Monday, May 19, 2008

Responses to "Change"

There have been some responses to my recent blog on "Change." Each of them presents a nuance worthy of consideration when it comes to selecting the next president of the United States. What I think is most refreshing is the nature of this consideration can take place in the absence of derogatory comments (e.g. 'flaming liberals') or negativity (e.g. the appeasement comment of He who would Be King which seems to be in the very nature of the man) which has characterized our political structure for the past sixteen years.

Dennis D writes "Darn those facts--I hate it when disillusionment sets in. The only good thing, given enough time the inconvenient truths do come out, eventually on all candidates. Then who do we turn to. Today I saw a clip of Obama saying he would abandon the missile shield, convince the Russians to take the nuclear missiles off "hair-trigger" status (I can agree with that)--and work for a nuclear free world. And he calls McCain' foreign policy naive."

John K writes "McCain, the best of the very, very bad options we have. Love Obama speaking of bi-partisianship. Look at his voting record. The only time he crosses the aisle is to leave the building.

"The Supreme Court is supposed to uphold the Constitution, not represent the rights of citizens. Attorneys can represent, not the Court. I do not want a court that takes it upon itself to create rights. The Supreme Court needs to protect rights. Let the legislature make law, not the court. Let the court protect the rights of the people by striking down laws that violate the protections granted by the Constitution."

Vern M says "Hi Tom, say isn't corporate America where every cent and dollar we have in our pockets/banks/pensions comes from?..........V."

No comments: