Yeah, that sounds fake. Another piece of untrue e-mail propaganda that circulates. Why would he go over there if he's not going to visit the troops? It would be political suicide.

And I still maintain that you don't cover your heart during the national anthem, only for the pledge of allegiance. My stepfather was a military man (Army) and I was always taught that you stand at attention during the anthem, or if you're wearing a hat, of course, remove it and hold it over your heart.

Obama can do nothing wrong, the man is perfect in every way...I can't believe that the hope of our nation would do something for pure political reasons.....sarcasm.

It's all over the internet, which doesn't make it true, but does create a cause for some alarm. At this point everyone has already bought the Obama t-shirts and bumper stickers...he could punch a baby and still get the votes.

Two sources:

http://supercynic.wordpress.com/2008/07/24/the-chain-email-of-lies-continues-against-obama/

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/afghanistan.asp

This is the kind of worthless distraction that BOTH parties use to divert your attention away from anything that matters. If they can get you worried about this trivial crap, then they can continue to make a mess of our banking and mortgage systems, keep accepting bribes from lobbyists, and keep dumping billions of dollars into earmarks and pork barrel spending. It's also a tactic used when someone knows their arguments have no merit.

Will a candidate's symbolic gestures address political corruption and white collar crimes?

How did the housing crisis happen? Who or what is to blame? Who cares! Peyton Manning is hurt! Briney Spears did something stupid! Somebody criticized an American Idol! OMG!!

You are absolutely right in that Joe. Covering the heart is for the Pledge of Allegiance.

Updated at snopes.com: military captain discredited.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/afghanistan.asp

Apparently he was nowhere near Obama during his visit, but for some reason wants everyone to think the worst...even if it's based on lies.

Sadly, there will be dozens more of these before November.

True or not Obama still sucks and would do a lot more harm to this country than good.

Fair enough Randy. Perhaps you could legitimize your opinion with fact-based and eloquent reasoning.

Obama is a socialist. Yes, he is. Socialism does not work and it's not what this country is about.

He has s--- for experience and has no business running a country. This is the equivalent of hiring me to run a top company at 23 and no real work experience.

The only reason he could get elected is because of the complete morons who blindly follow him around because he's a good speaker and/or plays the race card.

He really has no business running for President regardless of his absurd beliefs.

None of these accusations were supported with facts or evidence of any kind, nor did you refrain from using emotional, hysterical, immature and certainly uneloquent language. Calm down and use logic if you wish to add to a civil debate.

I love our public hypocrisy: we want someone who isn't a Washington insider, who will rock the boat, but every time we find one they are discredited for their lack of experience.

The John McCain of 2000 would have been a boat-rocker. Unfortunately he didn't get the chance. It was tragic to see an American hero ambushed by Karl Rove's tactics in Georgia.

Quite correct. Although, you will have to admit, Obama does suffer some issues of experience. My personal problem isn't really with Obama OR McCain. My personal problem is: Are these two the best we can manage? Really?

I have been a Republican all my life, but McCain is definitely NOT my choice for President!

I never said I didn't want a "Washington insider." Where do you want me to go get facts that he's a socialist and has no experience? I figure most people already know that.

I agree. I don't want either but I'm going to stick with McCain. I'd much rather have Romney or something.

I didn't say you, Randy. That's why I referred to it as "public" hypocrisy. Polls show a majority of Americans aren't happy with the status quo in Washington (from either party), but then when a candidate tries to run as an outsider they're shot down for their lack of experience.

Personally, I'm not crazy about anyone with no governing experience being President. Senators debate and legislate, they don't govern. Historically, those seem to be our weakest Presidents.

Where is the evidence that Obama is a socialist?

I see evidence of the Bush administration wanting to socialize the losses of giant companies that set record profits in a deregulated free market, but don't want to suffer the losses of unwise, high risk investments. Isn't that why they're "high risk" to begin with? Isn't this why usury is condemned by all major religions? How do fiscal conservatives justify flooding a "free" market with billions from the social treasury (or deficit)?

Do a google search for "Wall Street socialism" to read some interesting perspectives on our current economic climate.

Being a former avowed (and thankfully reformed) Dittohead, I can tell you that's the typical talk-radio rhetoric of the Democratic candidates: they're Socialist, they hate democracy, blah blah blah.

Randy, I hate to tell you, but Obama isn't Socialist. Democrats wouldn't get behind someone who is truly Socialist. The reason he is so popular right now isn't because he's black (especially when you have Jesse Jackson and a lot of other black leaders saying he's not "Black" enough (whatever that means...I guess he's not walking around with baggy pants and using enough slang or something...I don't know).

He's popular because he's young, fresh-faced, and has ideas that, while they're probably not as new as people would have you believe, represent a fundamental shift away from the stink of the current regime, er, administration.

But you really shouldn't listen to the tripe that the more ignorant of your side of the political fence likes to throw around. "Terrorist fist jab?" "B. Hussein Obama?" Seriously. Are you kidding?

Or think about it this way: how many silly chain e-mails do you get about McCain and his background? Someone on here mentioned he was one of the Keating Five, involved in shady dealings in the Savings and Loan scandals in the 80s.

I have a lot of respect for McCain, but my thoughts are that the country needs a shift away from conservatism at the moment.

And my last point: look at the country over the past 25-30 years or so...how much did the country really actually go backwards or forward in the shifts from Reagan to Bush to Clinton to Bush? I think our biggest step backward was when Bush the Junior was in office, when our perception globally took the biggest hit, and when the economy, oil prices, etc. receeded the most.

Up until then, we'd lived more or less in prosperity, excepting a touch of recession when the elder Bush was in office.

I remember listening to Rush Limbaugh talking about the economy then (I listened to him every day in high school...religiously). He denied there was a recession under Bush, then when the economy rebounded when Clinton was in office he said something along the lines of "well, those are Bush's economic policies...it always takes several years before the effects of implementing economic policies take hold."

These email facts are indeed false. I am shocked that someone would get their facts so incredibly wrong. Shame, shame, shame on you!!! It was the Minnesota Viking Cheerleaders!!! Please don't bring the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders into this mess.

Stumpy and Joe: I haven't been on Indy.com for long, but those two responses to this post might be the best worded, most well thought-out responses I have read yet. I wish I was able to push my ability to reason and then put it into words as far as that. You have my respect...

Actually, I think Canada and most of Europe have proved that limited socialism combined with democracy does work. They have things like universal healthcare, higher minimum wage, shorter work weeks, several weeks of mandatory vacation time, etc. These countries are prospering while ours is slowly dying because the free market = greed = inequality.

Yeah, and the experience issue? I mean come on, that's like the age old debate is it better to go on to college or start right into the workforce?

Besides, when you look at most senators or mayors they don't have much political experience either.

Not to Bush bash here, but what experience did Bush really have? And he was elected to the presidency twice

Actually, an update (as anyone watching the news would be able to ascertain): Obama did indeed visit troops in Afghanistan.

I guess McCain's camp is saying Obama didn't visit some wounded troops in Germany.