Carmel, Unfortunately you have contradicted yourself: Sheesh already, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” THIS PROTECTS INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS IT DOESN’T GRANT STATE RIGHT TO CREATE RELIGION…FOR PETE’S SAKE…YOU DON’T EVEN READ OR COMPREHEND WHAT YOU QUOTE. THIS IS 5TH GRADE CIVICS!!!! THE US IS NOT ABLE TO EXCERCISE ANY ‘RELIGIOUS RIGHTS’ IN SCHOOLS….THAT’S WHAT PRIVATE SCHOOLS ARE FOR. The constitution doesn’t say you can’t exercise any religious rights—you said that. It says you cannot make a law establishing religion nor one prohibiting free exercise of religion. Now the Supreme court sided with you. But there are constitutional lawyers on both sides much smarter than you and I that could argue this till blue in the face. But it doesn’t change the fact that my daughter has to have a “winter party” instead of a Christmas party—very silly.

Hello Carmel, First let me commend you for your passion and thank you for taking your time. I cannot possibly respond to all of this (I have a business and a 5 and 2 year old). And you know I ask your forgivenss for saying you are an unhappy person, because that was out of line. But there are things here where you are absolutely wrong. I will absolutely agree that the bailout of these banks, car companies is completely irresponsible and potentially criticially damaging to our nation. But I would also add that there are lots of Democrats—including Obama—that support this. In fact, Obama was asking Bush to help the car companies. So how can all of this be blamed on Bush? Second, I’ll comment on this paragraph: America experienced the most severe economic decline since the Great Depression, the greatest stock market percentage decline in US history, the most catastrophic stock market fraud in the history of the world: over $4 trillion was lost by investors and over $1 trillion was lost in pension funds and university endowments. Leading to the most personal bankruptcies, and the most real estate foreclosures ever filed. My husband is a licensed financial advisor and I work with him—so we obviously follow this pretty closely. First of all—a basic understanding of investing is that some of this money is not lost. With the history of the markets—even in this tough environment—-this money will be back. Now there will be some that will lose because of bankruptcies, etc.—but that is why you diversify and not just in small and large cap. And these problems were not caused solely by the admin. Bush’s admin can be blamed for lack of oversight, Clinton’s for pushing mortgages to low income folks who couldn’t afford it, Barney Frank for ignoring Fannie & Freddie’s problems (remember Obama’s got some good dough for his campaign from the them), the execs for risky behaviour, the big banks for buying and selling securities they did not understand, the local mortgage company for pushing interest-only, balloon and variable interest loans to people who would never be able to keep them, AND the people who knew they would not be able to afford these homes is “life happened.” There is no way you can blame Bush for everything. There are many things that are debateable with facts and opinion in your post—but like I said—not enough time. And I don’t think you are interested in my view or opinion anyway. But I’m not “ill-informed” and not perfect—so I might find that I’m wrong sometimes. And I’m guessing you are too. Happy holidays and I’ll close with that. Many blessings to you and yours.

Carmel, I appreciate your info, but don’t understand why you have to say things like “Yes, of course I dispute it, because it was wrong just like everything else you said.” Some things I’ve said are opinion, and then cannot be determined by you to be wrong. There is a reason the US withholds dues and it has to do with the UN making changes—Congress has made these decisions. The UN does some good humantarian things (though it is extraordinarily corrupt—as with the “oil for food” program). It also little influence over countries run by dictators like Saddam.You forgot to mention that the UN is NOT paying it’s rent. http://www.plannyc.org/node/ And your comment on Bush is based on no fact, but your opinion of his motive. And you do not know his heart nor his motives. With all of your knowledge, I’m still waiting for your ability to present information without “personal attacks.” I believe your arguments would be much more convincing with some toning down of your rhetoric. You may want to learn that from our Pres-Elect Obama.

Interesting—I didn’t watch the youtube, but did read the AP article. I realize Bush runs the govt. and it’s agencies—but I’m wondering if this is really his priority. I’m for drilling in some areas, but certainly not these. Is it possible that the folks running the BLM are doing their own thing? Doesn’t Congress have jurisdiction in some way? Or maybe it’s all him—if so, pretty silly in my opinion. My mother-in-law is an IL Democrat, union member and running for steward. I’m waiting for her opinion on this; I’ve heard most union members don’t like this (of course, those are from my sources!).

Aha Gulliver, you and I agree on this. The electoral college is outdated. And I do favor in some ways a parliament like Canada has—more parties with more coverage of the electorate. Our two party system is run by “fat cats” on both sides and reeks of cronyism.

Hello Susanne, I’ve caught it from every end on this topic, so I’m not even sure what Susanne said now. Yes, I also have not been pleased with Bush in many respects. But I don’t think he is meglomaniac anymore than any of those that aspire to the presidency. I believe his motives, along with Obama’s, Clintons, etc. are pure as far as wanting the best for our country. I will point out though that Obama (so far) is really not veering too far from Bush. He has kept Gates, appointed Clinton, James Jones—certainly none of them liberal—more moderate. After listening to his press conference yesterday, he gave himself every bit of wiggle room possible with Iraq. But that is extremely smart, because he knows if we fail in Iraq—not only is it dangerous for their people, potentially us, but poison for his administration. I don’t think that Obama can fix all American’s problems and find equity for all. If he does that, than you will see a nation of mediocrity. My husband and I will not work our butts off on our own business to make the same money that someone who does not will. We can debate all of this all day long, but I will point out something interesting. I started on this site because I thought there would be a wide variety of thought—but it is very close to a group think. There is precious little debate on politics, because most on here are of a pretty liberal view. So everyone agrees with everyone. There are a few moderates, and even fewer conservatives. I had thought that women would be more supportive of most women and disagree respectfully. But a lot of women on here are extraordinarily disrespectful to those that disagree with them. Since I’ve commented on this site I’ve been called dumb, stupid, someone without a brain, no smarter than a 3rd grader, a lemming, and several other not so nice things. Actually my skin is pretty thick considering. But I feel a little too much like I’m sitting up in Washington hearing Nancy Pelosi spout off at the Republicans—nasty, nasty. I wish there could be more civil discourse between women who have similar problems, challenges, hopes and dreams. With all respect, Susan

Sure I’ve been to France and Italy—before and after 9/11. I don’t recall being watched, but then maybe I was. As for church and state, don’t get me started. The constitution does not provide for the separation of church and state. Thomas Jefferson wrote that particular concern in a letter regarding state-sponsored religion back when many states had an official state religion. The first amendment states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. With the above in mind, everyone in the US should be able to freely exercise their religion—including in schools—right? And it doesn’t say government can’t say God, etc. It says government shall make no law establishing religion. Now you and the Supreme Court can think that is wrong—but that’s what it says. How about God bless you?! It’s obvious you are passionate about this, and it’s good to hear your view.

If that were so, then along with firing Bush/Republicans—the country would have fired all the Democrats who went along with it—including Hillary Clinton—whom you support. My friends who voted Obama did not do it because of the war. They voted Obama because they thought he could handle the economy better, would be a better diplomat, just wanted a change, or because he would be the first black president. I’m not saying this is bad; just that these were the predominant reasons.

Phyllis, I understand that we need the world’s cooperation in many different ways. I’m not naive. My general statement was meant to say—if it were the right decision and we had to make it for the safety and prosperity of our country—without the rest of the world—would we do it? For instance, would you sacrifice all of New York City and all the people in it to go along with what another country wanted? I’m sure you wouldn’t. So be careful about granting the rest of the world jurisdiction over our best interests. And as a general point of interest, Bush just agreed to go along with the international review of our banks, etc. and to establish international oversight. Doesn’t sound like anything folks have been discussing on here, does it?

Merrell, All of our opinions are valid. I’m very open to learn, that’s why I’m out here. But understand that though most of us want the same things—we just go about it in different ways. Things would be better in Washington if the debate were more civil. Can you verify that Bush is opening NP for drilling? I follow politics very closely and have never heard that. And what do you want Obama to reverse and how is he lining his buddies pockets? I appreciate your words, but it’s important that we talk in facts and not in rhetoric. Do you think Obama is not trying to give back to his union buddies by endorsing the union card check law they are trying to pass? This is not one-sided. Politics is politics sometimes. Blessings to you.

Sure I have kids, but I have different opinions from yours and I’m not convinced that our whole nation is run by war-crazed fools. Many of the Democrats agreed with and voted in favor of the Iraq war. Maybe you disagreed with them too, but many were concerned enough for our safety (and my kids and your kids safety) to go into Iraq. Hindsight is 20/20 and it doesn’t take age to figure that out. But you will find this crazy, I’m sure. I don’t find my happiness in leaders, nations, politics or anything. I find my happiness in me through my relationship with God. Every man, woman, child, friend, lover, etc. will disappoint at one time or another.

Carmel, I watched his announcement on Fox News and yes, it was articulate. But so was Bill Clinton when lying about Monica Lewinsky. No one has said he is not articulate—but you are putting a lot into a mere 15 minutes. He has a long way to go. He barred Fox News from his press conferences—I’d like that confirmed, because I find that unlikely. He sat in an interview with Bill O’Reilly. If he had a idealogical position against Fox News, then he is being disingenous.

