Obama or Clinton? [Archive] - ClothesFree Forum

Pages : [1] 2

Eric6420

03-01-2008, 05:35 PM

I'd like to know what you think about Obama? He seems to be the most likely to win the demecratic race but also the most likely to have the presidency of the USA.

What do you think he will do about Irak? A lot of people outside the USA are surprised to see a black man as the most popular candidate for being the next president.

Does people know about his religion? (I know that in the USA that question is very important, because I do not think Americans would elect an atheist and not likely a muslim.

I would not have been surprised to see Hilary Clinton win , but Obama is quite a surprise.

country nude

03-01-2008, 05:47 PM

Naturist Mark

03-01-2008, 06:25 PM

LamontCranston

03-01-2008, 07:22 PM

I've decided that I'd like to see Hillary Clinton win the White House.
Reason?
I want to see what Bill does in the background for four years.

When there's a bill to pass and they need votes from Congressmen and Senators, he can arm twist and say things with a candor that he couldn't while in office.

It could be interesting. They might actually pass legislation... you know, do their jobs.

Croydon

03-01-2008, 07:30 PM

Croydon

03-01-2008, 07:32 PM

He's way too liberal for me, being left of Vermont's socialist senator. BTW, he's not from Illinois. He's from Chicago!!!

Um isn't Chicago in Illinois?

Boreas

03-01-2008, 07:48 PM

Wow. Interesting comments.

Looking from north of your border I have some comments.

1. I would love to see a woman as US president. Hillary Clinton seems as good a candidate as any. I think she would represent your country well.

2. Hillary has the last name "Clinton". There have been presidents with the last name of Clinton or Bush in the White House for over ten years, I am thinking it is time for a change of surnames. Perhaps I am being shallow. So be it.

3. Clinton seems way too conservative and corporatist for me.

4. Obama seems to have some good healing qualities. The US is VERY polarized right now. (or so it seems) People are all too quick to throw the labels "liberal" or "conservative" around, and effectively shutting down discussion. SO much for free speech. From this perspective, it seems that Obama can bridge some gaps. He presents well at least.

I think it is truly a sad commentary when in the "Land of the Free" where freedom of speech and the "American Dream" is idolized, that the fact that a candidate is female or black or heaven forbid, potentially not a Christian, is an issue. Wow, so much for the American Dream. Pitiful really when you think of it.

Boreas

03-01-2008, 07:50 PM

Nude in the North

03-01-2008, 11:48 PM

I think it's great that either way, there will be something new to consider. Will we have our first Black President, or our first Woman.
Personally I wish Obama was a Black Woman so we could kill two birds with one stone.
I long for the day when skin color or gender isn't an issue in an election. It never should be.
Elect the person because of the good they might do for the country or world.
It's time for change. And long overdue.

Qikdraw

03-02-2008, 03:18 AM

I long for a day that religion isn't an issue in an election.

That whole seperation of church and state thing...

Qikdraw

Qikdraw

03-02-2008, 12:48 PM

Hillary's Campaign Planning Dirty Tricks in TX (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/1/205349/5724/764/467074)

"DO NOT allow the supporter of another candidate to serve in leadership roles."

"If our supporters are outnumbered, ask the Temporary Chair if one of our supporters can serves as the Secretary, in the interest of fairness.

"The control of the sign-in sheets and the announcement of the delegates allotted to each candidate are the critical functions of the Chair and Secretary.

Qikdraw

usmc1

03-02-2008, 01:42 PM

He's way too liberal for me, being left of Vermont's socialist senator. BTW, he's not from Illinois. He's from Chicago!!!

Hillary is also too liberal, but slightly better the Obama. Somehow it seems like the Republicans have become liberals and the Democrats have become Marxists:eek::rolleyes:shocked:disappointed::mad:

One of the problems with comments like this is that people such as this really believe it. Based his other comments, you do have to just attribute it to the source. But, he's got a lot of ditto-heads with him who "think" exactly the same way.

They don't see that the country has been pulled so far to the right that Clinton, an Eisenhower, country club Republican, seems liberal. Hell, the C. O. C. loved the Clintons.

The truth is this. Given where we are as a country the Democrats have put forth a couple of very well-qualified people. Neither is progressive, and both are part of the establishment, but, given the coalition of interests and constituencies they will have to cobble together for either to win, I think we can halt the direction the train is currently running. But, it will take several election cycles to get this nation back to where it belongs.

