Obama or Clinton?

[Naturist Mark]

I'm not sure what you mean by this. I'm uncertain of the figure, but I recall hearing on tv that Obama is getting something like 90% of the black vote.

That was only in Mississippi, in many of the earlier primaries Obama did well, but considerably less well among black voters than previous black candidates like Jesse Jackson. Obama's primary success is attributable to his high appeal among white voters, a solid black voting block (which Obama does not have) would not be enough to win majorities.

[KirkOntario]

How can anyone not comprehend what he was saying? Did they even hear it?

I understand when people like Patrick Buchanan and Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly say that ... they are lying to a purpose.

Buchanan and Hannity lying? Hardly. Obama refused to condemn his racist pastor because he is 'like family' yet he was willing to bash his own grandmother who IS family. It makes no sense. The person who DID lie is Obama who first claimed not to have heard any radical sermons. When he realized that no one believed this "Sgt. Schultz defence" he then admitted he had heard the radical statements.

[nacktman]

Buchanan and Hannity lying?

With every breath they take.

[KirkOntario]

Specifically what is a lie? Opinions you do not agree with are not necessarily lies.

[Skinview]

Appointed positions - not elective office.As is the case with a victorious General or Squadron Commander.


I was pointing out that the narrow restriction that a successful president must have been a victorious general, governor or vice president, or must have had long experience in elective office is not always the case - several of our finest presidents do not fit that mold.Agreed. I didn't make a blanket statement. Its just my observation that those are the things that seem to be what voters select for. You really have to go back a long way to find an exception. I honestly don't know why US Senators don't win. Myself, I would be somewhat hesitant to vote for someone just because of their military experience. Grant was supposed to have been our worst President. But I do think its good to select someone who has a record to look at, so we know what we are getting. Obama has about as much of a Federal record as a one term Congressman - just enough to get pegged as the most liberal. Clinton has more of a record, but still not a lot. Neither has executive experience (but this is of tertiary significance to me). McCain has a long record in the Senate. We got to shoot down Romney because he had a record to look at that we didn't like. What if that articulate pretty boy had no record? He would be a Republican Obama.

[usmc1]

Personally I'm glad we have a presidential candidate who is honest and human enough to say that their grandmother has said things that made him "cringe", which, by the way, is hardly bashing. Hell, my granny had a horrible attitude about the races, as did my mother and father. We had right proper old fights about that.

And standing by one's long time friend while repudiating some of his words is more honest and more manly, in the best sense of the word, than the posturing nincompoops who "distance" themselves from old friends for political gains.

Senator Obama's courage, loyalty, and honesty are good omens for America's return to greatness. His style of leadership has been lost for too long, and will be very welcome.

[Boreas]

Personally I'm glad we have a presidential candidate who is honest and human enough to say that their grandmother has said things that made him "cringe", which, by the way, is hardly bashing. Hell, my granny had a horrible attitude about the races, as did my mother and father. We had right proper old fights about that.

And standing by one's long time friend while repudiating some of his words is more honest and more manly, in the best sense of the word, than the posturing nincompoops who "distance" themselves from old friends for political gains.

Senator Obama's courage, loyalty, and honesty are good omens for America's return to greatness. His style of leadership has been lost for too long, and will be very welcome.

Amen. :applause:

I saw Obama on Larry King last night. I liked what I saw, and like his explanations of all the nonsense that has been swirling around him for the past little while. He seems to be an intelligent, levelheaded man. He will be a wonderful president. (in case I get criticised for judging on appearances, I am judging on the content of what he said)

[Qikdraw]

Bob Barr may run as libertarian (http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/stories/2008/03/20/barr_0320.html)

Qikdraw

[KirkOntario]

Obama is right, words are important. This is a sign held by an anti-war protester post Rev Wright....


http://michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/1damn.jpg

[nacktman]

Qikdraw, Barr would be less than a pimple than Nader so I would not fret over him running.

*****

And anyone citing michelle malkin for anything is like pissing into the wind, your legs will get wet if not your face.:laugh:

[Naturist Mark]

Obama is right, words are important. This is a sign held by an anti-war protester post Rev Wright....


http://michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/1damn.jpg

How DARE Michelle Malkin publish that. Has her hatred of America no bounds?

[KirkOntario]

She merely holds the mirror up to a society decaying from its own excesses. Thanfully the heatland is still strong.

[Naturist Mark]

She merely holds the mirror up to a society decaying from its own excesses. Thanfully the heatland is still strong.

So it is OK for her ... but if she was a black minister holding up the mirror to a society decaying from its own excesses - she would be wrong.

Did I miss anything?

__________________
Chris Wallace loves him some Obama:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=MiIK8jh3ZCE

[nacktman]

So it is OK for her ... but if she was a black minister holding up the mirror to a society decaying from its own excesses - she would be wrong.

Did I miss anything?

Nope, you pretty much covered everything.

[KirkOntario]

So it is OK for her ... but if she was a black minister holding up the mirror to a society decaying from its own excesses - she would be wrong.


Rev Wright actually called upon God to Damn America in his church. Publishing a photo of those words is not the same thing as saying them.
Following your line of reasoning every newspaper reporting his words would actually be uttering them.

[nacktman]

Answer the direct question.

Where is that 'discussion' you have clamored on about or is that only when you wish to 'discuss' and not when there actually is a discussion going?

(Not that I expect an answer to that direct question either, folks)

[Naturist Mark]

Rev Wright actually called upon God to Damn America in his church.

Wrong.

That is twisted around backwards.

We've covered this point before (http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/showpost.php?p=187426&postcount=101) and now we return to it like a dog chasing its tail. Dr. Wright wasn't calling on God to Damn America, he was describing what the Bible says is consequence of killing.

.....................

I'm rather surprised that Kirk would dare to bring up renewed bashing of Dr. Wright - who has made a career of preaching against hate, on the day that we learned that not only did John McCain accept the endorsement of two hate mongering preachers (http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/80253) on the right, but had actually sought them out (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003728364).

But of course the conservatives find it easy to heap scorn on the left for minor or imagined transgressions while excusing monstrous behavior from among their own - read: Obama's Minister Committed "Treason" But When My Father Said the Same Thing He Was a Republican Hero (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/obamas-minister-committe_b_91774.html) by Frank Schaeffer, author of "CRAZY FOR GOD-How I Grew Up As One Of The Elect, Helped Found The Religious Right, And Lived To Take All (Or Almost All) Of It Back

I'll leave the last word to Jeff Sharlet, author of the upcoming book The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060559799/crooksandliar-20/ref=nosim) quoted by blogger Nicole Belle at Crooks and Liars (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/03/16/remembering-another-jeremiah/#more-27328)
In contextualizing Jeremiah Wright’s “God damn America,” it might be worth remembering another Jeremiah who expressed similar sentiments: namely, Jeremiah. As in, the prophet of the Hebrew Bible, or the “Old Testament,” if you prefer.

Why does that matter? Because it reminds us that a core function of one who attempts to speak in a prophetic voice is to remind us that we are in this together and that we’ll both prosper and suffer together. Many evangelical Christians speak of a “gift of discernment,” not unlike the “gift of tongues.” Us democratically-minded folk might do well to remember that that core concept of a democracy is that we all have some gift of discernment. So let’s use ours and consider the prophetic statements on offer:

1. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson said America is damned — cursed by God, though not permanently — because we tolerate feminists and queer people.

2. John Hagee says America is damned — cursed by God, though not permanently — because we tolerate Muslims.

3. Jeremiah Wright says America is damned — cursed by God, though not permanently, suffering from hate and division, from bitterness and envy — because we succumb to hating one another.

For my money, my Bible, and my democracy, that last sentiment has the ring of truth, and I’m not even a religious man.

That doesn’t mean it’s a sentiment for a campaign trail. But it does mean that in framing this, we might want to turn our anger toward Fox and the NY Post and all those denouncing Jeremiah Wright rather than the man who says we suffer because of racism. Here is a pastor trying, perhaps not successfully, to preach accountability for hate, not for tolerance. And here is a media that is demanding that we NOT be held accountable for hate.

That is, mainstream media is telling us we must tolerate hate — Hagee — but not those who don’t believe we should tolerate hate — Wright.
-Mark

__________________
Chris Wallace loves him some Obama:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=MiIK8jh3ZCE

[nacktman]

Full text of item posted previously:

Frank Schaeffer has this to say ...

<!-- Content --> "When Senator Obama's preacher thundered about racism and injustice Obama suffered smear-by-association. But when my late father -- Religious Right leader Francis Schaeffer -- denounced America and even called for the violent overthrow of the US government, he was invited to lunch with presidents Ford, Reagan and Bush, Sr.

Every Sunday thousands of right wing white preachers (following in my father's footsteps) rail against America's sins from tens of thousands of pulpits. They tell us that America is complicit in the "murder of the unborn," has become "Sodom" by coddling gays, and that our public schools are sinful places full of evolutionists and sex educators hell-bent on corrupting children. They say, as my dad often did, that we are, "under the judgment of God." They call America evil and warn of immanent destruction. By comparison Obama's minister's shouted "controversial" comments were mild. All he said was that God should damn America for our racism and violence and that no one had ever used the N-word about Hillary Clinton.
Dad and I were amongst the founders of the Religious right. In the 1970s and 1980s, while Dad and I crisscrossed America denouncing our nation's sins instead of getting in trouble we became darlings of the Republican Party. (This was while I was my father's sidekick before I dropped out of the evangelical movement altogether.) We were rewarded for our "stand" by people such as Congressman Jack Kemp, the Fords, Reagan and the Bush family. The top Republican leadership depended on preachers and agitators like us to energize their rank and file. No one called us un-American.


Consider a few passages from my father's immensely influential America-bashing book A Christian Manifesto. It sailed under the radar of the major media who, back when it was published in 1980, were not paying particular attention to best-selling religious books. Nevertheless it sold more than a million copies.

Here's Dad writing in his chapter on civil disobedience:

If there is a legitimate reason for the use of force [against the US government]... then at a certain point force is justifiable.And this:
In the United States the materialistic, humanistic world view is being taught exclusively in most state schools... There is an obvious parallel between this and the situation in Russia [the USSR]. And we really must not be blind to the fact that indeed in the public schools in the United States all religious influence is as forcibly forbidden as in the Soviet Union....
Then this:

There does come a time when force, even physical force, is appropriate... A true Christian in Hitler's Germany and in the occupied countries should have defied the false and counterfeit state. This brings us to a current issue that is crucial for the future of the church in the United States, the issue of abortion... It is time we consciously realize that when any office commands what is contrary to God's law it abrogates it's authority. And our loyalty to the God who gave this law then requires that we make the appropriate response in that situation...Was any conservative political leader associated with Dad running for cover? Far from it. Dad was a frequent guest of the Kemps, had lunch with the Fords, stayed in the White House as their guest, he met with Reagan, helped Dr. C. Everett Koop become Surgeon General. (I went on the 700 Club several times to generate support for Koop).

Dad became a hero to the evangelical community and a leading political instigator. When Dad died in 1984 everyone from Reagan to Kemp to Billy Graham lamented his passing publicly as the loss of a great American. Not one Republican leader was ever asked to denounce my dad or distanced himself from Dad's statements.
Take Dad's words and put them in the mouth of Obama's preacher (or in the mouth of any black American preacher) and people would be accusing that preacher of treason. Yet when we of the white Religious Right denounced America white conservative Americans and top political leaders, called our words "godly" and "prophetic" and a "call to repentance."
We Republican agitators of the mid 1970s to the late 1980s were genuinely anti-American in the same spirit that later Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson (both followers of my father) were anti-American when they said God had removed his blessing from America on 9/11, because America accepted gays. Falwell and Robertson recanted but we never did.

My dad's books denouncing America and comparing the USA to Hitler are still best sellers in the "respectable" evangelical community and he's still hailed as a prophet by many Republican leaders. When Mike Huckabee was recently asked by Katie Couric to name one book he'd take with him to a desert island, besides the Bible, he named Dad's Whatever Happened to the Human Race? a book where Dad also compared America to Hitler's Germany.
The hypocrisy of the right denouncing Obama, because of his minister's words, is staggering. They are the same people who argue for the right to "bear arms" as "insurance" to limit government power. They are the same people that (in the early 1980s roared and cheered when I called down damnation on America as "fallen away from God" at their national meetings where I was keynote speaker, including the annual meeting of the ultraconservative Southern Baptist convention, and the religious broadcasters that I addressed.
Today we have a marriage of convenience between the right wing fundamentalists who hate Obama, and the "progressive" Clintons who are playing the race card through their own smear machine. As Jane Smiley writes in the Huffington Post "[The Clinton's] are, indeed, now part of the 'vast right wing conspiracy.'"<http: www.huffingtonpost.com="" jane-smiley="" im-already-against-the-n_b_90628.html="">

Both the far right Republicans and the stop-at-nothing Clintons are using the "scandal" of Obama's preacher to undermine the first black American candidate with a serious shot at the presidency. Funny thing is, the racist Clinton/Far Right smear machine proves that Obama's minister had a valid point. There is plenty to yell about these days."</http:>
<http: www.huffingtonpost.com="" jane-smiley="" im-already-against-the-n_b_90628.html="">
</http:>
Frank Schaeffer is a writer and author of "CRAZY FOR GOD-How I Grew Up As One Of The Elect, Helped Found The Religious Right, And Lived To Take All (Or Almost All) Of It Back"



Here is the piece you cited and asked the parsers and diverters read Mark, I had posted it way back on what is now page 11 of this thread.

They obviously didn't read it then. I have my doubts they'll read it now.

[KirkOntario]

Looks like even Bill Clinton gets it. This America-hating preacher coupled with Obama's refusal to wear a flag pin,along with his wife's saying she hasn't felt pride in her own country is something that shows Obama's character and lack of qualification to be president (that and his total lack of any achievements).

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8VIB4QO0&show_article=1

BTW, the McCain is just as bad argument doesn't cut it. John Mccain doesn't sit in the churches of these folks for 20 years or claim to have any of them as mentor.

Do we really want the radical racist Rev. Wright as the spiritual advisor to the most powerful man in the world?

[spiceant]

What are obama / hillary going to do with the war of terror and the war on iraq?

[Croydon]

Looks like even Bill Clinton gets it. This America-hating preacher coupled with Obama's refusal to wear a flag pin,along with his wife's saying she hasn't felt pride in her own country is something that shows Obama's character and lack of qualification to be president (that and his total lack of any achievements).

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8VIB4QO0&show_article=1

BTW, the McCain is just as bad argument doesn't cut it. John Mccain doesn't sit in the churches of these folks for 20 years or claim to have any of them as mentor.

Do we really want the radical racist Rev. Wright as the spiritual advisor to the most powerful man in the world?
You are such a Debbie Downer

[Boreas]

The whole racist thing may be accurate. Rev. Wright is a black man. If he were white would this even be an issue?

[Naturist Mark]

BTW, the McCain is just as bad argument doesn't cut it. John Mccain doesn't sit in the churches of these folks for 20 years or claim to have any of them as mentor.

No, rather he sought them out while running for president, and declared one of them his "spiritual advisor".

(btw ... how dare Kirk disparage the words of a "victorious general" like McPeak! (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8VIB4QO0&show_article=1))


Do we really want the radical racist Rev. Wright as the spiritual advisor to the most powerful man in the world?

While rejecting the term "radical racist" as disproven (and rather has the odor of racism wafting about itself), I'd answer with a resounding "yes".

1. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson said America is damned — cursed by God, though not permanently — because we tolerate feminists and queer people.

2. John Hagee says America is damned — cursed by God, though not permanently — because we tolerate Muslims.

3. Jeremiah Wright says America is damned — cursed by God, though not permanently, suffering from hate and division, from bitterness and envy — because we succumb to hating one another.

[Qikdraw]

What are obama / hillary going to do with the war of terror and the war on iraq?

War on Iraq both want to withdraw. Iraqis want us gone, and while we stay the Iraqi government sees no reason to do anything themselves. Both have different ideas on how to withdraw though, I am not sure of specifics.

War on terror both want to continue fighting. Obama seems more for precision strikes on known targets, which gets the job done with little risk to US soldiers and less dollar cost as well. I am not positive what Clinton's take on that is. I know she ridiculed Obama for his statement, and so did the republicans, then they did exactly what Obama said should be done, a precision strike. (republicns flip flopping, go figure)

I would suggest checking their web sites as that will tell you better than anyone here could. :)

*edit* Just found an interesting article

Hillary and the media (http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/13604), and the way the media influences elections.

Qikdraw

[Nude in the North]

Interesting Article for sure.

And for those of you that don't think the Media influences elections. WAKE UP!!!

[KirkOntario]

People are seeing and hearing more of Obama and getting to know his 'friends' and his remarks about 'typical white people.'

His unfavourables are now up above his favourables in the latest poll...