You guys are brutal out here—no I have little in common with Laura Bush. But I know very well Hillary’s Clinton’s qualifications and I think they are weak for this office. Most of her governmental life in Washington was spent as a first lady, and her last 6 years as a Senator in NY. I’m just glad she has not been put in as an economic advisor, as she never brought upstate NY the jobs and prosperity she promised. She has served on the Armed Services committee and a Commission for European cooperation (and other domestic committees). Obviously, she’s been involved with votes on the war, etc. How about someone like Madeleine Albright? She had all kinds of international experience, was an advisor on foreign policy to other Democrats, and an UN ambassador. Check out her impressive resume before she became Sec of State. That’s what type of experience I’m talking about and I can say it in a nice way!

Well sometimes potty training is not so hilarious as my 2 year old just had an accident on the couch tonight—ugh. Talk about an ugly conversation with my husband! Anyway, I’m okay with those conversations sometimes. It’s just tough sometimes to have controversial discussions with your friends anyway, because someone always leaves with hurt feelings or a different look at you because of your opinions. I’m sure that is why so many folks have flocked to blogs, talk radio, and debating on cable news. I admire someone who can agree on certain things—like Bush contributing to AIDS. In fact, in a lot of ways, Bush has been more of a Democrat then Republican—No Child Left Behind (with Ted Kennedy), Medicare Drugs, immigration, etc. I am aware of the attacks before on the WTC—in fact, when Clinton was in office. So I understand your point that the terrorists were using this as their reason for the hatred and attacks—though I will say it’s very clear they have a religious agenda too. And Obama getting in office does take away one of their mantras, but it does not take away their religious hatred of America—especially since Obama is of the Christian tradition. So maybe it does matter, but I’m not sure it matters to those that want to kill us. Maybe to those Europeans that think we are jerks—but not the terrorists. And I’m guessing from my experience internationally that most of the Europeans, etc. don’t even really know much about our politics—maybe about Iraq—but little else. My husband and I are financial advisors, so we follow economics pretty closely. Things were prosperous under Clinton, but he was able to take advantage of the internet bubble (which added huge surpluses to the budget from tax revenue). Clinton also did some very moderate things and along with the Republican congress balanced the budget (much easier to do in good times). Bush started with a recession in the making, then 9/11, so he was in trouble from the start. I’d like to think things would have been different after 9/11 than they were, but I’m not sure they would have. But he now has his chance to find Osama Bin Ladin—so we’ll see. You have to remember that hindsight IS 20/20. Did Obama really say all this about Afghanistan 8 years ago when this all started? (This isn’t rhetorical, I’m really asking.) Remember with Iraq that there were at least 15 UN resolutions against Iraq and Hillary, our new Sec of State, said and voted we needed to go in. So I’m always amazed when Bush gets all the blame for that. If Iraq is considered a mistake, then it’s a bipartisan mistake. Obama may have made a different decision had he actually had a chance to vote. Speaking of blame, Bush has been blamed for literally everything that has happened bad in this country for 8 years. I’m not defending all of his decisions. But I find it interesting that he has been blamed for gasoline going up so high, but I’ve yet to see him getting credit for it going so low. We conservatives just don’t get any respect—ha! I sincerely hope that Obama is strong in diplomacy and defense. I truly think you cannot negotiate with terrorists—period. He may be black (or half-white as I like to say), but he is still an American and there are people out there that hate him for that. So we have now to see if your theory is true and God bless America either way! (Okay, time to clean off the sofa…)

Carmel—you are so harsh—do you know how absolutely mean and nasty you sound? I certainly have a brain and just not your opinion on things. Some of your argument may have validity, but not all. Just because our “fair” % of our GDP does not make us stingy. We still give alot—do you dispute that? I would say that we are safer. No one can dispute that we have not had a terror attack on our soil since 9/11 and you can’t give anyone but the current administration credit for that. That’s assuming that you are holding them responsible for everything else regarding the last 8 years. Then you should give them credit for that. Our schools have a huge amount of funding per student and my daughter goes to an excellent public school. I’m guessing it’s because all of us parents are hugely involved. So I don’t believe funding is the “end all” to a good education. Besides all of that spending has gone UP on Pres. Bush’s watch—so you can’t say he didn’t throw money at things. In some ways, he was quite a Democrat. I’m sorry that you misunderstand the 8 months into presidency; that’s a fact. He wasn’t President until 8 months before—did I miss something? I don’t have to read a book to know that. As for my joke about my friends; our families (as in potty training) are still important at some times. And I watch plenty of news, read lots of articles, blogs, etc.—so you may try to insult my intelligence, but it doesn’t raise yours. Yes, citizens have a responsiblity to be informed. In light of that, look at the Zogby study showing that Obama supporters (those they studied) did not know much about basic civics or the policies of Obama. (They didn’t do a study on McCain voters; so there is no comparison.) Anyway, you don’t seem like a very happy person and I hope you find in Obama something that makes you happy. Respectfully, Susan