http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/maryann/7250 Obama has very many charismatic qualities- he's a good speaker, he has a rich, pleasant voice, and he's quite cheerful. Some also admire him for his position on the war, the economy, and social issues.  I have to admit that he's seems like quite a likable guy. But some things about him bother me, such as the entire saga with his pastor. How can someone attend a church for 20 years and not WANT to hear the message the man is speaking, then turn around and repudiate parts of the pastor's message? Sounds like a lack of judgment to me. Another issue that I disagree with is Obama's abortion record. As a senator in 2002 in Illinois, he was instrumental in defeating a bill which was designed to give care to children who survive late term abortions  The bill was in large part spearheaded by a registered nurse who had seen baby after baby left to die a pitiful, inhumane death. I think Obama's record should be dealt with. ALL of his record. When confronted with the facts, I believe that Obama supporters should not blow a gasket, but respond calmly as possible with FURTHER facts, not personal attacks. According to an essay in Human Events: "Jill Stanek, a registered delivery-ward nurse who was the prime mover behind the legislation after she witnessed aborted babies’ being born alive and left to die, testified twice before Obama in support of the Induced Infant Liability Act bills. She also testified before the U.S. Congress in support of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. Stanek told me her testimony “did not faze” Obama. In the second hearing, Stanek said, “I brought pictures in and presented them to the committee of very premature babies from my neonatal resuscitation book from the American Pediatric Association, trying to show them unwanted babies were being cast aside. Babies the same age were being treated if they were wanted!” “And those pictures didn’t faze him [Obama] at all,” she said." http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18647 It is my opinion that this treatment of children gasping for life, like Obama's debacle with his pastor, shows a character flaw to say the least!  I do not want a man like Obama who can leave these children in closets to die as my president. I also think ALL the information to be given about candidates. Why some who seem to be Obama supporters can not deal with an issue is beyond me. I welcome discussion on this issue. I am not for censorship, intolerance of people's views, personal attacks, or generally totalitarian methods of blogging.   Obama has very many charismatic qualities- he's a good speaker, he has a rich, pleasant voice, and he's quite cheerful. Some also admire him for his position on the war, the economy, and social issues.  I have to admit that he's seems like quite a likable guy. But some things about him bother me, such as the entire saga with his pastor. How can someone attend a church for 20 years and not WANT to hear the message the man is speaking, then turn around and repudiate parts of the pastor's message? Sounds like a lack of judgment to me. Another issue that I disagree with is Obama's abortion record. As a senator in 2002 in Illinois, he was instrumental in defeating a bill which was designed to give care to children who survive late term abortions  The bill was in large part spearheaded by a registered nurse who had seen baby after baby left to die a pitiful, inhumane death. I think Obama's record should be dealt with. ALL of his record. When confronted with the facts, I believe that Obama supporters should not blow a gasket, but respond calmly as possible with FURTHER facts, not personal attacks. According to an essay in Human Events: "Jill Stanek, a registered delivery-ward nurse who was the prime mover behind the legislation after she witnessed aborted babies’ being born alive and left to die, testified twice before Obama in support of the Induced Infant Liability Act bills. She also testified before the U.S. Congress in support of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. Stanek told me her testimony “did not faze” Obama. In the second hearing, Stanek said, “I brought pictures in and presented them to the committee of very premature babies from my neonatal resuscitation book from the American Pediatric Association, trying to show them unwanted babies were being cast aside. Babies the same age were being treated if they were wanted!” “And those pictures didn’t faze him [Obama] at all,” she said." http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18647 It is my opinion that this treatment of children gasping for life, like Obama's debacle with his pastor, shows a character flaw to say the least!  I do not want a man like Obama who can leave these children in closets to die as my president. I also think ALL the information to be given about candidates. Why some who seem to be Obama supporters can not deal with an issue is beyond me. I welcome discussion on this issue. I am not for censorship, intolerance of people's views, personal attacks, or generally totalitarian methods of blogging.   