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

"On Saturday, Obama’s favorable ratings slipped a little further—46% favorable, 51% unfavorable. Before the Pastor Problem became big news, Obama was viewed favorably by 52%. One month ago, he was viewed favorably by 56%. "

[Naturist Mark]

People are seeing and hearing more of Obama and getting to know his 'friends' and his remarks about 'typical white people.'

His unfavourables are now up above his favourables in the latest poll...

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

"On Saturday, Obama’s favorable ratings slipped a little further—46% favorable, 51% unfavorable. Before the Pastor Problem became big news, Obama was viewed favorably by 52%. One month ago, he was viewed favorably by 56%. "

Oh come on Kirk! You picked a poll taken after a week of relentless media manipulation by running Dr. Wright's cherry picked comments on a continuous loop, but before Obama's historic speech on race.

More recent polls (http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/bill-clinton/18549/gallup-tracking-poll-obama-regaining-support-after-wright-race-speech/) show Obama back in the lead and regaining lost ground.

But of course such polls are just snapshots, the overall trajectory is clear.

-Mark

[Boreas]

But of course such polls are just snapshots, the overall trajectory is clear.

And of course the truest poll is the election.

[spiceant]

Where can i find obamas famous speech?

[Qikdraw]

Where can i find obamas famous speech?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrp-v2tHaDo

Qikdraw

[Boreas]

Where can i find obamas famous speech?

usmc posted the text version of the speech several pages back. Here it is: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/0...t-union/print/

Enjoy.

[usmc1]

Gallup Daily: Obama Edges Ahead of Clinton

Democratic nomination preference: Obama 48%, Clinton 45%


USA (http://www.gallup.com/tag/USA.aspx)
Election 2008 (http://www.gallup.com/tag/Election%2b2008.aspx)
Gallup Daily (http://www.gallup.com/tag/Gallup%2bDaily.aspx)
Americas (http://www.gallup.com/tag/Americas.aspx)
Northern America (http://www.gallup.com/tag/Northern%2bAmerica.aspx) PRINCETON, NJ -- Barack Obama has quickly made up the deficit he faced with Hillary Clinton earlier this week, with the latest Gallup Poll Daily tracking update on Democratic presidential nomination preferences showing 48% of Democratic voters favoring Obama and 45% Clinton.

http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/032208DailyUpdateGraph1.gif
Obama's campaign clearly suffered in recent days from negative press, mostly centering around his association with the controversial Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Perhaps as a result, Clinton moved into the lead in Gallup's Wednesday release, covering March 16-18 polling. But Obama has now edged back ahead of Clinton due to a strong showing for him in Friday night's polling, perhaps in response to the endorsement he received from well-respected New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, a former rival for the nomination. (To view the complete trend since Jan. 2, 2008, click here (http://www.gallup.com/poll/election2008.aspx).)
Both Democrats have inched closer to John McCain in the latest update on registered voters' general election preferences. McCain holds just a two percentage point edge over both -- 46% to 44% over Obama and 47% to 45% over Clinton.


Gallup will not be reporting results on Easter Sunday, so the next update will be posted on Monday afternoon, reporting on March 21-23 interviewing. -- Jeff Jones

[Bicycler]

Gallup Daily: Obama Edges Ahead of Clinton

Both Democrats have inched closer to John McCain in the latest update on registered voters' general election preferences. McCain holds just a two percentage point edge over both -- 46% to 44% over Obama and 47% to 45% over Clinton.

Yikes, neither of the dream candidates are polling ahead of Lame McCain. Doesn't say much for the Dems, the former sure bet for November victory. And this is a poll of registered voters, not likely voters.

[usmc1]

Yikes, neither of the dream candidates are polling ahead of Lame McCain. Doesn't say much for the Dems, the former sure bet for November victory. And this is a poll of registered voters, not likely voters.

Well, I think what that represents is three candidates splitting some numbers. Yeah, I know it reflects one versus one, however, I suspect when the race comes down to a real head-to-head match-up, we'll see a significant upward shift in those Dem numbers.

[Skinview]

The whole racist thing may be accurate. Rev. Wright is a black man. If he were white would this even be an issue?

If Obama and Rev Wright were white and Wright said things like he has about black people, Obama would have been gone faster than Eliot Spitzer. A few years ago, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott was at a party for 100 year old Sen. Strom Thurmond, who had run for president in 1948, when Lott was eight years old. Lott said "If he had won, maybe we wouldn't have the problems we have today." Someone did some digging and found Thurmond had a segregationist position in his 1948 presidential campaign, and soon the Democtrats were twisting what Lott said to be an endorsement for Thurmonds support for racial segregation in 1948, and drove Lott to step down.
Now we have Obama going for 20 years to listen to the sermons of a minister who says that AIDS was created by the government to exterminate black people. Its wacko racist paranoia. Can you imagine what would happen if McCain's minister said the government (or NAACP or whoever) invented AIDS to kill white people??? McCain would be flash burned toast. Obama should be.

“What (Wright) is doing is spewing that stuff out to young people and to younger people than Obama and putting it in their heads that its OK to say ‘God damn America’ and to beat up on white people,” Ferraro told the Daily Breeze. “You don’t preach that from the pulpit.”
-Geraldine Ferraro

[nacktman]

Originally Posted by Boreas http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/showthread.php?p=188886#post188886)
The whole racist thing may be accurate. Rev. Wright is a black man. If he were white would this even be an issue?No, it would not be. Just read the piece by Frank Schaeffer to see what is really happening.

[Boreas]

Skinview, I refer you back to Quikdraw's post http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/showpost.php?p=188373&postcount=215 where he posted a link to a very good article on the subject.

The fact that you continue to raise red herring twists on information confirms that race is an issue still.

It is truly sad that in 2008 race is even part of such a discussion.

[Skinview]

Skinview, I refer you back to Quikdraw's post http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/showpost.php?p=188373&postcount=215 where he posted a link to a very good article on the subject.

The fact that you continue to raise red herring twists on information confirms that race is an issue still.

It is truly sad that in 2008 race is even part of such a discussion.
Race wasn't a part of the discussion until Rev Wright landed on the scene. As for that article, its lame spin with little substance. Lets look at it:


Rudy Giuliani's priest has been accused in grand jury proceedings of molesting several children and covering up the molestation of others. Giuliani would not disavow him on the campaign trail and still works with him.Its an accusation, not an admission or conviction. If Guliani's priest denies it, then its perfectly reasonable for Guliani to stand by him. Did the Democrats call for Clinton to immediately resign when he was accused of purjury? Or Rape? We KNOW what Rev. Wright said. No one is denying it.


Mitt Romney was part of a church that did not view black Americans as equals and actively discriminated against them. He stayed with that church all the way into his early thirties, until they were finally forced to change their policies to come into compliance with civil rights legislation. Romney never disavowed his church back then or now. He said he was proud of the faith of his fathers.Romney grew up in the Mormon Church, he didn't choose his religion late in life, like Obama did. The Mormon Church dropped its racist position DECADES ago. Romney has not attended sermons of a racist minister for the last 20 years. Obama has.


Jerry Falwell said America had 9/11 coming because we tolerated gays, feminists and liberals. It was our fault. Our chickens had come home to roost, if you will. John McCain proudly received his support and even spoke at his university's commencement.McCain has called Falwell "an agent of intolerance", and he didn't wait until the spotlight was on him to do it. Falwell is now dead. McCain is now pandering to the religious right, but he never went to a Falwell sermon, and was not in his congregation for 20 years.


Reverend John Hagee has called the Catholic Church the "Great *****." He has said that the Anti-Christ will rise out of the European Union (of course, the Anti-Christ will also be Jewish). He has said all Muslims are trained to kill and will be part of the devil's army when Armageddon comes (which he hopes is soon). John McCain continues to say he is proud of Reverend Hagee's endorsement.Of course. Its the 4000 year battle of the religions. The Catholic Church in turn thinks Protestants are going to burn in Hell for eternity, and the clergy worships the god they think is going to do it to them. The Abrahamic religions are full of religious intolerance. Each says the other religions have got to go. Other religions are baaaaaad. We have just come to forget how discordant tolerant, humanistic popular culture is with respect to whats in the religions. And btw, the anti-christ is supposed to be the mirror of Christ, who was jewish, and must therefor be jewish too. Its not an anti-jewish thing.


Reverend Rod Parsley believes America was founded to destroy Islam. Since this is such an outlandish claim, I have to add for the record, that he is not kidding.ibid. Any real christian should hope so. You can't "save" all the muslims without destroying Islam. Anyone who thinks what Parsley said is outlandish has no clue what Christianity is about.

[usmc1]

Skinview, I refer you back to Quikdraw's post http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/showpost.php?p=188373&postcount=215 where he posted a link to a very good article on the subject.

The fact that you continue to raise red herring twists on information confirms that race is an issue still.

It is truly sad that in 2008 race is even part of such a discussion.

Ditto! Ditto! Ditto!

I only did more than one ditto because our naziware says I gotta have more than ten letters in a post. Guess I could have hit the space bar ten times, but damn....!

Anyway Skinview, Ditto on Boreas! Nanner, nanner on your meaningless reply!

[KirkOntario]

And of course the truest poll is the election.

Tell that to Democrats. They seem to think 'exit polls' trump actually counting votes (circa 2004).

[Naturist Mark]

Yikes, neither of the dream candidates are polling ahead of Lame McCain. Doesn't say much for the Dems, the former sure bet for November victory. And this is a poll of registered voters, not likely voters.

That is with the Democratic candidates campaigning against each other and barely mentioning McCain, and that is with the media being relentlessly negative towards the Democratic candidates and treating McCain with kid gloves and a free pass on his enormous gaffs. Under such conditions it is rather pathetic that McCain isn't doing a lot better.

[Naturist Mark]

If Obama and Rev Wright were white and Wright said things like he has about black people, Obama would have been gone faster than Eliot Spitzer.

That is exactly opposite from the truth.

That doesn't jibe with the fact that white preachers have and do say much worse than Dr. Wright and are not held to account for it. Nixon, Ford, Reagan, both Bush's and now McCain have never been held to account for what 'their preachers' say. We've detailed multiple examples, just page back.

[KirkOntario]

That is exactly opposite from the truth.

That doesn't jibe with the fact that white preachers have and do say much worse than Dr. Wright and are not held to account for it. Nixon, Ford, Reagan, both Bush's and now McCain have never been held to account for what 'their preachers' say. We've detailed multiple examples, just page back.

Even if that were true, Mark. How does that make it okay for Obama to be associated with the racist extremist and divisive Mr Wright when he claims to be the post-racial candidate who will bring the country together?

[KirkOntario]

Hillary caught in another falsehood. She doesn't do it as well as Bill does she? Here she claims she landed in Bosnia 'under sniper fire'. [Last month she claimed responsibility for peace in Northern Ireland (presumably for accepting an ugly teapot as a gift).]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BfNqhV5hg4&eurl=http://hotair.com/archives/2008/03/24/cbs-reporter-on-hillarys-bosnia-trip-yes-i-can-confirm-shes-a-shameless-liar/

[nacktman]

That is exactly opposite from the truth.

Ah, but Mark, that is the perversion of the wing-nut mind ... always the opposite of reality and filled with hate.

To quote a another Southern gentleman on the subject:


"Like an unchecked cancer, hate corrodes the personality and eats away its vital unity. Hate destroys a man's sense of values and his objectivity. It causes him to describe the beautiful as ugly and the ugly as beautiful, and to confuse the true with the false and the false with the true."


~ Martin Luther King Jr.

[Boreas]

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">That is exactly opposite from the truth. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Ah, but Mark, that is the perversion of the wing-nut mind ... always the opposite of reality and filled with hate.

But will saying it enough times make it true? I believe that is how the paternalistic mind works.

[Naturist Mark]

Even if that were true, Mark. How does that make it okay for Obama to be associated with the racist extremist and divisive Mr Wright when he claims to be the post-racial candidate who will bring the country together?

If you call Dr. Wright a 'racist extremist' you display a profound misunderstanding of what racism is.

Go listen to an entire sermon rather than just the Fox news soundbites. You'll be amazed.

Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson said America is damned — cursed by God, though not permanently — because we tolerate feminists and queer people.

John Hagee says America is damned — cursed by God, though not permanently — because we tolerate Muslims.

Jeremiah Wright says America is damned — cursed by God, though not permanently, suffering from hate and division, from bitterness and envy — because we succumb to hating one another.

Whose number do you want to be counted among?

-Mark

[Croydon]

I must ask, why do we continue this topic? It is clear that Kirk does not have the intellectual capacity to understand anything that is said. He is set in his ways and will continue to believe what he believes about Obama. Even as we provide evidence that his statements have no truth, he moves on to some other nonsense statement.

I think it may be best to discuss something else or ignore Kirk. It is clear he is here to fuel fire and not really learn or understand.

[G I Joe]

Hillary caught in another falsehood. She doesn't do it as well as Bill does she? Here she claims she landed in Bosnia 'under sniper fire'. [Last month she claimed responsibility for peace in Northern Ireland (presumably for accepting an ugly teapot as a gift).]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BfNqhV5hg4&eurl=http://hotair.com/archives/2008/03/24/cbs-reporter-on-hillarys-bosnia-trip-yes-i-can-confirm-shes-a-shameless-liar/

Ah, KirkOntario--you certainly got it "right" on this one!

[usmc1]

I must ask, why do we continue this topic? It is clear that Kirk does not have the intellectual capacity to understand anything that is said. He is set in his ways and will continue to believe what he believes about Obama. Even as we provide evidence that his statements have no truth, he moves on to some other nonsense statement.

I think it may be best to discuss something else or ignore Kirk. It is clear he is here to fuel fire and not really learn or understand.

I can't answer the question. Perhaps it is some sort of Pavlovian hell that we are locked in, or we've become part of an Escher drawing, on and on and on! Or we respond to him the same way we throw stones at the feral dog that knocks over our garbage...it doesn't do any good, but it at least lets it know that we don't care for its behavior and provides a brief bit of satisfaction when one kerplunks into its slats..

But, I can tell you this about Kirk, all online diagnoses aside.

It now is the conservatoid cant that Hillary can be beaten but Obama can't. So, the conservatoids are blazing away at Obama in hopes of running against Hillary. The conservative blogs, e-mails and websites are rife with this bit of "wisdom".

They also believe in voodoo, war, tax breaks for the wealthy, and several other forms of mass hysteria.

[Boreas]

I must ask, why do we continue this topic? It is clear that Kirk does not have the intellectual capacity to understand anything that is said. He is set in his ways and will continue to believe what he believes about Obama. Even as we provide evidence that his statements have no truth, he moves on to some other nonsense statement.

I think it may be best to discuss something else or ignore Kirk. It is clear he is here to fuel fire and not really learn or understand.

I agree. :laugh:


It now is the conservatoid cant that Hillary can be beaten but Obama can't. So, the conservatoids are blazing away at Obama in hopes of running against Hillary. The conservative blogs, e-mails and websites are rife with this bit of "wisdom".

They also believe in voodoo, war, tax breaks for the wealthy, and several other forms of mass hysteria.

Yep. :dizzy:

:applause:

[EricNY]

I must ask, why do we continue this topic? It is clear that Kirk does not have the intellectual capacity to understand anything that is said. He is set in his ways and will continue to believe what he believes about Obama. Even as we provide evidence that his statements have no truth, he moves on to some other nonsense statement.

I think it may be best to discuss something else or ignore Kirk. It is clear he is here to fuel fire and not really learn or understand.

Do not direct your posts toward another member. Stick to the topic. It is not appropriate to talk about any ones intellect, it is rude and will not be tolerated. You say that "he is set in his ways" well that is true of quite a few members here and has nothing to do with anyone's intellectual capacity.

[Fitz1980]

Romney grew up in the Mormon Church, he didn't choose his religion late in life, like Obama did. The Mormon Church dropped its racist position DECADES ago. Romney has not attended sermons of a racist minister for the last 20 years. Obama has.

I've heard several wackjob conspiracy theories and unpatriotic lines from Wright, but what racism?


McCain has called Falwell "an agent of intolerance", and he didn't wait until the spotlight was on him to do it. Falwell is now dead. McCain is now pandering to the religious right, but he never went to a Falwell sermon, and was not in his congregation for 20 years.

In 2006 McCain gave the commencement address at Falwell's Liberty University.

[Skinview]

I've heard several wackjob conspiracy theories and unpatriotic lines from Wright, but what racism?He calls the United States "the US of KKK A", which stereotypes todays whites as intolerant bigots. He has said that AIDS was created by the Federal Government to exterminate black people. Its not just nuts, he has paranoid feelings that are directed at white people specifically. He evidently sees white people as a malevolant threat. Thats great stuff to fill the minds of the young people in his congregation.

