My view on all this mess with Obama and McCain what do you think?

Question

Joe Biden does have more experience than Sarah Palin, but i am saying john mccain can put whoever he wants to, same with obama, tho i 'd rather of had hillary. and dont say i am a hillary support cause i am not.

Answer 1

McCain isn't against birth control. He's against some forms of abortion. Those aren't the same thing.

Sarah Palin, his VP running mate, is actually more pro-life than he is. So, you're out of luck there.

Answer 2

You stated that "Obama is for abortion of born alive babies".  I don't know how that is at all possible.  Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy, not the killing of a baby already born.  And as someone already stated, Palin is firmly pro-life, even to the point of being against abortion in the case of rape and incest.  McCain, on the other hand, was "for it, before he was against it" when it comes to abortion.  This is one of his famous "flip-flops"; you've got that right about him!

The way you posed your question makes you sound as if you just don't care who is president no matter how well informed you are.

Maybe you should consider rephrasing it.

Do not "not vote".  Voting is a rare privilege, and one that should be taken seriously.  Your first mistake would be to listen to the news commentators on television telling you what to think.  Find interesting reporters online that seem trustworthy and unbiased - difficult I know - but at least you will be getting the news and not others opinions which will only make your choice more confusing.

Politics is far from "dumb".  It is how we choose our governing officials, and it is worth trying to understand.  Personally, I find it fascinating and aggravating at the same time!

Answer 3

Exactly what demographic is Obama pandering to?

Answer 4

He probably will try to help America he picked a vp with more exp Obama which he said you need that will hurt him I Hope he does good when he becomes president but you dont ever know but he's no bush thats not a bad idea to attack on I want to know what they will they not them getting compared to other people b/c there not them I want to know what they will do on the issue thats what they need to talk about

McCain/Palin

Answer 5

The pop culture, uninformed voter is the demographic obama is after, info police.

Answer 6

I agree that you should be concerned with all the positions of the candidates.  But, you should also consider all the effects of those positions.  For example, what happens to a capitalist society when government expands, welfare expands, and entitlements in general expand.  The contributing portion of society becomes smaller and the government takes a larger chunk of the pie.  This is pretty much what Obama stands for.  Also, assuming you agree with their positions, you should consider their ability to deliver based on a proven track record!  Obama pretty much has none.  Wrong on the issues, and wrong on his ability to deliver!  What does that leave you?  Just a better choice!

Answer 7

On the action front consider this a vote for The Green Party a Party which has to face the issue of over population plus fossil fuels as a source of harm to The Environment. You have all you require in one package. Trouble is no matter who you intend to vote for for some reason the papers get people to vote for someone else than their choice. You are very well informed no doubt which is the puzzle why anyone else would use media to make their choice and then complain about it afterward.

Answer 8

on the issue of abortion to be honest the woman isn't deciding on what to do with her body, she is choosing what to do with the life of the baby. obama should ask at point his two daughters had rights.

Answer 9

Do you think this Sara Palin  has the experience of Joe Bidden ? Obama all the way !

Answer 10

"Obama is for abortion of born alive babies."

Guess again.  This misconception has been debunked dozens of times in Yahoo Answers, so you really don't have an excuse for repeating this nonsense.  That story was nothing more than a gullibility test, and you flunked it.

To see this lie fully debunked, go here:

http://mediamatters.org/items/2008082200...

http://mediamatters.org/items/2008081500...

http://mediamatters.org/items/2008080200...

http://www.truthfightsback.com/site/smea...

http://my.barackobama.com/page/invite/co... (Barack's 40-pg debunking of Corsi's smears)

or slog through the following:

Many on this site are falsely presuming that Obama's voting against certain abortion legislation was because it provided babies the right to protection if they survive a late-term abortion.  Obama correctly has pointed out that the existing law provided such protections already, and voted against the newer legislation due to OTHER constraints it would put on the woman's rights.

The act which failed in the Illinois Senate sought to outlaw pretty much ALL abortions....for any reason including deformity, terminal illness, rape, incest.  The legislation in question threatened the standing abortion laws in the state, while other provisions were bundled in that created liability for doctors, designed to intimidate doctors and make it more difficult to perform legal procedures. So Barack Obama opposed it for that reason, not to oppose protection of babies born alive.

The act was designed as "wedge" legislation.  It would have no effect on medical procedures, but was designed for just for these sorts of attacks.  When a group does this, they put one horrible provision (the "infanticide" part of the bill) and package it with a bunch of other provisions that assault a woman’s right to choose. Then, when someone votes against the bill to protect that right, they say the vote was over the "infanticide."

The media have promoted what amount to little more than gullibility tests about Obama and the legislation -- and a lot of people are flunking. In several instances, the media have simply repeated false accusations -- or made the accusations themselves -- that Obama's opposition amounted to support for infanticide.  On the August 18 edition of his radio show, Rush Limbaugh claimed that Obama "believes it is proper to kill a baby that has survived an abortion," while right-wing pundit Ann Coulter said that Obama "wants the doctors ... chasing it through the delivery room to make sure it gets killed." Further, author Jerome Corsi claimed that "[e]ven if a child was born, he said the woman still had the right to kill the child in an abortion," and Oregonian associate editor David Reinhard wrote that Obama's opposition was "enabling infanticide." In fact, Obama and other opponents said the bill posed a threat to abortion rights and was unnecessary because, they said, Illinois law already prohibited the conduct supposedly addressed by the bill.

So instead of thinking, "Hmm, this sounds just a little too improbable, that Obama would want babies surviving abortions to be killed.  I'd better research this first before I make this claim.  After all, I'm a journalist and don't want to be caught out reporting on something that turns out to be easily debunked, and that most people would think sounds phony from the start.  I don't want to lose my credibility as a journalist," they instead just MAKE STUFF UP, expecting their audience to be dumb enough to fail this gullibility test of a story.

It's been said that, if it weren't for lack of context, there would be no news.  But this is ridiculous.

You have to consider the source.  One source of these claims is Jerome Corsi, who has also written that McCain made his wealth through the Mafia and that 9/11 was perpetrated by the Bush Administration.  

Another source of these claims is Jill Stanek, who says domestic violence is acceptable against women who have abortions.  She also supports billboards in Tanzania that say "Faithful Condom Users" in English and Swahili, written next to a large skeleton, to discourage condom use.  She claims that "aborted fetuses are much sought after delicacies" in China to which she added, "I think this stuff is happening."

Nurse Jill Stanek claimed that fetuses that were born alive at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois, were abandoned without treatment, including in a soiled utility room.  The Illinois Atty. General's office, then under abortion foe Jim Ryan, directed the Illinois Dept. of Public Health to conduct a thorough investigation of the claims, because what she was alleging were violations of existing law, supporting Obama's position that Illinois law already prohibited the conduct.  Illegalities aside, Ryan was naturally quite concerned that such heinous activity could be going on in a hospital, as any sentient human being would.  But as one might expect, the story that was so heinous that