en-us Hello maryann A little housecleaning first. You posted. I welcome discussion on this issue. I am not for censorship, intolerance of people's views, personal attacks, or generally totalitarian methods of blogging. I have a different view of a personal blog.  I genuinely welcome people who do not agree with my point of view, but I don't encourage trolls by pretending I pay attention to them. What did that Supreme Court judge say” I know it when I see it.”  Three posters views are automatically deleted when my e-mail warns me that I have a new blog. I do not subscribe to your theory, that it is a totalitarian method of blocking. I have been a political junkie for over 25 years and I do vote on issues and not a singular issue. If I took to your line of thinking, I would never vote for Democrats.  and we would continue to have constant wars and debating wedge issues. I am game for attacks when I post on the online forum threads, but I do have some control in my personal Advocate blog, where I welcome a serious discussion, but will not tolerate gibberish and personal attacks. These posters have a right to post their blogs and they can rest assured I will continue ignore them. We have already debated Obama’s lack of good judgement. http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/maryann/7250/#c_46788 http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/maryann/7250/#c_46788 Hello maryann A little housecleaning first. You posted. I welcome discussion on this issue. I am not for censorship, intolerance of people's views, personal attacks, or generally totalitarian methods of blogging. I have a different view of a personal blog.  I genuinely welcome people who do not agree with my point of view, but I don't encourage trolls by pretending I pay attention to them. What did that Supreme Court judge say” I know it when I see it.”  Three posters views are automatically deleted when my e-mail warns me that I have a new blog. I do not subscribe to your theory, that it is a totalitarian method of blocking. I have been a political junkie for over 25 years and I do vote on issues and not a singular issue. If I took to your line of thinking, I would never vote for Democrats.  and we would continue to have constant wars and debating wedge issues. I am game for attacks when I post on the online forum threads, but I do have some control in my personal Advocate blog, where I welcome a serious discussion, but will not tolerate gibberish and personal attacks. These posters have a right to post their blogs and they can rest assured I will continue ignore them. We have already debated Obama’s lack of good judgement. Mike, I can understand why some posts are deleted. I can't say I wouldn't do it myself in a particular situation. When someone puts himself out there as a supporter of a candidate, he sticks his neck out and should be prepared to discuss issues. Taking one's ball and going home when the game differs from the one you want to play is an odd way to support a candidate.  From my point of view, my post was deleted because the blogger was unable to defend the issue or even to respond to it calmly. To me that's a tragic scenario of avoiding issues. Much of what I posted it reproduced here from the magazine Human Events. I say let's discuss the issues like adults. Ironically, that poster refused to discuss abortion with me or anyone else, but now, he has his own blog calling attention to the issue (deleted since then). Also, I have my own blog entry in which people can discuss things fairly. You call abortion a "wedge issue." I disagree. It's a necessary wedge that right to life. Without it none of the other points about taxes, gas prices, and education are necessary. Ya got to be alive to enjoy those things!   http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/maryann/7250/#c_46791 http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/maryann/7250/#c_46791 Mike, I can understand why some posts are deleted. I can't say I wouldn't do it myself in a particular situation. When someone puts himself out there as a supporter of a candidate, he sticks his neck out and should be prepared to discuss issues. Taking one's ball and going home when the game differs from the one you want to play is an odd way to support a candidate.  From my point of view, my post was deleted because the blogger was unable to defend the issue or even to respond to it calmly. To me that's a tragic scenario of avoiding issues. Much of what I posted it reproduced here from the magazine Human Events. I say let's discuss the issues like adults. Ironically, that poster refused to discuss abortion with me or anyone else, but now, he has his own blog calling attention to the issue (deleted since then). Also, I have my own blog entry in which people can discuss things fairly. You call abortion a "wedge issue." I disagree. It's a necessary wedge that right to life. Without it none of the other points about taxes, gas prices, and education are necessary. Ya got to be alive to enjoy those things!   