[Boreas]

He calls the United States "the US of KKK A", which stereotypes todays whites as intolerant bigots. He has said that AIDS was created by the Federal Government to exterminate black people. Its not just nuts, he has paranoid feelings that are directed at white people specifically. He evidently sees white people as a malevolant threat. Thats great stuff to fill the minds of the young people in his congregation.

Some of that may certainly be over the top. Never-the-less, he has life experience that tells him that whites have been a malevolent threat to him. Fortunately Obama is a new voice who can provide a counterbalance to his.

Also the idea that Obama would be racist himself is pretty absurd given he straddles the white and black worlds.

[Qikdraw]

What do Hillary Clinton, Sam Brownback, Ed Meese, John Ashcroft, James Inhofe and Rick Santorum have in Common? Membership in a secretive religious cult called 'The Family'. (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/20/opinion/main3955108.shtml)

Qikdraw

[nacktman]

I must ask, why do we continue this topic? It is clear that Kirk does not have the intellectual capacity to understand anything that is said. He is set in his ways and will continue to believe what he believes about Obama. Even as we provide evidence that his statements have no truth, he moves on to some other nonsense statement.

I think it may be best to discuss something else or ignore Kirk. It is clear he is here to fuel fire and not really learn or understand.


Word!:applause:

[nacktman]

He calls the United States "the US of KKK A", which stereotypes todays whites as intolerant bigots. He has said that AIDS was created by the Federal Government to exterminate black people. Its not just nuts, he has paranoid feelings that are directed at white people specifically. He evidently sees white people as a malevolant threat. Thats great stuff to fill the minds of the young people in his congregation.

Red Herring Alert!!!
Parse and Divert Alert!!!

The troglodyte faithful spewing the Vomitus of their lords and masters as ever.

[Qikdraw]

The following letter from Senator Barack Obama to Bush appointees Ben Bernanke, Chairman of the Federal Reserve, and Henry Paulsen, Secretary of the Treasury, supposedly entrusted with guarding the integrity of the U.S. financial system, and sent off over one year ago was prophetic and beyond wise in its call to avert the catastrophe we are witnessing today. It's dated March 22, 2007. (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/25/85626/5111/369/483717)

Qikdraw

[KirkOntario]

Red Herring Alert!!!
Parse and Divert Alert!!!

The troglodyte faithful spewing the Vomitus of their lords and masters as ever.

Pretty difficult to 'parse' 'US of KKK', an extremist statement that is deserving of the appropriate level of condemnation. Why would Barrack Obama see such a man as his 'mentor'? Couldn't he choose a better spiritual counsellor?

[nacktman]

Still diverting!:rolleyes:

[nacktman]

Giuliani's priest has been accused of molesting children and covering up more molestations.
Romney was part of a church that actively discriminated against black Americans.
Falwell said we had 9/11 coming because we tolerated gays, feminists and liberals.
McCain's man, Reverend John Hagee called the Catholic Church the "Great Whor e."
Reverend Rod Parsley believes America was founded to destroy Islam. Since this is
such an outlandish claim, I have to add for the record, that he is not kidding.
John McCain says Reverend Rod Parsley is his "spiritual guide." What separates all of these outrageous preachers from Rec Wright? You guessed it.
They're white and Rev Wright is not. If it's not racism that's causing the disparity in
media treatment of these preachers, then what is it?

[nacktman]

http://www.bartcop.com/spewing-trio.gif

[KirkOntario]

Giuliani's priest has been accused of molesting children and covering up more molestations.
Romney was part of a church that actively discriminated against black Americans.
Falwell said we had 9/11 coming because we tolerated gays, feminists and liberals.
McCain's man, Reverend John Hagee called the Catholic Church the "Great Whor e."
Reverend Rod Parsley believes America was founded to destroy Islam. Since this is
such an outlandish claim, I have to add for the record, that he is not kidding.
John McCain says Reverend Rod Parsley is his "spiritual guide." What separates all of these outrageous preachers from Rec Wright? You guessed it.
They're white and Rev Wright is not. If it's not racism that's causing the disparity in
media treatment of these preachers, then what is it?

You should cite your sources. I'll help.

http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/sharpstick/archives/134931.asp?from=blog_last3

[nacktman]

You should cite your sources. I'll help.

http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/sharpstick/archives/134931.asp?from=blog_last3

Nope, wrong source.
Can't get even that correct can you?!:laugh:

[Naturist Mark]

You should cite your sources. I'll help.

http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/sharpstick/archives/134931.asp?from=blog_last3

That is an excellent blog post Kirk linked to. It is an opinion piece about the Dr. Wright controversy called "Wright and Wrong" by Linda Sharp. (http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/sharpstick/archives/134931.asp)

It isn't the source of nacktman's post above, (which appears to me to be just a compilation of factoids from various news sources).

I urge people to read the entire essay, it is worth the 5 minutes. Here is its conclusion:
I have had my epiphanies. I have lived my moments of finally standing up and saying, "NO, IT STOPS HERE."

And like Obama, I have found that it is possible to accept, embrace, and yes, still love those in my family, those in my realm of friends who are like family, even though our feelings on many topics diverge like so many forks in the woods of life's viewpoints.

Wright may be absolutely wrong, but Obama would have been absolutely wrong to completely abandon Wright.

-Mark

[usmc1]

http://www.bartcop.com/spewing-trio.gif




I wish I'd have said that!

[Sanslines]

Wright may be absolutely wrong, but Obama would have been absolutely wrong to completely abandon Wright.

-Mark


As you say Wright might have been right or might have been wrong. Only those who truly know him and all of his philosophy can make that determination. Those of us who do not know Rev Wright, should be aware that we are receiving only partial truths and media sanatized and sensationalized information to get us to make decisions that we really are not qualified to do so. Since Obama knows his Reverand far better then any of us, only Obama can decide if he should distance himself from his reverand and if so how far. It would be a serious mistake if Obama abandoned his Reverand just because the media told him to do so. The media does not run this country..............or do they?

[usmc1]

That noted leftist, pinko, pacifist house organ of the knee-jerk-liberal, left-wing, commie-sympathizing, bleeding-heart Democratic party, The Wall Street Journal, today quotes it's most recent poll:

"WASHINGTON -- The racially charged debate over Barack Obama's relationship with his longtime pastor hasn't much changed his close contest against Hillary Clinton, or hurt him against Republican nominee-in-waiting John McCain, according to a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll.

Democratic pollster Peter Hart, who conducts the Journal/NBC polls with Republican pollster Bill McInturff, called the latest poll a "myth-buster" that showed the pastor controversy is "not the beginning of the end for the Obama campaign."

It also suggests that the prolonged battle between Senators Clinton and Obama is wearing on both campaigns. Clinton supporters---the numbers are against you, the math doesn't work--cash in and let's move forward and set up to whip that senile old coot's butt in November.

[Naturist Mark]

http://images.salon.com/comics/knig/2008/03/26/knig/story.gif

[KirkOntario]

New footage discovered. Hillary's account of her Bosnia trip is TRUE! :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHVEDq6RVXc&eurl=http://torydrroy.blogspot.com/2008/03/billary-on-youtube.html

[usmc1]

Yesterday, I attended our the training session for Obama delegates in advance of our County/Senatorial District convention Saturday. We're organized and mobilized to give Texas to Obama in June, by a margin of 3 to 5 delegates.

Clinton's people had no such training session. Our activist/organizer was from L.A. and working with local Obama and party apparatchicks walked everyone through what to expect, the rules and the strategy to take control of the process.

The Obama campaign is overwhelmed with people, inquiries and interest; but, still able to mount grassroots mobilization at precinct, district and county levels.

He is formidable and at some point the media and naysayers will catch on!

THE RACE: The presidential race for Democrats nationally, according to Pew research!
___

THE NUMBERS
Barack Obama, 49 percent
Hillary Rodham Clinton, 39 percent

[Qikdraw]

The oe thing not mentioned on tv much is how many republicans are crossing over to vote for Hillary. In TX it was over 100,000, and in PA its supposed to be near that number that have switched parties. This is of course something Hillary will not talk about because those votes are keeping her close.

Qikdraw

[Croydon]

The oe thing not mentioned on tv much is how many republicans are crossing over to vote for Hillary. In TX it was over 100,000, and in PA its supposed to be near that number that have switched parties. This is of course something Hillary will not talk about because those votes are keeping her close.

Qikdraw
One thing to ask yourself is how many of those republicans are voting for hillary because they believe she is best nominee or because they believe she will lose against McCain if she wins nomination. Keep in mind that Rush L and many conservatives have been encouraging Republicans to vote for Hillary in primary because she will lose against McCain in general election. The republican party doesn't want Obama to be the nominee because it will be a tough race for them to beat. Obama has appeal of young people, independents, dems and to some extent, republicans.

[usmc1]

One thing to ask yourself is how many of those republicans are voting for hillary because they believe she is best nominee or because they believe she will lose against McCain if she wins nomination. Keep in mind that Rush L and many conservatives have been encouraging Republicans to vote for Hillary in primary because she will lose against McCain in general election. The republican party doesn't want Obama to be the nominee because it will be a tough race for them to beat. Obama has appeal of young people, independents, dems and to some extent, republicans.

None of that matters, because at the precinct caucuses we took enough of a majority so that at the County-Senate District Conventions tomorrow, we will be able to elect a majority of Obama delegates to state to put the count for Texas delegates for Obama with a margin of 3 to 5.

Those Republican voters did not really affect delegate count, nor will they since their registration cards were stamped as to which primary they voted in. If they try to swing the county conventions they can't, because the precincts have Obama majorities in most cases.

And, they're precluded from voting in their own GOP convention since they voted in the Democratic primary---that's moot, but, they can't become delegates for their MCain either. In effect, by being cute, they accomplished little and removed themselves from the process until the general election.

I've been on the phone all day and will into the night making certain all of our Obama delegates attend and carry out our tactics to retain control.

A few moments ago, I got a call from Obama reminding me and the other delegates--yes it was automated, of how important it is for us to have our plans in place and to properly execute them tomorrow. But, the point is, the Clinton people aren't getting calls and did not have training sessions.

I'm telling you this guy is the real deal.

[Home Nudist]

On the Rev. Wright deal, I sincerely wish Obama had "fessed up" before the media got hold of the story. They (conservative radio) have been pounding away at this issue night and day in an effort to discredit Obama. (Of course, they want Clinton to run.)

It's overkill to the point of being sickening. But, they're like a dog with a bone and won't give up. I think they're very scared. Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh (Lush Bimbo) are noxious and divisive, under the guise of being great patriots. Geeze!

Wright's bigoted rage may not sway a lot of people, but it could sway some. It's the credibility issue again.

I mean, I like Obama, feel he's a breath of fresh air, and is what this country sorely needs, but even *I* don't believe that in his 20 year association with Wright, Barack never heard the bigotry or never knew about it. I was born at night -- but not LAST night! Too bad.

But, recent polls say that the issue hasn't done massive damage.

[Croydon]

Wright's bigoted rage may not sway a lot of people, but it could sway some. It's the credibility issue again.

I mean, I like Obama, feel he's a breath of fresh air, and is what this country sorely needs, but even *I* don't believe that in his 20 year association with Wright, Barack never heard the bigotry or never knew about it. I was born at night -- but not LAST night! Too bad.

But, recent polls say that the issue hasn't done massive damage.
I STILL don't get what white people are getting all wild up and offended by. I STILL don't get what exactly he said that was racist. So please, tell me he said.

Do note that the clips of the speech that the media like to play over and over is only a small clip of the whole sermon Wright gave. It is quite funny that the media will show the most damaging thing from the whole sermon. I had a chance to see the whole sermon and quite frankly, it was a pretty powerful sermon. In addition, I have read up on Reverend Wright and he has done A LOT of great things in his life.

I am not saying I agree with everything he said as he said some pretty stupid things that didn't make sense.

A lot of people have stated that Obama should have distanced himself from Wright a long time ago. And why should he do that? Because he holds some views different than him? My mother has said a lot of negative things about gays, which I don't agree with and find it offensive. Should I distance myself from my mother? An ex of mine had a friend who didn't like me because I am black. Should I have broken up with my ex b/c of his friend? Of course not, I know that his friend isn't a reflection of him. I ask the many people who are so offended by Rev W and Obama....did they distance themselves from friends and family who have made racist or homophobic friend? I HIGHLY HIGHLY doubt it. I have been in many situations where I am with a white friend and their other white friend makes negative comments about other races or gender and RARELY do they call them out on it. Obama has 20 years of history with that church. One can not simply just get up and walk away from 20yrs of history. Walk away from 20 years of being in a church, 20 years of knowing the congregation.

In the end, I believe a lot of white people are just bent out of shape because they are in total shock. It really shows how out of touch white America is with reality and the thinking and struggles of minorities. As I have said many times to people, a lot of white people live in a bubble and are "blissfully ignorant." They live in their white neighborhoods, have their white friends, white families and go through life NEVER seeing racism, never knowing many black people and therefore never knowing what they see, how they feel, what they experience. A lot are just happy in that bubble and love not knowing. What you don't know doesn't hurt right?

[Naturist Mark]

On the Rev. Wright deal, I sincerely wish Obama had "fessed up" before the media got hold of the story. They (conservative radio) have been pounding away at this issue night and day in an effort to discredit Obama. (Of course, they want Clinton to run.)

I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'fessed up', but the Obama camp knew from the beginning that his church was going to become an issue. I don't know if they were prepared for the particulars, but they knew the general shape of what would happen.

How? Because this is not the first time his 'black church' has become an issue. Right wing press, blogs, and some radio shows whave gone after Obama for being in a 'racist' church (it isn't) every few months for the last year. This last time they were finally able to give it legs because someone at ABC knew that they needed video to make it really zing. So ABC put a group of researchers into a room with hundreds of hours of video with the assignment to extract a few nuggets of coal.

[MoonShadow]

In the end, I believe a lot of white people are just bent out of shape because they are in total shock. It really shows how out of touch white America is with reality and the thinking and struggles of minorities. As I have said many times to people, a lot of white people live in a bubble and are "blissfully ignorant." They live in their white neighborhoods, have their white friends, white families and go through life NEVER seeing racism, never knowing many black people and therefore never knowing what they see, how they feel, what they experience. A lot are just happy in that bubble and love not knowing. What you don't know doesn't hurt right?

I don't think so, Croydon. Not in the area I live in. Our neighborhoods are mixed, globally even. I am sure there are those who live in a "bubble" but where I live most do not. The all-white neighborhood is long gone in many places that I have visited and lived. Perhaps, they exist in rural America but not in the metropolitan areas where I have traveled.

[Home Nudist]

To me, the Wright issue isn't about race. It's about his stupidity of saying inflammatory things from the pulpit. ("The government created AIDS to kill off Black people.") Even if he believes this, the pulpit isn't the place to say it, in my opinion.

I realize that doesn't define the entire man (that's why I am not personally offended), and the carefully selected snippets were chosen by ABC to simply be divisive and inject race, fear, and hate where, in my opinion, there was little before.

As a Catholic, I there are many things in my own Church I don't agree with. So, I can understand Obama's sorting out the good from the bad and staying in his church. I don't see it to be any big mystery.

And, Croydon, I have to agree with Moon about how integrated my area and life has been. My parents came from racially and culturally integrated neighborhoods, and I was raised the same way. My neighborhood is totally integrated; there are racially mixed marriages. And, everyone gets along. My current neighbors for the last 20 years happen to be Black. And, I feel closer to them than many of my own relatives.

This is the way it should be. Skin color shouldn't matter, and it doesn't to me. Of course, I can never know what it's like to be Black. But, because I don't judge people by the color of their skin, people lose credibility with me when they try to play the "race card." And, that, in those snippets, is what Wright was doing. And I can understand how some white people would be offended. It was conservatives' hope that those people would find Obama guilty by association. I simply do not.

[Croydon]

I don't think so, Croydon. Not in the area I live in. Our neighborhoods are mixed, globally even. I am sure there are those who live in a "bubble" but where I live most do not. The all-white neighborhood is long gone in many places that I have visited and lived. Perhaps, they exist in rural America but not in the metropolitan areas where I have traveled.
My above comment isn't a generalization or something that applies to all. Clearly, there are exceptions

[usmc1]

I don't think so, Croydon. Not in the area I live in. Our neighborhoods are mixed, globally even. I am sure there are those who live in a "bubble" but where I live most do not. The all-white neighborhood is long gone in many places that I have visited and lived. Perhaps, they exist in rural America but not in the metropolitan areas where I have traveled.

It depends on where in those metro areas you go, I guess. And, there is a matter of economic involved also. The richer and whiter you are, the less likely you are to have neighbors of color.

When I first moved to where I am now, I was told repeatedly that I would want to find something on the "south" side of town and definitely did not want to live on the "north" side. No one ever used a racial pejorative, but one quickly understood that the "north" side was mostly African-American and Latino.

What I see is some integration of tract brick and working class and clerical class subdivisions, but much less in the more affluent subdivisions, managerial-types, and in the gated communities of the very affluent and well-off professional classes, virtually none.

