He's got Col Sanders babysitting your chickens..

[ironglow]

B Hussein Obama recently appointed 2 "devout Muslims" to top Homeland Security posts ...bet that makes you sleep better..

   http://sbynews.blogspot.com/2009/07/obama-appoints-2-devout-muslims-to.html

[ironglow]

  And don't bother to check with Snopes..it's been checked out already;

  http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/dhs.asp

[powderman]

IRONGLOW. HEH. By the time osama gets done appointing gays, lesbians, pedophiles, mexicans, racists, and Godless brothers of his to fat govt jobs, the streets might be safer, but America is in jeopardy. Typical osama, anything to weaken us and destroy America. There should be NO muslims in our govt, or any of those others mentioned. POWDERMAN. 

[Pat/Rick]

obamamamajama is a complete ASS, who's student body style election campaign brought him votes from the  dorks of the lower classmen.

Just because anybody in the US can be president, does not mean that a large part of our populace has the ability to decide who that is. Stricter conditions for running and stricter conditions for the right to vote. COMPLETE federal background checks for candidates conducted independently by two agencies. Tests for voters to recertify their registration every five to ten years. Before that sounds restrictive, did anyone ever appear before a promotion board in the military? Has anyone ever had to proove or acquire more skills for job advancement. IMO I don't think it unreasonable at all.

[BBF]

............................Just because anybody in the US can be president..................................

I beg to differ, at least not legally.

[Pat/Rick]

As outlined in our Constitution  , although I believe the current person in office jumped that hurdle through cover ups, pay off's, and a people who in general, that has PC socio difficulties.

[MGMorden]

Tests for voters to recertify their registration every five to ten years. Before that sounds restrictive, did anyone ever appear before a promotion board in the military? Has anyone ever had to proove or acquire more skills for job advancement. IMO I don't think it unreasonable at all.

I wouldn't be so quick to jump on that bandwagon.  The Supreme Court has already struck down ALL such laws in the past as discriminatory (and with good reason), but even so - conservatives aren't in power right now.  Whoever's in power gets to decide testing criteria.  What's good for the goose is good for the gander; you might be surprised to see just who was failing the meet the criteria if such things were implemented.  We might just go from the liberals getting a slight victory with the Conservatives coming with with a "We'll get em next time." to the liberals going to a landslide victory as you get disqualified from voting by the very "tests" you're clamoring for.

[Pat/Rick]

I guess if I would fail, I would be more inclined to study harder. I am  saying that voting should be a priveledge and not a right.If a person does not give to a society why should he/she have a say in its governing body?

[MGMorden]

I guess if I would fail, I would be more inclined to study harder. I am  saying that voting should be a priveledge and not a right.If a person does not give to a society why should he/she have a say in its governing body?

What if you fail because you don't make enough money?  Don't own enough land?  Have ideals that are "unbecoming" of a proper American?  How are you going to study you way out of that?  Once any such test is devised the criteria for passing it becomes variable depending on the whim of those in power.

It won't work.  Everyone has a say in how society is governed because they're part of it.  That's the way the system is built.  People who exist in the society vote on it's representatives.  Any time you start limiting who can have a say in the government based on arbitrary criteria you're essentially reverting back to feudalism, where only the elite are allowed a voice.

[Spirithawk]

In a free election the best we can hope for is that the numbers of voters that make an effort to know who and what they are voting for outweighs the numbers of those who simply buy into a flashy campaign or vote for someone just because that person says what they want to hear. Unfortunately the latter won out this time and we are all paying for it. And for those who voted for Obama, that don't feel that's so, surveys show that a large majority of those who voted for him now regret it. If that's not enough to convince you then just turn on the news or read a paper and take a hard look at where this Country is headed. Still not convinced? Then saddly you are a part of the problem. Personaly. I don't believe in Republicans, Democrats nor the Tea Party nor any other party. I believe in voting for the individuals quallifications and proven record. I'm not going to vote for a bad candidate simply because he belongs to a particular party nor am I going to vote against a candidate that is quallified but belongs to the wrong party. Wouldn't it be amazing to see a candidate who is quallified, has our best interests at heart and has a track record of doing what he says he'll do. Unfortunately I doubt such a pollitition exists.