anyway, i wanted to add that after this paragraph, he goes on to talk about a specific “liberal” bill that he proposed which nearly everybody was against, but he held private meetings with all sides, listened to all of their concerns, stood up for the parts he believed were important, and changed the parts that were obvious problems he had overlooked. He updated the bill and it passed almost unanimously. THAT is the kind of leader I want, and that is what he means when he says he wants to get past the old politics, where this sort of thing would never happen, where all we’d have is partisan fights over “hot button” issues rather than real resolutions to real problems.

“Sometimes finding the right balance is relatively easy. We all agree, for instance, that society has the right to constrain individual freedom when it threatens to do harm to others. The First Amendment doesn’t give you the right to yell “fire” in a crowded theater; your right to practice your religion does not encompass human sacrifice. Likewise, we all agree that there must be limits to the state’s power to control our behavior, even if it’s for our own god. Not many Americans would feel comfortable with the government monitoring what we eat, no matter how many deaths and how much of our medical spending may be due to rising rates of obesity.

More often, though, finding the right balance between our competing values is difficult. Tensions arise not because we have steered a wrong course, but simply because we live in a complex an contradictory world. I firmly believe, for example, that since 9/11, we have played fast and loose with constitutional principles in the fight against terrorism. But I acknowledge that even the wisest president and most prudent congress would struggle to balance the critical demands of our collective security against the equally compelling need to uphold civil liberties. I believe our economic policies pay too little attention to the displacement of manufacturing towns. But I cannot wish away the sometimes competing demands of economic security and competitiveness.

Unfortunately, too often in our national debates we don’t even get to the point where we weigh these difficult choices. Instead, we either exaggerate the degree to which policies we don’t like impinge on our most sacred values, or play dumb when our own preferred policies conflict with countervailing values. Conservatives, for instance, tend to bristle when in comes to government interference in the marketplace or their right to bear arms. Yet many of these same conservatives show little to no concern when it comes to government wiretapping without a warrant or government attempts to control people’s sexual practices. Conversely, it’s easy to get most liberals riled up about government encroachments on freedom of the press or a woman’s reproductive freedoms. But if you have a conversation with these same liberals about the potential costs of regulation to a small business owner, you will often draw a blank stare.”

Basically, it’s not about changing people or forcing them to agree with you, it’s about trying to bring all of the facts into light and finding an equitable solution for everybody.

paragraph 2-4: I think it’s big generalization to say “every democrat” thinks this or that. Either way, you’re sort of missing the point. Those reasons are secondary to the real reason why many democrats don’t like our being there. The problem with the whole middle east situation is that it is not our place to impose our views on other nations unless they are an immediate threat to our security. It’s immoral to mess with other cultures like that. And even when they are an immediate threat, we should try to solve the problems peacefully first. That’s why I like Obama; he agrees with that point of view, contrary to the conservative view. A conservative wants to, in a sense, liberate everybody and liberate them into OUR kind of liberty, whether they like it or not…and unfortunately, they will murder innocent people to do it. I am not comfortable with that. I say that other cultures have a right to be wrong, and we are not meant to be a sort of superhero country that flies around the world, Americanizing everything.

Again, Obama does NOT advocate leaving a mess behind. But he also wants us to stop interfering because it’s not our place to interfere. You see, we may have a workable situation, but that just means it’s time for the best solution of all. It’s time for the Iraqi government to step up and begin to work with this workable situation. We should NOT work it out for them.

Your questions:
Abortion: I think that killing any child is a disgusting, barbaric practice. Legally it gets complicated because we are trying to define what, exactly, a child is. The issue isn’t about killing kids… nobody wants to do that…even liberals, believe it or not! It’s about the definition of a human being. What do you think a human being is?

Gay Marriage: I don’t think the government has the right do decide anything about marriage or give anybody extra rights at all. This should not even be a political issue. I say, take the decision out of the government ’s hands and leave it up to the churches. Let it be purely ceremonial, personal, and communal, not legal and political.

Taxes: I am in full support of giving the government my money as long as they use it wisely to improve our nation, protect me and my loved ones, and take care of those that need it and want to be productive members of society. There may be other things to say here, but those are the basics. If we elect smart leaders whom we can trust to use our money wisely (rather than fund a foolish war), then I have no complaints.