We live on the north side!

[KirkOntario]

I mean, I like Obama, feel he's a breath of fresh air, and is what this country sorely needs, but even *I* don't believe that in his 20 year association with Wright, Barack never heard the bigotry or never knew about it. I was born at night -- but not LAST night! Too bad.
.

Obama is now trying to pretend he would have resigned from the Church (after 20 years) if Rev Wright had not been retiring.


He's just another politician.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/28/obama.pastor/

[oldbob]

Martin Marty is a well known and well respected Lutheran pastor and theologian. I've read a number of articles over the years written by him and I have learned a lot from him. Here is what Martin Marty has to say about Jeremiah Wright:

http://chronicle.com/free/v54/i30/30b00101.htm

The Reverend Marty is critical of some of the things Jeremiah Wright has said. But as he said, "Having said that, and reserving the right to offer more criticisms, I've been too impressed by the way Wright preaches the Christian Gospel to break with him."

The same sentiment has been expressed in posts in this thread. We often abhor things friends and family say, but we don't end our relationships with them because of it. We probably don't even call them on what they say when we should. But we always consider the whole person and the whole relationship before speaking out.

I think that Obama is right in disavowing some of the things Wright has said, but not disavowing the man.

[KirkOntario]

Instead of making excuses for black racism this black major of Philadelphia has stood up for standards saying he'd have left Obama's church had it had such an irresponsible and extremist pastor....

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4549699&page=1

""I think there's no room for hate, and I could not sit and tolerate that kind of language, and especially over a very long period of time," said Philadelphia's newly elected mayor, Michael Nutter, in an interview with ABC News' David Muir.


"If I were in my own church and heard my pastor saying some of those kinds of things," he added, "we'd have a conversation about what's going on here, what is this all about, and then I would have to make my own personal decision about whether or not to be associated or affiliated."


Asked by Muir if he would he have quit Obama's church, Nutter said, "Absolutely." "

Enough of making excuses for hatred and racism. No community should be permitted to be treated differently from any other. Obama showed a serious lack of judgment in belonging to this church for 20 years. He's shown a lack of candour in saying he'd never heard the statements and then admitting he'd heard them but was unable to distance himself from them. He's as good as embraced Reverend Wright's own extremist philosophy.

[Sanslines]

The bottom line with Obama and the relationship with his reverend is WHO REALLY CARES? What I am concerned about is where Obama stands on the important issues and problems facing this country and his ideas and proposed solutions to those problems. This is what is important. Side distractions about Obama and his pastor or other such irrelevant nonsense such as what brand of toothpaste does Obama use and is that brand American enough are for those with too much time on their hands. The only ones who will ever know what actually happened with Obama and his pastor are Obama and the pastor. Partial truths, info taken out of context, and other such games to sensationalize non existant problems and sell media info belong in circus publications. This election is far too important for nonsense.

[KirkOntario]

If his campaign is about ideas then the source of his ideas and ideas of his self-declared 'mentors' are relevant to the discussion. His ideas are not superficial like toothpaste, they are critical. Obama is young but claims to have good judgment. Was this good judgment to associate with Reverend Wright? Is this the sort of advisor a President Obama, as the most powerful man in the world, will have access to?
Irrelevant? Not at all, sir.

[Sanslines]

As with any president, Obama will have access to a wide spectrum of advisors. Some brilliant, some average, and some duds. Hopefully he will jettison the duds. If people are so concerned about the source of Obama's ideas, then they need to hear from ALL of his sources and not have the media pick and chose that which creates sensatialization and drama (which may or may not be accurate for the media is not know for telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth). Another friend and advisor to Obama is Cory Booker. How come the media ignores this important source of advice? Is it because Cory Booker is not engaged in some pseudo scandalous activity and the Rev Wright is?

[usmc1]

If his campaign is about ideas then the source of his ideas and ideas of his self-declared 'mentors' are relevant to the discussion. His ideas are not superficial like toothpaste, they are critical. Obama is young but claims to have good judgment. Was this good judgment to associate with Reverend Wright? Is this the sort of advisor a President Obama, as the most powerful man in the world, will have access to?
Irrelevant? Not at all, sir.

Just more right-wing flap-doodle and yammer-yammer.

Wright was right. How he said it was wrong for some. But, in complete context, not nearly as inflammatory as that insufferable arsehole Hagee's continued comments about Catholics, Jews and gays. McCain is proud to have his endorsement.

[Boreas]

The bottom line with Obama and the relationship with his reverend is WHO REALLY CARES? What I am concerned about is where Obama stands on the important issues and problems facing this country and his ideas and proposed solutions to those problems. This is what is important. Side distractions about Obama and his pastor or other such irrelevant nonsense such as what brand of toothpaste does Obama use and is that brand American enough are for those with too much time on their hands. The only ones who will ever know what actually happened with Obama and his pastor are Obama and the pastor. Partial truths, info taken out of context, and other such games to sensationalize non existant problems and sell media info belong in circus publications. This election is far too important for nonsense.

Well said! :applause:


If his campaign is about ideas then the source of his ideas and ideas of his self-declared 'mentors' are relevant to the discussion. His ideas are not superficial like toothpaste, they are critical. Obama is young but claims to have good judgment. Was this good judgment to associate with Reverend Wright? Is this the sort of advisor a President Obama, as the most powerful man in the world, will have access to?
Irrelevant? Not at all, sir.

Please refer to Sanslines' and usmc1's eloquent posts. They have said it with much more respect than what I could muster right now.

[KirkOntario]

As with any president, Obama will have access to a wide spectrum of advisors. Some brilliant, some average, and some duds. Hopefully he will jettison the duds. If people are so concerned about the source of Obama's ideas, then they need to hear from ALL of his sources and not have the media pick and chose that which creates sensatialization and drama (which may or may not be accurate for the media is not know for telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth). Another friend and advisor to Obama is Cory Booker. How come the media ignores this important source of advice? Is it because Cory Booker is not engaged in some pseudo scandalous activity and the Rev Wright is?

Yes if Obama were keeping Mein Kampf next to his bedside we'd be concerned.
If he's reading Ludwig Wittgenstein before turning in, we are less concerned.
And so we should be.

[Boreas]

Yes if Obama were keeping Mein Kampf next to his bedside we'd be concerned.
If he's reading Ludwig Wittgenstein before turning in, we are less concerned.
And so we should be.

Reading Main Kampf does not mean following it. Good grief. It COULD mean the man has a well rounded education.

[KirkOntario]

Reading Main Kampf does not mean following it. Good grief. It COULD mean the man has a well rounded education.

Which is why I used the words "next to his bedside' to indicate that if Mein Kampf was, like the Reverent Wright, his source of constant guidance we'd need to be concerned.

[Boreas]

Which is why I used the words "next to his bedside' to indicate that if Mein Kampf was, like the Reverent Wright, his source of constant guidance we'd need to be concerned.

It indicates nothing of the sort. It only indicates it is beside his bed. It could be something he is reading currently. It could be there to remind him of what not to do. All we know in that case is it is at his bedside. Jumping to conclusions serves no useful purpose.

[KirkOntario]

It indicates nothing of the sort. It only indicates it is beside his bed. It could be something he is reading currently. It could be there to remind him of what not to do. All we know in that case is it is at his bedside. Jumping to conclusions serves no useful purpose.

So if Machiavelli's The Prince was next to Dick Cheney's bed you'd do the fair thing and 'not jump to conclusions' would you?

[Boreas]

So if Machiavelli's The Prince was next to Dick Cheney's bed you'd do the fair thing and 'not jump to conclusions' would you?

Yes, of course. What is good for one is good for the other. I have learned over and over that all we know is the behaviour. We do not know the intention. I am also not inclined to take things out of context, or to take small bits of things and make them into something they are not. And yes, I would do that for Cheney too......it is other stuff that gets me about him. You have already heard that so I will not repeat it.

[usmc1]

KirkO now reduced to if >>>>>>>right-wing flap-doodle and yammer-yammer. Desparate people without substantive issues build straw men to continue their arguing. That's a flap-doodle to the power of 7!

But, The Prince has suffered bad press through the years, it should be required reading as also should Marcus Aurelius by the twelfth-grade.

And, if I were going to be running against someone like McCain, I'd read Mein Kampf simply to stay ahead of him.

[Sanslines]

Obama might have read Mein Kampf (let's hope that he has) but a much better bet as to which 'book' will be at his bedside would be the Holy Bible.

[KirkOntario]

Just to be clear, I just used Mein Kampf as an example. I'm not accusing Obama of subscribing to it. I thnk the Holy Bible --teh New Testament --doesn't actually help one govern a nation. It is more about living ones individual life which was a problem for 'Christendom' which could never get its political act together.

[Boreas]

It is more about living ones individual life which was a problem for 'Christendom' which could never get its political act together.

The please explain how Obama's involvement with Wright is a problem that suggests he cannot get his political life together. You have made many digs without giving clear reasons why it would be an issue. Others have given rebuttals to your digs. You have not given any good material to rebut. Please help us out now.<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

[Sanslines]

It is more about living ones individual life which was a problem for 'Christendom' which could never get its political act together.

What part of Obama's personal life is such a problem? Obama is not his pastor or living the life of his pastor. We are also only hearing about one very select side of this pastor. For all we know, in all other respects, this pastor might very well be a wonderful roll model.

[KirkOntario]

The please explain how Obama's involvement with Wright is a problem that suggests he cannot get his political life together. You have made many digs without giving clear reasons why it would be an issue. Others have given rebuttals to your digs. You have not given any good material to rebut. Please help us out now.<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

I was referring to Christianity, not Obama, as not being able to get its political act together. Mr. Obama has his act together very well.

[Boreas]

I was referring to Christianity not Obama as not being able to get its political act together.

Perhaps. The implication was there. You have been making many digs about Wright and have been implying this is a smear to Obama. I'd love an explanation still.....if you are capable.

[KirkOntario]

Perhaps. The implication was there. You have been making many digs about Wright and have been implying this is a smear to Obama. I'd love an explanation still.....if you are capable.

There was no implication that Obama couldn't get his act together. It was suggested that he keep the Holy Bible next to his bed and I merely asserted that the Holy Bible (unlike some other Holy books) doesn't provide a comprehensive political and legal system for governance of a country.

The problem with Reverend Wright has been pointed out to you. He is Obama's spiritual advisor, his pastor of 20 years who married him and baptized his children. Reverend Wright has made some crazy hateful statements that many of us find troubliing. You are free to discount them but many people think it is problematic. Will it damage him in the long term? Maybe or maybe not.

I should remind you Boreas that when a man (or woman) runs for President there will be those who do not agree that that person is a suitable candidate. They will scrutinize that person's speeches, personal life, past actions and even their friends. Haven't we seen that with Bush and Cheney? That's the reality of running for president. If you think everyone is going to like your candidate and agree with you you are going to be disappointed.

[oldbob]

I don't see any point in continuing to debate Obama's relationship with Rev. Wright. Not because there isn't more that can be said on behalf of Obama. It's just that I don't think anyone's opinion is going to be changed. But getting back to the topic of Obama or Clinton. This is from an article on consortiumnews.com:

First, Hillary Clinton in the run up to the war in Iraq.


"Two of those members of Congress, who brushed aside warnings of human catastrophe in Iraq, remain in contention for the 2008 U.S. presidential election.

In the U.S. Senate, Republican John McCain and Democrat Hillary Clinton unquestioningly accepted the Bush administration’s trumped-up arguments for war, and opted to authorize military action in a fateful vote on Oct. 10, 2002."

and

"She asserted that the threat posed by Iraq to U.S. national security was “undisputed,” and that the only questions remaining were “what should we do about it?” and “how, when, and with whom?"

Contrast that with what Obama was saying at the time:

"At a demonstration on Oct. 26, 2002, Obama lashed out against “weekend warriors in this administration [who] shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.”

Unlike Clinton or McCain, Obama understood that “even a successful war against Iraq [would] require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.” This approach, he warned, would “only fan the flames of the Middle East … and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.”

He also spoke out against “the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income – to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.”"

The full article is here: http://www.consortiumnews.com/2008/032608b.html

Obama had a much better understanding of the situation. I think that it is his ability to see situations as they really are that will make him a good president.

[Boreas]

If you think everyone is going to like your candidate and agree with you you are going to be disappointed.

Is that what you think??????? Uh, okay. Missed the boat again.<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

[unitednudist]

To tell you all the truth, Im Not very happy this year with the canadated in the election. Very Libral.

[usmc1]

There was no implication that Obama couldn't get his act together. It was suggested that he keep the Holy Bible next to his bed and I merely asserted that the Holy Bible (unlike some other Holy books) doesn't provide a comprehensive political and legal system for governance of a country.

The problem with Reverend Wright has been pointed out to you. He is Obama's spiritual advisor, his pastor of 20 years who married him and baptized his children. Reverend Wright has made some crazy hateful statements that many of us find troubliing. You are free to discount them but many people think it is problematic. Will it damage him in the long term? Maybe or maybe not.

I should remind you Boreas that when a man (or woman) runs for President there will be those who do not agree that that person is a suitable candidate. They will scrutinize that person's speeches, personal life, past actions and even their friends. Haven't we seen that with Bush and Cheney? That's the reality of running for president. If you think everyone is going to like your candidate and agree with you you are going to be disappointed.

The whole thing began with a straw man IF assertion. It is either a meaningless hypothetical or a troll. Either way, it boils down to right-wing flap-doodle and yammer-yammer.

One could as easily assert an IF assertion along the lines of; If John McCain keeps Catcher in The Rye next to his bed it must mean he would be a childishly, rebellious and conflicted president who would spiritually influenced by a racist, homophobic, catholic-hating, anti-Semite, John Hagee whose endorsement he speaks of with such pride!

IF pecans were gold, I'd have a yard full of wealth come fall.

On topic...Obama delegates took the Texas state county conventions by a margin of 53% to 47%. In June, we'll deliver the state to Obama. That probably will not be necessary. NC & PA will do it before then.

[Sanslines]

As far as Obama is concerned, the only thing that is of the most critical importance is this:

Can Obama admit to the many serious problems that face this country, such as a broken health care system, face those problems, promote solutions to those problems, and work to resolve those problems, or will Obama chose to ignore those domestic problems as is being done now.

We so very badly need a hands on type of president who is interested in domestic problems and policies and will work diligently to resolve those domestic problems rather then spending all of our resources on overseas fiascos.

Hypothetical postulates as to what kind of reading material that Obama may or may not keep by his bedside at night will not resolve any of the myriad of serious problems that presently face us.

[Boreas]

I agree usmc1 and Sanslines. It seems that both Clinton and Obama have the necessary skills as a start. Now, which one is more suitable?

I personally would like to see a person who can start to tackle the difficult issues and heal the polarization that has deepened in the past eight years. It seems next to impossible that the two sides can work together down there right now. There is so much mudslinging and the use of labels such as "liberal" or "conservative" to dismiss the other point of view.

A good leader will be able to mediate somehow between the two "sides". A good leader will be able to get the two sides to start working. I am personally impressed with Obama's apparently ability to heal in that way. Of course only time will tell.

[KirkOntario]

An Obama-McCain match up looks good in terms of mudslinging. Both have decried it and both have spoken out against it. You can probably expect a better tone this time.

[Boreas]

An Obama-McCain match up looks good in terms of mudslinging. Both have decried it and both have spoken out against it. You can probably expect a better tone this time.

That is how it looks to me too. I hope that will be the case. I also suspect those two candidates will make for a good race.

[Qikdraw]

As far as Obama is concerned, the only thing that is of the most critical importance is this:

Can Obama admit to the many serious problems that face this country, such as a broken health care system, face those problems, promote solutions to those problems, and work to resolve those problems, or will Obama chose to ignore those domestic problems as is being done now.

He does have a healthcare plan, its not univsersal healthcare, but he does have a plan. So does Hillary. You just have to decide which one you like better. McCain wants to continue the same thing as now.

I'm not a fan of Hillary, mainly because of the way she has run this race, however I did read an article yesterday that mentioned a few things I liked. She said that companies that outsource will not get tax breaks. This is a very good thing, but something that Obama has said from the start. She also said that she would help factories that got sent overseas to retool into something else. Something Obama has said as well. Both are leaning towards environmental technology to help rebuild our economy, which I think is a good direction to go.

Hillary and Obama are close on a lot of issues, so it really boils down to who you like, and also who you think will win the presidency. I think Hillary is too polarising on the right to be able to win. Her name alone will bring out many more republicans than would be the case this year.

Qikdraw

[Qikdraw]

An Obama-McCain match up looks good in terms of mudslinging. Both have decried it and both have spoken out against it. You can probably expect a better tone this time.

In some cases I agree, but I don't think it will last. It would make the race too dry, and the media itself will start the mudslinging.

