Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by NaasPreacher (C4K), Jun 5, 2008.
I think it is rather silly in a race for the presidency of this nation that it is somehow important how the candidates feel about the security of a foreign nation.
My concern is about how the candidates feel about the security of this nation, not that of an allied nation.
As Christians, are we not to be concerned for the welfare of all people? Should our voting decisions not reflect how candidate's actions might affect the well-being of all people? Doesn't the parable of the good Samaritan tell us that everyone is our neighbour?
This is blatant pandering for the Jewish vote and it just shows his ability to bamboozle the American public.
"How could they be confused? As a pandering performance, it was the full Monty by a candidate who, during the primary, had positioned himself to Hillaryt's Clinton's left on matters such as Iran. Yesterday, Obama, who has generally declined to wear an American-flag lapel pin, wore a joint U.S.-Israeli pin, and even tried a Hebrew phrase on the crowd."
In other words he is a politician?
You are catching on. I thought maybe you have been in Ireland too long.
Sorry, I don't get the point of your post. I have been a critic of Obama on real issues since day one.
And a good "politician" at that...
Yep, were not going to get a real leader in November. We will get another politician to steal our money and our freedom.
"Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided," Obama declared Wednesday, to rousing applause from the 7,000-plus attendees at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee policy conference.
But a campaign adviser clarified Thursday that Obama believes "Jerusalem is a final status issue, which means it has to be negotiated between the two parties" as part of "an agreement that they both can live with." "Two principles should apply to any outcome," which the adviser gave as: "Jerusalem remains Israel's capital and it's not going to be divided by barbed wire and checkpoints as it was in 1948-1967."
He refused, however, to rule out other configurations, such as the city also serving as the capital of a Palestinian state or Palestinian sovereignty over Arab neighborhoods. "Beyond those principles, all other aspects are for the two parties to agree at final status negotiations," the Obama adviser said.
Many on the right of the political spectrum among America's Jews welcomed Obama's remarks at AIPAC, but the clarification of his position left several cold.
"The Orthodox Union is extremely disappointed in this revision of Senator Obama's important statement about Jerusalem," said Nathan Diament, director of public policy for the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations. He had sent out a release Wednesday applauding Obama's Jerusalem remarks in front of AIPAC.
"In the current context, everyone understands that saying 'Jerusalem... must remain undivided' means that the holy city must remain unified under Israeli rule, as it has been since 1967," Diament explained.
"If Senator Obama intended his remarks at AIPAC to be understood in this way, he said nothing that would reasonably lead to such a different interpretation."
Morton Klein, president of the Zionist Organization of America and another Jewish activist who had originally lauded Obama's statement, now called the candidate's words "troubling." "It means he used the term inappropriately, possibly to mislead strong supporters of Israel that he supports something he doesn't really believe," Klein charged. ....