Obama is running on the idea that he isn’t an average politician, saying he offers hope for change from the same old same old. I’m saying that that means nothing without valid views and action to back it up. He doesn’t have that. When you look at his beliefs, they’re not new, they’re not hopeful. It’s just a repackaging of liberal socialism, the sort that would make Ted Kennedy blush.

We’re in Iraq, and we’re winning. Don’t tell me it’s an unwinnable situation, that was a good argument a year and a half ago, not today. We’re clearly winning the war over there. American and Civilian deaths are down hugely from a year ago, Baghdad is a safe city today, the terrorists are on the run, and Iraq is pumping oil again. To say we should leave now and let all that we’ve accomplished go for naught isn’t change I can believe in, it’s Anti-Bush partisan politics, exchanging the sacrifice of 4000 Americans for scoring political points. While I’m not sure I agree with the initial reasoning for war, I do today believe that pulling out is the worst possible thing for us to do. Whatever the reasons for going to war, today we have a the potential to create a stable, friendly democracy in the most hostile region of the world. That’s not something to be thrown away lightly.

Obama, and every other democrat advocates leaving Iraq because a) we went in under false pretenses, b) the cost of staying is too high and c) Arabs hate us because of Iraq. I say to him, at this point, the reasons for going is a moot point. I’m not going to argue or even discuss it. We’re there, nothing more can be done about that. When a mistake is made, you have a choice of either making the best of a situation, or abandoning it and walking away. We have made the best of it, and abandoning it at this point is a grave mistake that will embolden our enemies and cause far more pain in the long run than we have to deal with today. If Arabs hate us now, they hated us long before we invaded Iraq. If we must be hated by someone, I find it better that they fear our power rather than think themselves immune to our strengh.

So in short, saying that he would leave and hope everything works out, else he’d go back is stupid. We have in front of us today a workable situation that is better than at any point in the last five years. To abandon that would be foolhardy. To say he’d first abandon it, then try and fix it again later is like betting american lives against the house.

Anyways, I’d planned on asking you, what is your opinion on the following:
Abortion
Gay Marriage
Taxes

Short answers would be helpful…

Bye

By the way, I didn’t run out of things to say. I was waiting for you. Bring it!

Quickly(ish):

I have sat in the same church for 26 years and while I love Jesus and admire my pastor’s love for Jesus, I disagree with my pastor on a lot of important issues. There are other reasons why I love my church and my pastor that are more important than these issues. I know firsthand that it’s possible to want to remain in the company of those you disagree with. The situation is often bigger than it seems. I’d suggest reading Obama’s book as well as his speech following that incident. You’ll get a very clear idea of where he’s coming from and how different it is from his pastor’s attitude.

On top of that, I actually understand what Wright was trying to say. I don’t exactly agree with it, but it’s being blown way out of proportion.

I’m not proud of America in many ways. I am in others. Patriotism is about being an active member in the improvement and growth of America. I totally see where his wife is coming from.

Be careful not to exaggerate what he’s saying about the guns and religion. He made a very true statement. McCain comes from the, “cling to religion and guns and antipathy” camp, which says, basically, “let’s keep things the same and be conservative and fight the people we disagree with”. What else is Obama going to say? His message is a good one, the same one that Jesus gave. Set aside your division and let’s find our common ground. That’s why I agree with him. We need to stop the divisive, polarized politics. It hasn’t always been this way, and it doesn’t need to be.

It’s really easy to blow one-liners out of proportion. I will never do that to McCain, because he doesn’t deserve it, even though I deeply disagree with him on many issues. So let’s talk issues, not headlines.

I can’t even begin to accept the possibility that you really believe hope is useless. Not only is that a gross oversimplification of Obama’s viewpoint, it is a horrible thing to say! When things are going bad and people are fighting and it doesn’t look like we can solve our problems, what else do we have? Hope is often the one thing that keeps us going.

Obama’s solution for Iraq is leave unless it creates bigger problems. Do not assume that he wants to just make a bigger mess. That is, again, a huge oversimplification.

Alright, that obvious went long. Sorry.