Qikdraw

[Boreas]

In some cases I agree, but I don't think it will last. It would make the race too dry, and the media itself will start the mudslinging.

Qikdraw

Oh, you are such a cynic! ;) Of course, I tend to agree with you! The media does seem to like to stir things up a bit. :sneaky:

[Skinview]

I personally would like to see a person who can start to tackle the difficult issues and heal the polarization that has deepened in the past eight years. It seems next to impossible that the two sides can work together down there right now. There is so much mudslinging and the use of labels such as "liberal" or "conservative" to dismiss the other point of view.

A good leader will be able to mediate somehow between the two "sides". A good leader will be able to get the two sides to start working. I am personally impressed with Obama's apparently ability to heal in that way. Of course only time will tell.

McCain has a record of working with Democrats to get bipartisan legislation passed. Bad legislation that Democrats would like.

[Qikdraw]

Oh, you are such a cynic! ;) Of course, I tend to agree with you! The media does seem to like to stir things up a bit. :sneaky:

After 6 and a half years of living here of course I am a cynic! :D

Qikdraw

[Boreas]

Bad legislation that Democrats would like.

Such as?<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

[Skinview]

Such as?<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->
McCain-Feingold drove a stake through the heart of the 1st Amendment. The Patriot Act has gotten much attention for its infringements of civil liberties, but it pales in comparison.

[Boreas]

McCain-Feingold drove a stake through the heart of the 1st Amendment. The Patriot Act has gotten much attention for its infringements of civil liberties, but it pales in comparison.

That sounds rather ominous. I am a Canadian, so out of that loop a bit. Could you explain a little more please. Anything that makes the Patriot Act pale is worthy of note.

[usmc1]

That sounds rather ominous. I am a Canadian, so out of that loop a bit. Could you explain a little more please. Anything that makes the Patriot Act pale is worthy of note.

Here, from Stanford's Hoover Institution, an explanation of what the bi-partisan bill was trying to accomplish. I suspect Skinview is unhappy with it because the NRA told him it would stop them from running their phony-flap-doodle attack ads, disguised as Issue Ads. <table style="width: 508px; height: 1897px;"><tbody><tr> <td rowspan="20" colspan="3" width="10">
</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left"> The McCain-Feingold-Cochran Campaign Reform Bill
This selection was excerpted from www.straighttalkamerica.com (http://www.straighttalkamerica.com).

<hr align="left" noshade="noshade" size="1" width="400"> The McCain-Feingold-Cochran campaign reform bill is similar to the bills that were debated in the 105th and 106th Congresses. A strong bipartisan majority of both the House and the Senate favors this reform. It contains the following major components:

A Ban on Soft Money. The bill would prohibit all soft money contributions to the national political parties from corporations, labor unions, and wealthy individuals. State parties that are permitted under state law to accept these unregulated contributions would be prohibited from spending them on activities relating to federal elections, including advertising that supports or opposes a federal candidate. In addition, federal candidates would be prohibited from raising soft money. These provisions would shut down the Washington soft money machine, prohibiting the $100,000, $250,000 and even $500,000 contributions that for the last decade have flowed to the political parties.

McCain-Feingold-Cochran would also double the amount of "hard" money individuals may contribute to state parties for use in federal elections, from $5,000 to $10,000. It would increase the amount of "hard" money an individual may contribute in aggregate to all federal candidates, parties, and PACs in a single year from $25,000 to $30,000.

Restrictions on "Phony Issue Ads" Run by Corporations and Unions (The Snowe-Jeffords Amendment). First adopted as part of McCain-Feingold during the Senate's February 1998 campaign finance debate, the Snowe-Jeffords amendment addresses the explosion of thinly-veiled campaign advertising funded by corporate and union treasuries. These ads skirt federal election law by avoiding the use of direct entreaties to "vote for" or "vote against" a particular candidate. Under the bill, labor unions and for-profit corporations would be prohibited from spending their treasury funds on "electioneering communications." "Electioneering communications" are defined as radio or TV ads that refer to a clearly identified candidate or candidates and appear within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election. This definition does not include any printed communication, direct mail, voter guides, or the Internet. It would also not cover issue advertising that does not identify a specific candidate or appears outside of the 30/60 day pre-election window.

The Snowe-Jeffords amendment permits 501(c)(4) non-profit corporations to make electioneering communications as long as they use only individual contributions (not corporate or union funds) and make certain disclosures. The amendment thus prevents unions or corporations from laundering funds through non-profits to make electioneering communications.

The amendment also provides that a group making electioneering communications that total $10,000 or more in an election cycle must disclose its identity, the cost of the communication, and the names and addresses of all contributors of $1,000 or more to the sponsor of the communication within the cycle. If the group makes expenditures on electioneering communications from a separate bank account to which only individuals can contribute, it need only disclose the large donors to that account.

The Snowe-Jeffords amendment treats corporations and unions fairly and equally. It does not prohibit any election ad, nor does it place limits on spending by outside organizations. But it will give the public crucial information about the election activities of independent groups and prevent corporate and union treasury money from being spent to influence elections.


Strict Codification of the "Beck" Decision. The bill would require labor unions to notify non-union employees that if they file an objection, they are entitled to have their agency fees reduced by an amount equal to the portion of fees used for political purposes.

Foreign Money. McCain-Feingold-Cochran would strengthen current law to prohibit foreign nationals from making any contributions in a federal, state or local election. The foreign money abuses from the 1996 election that captured so much attention would be entirely shut down by this proposal.

Greater Disclosure and Stronger Election Laws. McCain-Feingold-Cochran contains a number of provisions designed to improve disclosure of campaign finance information and strengthen enforcement of the law. The bill would: (1) strengthen current law to make it clear that it is unlawful to raise or solicit campaign contributions on federal property, including the White House and the United States Congress: (2) bar federal candidates from converting campaign funds for personal use, such as a mortgage payment or country club membership; (3) specify circumstances in which activities by outside groups or parties will be considered coordinated with candidates; and (4) provide more timely disclosure of independent expenditures. </td></tr></tbody></table>

[Sanslines]

McCain has a record of working with Democrats to get bipartisan legislation passed. Bad legislation that Democrats would like.

Yes he does but the problem with McCain is that he is seen as runing for George Bush's Third Term. He will just continue all of the present policies with little, if any, change.

Obama, on the other hand does have the potential to make a hug difference if he uses his great oratory skills to offer hope to people and influence people to make changes.

[Boreas]

Thanks usmc. On first read it looks like something that is already in effect in Canada. Canada put a restriction on campaign contributions a few years ago. Of course, there was opposition. The earth did not cave in as a result.

It seems that this could be a good thing. It also seems that much of the strife down there is related (due to?) lobbyists and extreme amount of campaign contributions. Can an average Joe or Jane REALLY become in line for president if s/he is not independently wealthy?

I will look forward to other comments about this. Like I said, this comment is after one read. It may require another read after a bit. :)

[Boreas]

Obama, on the other hand does have the potential to make a hug difference if he uses his great oratory skills to offer hope to people and influence people to make changes.

Interesting typo. Is he a hugger too? ;)

[Sanslines]

Interesting typo. Is he a hugger too? ;)

I hope so!

[Skinview]

Yes he does but the problem with McCain is that he is seen as runing for George Bush's Third Term. He will just continue all of the present policies with little, if any, change.McCain has been out front in opposition to the use of torture. He was also early in calling for the ousting of Donald Rumsfeld.

[Skinview]

Thanks usmc. On first read it looks like something that is already in effect in Canada. Canada put a restriction on campaign contributions a few years ago. Of course, there was opposition. The earth did not cave in as a result.

It seems that this could be a good thing. It also seems that much of the strife down there is related (due to?) lobbyists and extreme amount of campaign contributions. Can an average Joe or Jane REALLY become in line for president if s/he is not independently wealthy?

I will look forward to other comments about this. Like I said, this comment is after one read. It may require another read after a bit. :)This law goes way beyond limiting campaign contributions. We already had that. Suppose a politician is up for reelection, and he has some bill that he wants to get passed cutting benifits to the poor. So lets say that you don't like this, and you want the opposition candidate, Mr Smith, to be elected. So you get together with a bunch of other people who think the same way, and pool your money and put an ad on tv before the election that says "Vote for Mr Smith, because he won't cut benifits for the poor." You just broke the law. You go to jail. So much for free speach.

[Boreas]

Skinview, is that the case if the concern is true? I saw "phony issue ads" in the write up. We are not allowed (quite) to have those up here. The US ads we see are far more vicious than anything Canadian, though Stephen Harper's team is coming close during their tenure. Could the opposition not say something about the issue and present the opposite side? The ads I have seen would not be particularly useful for me, nor attractive.

Our politicians would have ads that say that the other side is planning to cut benefits for the poor, and then (hopefully) would present an alternative. Of course, alternatives are few and far between in electioneering. Is there not a way that a politician could expose something that is real, and present it in a respectful (for lack of a better word, since we are talking about politicians here) manner?

[Qikdraw]

McCain has been out front in opposition to the use of torture. He was also early in calling for the ousting of Donald Rumsfeld.

Yet he voted against a bill that would require all US agencies to follow the US Army manual for use of torture. (ie no waterboarding)

He also says he was one of the few saying the Iraq war would not be easy, yet I've seen many clips of him saying it would be.

So McCain can say whatever he wants, but his record shows him to be a liar.

Qikdraw

[Skinview]

Skinview, is that the case if the concern is true? I saw "phony issue ads" in the write up. We are not allowed (quite) to have those up here. The US ads we see are far more vicious than anything Canadian, though Stephen Harper's team is coming close during their tenure. Could the opposition not say something about the issue and present the opposite side?You can talk about issues, but you can't mention a candidate.


Is there not a way that a politician could expose something that is real, and present it in a respectful (for lack of a better word, since we are talking about politicians here) manner?Yes. But he can't accept a lot of money from me to say that on tv if he is running for office.

[Nude_Eric]

I will vote for Obama if he will end this senseless war in Iraq.
Although I don't agree with either democratic candidate on domestic policy.

[usmc1]

This law goes way beyond limiting campaign contributions. We already had that. Suppose a politician is up for reelection, and he has some bill that he wants to get passed cutting benifits to the poor. So lets say that you don't like this, and you want the opposition candidate, Mr Smith, to be elected. So you get together with a bunch of other people who think the same way, and pool your money and put an ad in the paper before the election that says "Vote for Mr Smith, because he won't cut benifits for the poor." You just broke the law. You go to jail. So much for free speach.

Skinview, that is not correct. First, you must distinguish between soft money (where most of the campaign finance problems lie) and hard money.

If your's were a true statement, we would not have been subjected to those wretchedly hideously untrue Swift Boat ads in the '04 campaign.

Off the top of my head, I seem to recall the soft money limits are $1,000 for individuals, $5,000 for PACs. And, a candidate can contribute---not loan---contribute, only $250,000 to their own campaign. There are some limits on hard money that have been around for years.

There is also a limit, I seem to recall, on the total amount of soft money a campaign can accept. None on hard money.

As with any piece of legislation passed by the mendicants in DC, there are loopholes. It was an attempt to clean-up the campaign finance mess, take financing away from the big corporations & unions and put it in the hands of the people.

But, your original assertion that this bipartisan bill favors the democrats is not true.

[Sanslines]

Off the top of my head, I seem to recall the soft money limits are $1,000 for individuals, $5,000 for PACs. And, a candidate can contribute---not loan---contribute, only $250,000 to their own campaign. There are some limits on hard money that have been around for years.

How did Hillary manage to 'loan' $5 million to her campaign?

[Sanslines]

McCain has been out front in opposition to the use of torture. He was also early in calling for the ousting of Donald Rumsfeld.

McCain also believes in the free market and will allow the health care crisis to continue pretty much as is. He believes in the insurance companies and so if McCain wins, it would be a great time to invest in the stock of medical insurance companies.

[usmc1]

How did Hillary manage to 'loan' $5 million to her campaign?

As I wrote and emphasized with a set off, the limit is on contributions, not loans:


Originally Posted by usmc1 http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/showthread.php?p=190294#post190294)
Off the top of my head, I seem to recall the soft money limits are $1,000 for individuals, $5,000 for PACs. And, a candidate can contribute---not loan---contribute, only $250,000 to their own campaign. There are some limits on hard money that have been around for years.

Certainly, one hopes this clears up your misunderstanding of what I wrote:rolleyes:

[Skinview]

Skinview, that is not correct. First, you must distinguish between soft money (where most of the campaign finance problems lie) and hard money.I am not talking about donations (although that situation is bad too), I am talking about you and I putting ads on tv favoring a candidate. YOU have been muzzled.


If your's were a true statement, we would not have been subjected to those wretchedly hideously untrue Swift Boat ads in the '04 campaign.Its true. They were fined:

"In December 2006, however, the FEC did enter settlements with three 527 groups the Commission found to have violated federal law by failing to register as "political committees" and abide by contribution limits, source prohibitions and disclosure requirements during the 2004 election cycle. Swift Boat Veterans for Truth was fined $299,500; the League of Conservation Voters was fined $180,000; MoveOn.org was fined $150,000. Then, in February 2007, the 527 organization Progress for America Voter Fund was likewise fined $750,000 for its failure to abide by federal campaign finance laws during the 2004 election cycle."
-wikipedia


It was an attempt to clean-up the campaign finance mess, take financing away from the big corporations & unions and put it in the hands of the people.And it shuts them up too. It also muzzles any other organization or group that wants to speak up against the current rulers in an election. Its an abomination.


But, your original assertion that this bipartisan bill favors the democrats is not true.I did not make that assertion. I wrote that they voted for it. Its their creation. But you have to guess that they thought that it would give them an advantage.

These are the tyrants in the Senate who voted for it. They are mostly Democrats:

YEAs ---60
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Chafee (R-RI)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dayton (D-MN)
Dodd (D-CT)
Domenici (R-NM)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Edwards (D-NC)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Fitzgerald (R-IL)
Graham (D-FL)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hollings (D-SC)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCain (R-AZ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Miller (D-GA)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Thompson (R-TN)
Torricelli (D-NJ)
Warner (R-VA)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR)

Only two Democrats voted against it. Clinton voted for it, the neophyte Obama, of course, has no record going back that far. Of course Ron Paul voted against it.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00054

[Skinview]

"[This law] cuts to the heart of what the First Amendment is meant to protect: the right to criticize the government…This is a sad day for freedom of speech.”
-Justice Antonin Scalia

From an editorial:


WASHINGTON (Map, News) - Something almost without precedent in America will happen Thursday. That’s the day when McCain-Feingold — aka the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 — will officially silence broadcast advertising that contains criticism of members of Congress seeking re-election in November. Before 2006, American election campaigns traditionally began in earnest after Labor Day. Unless McCain-Feingold is repealed, Labor Day will henceforth mark the point in the campaign when congressional incumbents can sit back and cruise, free of those pesky negative TV and radio spots. It is the most effective incumbent protection act possible, short of abolishing the elections themselves.

How can this possibly be, you ask? McCain-Feingold — named after the law’s main advocates, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Russ Feingold, D-Wis. — bans all broadcast political advocacy advertising that mentions candidates by name, beginning 60 days before the election. President Bush signed and the U.S. Supreme Court shockingly upheld [5-4] McCain-Feingold three years ago.

An example of effective censorship:


Conservative filmmaker David Bossie says the American public has a right to see his new documentary on Hillary Clinton, despite restrictions placed on his ability to advertise the film.
Hillary the Movie has been available on DVD for some time, but now the documentary is being released in limited cities on the big screen. Bossie -- of Citizens United Productions -- says the film features interviews with dozens of individuals who have either covered the former first lady or have been directly affected by her actions. He calls her an extremely left-wing socialist.

"She is somebody who believes in taking money away from the haves and giving it to the have-nots. She believes in fighting that class warfare," explains Bossie. "She is somebody who, in my opinion, would make America weaker from a national security standpoint and would open ourselves to terrorism again."

But Bossie says thanks to the McCain-Feingold campaign reform legislation, it has been virtually impossible for him to market his film. "We made [this] movie about Hillary Clinton," he explains, "[but] McCain-Feingold precludes us, makes it illegal for me to advertise my movie because it is illegal to say the name of a federal candidate -- Hillary. It's really an abomination to the First Amendment."

[usmc1]

Skinview, I just will not be drawn into this silly line by line parsing and crap!..you originally wrote,
McCain has a record of working with Democrats to get bipartisan legislation passed. Bad legislation that Democrats would like. in reference to McCain-Feingold.

I'm trying to remind you that it was a bi-partisan bill, challenged mostly by the very far right wing. It did not "drive a stake through the first amendment" nor does it prevent your full participation in the politcal process. It does place limits on your abilities to gin up phony attack ads using soft-money.

Muzzled? Me? I think not. The only place I've been muzzled is here--and, all-in-all, that's ok. Sometimes we have to accept limits if we wish to play the game.

