[progunr]

OK Obama supporters, have you heard the newest ad that questions this guy and his ability to lead our nation, especially in the War On Terror?

I have always been of the opinion that he is weak in that area, but this ad, really confirmed my fears.

It talks about three teens, murdered by gang violence in Chicago in 2001.

Then it tells how he (Obama) voted AGAINST expanding the death penalty to apply to any gang related murder.

If you can't get tough with the gangs in America, how can you fight the terrorists?

This says much more about him than his association with Mr Ayers and Rev. Wright.

Just wonder what the Obama supporters think about this latest news?

[ebaines]

You seem to believe that one can't be strong against international terror if you're not in favor of the death penalty for criminals at home. The two are unrelated. I'm not supportng Obama's position here, but your logic is flawed.

[George_1950]

Let's see: As an elected representative, Obama had an opportunity to vote for allowing the death penalty to be applied to a defendant convicted of a gang related murder. And, given that opportunity, Obama voted, no. And, you are concluding, therefore, that Obama is 'soft' on 'terrorism' at home. I agree with that proposition. So you are saying, further, that if you were a terrorist that you would not be worried about Obama's response to your terrorists acts. I believe that is reasonable. Plus, you will get an attorney paid for by the American taxpayers; and have the opportunity to have your trial show-cased on world-wide television to show what a despicable, racist nation the U.S. is. As in, "God damn America!" I think you've got the picture, progunr.

[BABRAM]

That's all? Just three? Hell that can happen any weekend in large cities. Let Dubya slow-roll through Compton with his white shiny Republican skull sticking out the top of that presidential stretch limo come sundown. They'd beat the wheels off his bus and sale the rims for crack. War on Terror? You got to be kidding me. Bush stirred up an ant bed from his cozy air conditioned White House office and just added to our own nutcase problems in the States.

[SkyGem]

OK Obama supporters, have you heard the newest ad that questions this guy and his ability to lead our nation, especially in the War On Terror?

I have always been of the opinion that he is weak in that area, but this ad, really confirmed my fears.

It talks about three teens, murdered by gang violence in Chicago in 2001.

Then it tells how he (Obama) voted AGAINST expanding the death penalty to apply to any gang related murder.

If you can't get tough with the gangs in America, how can you fight the terrorists?

This says much more about him than his association with Mr Ayers and Rev. Wright.

Just wonder what the Obama supporters think about this latest news?

Yes! This is a truly disturbing thing about Obama and it is good this information has surfaced! If he purports to be tough on crime, how could he overlook voting AGAINST expanding the death penalty as it applies to a gang-related murder! He, in effect, is saying that he coddles the killers! It goes beyond comprehension how this man running for the nation's highest office would miss a great opportunity to get tough on crime and show that he too, if he were president, would come down hard on these kind of murders. But instead, he gives the killers a pat on the back and in effect, tells them he does not wish them any harm by his vote. That's the message coming from your great candidate! The Ad Should CERTAINLY Air! People have a right to know more about this man, what he is truly all about and what his intentions are should he ever reach the White House (God Forbid!). Hillary was so RIGHT! At 3 a.m. Obama's hand would be shaking for fear he would be expected to defend this country from terrorism! What a shame! What a rotten shame! NO KILLER CODDLERS FOR PRESIDENT!! It would be an Obamanation to this great country!

[BABRAM]

Psssssst... "Rambo" is only in the movies. A drugstore cowboy taking his photo ops from behind farm equipment in Crawford, Texas or a person dreaming she ducked sniper fire in Bosnia, isn't tough. Due to Obama's lawyer mentality a few more nutcases didn't end up with a death penalty, yet you favor McCain sending thousands and thousands more of our youths to their deaths in Iraq. I'm not surprised though.

[smearcase]

We can't pull out of Iraq. Whether we should have gone in, in the first place is a moot issue now. It may be force us to go to Iran because they are helping to kill American troops, plus the nuclear issue. Any candidate that can say when troops will be totally removed without a detailed study and access to expert knowledge is unacceptable for consideration as a possible president. If we don't successfully get order restored in Iraq and deal with some others in the region, all the sacrifices over the past 5+ years will have been a total waste of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars. All the lofty plans of the current candidates won't be worth a bucket of warm spit if we let these renegades arm themselves with nukes. If you aren't sure whether your favorite candidate is qualified to handle these priority issues, or if your candidate already knows when troops can be withdrawn in large numbers from Iraq based on a seat of the pants guess, you might be making a very serious mistake with drastic impact on this country. I'm not telling you who to vote for (I'm not sure of my preference yet) but don't let the above issues get lost in the shuffle.

[BABRAM]

We can always pull out of Iraq, it's just not practical. I'd rather we use phased re-deployment. Most of those sacrifices, and I'm not sure whom they were for exactly, are not going to mean much if we pulled out tomorrow or a hundred years from now. Most countries will eventually have nukes, it's just a matter of when. BTW my brother is a recruiter in the Army (almost retired) and I know our government is screwed up, but we have an excellent military force. I wanted to vote Ron Paul, but he bowed out. I'm voting Obama.

[Galveston1]

I will not vote for Obama or Clinton. My personal feelings are that they are both bootleg Marxists in the sense that they both want the federal government to control everything. I might change my mind if anyone can come up with something, anything, that the feds have touched without messing it up. The closer to the grassroots, the better for the grass.
I still wish there was a place on the ballot for "none of the above".

[BABRAM]

The Feds are part the economy problem and both Bush and Congress count on them to contribute on a regular basis. If you liked Bush, vote McCain.

[Skell]

That's it! You've worked out the answer to violence. Kill everyone using inhumane methods. The irony of it all. And people try and say the US doesn't use torture. You torture your own citizens until they die. I'd laugh if it wasn't so despicable.

[George_1950]

Is this the ad? EXPOSEOBAMA.COM