2007-02-11 10:10:18 · 24 answers · asked by Johnmark Hendrix 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
NO. America is not ready for a ***** president in my life time.
2007-02-11 10:29:39 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 6⤋
The US will not be safer under either party until extremism is dealt with. People have short term memory loss. Al Qaeda waited 8 years between attacks, so patting themselves on the back that there has not been an attack since 9/11 is short sighted.
Barack Obama, for all the jackasses who have responded negatively and obviously have not read a damn thing, had supported wholeheartedly the War in Afghanistan. That was the country that supported, gave shelter to Osama Bin Laden, you know, the man who is the head of Al Qaeda who orchestrated the attack on this country with the help of 16 Saudis, 2 Egyptians and 1 Yemeni. Not one Iraqi participated in that attack. Saddam did not provide funding for that attack. Saddam did not interact with Al Qaeda because he despised Osama Bin Laden. This was where all of our rage and firepower should have remained aimed at to find the bastard and not kill him but imprison him. Killing him would have made Bin Laden a martyr, he does not deserve that. Kill everyone else around him like the dogs they are.
Barack Obama was against the War in Iraq because he knew that Iraq had nothing to do with the attack on us, no matter how many times leading up to the war President Dumbs**t and his attack dog Dick Cheney tried to link Saddam and 9/11. He knew that it was a mistake to go into Iraq because Saddam and his bellicosity was keeping Iran in check. Now that President Dumbs**t invaded and occupied the country that did not attack us, he has succeeded in destroying a country, destabilizing the region and given Iran reason to grow stronger and increase its influence in the region. The late day admission that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 by President Dumbs**t is a day later and a dollar short.( rather 400 Billion dollars short).
Barack Obama was not a Muslim and has never been one, despite what the talking heads of Newsmax, Faux News and the drug addled gas bag Rush Limbaugh et al like to spew.
Barack Obama has a good grasp of foreign affairs at least he knows the capitals and locations of countries overseas unlike the twit we have now who could not figure out where Pakistan was on a map when he was running in 2000.
To the person who said that he would be bad because he is a senator, Shrub was a governor has succeeded in destroying our reputation overseas, destroying civil liberties here, borrowed more money than the last 42 presidents combined and has partially succeeded in turning this from a republic to an almost monarchy.
2007-02-11 18:50:05 · answer #2 · answered by thequeenreigns 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Let me put it this way, Bush has wasted billions on an illegal invasion of a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, and were no safer now than on 9/11. So i seriously doubt that we'd be any less safer with Obama at the helm.
2007-02-11 18:22:33 · answer #3 · answered by Third Uncle 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Oh yes! Hell Yes! So much safer with a smart and honest person as President then with the Bushie liars and jerks we have now.
2007-02-11 18:31:23 · answer #4 · answered by Mike H 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
NO...Martha Stuart for President!!!!
She has had her scandal over with. She actually did her time. And the White house would finally be tastfully decorated....AND the politicians would be forced to display good manners. GO MARTHA!
2007-02-11 18:18:07 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
You can argue (or get others to argue) that his name makes us unsafe, his color makes us unsafe, the sound of his voice makes us unsafe or any other asinine reason to mask racism and bias.
In a case like that one reason is as good as any other.
2007-02-11 18:37:09 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
We would be safer with Obama than with Bush as President.
Anybody but Bush.
2007-02-11 18:25:59 · answer #7 · answered by Seldom Seen 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I would feel safer with Ray Nagin in charge. Now theres a guy you can count on when the chips are down!
2007-02-11 18:22:39 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Why not? Do you seriously think the good people of Illinois would have elected him to represent their state in the Senate if he was unsafe. The one who is unsafe is Bush. Read
" You're Not Stupid! Get The Truth" by William John Cox
2007-02-11 18:20:55 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
No. Absolutely not. We don't need another no experience, no background Senator in the White House. The last one was Kennedy, and he was a disaster.
2007-02-11 18:20:46 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
Safer than we have been the last 6 years, that's for sure.
2007-02-11 18:31:47 · answer #11 · answered by Concerned Citizen 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