You want involved in the political process, you want to be heard, you want to exercise your 1st amendment rights (which are still quite intact) scurry your behind over to your partiy's precinct and get involved. You'll accomplish more that way then throwing your money at some ad hoc PAC trying to gin up yet another flap-doodle attack ad.<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

[Baron Lake]

So Bossie is admitting his "documentary" is really a political ad?

But in any case, a bit of publicity couldn't hurt DVD sales.

b.l.

[Qikdraw]

McCain has been out front in opposition to the use of torture.

Well I've already put lie to this so I'll go onto this:


He was also early in calling for the ousting of Donald Rumsfeld.

No he wasn't.

Link (http://mediamatters.org/items/200803310001)

He expressed 'no confidence' in Rumsfeld, but he never called for his resignation. He said Rumsfeld serves at the president's pleasure, and it was up to him to decide.

Qikdraw

[Naturist Mark]

LOL

Recalling a famous scene on the steps of the Philadelphia Museum of Art, Clinton said to end her presidential campaign now would be as if "Rocky Balboa had gotten halfway up those art museum steps and said, 'Well, I guess that's about far enough.'"

"Let me tell you something, when it comes to finishing a fight, Rocky and I have a lot in common. I never quit. I never give up.

Of course those of us who saw the Oscar winning movie written and directed by Sylvester Stallone remember that Rocky did indeed fight right to the very end ... where he was defeated by a black man.

[Sanslines]

LOL

Recalling a famous scene on the steps of the Philadelphia Museum of Art, Clinton said to end her presidential campaign now would be as if "Rocky Balboa had gotten halfway up those art museum steps and said, 'Well, I guess that's about far enough.'"

"Let me tell you something, when it comes to finishing a fight, Rocky and I have a lot in common. I never quit. I never give up.

Of course those of us who saw the Oscar winning movie written and directed by Sylvester Stallone remember that Rocky did indeed fight right to the very end ... where he was defeated by a black man.


lol.....lol.......lol

Yes, I would like to see Hillary run up the Philadelphia Museum of Art steps. To those who have been to the art gallery, it is quite a challenge. Of course, Obama, being a work out fanatic in the Senate gym, could run up those steps with both legs dragging balls and chains.

[Sanslines]

As I wrote and emphasized with a set off, the limit is on contributions, not loans:



Certainly, one hopes this clears up your misunderstanding of what I wrote:rolleyes:
[/i]

I didn't really misunderstand or was confused. The point that I was subtly (perhaps too subtly) trying to make is that since there is a limit on 'contributions', a candidate can always get around this set limit by 'loaning' money to their campaign and then delay paying off the 'loan' until after the election or some other distant and nebulous date.

[Skinview]

He expressed 'no confidence' in Rumsfeld, but he never called for his resignation.


I just will not be drawn into this silly line by line parsing and crap!..
Enough said.

[Qikdraw]

Enough said.


In other words...

I'm right, you're wrong, but you don't want to admit it.

No parsing, no hyperbole, using McCain's own words to disprove your claims of what he said.

Qikdraw

[usmc1]

I didn't really misunderstand or was confused. The point that I was subtly (perhaps too subtly) trying to make is that since there is a limit on 'contributions', a candidate can always get around this set limit by 'loaning' money to their campaign and then delay paying off the 'loan' until after the election or some other distant and nebulous date.

Well it is their damned money and i suppose they get to do with it as they wish. But it clearly circumvents the intent of the act which, in part, was structured to prevent the very wealthy from "buying" a seat.

So McCain-Feingold is still a flawed piece of legislation, but hardly the instrument of 1st Amendment death that he choses to characterize it. It was a step toward a solution...merely a step.

[Skinview]

Well it is their damned money and i suppose they get to do with it as they wish. But it clearly circumvents the intent of the act which, in part, was structured to prevent the very wealthy from "buying" a seat.Yeah, we wouldn't want another Washington or Jefferson "buying" a seat. Best we shut them up.


So McCain-Feingold is still a flawed piece of legislation, but hardly the instrument of 1st Amendment death that he choses to characterize it. It was a step toward a solution...merely a step.That is even more ominous. Where does it stop?

[Skinview]

No parsing, no hyperbole, using McCain's own words to disprove your claims of what he said.


He expressed 'no confidence' in Rumsfeld, but he never called for his resignation.

Its the same thing. You are obviously more interested in disproving what I write than what I write.

[Qikdraw]

Its the same thing. You are obviously more interested in disproving what I write than what I write.

Don't put into it what it is not, I'm not trying to attack you at alll. (honestly, I tend to ignore most of your posts) I am going after the right wing falsehoods that get spouted out. McCain was asked directly if he was calling for Rumsfeld to resign, he said no. So its not the same thing.

Qikdraw

[KirkOntario]

Factcheck gives us the goods on Obama's connections to 'big oil.'

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_oil_spill.html

"We find the statement misleading:

Obama has accepted more than $213,000 from individuals who work for companies in the oil and gas industry and their spouses.

Two of Obama's bundlers are top executives at oil companies and are listed on his Web site as raising between $50,000 and $100,000 for the presidential hopeful. "

[Qikdraw]

I'm sure McCain can give Obama advice on how to handle lobbyists. :rofl:

Qikdraw

[unitednudist]

I agree with that 100%

[Sanslines]

Factcheck gives us the goods on Obama's connections to 'big oil.'

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_oil_spill.html

"We find the statement misleading:

Obama has accepted more than $213,000 from individuals who work for companies in the oil and gas industry and their spouses.

Two of Obama's bundlers are top executives at oil companies and are listed on his Web site as raising between $50,000 and $100,000 for the presidential hopeful. "

All candidates need money (and loads of it) to win elections. Without money, candidates lose elections. The only way to stop the necessity of obtaining money anywhere and everywhere that a person can get it from is for meaningful campaign finance reform along with meaningful campaign election process reform to occur.

The election process is no longer a process where the best candidate always wins. Best candidate is defined as that person who appeals to the broadest range of people based upon his or her track record and stand on issues. Instead, the election process has become nothing more then a money grab for the best candidate is now defined as the person with the most money. The White House occupancy is obviously for sale.

[usmc1]

Factcheck gives us the goods on Obama's connections to 'big oil.'

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_oil_spill.html

"We find the statement misleading:

Obama has accepted more than $213,000 from individuals who work for companies in the oil and gas industry and their spouses.

Two of Obama's bundlers are top executives at oil companies and are listed on his Web site as raising between $50,000 and $100,000 for the presidential hopeful. "

Quite distorted and misleading. Facts presented out of context is an old ploy of the right used to vilify, distort, and distract.

This "fact" says more about big oil hedging its bets than about Obama. It signals a realization that at least some oil people (Big Oil?, who, which?) recognize that Obama very well could be the next President.

No one, I hope, is so naive to think that candidates turn down donations because they come from a source with whom they hold political differences. Would McCain turn down money from unions, I doubt it. Would unions donate to McCain? Perhaps. There are sufficient resources online to find out.

To get a clearer picture one needs to compare total donations to all candidates. In this case, we learn Obama has gotten less than a quarter of a million from "Big Oil". Not a big contribution from that industry. How much have they given McCain? Clinton?

Who else has donated to each candidate and in what amounts? When you have that information side-by-side for comparison you have something, until then...

Anyway, this post is just more right-wing flap-doodle and yammer-yammer!

[nacktman]

You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.<o></o>


~ Navajo Proverb<o></o>

[KirkOntario]

No one, I hope, is so naive to think that candidates turn down donations because they come from a source with whom they hold political differences. Would McCain turn down money from unions, I doubt it. Would unions donate to McCain? Perhaps. There are sufficient resources online to find out.




But Mr Obama by boasting that he didn't take money from oil companies wanted to give that impression didn't he? He wanted the public to believe he was a man of integrity that even refused donations from oil companies, correct?

Yet we find he was obsfuscating (your favourite word) and trying to mislead his audience.

[nacktman]

Now for something actually on topic:

Former President Carter wouldn't quite say it, but he left little doubt this week about who he'd like to see in the White House next year. Speaking to local reporters Wednesday on a trip to Nigeria, the former Democratic president noted that Barack Obama had won his home state of Georgia and his hometown of Plains.

"My children and their spouses are pro-Obama. My grandchildren are also pro-Obama," he said at a news conference, according to the Nigerian newspaper This Day. "As a superdelegate, I would not disclose who I am rooting for, but I leave you to make that guess."


Carter's spokeswoman confirmed the remarks.


Asked about the comments, Hillary Rodham Clinton's communications director, Howard Wolfson, said: "Both Senator Clinton and President Clinton have a great deal of respect for President Carter and have enjoyed their relationship with him over the years. And, obviously, he is free to make whatever decision he thinks is appropriate."


Asked if there was concern that Carter would be regarded as particularly influential, Wolfson said Carter is "clearly a distinguished former leader of our party and is a superdelegate. And I'm sure that people will be interested in the choice that he makes. But no, nothing beyond that."


Carter is one of 13 Georgia Democratic superdelegates - elected officials and party elders who have a vote at the national convention this August in Denver and are free to support the candidate of their choice.


Only three of those have not said who they support: Carter, state Rep. Jim Marshall, and former Rep. Richard Ray, who is president of the Georgia chapter of the AFL-CIO.


Among those who have committed, Obama holds a 7-3 lead.


Carter was in Nigeria for a ceremony celebrating a reduction in Guinea worm disease in West Africa.

[usmc1]

I am proud and delighted to announce, that our local rag has announced that our county convention delivered its delegates to Obama. I am tickled that I helped make that happen.

[KirkOntario]

Now for something actually on topic:

Former President Carter wouldn't quite say it, but he left little doubt this week about who he'd like to see in the White House next year. Speaking to local reporters Wednesday on a trip to Nigeria, the former Democratic president noted that Barack Obama had won his home state of Georgia and his hometown of Plains.
.

Wow, what an endorsement! And America's favourite traitor, "Hanoi Jane" Fonda, endorsed Obama today! He's on a roll!

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/04/jane-fonda-endo.html

[usmc1]

Wow, what an endorsement! And America's favourite traitor, "Hanoi Jane" Fonda, endorsed Obama today! He's on a roll!

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/04/jane-fonda-endo.html


Yep he is, and closing in in PA, and very likely to carry NC. On a roll big time.

[Qikdraw]

Yep he is, and closing in in PA, and very likely to carry NC. On a roll big time.

Actually in some polls he is ahead in PA. But we'll see on election day. I don't really trust the US media too much. Too right wing.

Qikdraw

[nacktman]

Well, Qikdraw you're correct about the media being right wing but everyone I know in NC is voting for Obama.
Even saw a 'typical' "conservative' voter (read: older white male) the other day wearing a "Obama For President" hat while out to dinner with the Mrs., and I asked him of he which political party he was affiliated with and he was reluctant to say the 'republican' party but was animated about why he and everyone he knew were voting for Obama - all of which had little to do with Hillary but a whole hell of a lot to do with the cabal.
Americans are fed up and they are going to do something about it! It should not be surprising for those still trumping and trumpeting the dogma, but I am afraid they are in for a very, very, very rude awakening come November.

[Skinview]

I don't really trust the US media too much. Too right wing.

Qikdraw

:rofl: Ho ho ho ho ho ho ho...

[Skinview]

Americans are fed up and they are going to do something about it!By voting for McCain, it seems. He is ahead in the polls at the moment.

[Naturist Mark]

By voting for McCain, it seems. He is ahead in the polls at the moment.

Actually not ...

In head to head opinion polls McCain polls just about even with either Obama or Clinton, which is rather pathetic since the two Democrats (and the media) are focusing all the attention on the race between them and are letting McCain go unchallenged and unexamined. He gets to define himself, while the Democrats are defined by their opponents - McCain should be doing twice as well as he is.

As for the actual 'voting', Democrats were outvoting Republicans two to one in the primaries even back when there were multiple Republicans in the contest. Now that the race is decided on the Republican side the imbalance is even more severe - and the new registrations are running closer to three to one in favor of the Democrats - which is bad news for McCain no matter who gets the Democratic nomination.

[Skinview]

There may be a more recent poll, but I found this one:

"We can't know, seven months hence, who will prevail on Nov. 4 in the 2008 presidential election. We do know that Republican John McCain - old, white, male and conservative - would have won in a landslide had it taken place March 19, 2008.

The Reuters-Zogby national opinion poll in mid-March gave Mr. McCain an astonishing six-point advantage (46 per cent to 40 per cent) over one liberal, Democrat Barack Obama, and a further astonishing eight-point advantage (48 per cent to 40 per cent) over another, Democrat Hillary Clinton. With margins of this magnitude, Mr. McCain would win the presidency with the Electoral College votes of 40 states. (In 1980, Republican Ronald Reagan won by nine percentage points over Democrat Jimmy Carter, which margin gave him 44 states and 10 million more votes.)"

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080402.RREYNOLDS02/TPStory/Business

The most recent Gallup poll shows McCain with a 1% lead over Obama, and 2% over Clinton.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/election2008.aspx

[Skinview]

As for the actual 'voting', Democrats were outvoting Republicans two to one in the primaries even back when there were multiple Republicans in the contest. Now that the race is decided on the Republican side the imbalance is even more severe - and the new registrations are running closer to three to one in favor of the Democrats - which is bad news for McCain no matter who gets the Democratic nomination.

Yes, the Democrats are energized. I expect blacks will turn out in great numbers to vote for Obama. But lots of those white women who voted for Clinton, (and she almost got the nomination), have had the wind taken out of their sails, and they are either going to stay home or even vote for McCain. I know a few Democrat women who like McCain and aren't thrilled with Obama. Its going to be a close race. The last Presidential general election had huge turnouts, which usually hurts Republicans. It didn't.

[tinhfwv]

Actually not ...

In head to head opinion polls McCain polls just about even with either Obama or Clinton, which is rather pathetic since the two Democrats (and the media) are focusing all the attention on the race between them and are letting McCain go unchallenged and unexamined.

Unchallenged and unexamined? The man has been in public life for decades.

[Naturist Mark]

Unchallenged and unexamined? The man has been in public life for decades.

And yet ... the mainstream press doesn't give McCain anything near the scrutiny they give the Democratic candidates. Why is that?

Have they reported that "Mr. Environment" McCain has one of the very worst records on environmental votes? (In fact, they uncritically repeat McCain campaign claims of the opposite)

Do they report that "Mr. Independent" has given almost all of the top positions in his campaign to lobbyists?

Do they report that "Mr. Campaign Reform" has violated the very campaign reform law HE AUTHORED?

Do they report that "Mr. Ethics" has a long history of ethical problems?

Do they report that "Mr. Military" has one of the very worst records for supporting veterans?

Do they report that "Mr. Straight Talker" has flip flopped on many of his core values in order to gain the nomination - including torture, taxes, and religious bigotry?

Why is that?

-Mark

[usmc1]

Mark! Word that!

[KirkOntario]

Looks like Obama, the 'new kind of politician' plans to keep lots of troops in Iraq. You see, 'getting out of Iraq' doesn't actually mean that. Just like re-opening NAFTA doesn't actually mean re-opening NAFTA.....



http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/04/04/obama-adviser-suggests-up-to-80000-troops-remain-in-iraq-by-2010/

[nacktman]

Yes, Mark, Word That!

[KirkOntario]

Why is that?

-Mark

Because the liberal media wanted McCain as nominee since he's unelectable and he's a not a conservative.
The NYT has already tried to smear him. The liberal medial likes to save these things for the elections so that the Democrats get the maximum boost. That's their party and they will do what it takes to get Democrats elected.

[Naturist Mark]

Looks like Obama, the 'new kind of politician' plans to keep lots of troops in Iraq. You see, 'getting out of Iraq' doesn't actually mean that. Just like re-opening NAFTA doesn't actually mean re-opening NAFTA.....



http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/04/04/obama-adviser-suggests-up-to-80000-troops-remain-in-iraq-by-2010/

From the same article: The Obama campaign said in a statement: “The writing of Mr. Kahl, one of hundreds of outside advisers to the campaign, is not representative of Barack Obama’s consistent policy position on the Iraq war.”

Reading is Fundamental.

[usmc1]

http://www.webpan.com/dsinclair/liberal-media.jpg
"I admit it -- the liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures."
William Kristol, as reported by the New Yorker, 5/22/95

[KirkOntario]

Yup it is....From the same article..

"But Kahl’s plan seems to jibe with other advisers’ statements that Obama’s withdrawal timetables are more a goal than a firm policy commitment.

Foreign policy adviser Susan Rice, for instance, told reporters in February that Obama’s plan to end the war in 2009 is not absolute, and that he reserves the right to revisit troop levels in Iraq upon taking the oath of office.

Former foreign policy adviser Samantha Power told the BBC that Obama’s 16-month plan is a “best-scenario” and that the reality is he will try to withdraw troops “as quickly and responsibly as possible.”"