First I did not not call abortion a wedge issue, but it along with gay marriage are considered wedge issues according to public opinion. I have to side with that blogger because they clearly posted warnings...I do not enter ANY Advocate blog if I have an issue with that person...They are a waste of my time.. I am a avid supporter of Barack Obama, but I do not feel I have an obligation to discuss an issue that will be mocked by the receipent. I am sure you can tell if a poster knows the subject they are discussing or merly want to shoot down your message and take you down with it. I can count on one hand ,the posters that keep up with current events ,and the numerous ones that make their descisions on sound bites and small UTube clips. http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/maryann/7250/#c_46794 http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/maryann/7250/#c_46794 First I did not not call abortion a wedge issue, but it along with gay marriage are considered wedge issues according to public opinion. I have to side with that blogger because they clearly posted warnings...I do not enter ANY Advocate blog if I have an issue with that person...They are a waste of my time.. I am a avid supporter of Barack Obama, but I do not feel I have an obligation to discuss an issue that will be mocked by the receipent. I am sure you can tell if a poster knows the subject they are discussing or merly want to shoot down your message and take you down with it. I can count on one hand ,the posters that keep up with current events ,and the numerous ones that make their descisions on sound bites and small UTube clips. No problem on the deleting posts issue, Mike.  I hear you loud and clear. You and I have different styles- and I have learned from you at times.  I picks my battles these days.... cause it could be a part-time job staying on here talking about all the social issues. Not going to do it. You're a self-admited political junkie, and I'm a self-admitted social issue junkie.  You do your thing, and I'll do mine. Sometimes we'll agree, and sometimes we won't. Have a good day. http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/maryann/7250/#c_46799 http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/maryann/7250/#c_46799 No problem on the deleting posts issue, Mike.  I hear you loud and clear. You and I have different styles- and I have learned from you at times.  I picks my battles these days.... cause it could be a part-time job staying on here talking about all the social issues. Not going to do it. You're a self-admited political junkie, and I'm a self-admitted social issue junkie.  You do your thing, and I'll do mine. Sometimes we'll agree, and sometimes we won't. Have a good day. Mary ann, I am in good company. I got my post deleted too.   Oh well. Some of the things are just like watching the Keith Olbermann show. He doesn't ever interview anyone who disagrees with him, unlike other stations who routinely will. http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/maryann/7250/#c_46929 http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/maryann/7250/#c_46929 Mary ann, I am in good company. I got my post deleted too.   Oh well. Some of the things are just like watching the Keith Olbermann show. He doesn't ever interview anyone who disagrees with him, unlike other stations who routinely will. This is a common misconception about Keith Olbermann show on MSNBC. Keith does not want an hour of shouting over each other, or name calling, (WWF)because he is presenting the alternative to Bill O'Reilly on the same timeslot.  I doubt if any minds are changed or if any useful information is exchanged on a shouting program.   I compare the Keith Olbermann show to the company seminar were emphasis is made on one point of view of the current events. The president has the bully pulpit, where he gets to make his one-sided presentation, and Keith usually breaks it down and gives the other side.  He has devoted his show to emphasizing what's wrong with this current administration and the Iraq war. This is not to say that one cannot get useful information, because he does have military generals, former and current politicians and journalists as guest. Keith is an antidote to Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity. http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/maryann/7250/#c_46931 http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/maryann/7250/#c_46931 This is a common misconception about Keith Olbermann show on MSNBC. Keith does not want an hour of shouting over each other, or name calling, (WWF)because he is presenting the alternative to Bill O'Reilly on the same timeslot.  I doubt if any minds are changed or if any useful information is exchanged on a shouting program.   I compare the Keith Olbermann show to the company seminar were emphasis is made on one point of view of the current events. The president has the bully pulpit, where he gets to make his one-sided presentation, and Keith usually breaks it down and gives the other side.  