 20 years, listening to stories like the AIDS virus being released by the U.S. government to kill African Americans? Wouldn't you find a church that was less extreme, if you were really put off by the messages? Unlikely, but possible. But the Ayers would not, under any circumstances, have held an event in their home - specifically to kick off Obama's political career - unless they had a strong understanding that his own ideology was substantially aligned with their own. (Not terrorism, but without question communism.) Their political agenda consumes their lives, and they are absolutely intolerant of anyone who does not agree with it. No way - no possible way - do they support Obama unless they believed he would further their cause. Sorry, but that one is not open to debate as far as I am concerned.

What is undeniable is that Obama's choice of associates, advisors, and allies provide him with only one degree of separation (at most) from some of the most radical, violent individuals and groups in the world - revolutionists, terrorists, and simple criminals. If you doubt that, I can be pursuaded to go into detail about Ayers and Dohrn running off to Venezuela and Colombia to "rally the people", or Wright turning over his church bulletin to a known Hamas terrorist, or dozens of other concrete, factual examples. There is a saying that "we are known by the company we keep". Barack Obama has far, far too many associations that he has to run away from. It's a free country, and he can associate with whomever he wants, but no one should be ashamed to question whether his choices might limit his suitibliity for the office of President of the United States.

Obama was very up-front about his drug use when he was younger. But he has consistently been dishonest about his associations. Ask yourself why. You may not believe that he has knowingly associated with people who would hamper his bid for the Presidency... but Obama clearly believes it. But I begin to wonder if there are not a large number of people in the country who really don't think bombing the Pentagon, or being a self-professed communist revolutionary should be any cause for alarm.

Forget about Ayers the Terrorist. Look at who he is today. (And Obama undeniably knows about that part.) Look at his own words when interviewed for "The Voice of the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA". He had been dis-invited to a meeting of educators, because he was viewed as a liability: These guys aren’t just progressive, they’re socialists, and they think of themselves as activists. And yet they feel that in order to have a meeting that will be legitimate, they have to make a decision who to exclude, and they excluded me. ...They said in the body of the letter: we want to position progressive education not as radical, but as familiar and good. ...And we as revolutionaries have to say that at the end of the day, people will be smart enough, good enough, strong enough to stand up." And at the conclusion of that article, the commentary by the ACP interviewer: Mind you, whatever else Mr. Obama’s relationship with Mr. Ayers may be, he has endorsed Ayers’ views on education in many ways. And isn’t it funny that some people would dis-invite Mr. Ayers to appear on an education panel — whereas Mrs. Obama did not.

To me, the single most disturbing fact is that Ayers made Obama the founding chairman of the Annenberg Challenge, which channeled millions of dollars for "education and school reform". The educators who submitted grant requests for academic programs were almost universally turned down. The money went to activists promoting social and political agendas. Ayers knew Obama well by then, and put him in charge because their ideologies were aligned. The only difference between them is that Ayers doesn't try to be politically correct - Obama knows he must be, to get the votes of naive moderates.

If you look at the facts... at the words actually spoken by Ayers, Dohrn, Wright, Farrakhan, al-Mansour, and so many others... you find out what kind of company Obama has kept. You can't ignore facts like Obama's Coordinator for Muslim Affairs resigning because of his ties to Hamas fund-raisers. Or the African American businessman who unthinkingly let it slip that Al-Mansour solicited money and recommendations for Obama to get into Harvard. And you can't ignore Obama's own talk of things like Universal Voluntary Public Service, or the stragegy employed for organizing his campaign machine - both of which are textbook Maoist. I don't think Obama is a terrorist sympathizer, but he seems to surround himself with people who are.