[Naturist Mark]

Former foreign policy adviser Samantha Power told the BBC that Obama’s 16-month plan is a “best-scenario” and that the reality is he will try to withdraw troops “as quickly and responsibly as possible.”"

See, that's all we are asking.

Although I admit a lot of us might be tempted to say just bug out and let the chips fall as they will - that could hardly be worse than our present strategery. Alas, the cooler heads insist we have a responsibility to do what we can to minimize the mess left behind by the present group of war criminals.

note: war criminals = administration officials - NOT the troops.

[nacktman]

"added war criminal clarification for the soft headed"

Well said. :applause:

I like it.

[KirkOntario]

See, that's all we are asking.

Although I admit a lot of us might be tempted to say just bug out and let the chips fall as they will - that could hardly be worse than our present strategery. Alas, the cooler heads insist we have a responsibility to do what we can to minimize the mess left behind by the present group of war criminals.

note: war criminals = administration officials - NOT the troops.

We know why you had to clarify.

[nacktman]

We know why you had to clarify.


http://cowlander.neobahumut.com/LOL%20PICTURES/LMAO.jpg

Yes, we do!:laugh:

[tinhfwv]

And yet ... the mainstream press doesn't give McCain anything near the scrutiny they give the Democratic candidates. Why is that?

Have they reported that "Mr. Environment" McCain has one of the very worst records on environmental votes? (In fact, they uncritically repeat McCain campaign claims of the opposite)

Do they report that "Mr. Independent" has given almost all of the top positions in his campaign to lobbyists?

Do they report that "Mr. Campaign Reform" has violated the very campaign reform law HE AUTHORED?

Do they report that "Mr. Ethics" has a long history of ethical problems?

Do they report that "Mr. Military" has one of the very worst records for supporting veterans?

Do they report that "Mr. Straight Talker" has flip flopped on many of his core values in order to gain the nomination - including torture, taxes, and religious bigotry?

Why is that?

-Mark

The reason is obvious.

[nacktman]

Originally Posted by Naturist Mark http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/showthread.php?p=190838#post190838)
And yet ... the mainstream press doesn't give McCain anything near the scrutiny they give the Democratic candidates. Why is that?

Have they reported that "Mr. Environment" McCain has one of the very worst records on environmental votes? (In fact, they uncritically repeat McCain campaign claims of the opposite)

Do they report that "Mr. Independent" has given almost all of the top positions in his campaign to lobbyists?

Do they report that "Mr. Campaign Reform" has violated the very campaign reform law HE AUTHORED?

Do they report that "Mr. Ethics" has a long history of ethical problems?

Do they report that "Mr. Military" has one of the very worst records for supporting veterans?

Do they report that "Mr. Straight Talker" has flip flopped on many of his core values in order to gain the nomination - including torture, taxes, and religious bigotry?

Why is that?

-Mark
The reason is obvious.

It sure is!

It is due to the right wing bias of the media.

It really says something about how much of a loser he is viewed as when the loudest and shrillest of the right wing media and noise machine opts to run with a story on kid murderers in Ga rather than a 'live' (if there is such a thing from McPain) speech given by 'their' candidate ... and none of the other media outlets (foreign or domestic) covered it either!:laugh:

[usmc1]

The reason is obvious.
Yes it is--the right-wing, corporately owned media!

Who Controls the Media?

<hr width="66%">
<table border="1" cellpadding="3" width="100%"> <tbody><tr bgcolor="#ccffff" valign="top"> <td>Parent Company</td> <td width="20%">General Electric $100.5 billion
1998 revenues
</td> <td colspan="2" width="20%">Time Warner $26.8 billion
1998 revenues
</td> <td>The Walt Disney Co. $23 billion
1998 revenues
</td> <td colspan="2">Viacom $18.9 billion
1998 revenues
</td> <td>News Corporation $13 billion
1998 revenues
</td> </tr> <tr valign="top"> <td>Background</td> <td>GE/NBC's ranks No. 1 on the Forbes 500. Prior to its merger with NBC and an alliance with Microsoft, GE specialized in electronics. The peacock owns many New York sports team. It also owns or has equity stakes in many popular websites, including Snap.com and iVillage.</td> <td colspan="2">The largest media corporation in the world, Time Warner owns film and music production companies, theme parks, sports teams, magazines, websites and book publishers as well as Turner Broadcasting</td> <td>With its 1995 merger with Capital Cities/ABC, Disney has become a fully-integrated media giant. In addition to its theme parks, the company profits from retail outlets, magazines, book publishers, websites, motion pictures, sports teams, TV, cable, radio, music and newspapers.</td> <td colspan="2">Viacom's purchase of Paramount, CBS and Blockbuster Video enables them to use cable, television, movies, comic books, theme parks, music publishing and book publishing to cross-market their products. Broadcasting alone brings in over $6 billion in revenues.</td> <td>CEO Rupert Murdoch's style has inspired respect and fear, and it has also made his multinational ventures in publishing, television and satellite services very successful. The company owns 20th Century Fox, the New York Post, the London Times, TV Guide, many stadiums, the LA Dodgers and five New York sports teams.</td> </tr> <tr valign="top"> <td>Networks Owned</td> <td>NBC includes programming, news and more than 13 TV and radio stations
</td> <td valign="top">TURNER BROAD-
CASTING includes sports teams, programming, production, retail, book publishing and multimedia
</td> <td>WB Television Network
</td> <td>ABC includes ABC Radio, ABC Video and ABC Network News
</td> <td>CBS includes stations, CBS Radio, CBS Telenoticias and CBS Network News
</td> <td>UPN includes programming and TV stations (50%)
</td> <td>FOX includes programming and stations
</td> </tr> <tr valign="top"> <td>Cable Interests</td> <td>Owns 25-50% of the following:
A & E (with Disney and Hearst)
American Movie Classics (25%)
Biography Channel (with Disney and Hearst)
Bravo (50%)
Bravo International
CNBC
Court TV (with Time Warner)
Fox Sports Net
History Channel (with Disney and Hearst)
Independent Film Channel
MSG Network
MSNBC (50%)
National Geographic Worldwide
News Sport
Prime
Prism (with Rainbow, a subsidiary of Cablevision, and Liberty Media, a subsidiary of TCI)
Romance Classics
Sports Channel Cincinnati, Chicago, Florida, New England, Pacific, Ohio, Philadelphia
</td> <td colspan="2"> HBO (75%)
Cinemax
HBO Direct Broadcast
Court TV (33% with GE)
TBS Superstation
Turner Classic Movies
TNT
Cartoon Network
Comedy Central (37.5% with Viacom)
Sega Channel
OVATION (50%)
Women's Information Television (WIN) (partial)
TVKO (75%)
4 regional all-news channels
CNN
CNN/SI (with Sports Illustrated)
CNNfn (financial network)
CNNRadio
Headline News
Sportsouth
CNN International
CNN Airport Network
</td> <td> Disney Channel
Disney Television (58 hours/week syndicated programming)
Toon Disney
Touchstone Television
A&E (37.5% with Hearst and GE)
Lifetime Network (50%)
ESPN (80% with Hearst)
ESPN2 (80% with Hearst)
ESPN Classic (80% with Hearst)
ESPN West (80% with Hearst)
ESPNews (80% with Hearst)
Buena Vista Television
Biography Channel (with GE and Hearst)
History Channel (37.5% with Hearst and GE)
Classic Sports Network
E! (35%)
</td> <td colspan="2"> Nickelodeon
MTV
M2: Music Television
VH1
Showtime
Nick at Nite's TVLand
Paramount Networks Comedy Central (50% with Time Warner)
TNN: The Nashville Network
Movie Channel
FLIX
All News Channel (50%)
Sundance Channel (45%)
Midwest Sports Channel
CBS Telenoticias (30%)
Home Team Sports (66% with News Corporation)
</td> <td> Fox Family Channel (50%)
Fox News Channel
fx (50% with TCI's Liberty Media)
fxM (50% with TCI's Liberty Media)
Fox Sports Net (25% with TCI, GE and Cablevision)
The National Geographic Channel (50%)
FIT TV Partnership
Regional networks, including TV Guide Channel and Fox Sports New York
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> <hr>Other Major Players: AT&T (TCI) - Recently acquired by AT&T, TCI's hold on cable, internet and local phone services contributed to $7.6 billion in 1997 revenues. TCI is the second-largest US cable television system provider, and it has 10% ownership of Time-Warner/Turner. The company owns all or part of USA Network, Sci-Fi Network, E!, Court TV, Starz! and Starz! 2, Black Entertainment Television, BET on Jazz, BET Movies/Starz! 3, CNN, TNT, Headline News, Prime Sports Channel, The Learning Channel, Discovery Channel, QVC, Q2, Fox Sports Net, The Travel Channel, Prevue Channel, Animal Planet, The Box, Telemundo, International Channel, Encore, MSG Network, Action Pay-per-view, and the Home Shopping Network.
Sony - Sony's main media interests, earning $9 billion in 1997 sales, are in film and television production, movie theaters and music.
Universal (Seagram) - In addition to Universal Studios, with its production facilities and theme parks, the company owns the USA and Sci-Fi cable networks.

[KirkOntario]

Just 6% of journalists identify themselves as 'conservative.' Yes, indeed we have a liberal media elite.

http://www.townhall.com/news/religion/2008/04/04/culture_digest_survey_journalists_admit_liberal_le anings,_lack_exposure_to_faith


"NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP)--Just 6 percent of national journalists describe themselves as conservative, compared with 36 percent of the overall population, according to an annual survey released in March by the Pew Reach Center for the People and the Press.

The State of the Media report said 2 percent of the journalists and news executives surveyed consider themselves very conservative, while 53 percent of national journalists described themselves as moderate, 24 percent as liberal and 8 percent as very liberal."

[usmc1]

Kirk wrote:
Just 6% of journalists identify themselves as 'conservative.' Yes, indeed we have a liberal media elite.

Guess who below belong to KirkO's imagined Liberal Media elite?



http://www.webpan.com/dsinclair/liberal-media.jpg
"I admit it -- the liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures."
William Kristol, as reported by the New Yorker, 5/22/95

[tinhfwv]

It sure is!

It is due to the right wing bias of the media.

It really says something about how much of a loser he is viewed as when the loudest and shrillest of the right wing media and noise machine opts to run with a story on kid murderers in Ga rather than a 'live' (if there is such a thing from McPain) speech given by 'their' candidate ... and none of the other media outlets (foreign or domestic) covered it either!:laugh:

I guess it wasn't so obvious.

[MoonShadow]

Have to shake my head at anyone who thinks the media is liberal.

[KirkOntario]

We don't think it is. We KNOW it is.

[MoonShadow]

Well, Kirk, my condolescenses. If you think the media is liberal, you don't much about liberalism; in fact, you don't even know what it is.

[KirkOntario]

Yes, I know what it is. When the media releases information about a candidates DUI arrest 24 hours before a vote as they did in 2000. Or when they 'find' forged documents 8 weeks before another very close electon as they did in 2004. Or when they sit on a sex scandal involving Republican pages for 4 months and release it just before the 2006 congressional election then I know what a liberal media thinks and does and how they seek to mold public opinion. They may not be up to the standards of the Cindy Sheehan wigged out leftist crowd but 'liberal they are.

[usmc1]

I guess it wasn't so obvious.

Yes it was! And, remains so. All these powerful corporations which own that which we call the "media" go out and and hire liberal journalists to work against their best interests. Right!

Who Controls the Media?

<hr width="66%">
<table border="1" cellpadding="3" width="100%"><tbody><tr bgcolor="#ccffff" valign="top"><td>Parent Company</td> <td width="20%">General Electric $100.5 billion
1998 revenues
</td> <td colspan="2" width="20%">Time Warner $26.8 billion
1998 revenues
</td> <td>The Walt Disney Co. $23 billion
1998 revenues
</td> <td colspan="2">Viacom $18.9 billion
1998 revenues
</td> <td>News Corporation $13 billion
1998 revenues</td></tr></tbody></table>

[KirkOntario]

The best interests of a corporation consists of financial returns for shareholders. Is a pension fund liberal or conservative? Neither.

[KirkOntario]

Looks like you folk are going to have to revise your rhetoric. You candidate of choice decries these intemperate remarks...

His campaign has put out a statement that McCain is NOT a warmonger.


http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/04/05/mccain-calls-on-obama-to-condemn-warmonger-remark/


"Barack Obama’s campaign distanced itself Saturday from a liberal talk show host who called John McCain a “warmonger” while introducing the Illinois senator at a North Dakota campaign stop the night before, after the McCain campaign called on Obama to denounce the comment.

Local talk show host Ed Schultz used the term to describe the Arizona senator while warming up the crowd in Grand Forks, N.D., before Obama’s arrival at the state’s Democratic convention.

“John McCain is not a warmonger and should not be described as such,” Obama spokeswoman Jen Psaki said Saturday. She added, “He’s a supporter of a war that Senator Obama believes should have never been authorized and never been waged.”"


Oh those nasty liberal talk radio hosts!

[MoonShadow]

Fox News?? LOL

Really, Kirk, you resort to a news "rag" to make such a statement?

Come on now!

[nacktman]

Fox News?? LOL

Really, Kirk, you resort to a news "rag" to make such a statement?

Come on now!

Yeah, that "rag" is not noted for accuracy.
However, to the utter disbelief and amazement of the world they did make this announcement:

John McCain today brought his effort to reinvent himself for the general election to a new low by misleading the voters on his full record on a holiday honoring Dr. Martin Luther king. McCain tried to suggest that his opposition to a holiday honoring Dr. King was limited to his 1983 vote against a federal holiday. in reality, McCain maintained his opposition to it until at least 1989, voted against funding for the commission working to promote the MLK holiday in 1994, and used divisive language about state's rights to defend himself. McCain even supported republican efforts to repeal a holiday in his state in 1987.
Who would have thought that FauxNews would have a hard time liking their own candidate.:laugh:

[KirkOntario]

Attacking the source is a logical fallacy. Please deal with the statement not the source.

Want a liberal paper instead?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/06/us/politics/06campaign.html?ref=us

"Mr. Obama did not refer to Mr. Schultz’s remarks in a speech he delivered Saturday morning to an overflow crowd, estimated at 8,000, at the University of Montana basketball arena in Missoula. But a spokeswoman, Jen Psaki, issued a statement that distanced him from them while reiterating Democratic criticisms of Mr. McCain’s stand on the war in the Iraq.

“John McCain is not a warmonger and should not be described as such,” Ms. Psaki said. “He’s a supporter of a war that Senator Obama believes should have never been authorized and never been waged.”"

[KirkOntario]

Simply repeating your disapproval isn't particularly effective is it? How come you don't agree with your own candidate's campaign?

[MoonShadow]

LOL nacktman

Does get noisy in here, doesn't it?

Truly amazes me at the short-sightedness of some.

[KirkOntario]

Disregarding your opponent's argument does your argument no good. In fact, it appears as a sign of weakness.

One more time, I will ask .....Why don't you agree with your own candidate's stated position?


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/06/us...gn.html?ref=us

"Mr. Obama did not refer to Mr. Schultz’s remarks in a speech he delivered Saturday morning to an overflow crowd, estimated at 8,000, at the University of Montana basketball arena in Missoula. But a spokeswoman, Jen Psaki, issued a statement that distanced him from them while reiterating Democratic criticisms of Mr. McCain’s stand on the war in the Iraq.

“John McCain is not a warmonger and should not be described as such,” Ms. Psaki said. “He’s a supporter of a war that Senator Obama believes should have never been authorized and never been waged.”"

[KirkOntario]

Interesting how the liberal mask of 'tolerance' slips so fast when it suits them. We've seen them throw Oreo cookies at black conservatives, ridicule the children of conservative court appointees and now that they want Obama for President we see liberal talk show host Randi Rhodes call Hillary a '*****' and 'David Duke in Drag' a double whammy of sexism and homophobia.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YjZiNzk2MDFiMTdkYmRjMzEzOWZmMmZmZmM4YzgwZjg=

[Naturist Mark]

Interesting how the liberal mask of 'tolerance' slips so fast when it suits them. We've seen them throw Oreo cookies at black conservatives, ridicule the children of conservative court appointees and now that they want Obama for President we see liberal talk show host Randi Rhodes call Hillary a '*****' and 'David Duke in Drag' a double whammy of sexism and homophobia.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YjZiNzk2MDFiMTdkYmRjMzEzOWZmMmZmZmM4YzgwZjg=

Actually Randi called Geraldine Ferraro "David Duke in Drag", not Hillary, whom she called an "F"ing "w"hore. And the context was during a standup comedy routine in a comedy club, not a broadcast. And of course these were fellow Democrats she was maligning, interestingly she doesn't use that kind of language when speaking of Republicans, unlike her broadcast peers on the right. Still, she was reprimanded for the ad homimen attacks by her employer, unlike Hannity, O'Reilly, Savage, Cavuto, Beck, Schlesinger, or Malkin. Why is that?