He has devoted his show to emphasizing what's wrong with this current administration and the Iraq war. This is not to say that one cannot get useful information, because he does have military generals, former and current politicians and journalists as guest. Keith is an antidote to Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity. I have never watched the Keith O. show. I guess since it's his show, and he's a big enough "star" then he can pick his format. Does he get good ratings? I have to say that I am a Bill O'Reilley fan. Sometimes I don't agree with all he says, does, or his postitions, but I often do.  I prefer that the "devil" actually come on the show and debate, rather than the host being the devil's advocate always. Please don't delete my post for saying that, as it is simply my opinion. Hey- wait a minute, this is my blog, and I CAN say that! Just kidding, Mike, I know you're a fair guy and only use the zinger when necessary. Have a good weekend. http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/maryann/7250/#c_46939 http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/maryann/7250/#c_46939 I have never watched the Keith O. show. I guess since it's his show, and he's a big enough "star" then he can pick his format. Does he get good ratings? I have to say that I am a Bill O'Reilley fan. Sometimes I don't agree with all he says, does, or his postitions, but I often do.  I prefer that the "devil" actually come on the show and debate, rather than the host being the devil's advocate always. Please don't delete my post for saying that, as it is simply my opinion. Hey- wait a minute, this is my blog, and I CAN say that! Just kidding, Mike, I know you're a fair guy and only use the zinger when necessary. Have a good weekend. JUST BECAUSE HE TALKS SMOOTH AND NOT IN RHYMES Normal Americans are so used to the race-baiters who speak like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton that when an eloquent black guy like Obama speaks, some people think he's not the same as the other black supremacists who play the race card every day. As Obama''s profane described him He is a politician and will say anything he thinks is necessary Obama and his wife are in lock-step with Jeremiah Wright and his congregation. "Hate Whitey" should be his campaign slogan. Roy Mark http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/maryann/7250/#c_47063 http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/maryann/7250/#c_47063 JUST BECAUSE HE TALKS SMOOTH AND NOT IN RHYMES Normal Americans are so used to the race-baiters who speak like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton that when an eloquent black guy like Obama speaks, some people think he's not the same as the other black supremacists who play the race card every day. As Obama''s profane described him He is a politician and will say anything he thinks is necessary Obama and his wife are in lock-step with Jeremiah Wright and his congregation. "Hate Whitey" should be his campaign slogan. Roy Mark Kieth Who? MA asks Olbermann? I have never watched the Keith O. show. I guess since it's his show, and he's a big enough "star" then he can pick his format. Does he get good ratings? He averages something like 800,000 O Reilly about 2.5 million Olberman is behind all Fox and CNN primetime shows I believe. Below, the 20 top ranked shows for January, according to Nielsen Media Research: 1.      The O'Reilly Factor (Fox) 2. Hannity & Colmes (Fox) 3. The Fox Report with Shep Smith (Fox) 4. Special Report with Brit Hume (Fox) 5. On The Record with Greta Van Susteren (Fox) 6. Americas Newsroom (Fox) 7. The O'Reilly Factor (Repeat) (Fox) 8. Larry King Live (CNN) 9. The Big Story with John Gibson (Fox) 10. Lou Dobbs Tonight (CNN) 11. Studio B with Shep Smith (Fox) 12. Your World with Neil Cavuto (Fox) 13. Happening Now (Fox) 14. Fox And Friends (Fox) 15. Live Desk with Martha MacCallum (Fox) 16. Americas Pulse (Fox) 17. Anderson Cooper 360 (CNN) 18, Out In The Open (CNN) 19. Countdown with Keith Olbermann (MSNBC)   Seven out of ten top shows on Fox News http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/maryann/7250/#c_47067 http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/maryann/7250/#c_47067 Kieth Who? MA asks Olbermann? I have never watched the Keith O. show. I guess since it's his show, and he's a big enough "star" then he can pick his format. Does he get good ratings? He averages something like 800,000 O Reilly about 2.5 million Olberman is behind all Fox and CNN primetime shows I believe. Below, the 20 top ranked shows for January, according to Nielsen Media Research: 1.      The O'Reilly Factor (Fox) 2. Hannity & Colmes (Fox) 3. The Fox Report with Shep Smith (Fox) 4. Special Report with Brit Hume (Fox) 5. On The Record with Greta Van Susteren (Fox) 6. Americas Newsroom (Fox) 7. The O'Reilly Factor (Repeat) (Fox) 8. Larry King Live (CNN) 9. The Big Story with John Gibson (Fox) 10. Lou Dobbs Tonight (CNN) 11. Studio B with Shep Smith (Fox) 12. Your World with Neil Cavuto (Fox) 13. Happening Now (Fox) 14. Fox And Friends (Fox) 15. Live Desk with Martha MacCallum (Fox) 16. Americas Pulse (Fox) 17. Anderson Cooper 360 (CNN) 18, Out In The Open (CNN) 19. Countdown with Keith Olbermann (MSNBC)   Seven out of ten top shows on Fox News