-Mark

[usmc1]

Obama has double digit lead in N.C., has pulled dead even in PA (which Clinton should have had locked up), and is now pulling in commitments from Super Delegates.

[KirkOntario]

Obama continues on with his foolish policy of calling for talks with Iran. He's hopelessly naive and foolish. Just wait until he sells out Israel to radical thugs.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080408220807.ud9xv11e&show_article=1

"Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on Tuesday called for a "diplomatic surge" including talks with US foe Iran, to help stabilize the situation in Iraq.
The Illinois Senator battling Hillary Clinton for his party's nomination called for more pressure on the Iraqi government to embrace political reconciliation and a regional "diplomatic surge that includes Iran."

"We should be talking to them as well," Obama told the top US General in Iraq David Petraeus and US ambassador to Baghdad Ryan Crocker. "

[Naturist Mark]

Obama continues on with his foolish policy of calling for talks with Iran. He's hopelessly naive and foolish.

Yeah, just look at Libya and Northern Ireland. PROOF that talking with adversaries never works.

...

[KirkOntario]

The fact is that the US talks to Iran constantly. It is done unofficlally and through proxies. Announcing that you have to talk to your adversaries is commencing negotiations from a point of weakness but then Obama is young with no experience or savvy in these matters so he's made a class screw up. Expect many more if he's elected.

Perhaps Obama was inspired by THIS foreign policy genius who abandoned the Shah and the people of Iran to decades of radical Islamic thuggery and who never met an America-hating thug he didn't like...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,348413,00.html

[Croydon]

The fact is that the US talks to Iran constantly. It is done unofficlally and through proxies. Announcing that you have to talk to your adversaries is commencing negotiations from a point of weakness but then Obama is young with no experience or savvy in these matters so he's made a class screw up. Expect many more if he's elected.

Perhaps Obama was inspired by THIS foreign policy genius who abandoned the Shah and the people of Iran to decades of radical Islamic thuggery and who never met an America-hating thug he didn't like...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,348413,00.html
Can one of the moderators please explain why you allowed Krik to come back after banning him?

Krik, reading many of your post and I have come to the conclusion that you are a very ignorant man. Not necessarily ignorant in regards to not knowing what you are talking about, you are that too, but ignorant towards other people.

Many of your post are ill informed and just lack common sense. I sense that you just say anything that comes out of your *** and don't realize how dumb you sound. The evidence is there when you post something and someone like Naturist Mark provides evidence that clearly shows your statement is false. Instead of refuting, his evidence is enough to shut you up and you move on to the next dumb statement. You never address the statements you make once evidence is shown that it is false.

Please, do yourself and all of us a favor, if you are going to post something, THINK about it for a moment. So far, you have achieved very little but show everyone that you are not intelligent or think before you speak.

[nacktman]

Ooooooh, be careful pointing out the obvious there, Croydon.
It's an 'insult' to speak the truth, don't you know, and call a spade a spade.

When President Obama is serving us (and I do mean serving -as in the thing he is supposed to do), we will be better off and the world will be better off. It will take decades to correct the royal f_ckup that the current squatter has made of this country and the world - those corrections have begun!

[Skinview]

Can one of the moderators please explain why you allowed Krik to come back after banning him?Probably because his posts are more civil than this one of yours.


The evidence is there when you post something and someone like Naturist Mark provides evidence that clearly shows your statement is false. Instead of refuting, his evidence is enough to shut you up and you move on to the next dumb statement. You never address the statements you make once evidence is shown that it is false.That is pretty much the norm for all posters here. There is so much abuse being slung around that the conversations are more like contests than discussions. Someone can enjoy blowing up someone else's statement with a counter fact without taunting or mocking them. Can we all just get along?

[Skinview]

Obama continues on with his foolish policy of calling for talks with Iran. He's hopelessly naive and foolish.Yeah, just look at Libya and Northern Ireland. PROOF that talking with adversaries never works.

...
Kaddafi ended Libya's nuclear weapons program right after the US invaded Iraq. No doubt that, plus the memory of the Mk 84 2000 lb bomb Reagan dropped next to his tent, was the message that he listened to.

"Talk softly and carry a big stick." - Teddy Roosevelt

[Boreas]

The evidence is there when you post something and someone like Naturist Mark provides evidence that clearly shows your statement is false. Instead of refuting, his evidence is enough to shut you up and you move on to the next dumb statement. You never address the statements you make once evidence is shown that it is false.

Please, do yourself and all of us a favor, if you are going to post something, THINK about it for a moment. So far, you have achieved very little but show everyone that you are not intelligent or think before you speak.

You have noticed that too? shocked

Thanks for the post. I am sure you will get flack for your "personal attack". I hope not.

[nacktman]

Originally posted by Boreas

Originally Posted by Croydon
The evidence is there when you post something and someone like Naturist Mark provides evidence that clearly shows your statement is false. Instead of refuting, his evidence is enough to shut you up and you move on to the next dumb statement. You never address the statements you make once evidence is shown that it is false.

Please, do yourself and all of us a favor, if you are going to post something, THINK about it for a moment. So far, you have achieved very little but show everyone that you are not intelligent or think before you speak.
You have noticed that too? shocked

<!-- / message --><!-- sig --> Thanks for the post. I am sure you will get flack for your "personal attack". I hope not.And likely to get dinged for 'insulting' a member as well.:rolleyes:

Glad to know I wasn't the only one to notice the lack of, shall we say, substance there ... only attack, parse and divert, then whine when called to task for it. All part and parcel of the wing-nut credo which is why Obama will be president come November.

[MoonShadow]

Good Grief!

I do not see anyone "ATTACKING" anyone here so why all the flap about attacks here? I do see differences of opinions but voicing a different opinion is not an attack or insult.

I stay out of these threads only because you cannot voice anything that is not pro-Democrat. I read this thread and see what happens when you post against the democratic candidates.

The best thing on this thread is to let those who are party loyalists for the Democrats to have their own thread. Stay out of it if you are not a Democratic party loyalist. (or vice versa)

Those of you who are Republican loyalists should start your own thread. There is never a win-win for either but at least each will have their threads for like-minded posts!

Hence, why I remain Independent and vote for the person.

[nacktman]

... voicing a different opinion is not an attack or insult.

You might want to tell the wing-nuts that.

It seems they cannot tell the difference as they are the ones forever whining about and claiming to be 'attacked and insulted', both in the public forum and via PM.

There has not been a single instance of one who is not of the wing-nut perversion in the past five years on these forums publicly whining or complaining that they are being 'attacked' or 'insulted' by another's opinion(s) and or statements, that I can recall.

Why is that?

[EricNY]

Can one of the moderators please explain why you allowed Krik to come back after banning him?

Krik, reading many of your post and I have come to the conclusion that you are a very ignorant man. Not necessarily ignorant in regards to not knowing what you are talking about, you are that too, but ignorant towards other people.

Many of your post are ill informed and just lack common sense. I sense that you just say anything that comes out of your *** and don't realize how dumb you sound. The evidence is there when you post something and someone like Naturist Mark provides evidence that clearly shows your statement is false. Instead of refuting, his evidence is enough to shut you up and you move on to the next dumb statement. You never address the statements you make once evidence is shown that it is false.

Please, do yourself and all of us a favor, if you are going to post something, THINK about it for a moment. So far, you have achieved very little but show everyone that you are not intelligent or think before you speak.


First off we do not have to explain anything to you. Secondly you come on here and you could display a bit more tact when offering YOUR opinion, instead of the "high class" words that I quoted above.

[EricNY]

All of you guys amaze me! Some of you are so quick to add insult, deprecatory innuendo to the point where the debate turns to argument and to brawl.

I said it before keep your comments of members to yourself. Post about the topic. Be sure you are debating another persons view, and not their intelligence (or other traits)

I will from this point forward be closing threads that have crossed the line and are more argumentative and have become degraded.

[EricNY]

And likely to get dinged for 'insulting' a member as well.:rolleyes:



That will be for us to decide and not for you to roll your eyes and make light of.

If you do not like the moderation here than I suggest you find a political board to frequent.

[nacktman]

... voicing a different opinion is not an attack or insult.

You might want to tell the wing-nuts that.

It seems they cannot tell the difference as they are the ones forever whining about and claiming to be 'attacked and insulted', both in the public forum and via PM.

There has not been a single instance of one who is not of the wing-nut perversion in the past five years on these forums publicly whining or complaining that they are being 'attacked' or 'insulted' by another's opinion(s) and or statements, that I can recall.

Why is that?

[EricNY]

Why is that?

Probably because you continue to attack them instead of debating the topic

[nacktman]

Responding to an attack is not attacking another's position or them personally.

When confronted with real debate they run away and whine and parse even harder and louder so no one attempts debating with them any longer.

Just a quick read of the Economy thread shows this in glaring clarity.
Even given what they demand they still attack and parse and divert and make no attempt at debate.

America is tired of their tactics or lack thereof and will have a new direction come November.

[usmc1]

That will be for us to decide and not for you to roll your eyes and make light of.

If you do not like the moderation here than I suggest you find a political board to frequent.

Er, ercNY, excuse me please sir. But, doesn't.. "Open Conversation Talk about anything! Cars, politics, current events, etc."... at least mean, to a certain extent, that there is an element of a "political board" in this section of the forum?

I would like to suggest, with respect, that there are ways to moderate without making the moderation the issue.

[KirkOntario]

I read form todays' posts that some members here think that they have "THE TRUTH" and if others don't agree with them or if they provide counter arguments that they then have the right to abuse them.

This is not how democratic debates work.

Try watching Parliament or Congress on TV. It's a matter of gamesmanship conducted within rules of civility. No one formally wins a debate. You dont' get your opponent to concede. You might sway some on the sidelines but often they are partisan observers also.

You make your points. We make ours. The problem with all the attacks is that you force your opponents to make very little in the way of concessions. It's counter-productive. You can get more flies with honey than vinegar.

The problem with some posters on this board is that they cannot separate their own selves from criticism of their party or candidate. A criticism of your party or your candidate is not a criticism if YOU. I'm sure you are all fine upstanding citizens.

If you don't like what conservatives have to say use your 'ignore' button.

[Boreas]

I read form todays' posts that some members here think that they have "THE TRUTH" and if others don't agree with them or if they provide counter arguments that they then have the right to abuse them.

This is not how democratic debates work.

Try watching Parliament or Congress on TV. It's a matter of gamesmanship conducted within rules of civility. No one formally wins a debate. You dont' get your opponent to concede. You might sway some on the sidelines but often they are partisan observers also.

You make your points. We make ours. The problem with all the attacks is that you force your opponents to make very little in the way of concessions. It's counter-productive. You can get more flies with honey than vinegar.

The problem with some posters on this board is that they cannot separate their own selves from criticism of their party or candidate. A criticism of your party or your candidate is not a criticism if YOU. I'm sure you are all fine upstanding citizens.

If you don't like what conservatives have to say use your 'ignore' button.

So, if we emulate your style will we be following proper debating style? If so, we'd be making digs, bringing things from left (er right) field, and then disappearing when a proper rebuttal has been presented. Is that how it is done properly???? :eek:

Do please enlighten me as your comment above seems to be an example of the pot calling the kettle black. Perhaps I am confused, being out in left field as I am. :sneaky:

[Sanslines]

Boreas,

You bring up a GREAT point. What is the proper debating style in your opinion? Different debating styles could become a fascinating debate in and of itself - don't you agree?

[Boreas]

Boreas,

You bring up a GREAT point. What is the proper debating style in your opinion? Different debating styles could become a fascinating debate in and of itself - don't you agree?

I agree, perhaps you could start a new thread. I imagine that one could get some lively! :surprised:

[KirkOntario]

Do please enlighten me as your comment above seems to be an example of the pot calling the kettle black. Perhaps I am confused, being out in left field as I am. :sneaky:

I don't abuse other posters here. Please provide a post in which I've launched a personal attack on anyone.

Please post the direct quotation.

[Sanslines]

I agree, perhaps you could start a new thread. I imagine that one could get some lively! :surprised:

OMG....as if we don't have enough threads that have become a bit too lively already!

[Naturist Mark]

Kaddafi ended Libya's nuclear weapons program right after the US invaded Iraq. No doubt that, plus the memory of the Mk 84 2000 lb bomb Reagan dropped next to his tent, was the message that he listened to.

"Talk softly and carry a big stick." - Teddy Roosevelt

Most people think Reagan's bomb inspired Lockerbie, not reconciliation.

Gaddafi began talks with the US in 1999 about suspending its WMD programs and cooperation against al Qaeda, but those talks were bogged down by matters concerning acceptance of responsibility for Lockerbie and compensation to those families. It was the resolution of those matters after intercession by Kofi Annan and Nelson Mandela that allowed those talks to come to completion following the 2001 Lockerbie trials in Scotland.

So ... the reconciliation process preceded both 911 and the Iraq invasion. Reagan's bomb set the process back by at least a decade.

-Mark

[nacktman]

Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;"> Originally Posted by Skinview http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/showthread.php?p=191623#post191623)
Kaddafi ended Libya's nuclear weapons program right after the US invaded Iraq. No doubt that, plus the memory of the Mk 84 2000 lb bomb Reagan dropped next to his tent, was the message that he listened to.

"Talk softly and carry a big stick." - Teddy Roosevelt
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>
Most people think Reagan's bomb inspired Lockerbie, not reconciliation.

Gaddafi began talks with the US in 1999 about suspending its WMD programs and cooperation against al Qaeda, but those talks were bogged down by matters concerning acceptance of responsibility for Lockerbie and compensation to those families. It was the resolution of those matters after intercession by Kofi Annan and Nelson Mandela that allowed those talks to come to completion following the 2001 Lockerbie trials in Scotland.

So ... the reconciliation process preceded both 911 and the Iraq invasion. Reagan's bomb set the process back by at least a decade.

-Mark

Don't ya just love how they don't even realize when the put their own foot in their mouths.:laugh:
Set it back by at least a decade is right.

Oh, and that quote attributed to Teddy is not his and incomplete anyway ... I have the entire quote on a disc somewhere and I will find it and its original author later this evening.

[nacktman]

The entire quotation and its actual source:


"I have always been fond of the West African proverb: Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far."
<table align="right" border="0" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td></td> </tr> </tbody></table>
~ Theodore Roosevelt (http://www.quoteland.com/author.asp?AUTHOR_ID=120), letter to Henry L. Sprague, January 26, 1900

[Boreas]

I don't abuse other posters here. Please provide a post in which I've launched a personal attack on anyone.

Please post the direct quotation.

That may be so. Still, I fail to see how your debating style could be considered proper. Your "attacks" are side ways digs that can easily be described as something other than attacks.

So, is your debating style an example of proper style?

[Boreas]

OMG....as if we don't have enough threads that have become a bit too lively already!

:laugh: LOL.......I know what you mean!

[KirkOntario]

That may be so. Still, I fail to see how your debating style could be considered proper. Your "attacks" are side ways digs that can easily be described as something other than attacks.

So, is your debating style an example of proper style?

Debates are full of point scoring. Please quote a post where I've personally attacked anyone. If we all stick with the TOS it goes much better and the quality of posts goes up not down.

[Boreas]

Debates are full of point scoring. Please quote a post where I've personally attacked anyone. If we all stick with the TOS it goes much better and the quality of posts goes up not down.

No, I am not going to be dragged in circles. This is off topic.

[KirkOntario]

No you used the word attack and suggested I engaged in attacks. Provide an example of a personal attack I've made.

[nacktman]

Parsing is not a debating style no matter what examples FauxNews makes.
Neither is circular logic nor attacks nor whining when responded to in kind - all of which are part and parcel to the debating 'style' of some.

On the topic of this thread:

Obama is moving ahead of any contender for the presidency either within his party or without. Failure to recognize that will make for some very sorry and sad people.

[EricNY]

Er, ercNY, excuse me please sir. But, doesn't.. "Open Conversation Talk about anything! Cars, politics, current events, etc."... at least mean, to a certain extent, that there is an element of a "political board" in this section of the forum?

I would like to suggest, with respect, that there are ways to moderate without making the moderation the issue.

For cryin' out loud....I have said it over and over....YES it is open conversation and talk about whatever your little heart desires! When you stop debating the TOPIC and start the BS then it will be stopped!

If a PERSON decides to be conservative, democrat, or whatever, is their decision, and they do NOT deserve to be criticized. That is their opinion, and they have every right to have it and defend it. BUT THAT DOES NOT MAKE THEM IDIOTS, RIGHT WING WACKOS, OR NOISE MACHINES. It simply makes them PEOPLE with Different OPINIONS!

The TOS states (again I bring this up) RESPECT OTHERS OPINIONS......******* period!

This thread is closed due to grown men acting like children