And that is a very optimistic view. Personally, I think once Bobby Kennedy was murdered and the shift to the right completed, the game was up.

But, I can say this with complete assurance. There is a lot of grassroots and neighborhood and constituency education and organizing going on. Those waves of Democratic voters did not just happen because they're intrigued by voting for a woman or an African-American man, or repudiating Bush for that matter.

It's happening because we're working our asses off in every precinct of all fifty states. There are some front-line districts where we're concentrating resources, but, not a race is left unattended this time.

Qikdraw

03-02-2008, 05:26 PM

Diebold Accidentally Leaks Results Of 2008 Election Early (http://www.theonion.com/content/video/diebold_accidentally_leaks?utm_source=embedded_vid eo)

Qikdraw

nacktman

03-02-2008, 05:48 PM

Diebold Accidentally Leaks Results Of 2008 Election Early (http://www.theonion.com/content/video/diebold_accidentally_leaks?utm_source=embedded_vid eo)

Qikdraw

Funny one and all too scary at the same time!

NudistMetalHead

03-02-2008, 07:15 PM

Does people know about his religion? (I know that in the USA that question is very important, because I do not think Americans would elect an atheist and not likely a muslim.

Barack Obama is a member of the United Church of Christ.

Fitz1980

03-02-2008, 10:06 PM

nacktman

03-03-2008, 04:23 AM

What from where I'm seeing it's the democrats have become centrists (the are all about big business, lots of them supported the resolution that let Bush start this war) and the Republicans have become a mixture of facists and theocrats.

Got the first part correct Fitz, but the second part hasn't became, they always have been.

Baron Lake

03-03-2008, 11:07 AM

I don't know what the big fuss is about the Diebold leak. The whole thing was just a contingency plan anyway. Just a fall-back position if Bush screws up his last minute "emergency" and cannot "suspend" the elections. Although, considering how the Shrub has screwed up everything he has ever touched.....

b.l.

Skinview

03-03-2008, 11:42 AM

Barack Obama is a member of the United Church of Christ.When did he join? I'm wondering if it was for political reasons.

Skinview

03-03-2008, 11:46 AM

What from where I'm seeing it's the democrats have become centrists (the are all about big business, lots of them supported the resolution that let Bush start this war) and the Republicans have become a mixture of facists and theocrats.
Got the first part correct Fitz, but the second part hasn't became, they always have been.Ronald Reagan activated the RRR in 1980, and the Republicans have been stuck with them since then.

Skinview

03-03-2008, 12:44 PM

Will we have our first Black President, or our first Woman.Not so fast. I think McCain has a better than even chance of winning.

Personally I wish Obama was a Black Woman so we could kill two birds with one stone.
Elect the person because of the good they might do for the country or world.

I hope McCain picks Condoleezza Rice for VP!!! I wanted her to run for President.

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g53/kaonednil/189px-Condoleezza_Rice_cropped.jpg

Croydon

03-03-2008, 05:19 PM

Not so fast. I think McCain has a better than even chance of winning.
You think? You obviously haven't used all your brain power to think.

Republicans want Hillary to win the nomination because they have a better chance of winning the presidency against her.

Let's break down the vote shall we?

If Obama were to win the nomination, the Republican party has A LOT of work ahead of them. The demographic of Obama's voters are the people who McCain needs to win the presidency. Unlike Clinton, Obama attracts young adults, independents (the most important of all voters), white males, African Americans, and those who are middle to upper class bracket, the college educated, and surprisingly some republicans. If Obama were to run against McCain, Obama would keep those voters, gain clinton's voters (traditional democrats, Hispanics, women, working poor, elderly). McCain would lose out when it comes to the most important of all voters, INDEPENDENTS.

This has been shown already when MN and WA voted. In those states, voters can vote for any candidate regardless of their political party membership. In both states, Obama won the TOTAL votes (he did better than Clinton and McCain). That scares the Republican party.

If McCain were to run against Hillary, he has a better chance of winning the presidency. Clinton has had a hard time attracting the votes of the Independents, white males, and those in the upper income bracket. Those voters would and could vote for McCain. Hillary's current voters are NOT enough to win the presidency. She needs more than just traditional dems and the people she needs are not the ones who want to vote for her.

nacktman

03-03-2008, 08:27 PM

"Not so fast. I think McCain has a better than even chance of winning."

~ Skinview

With that statement you have provided the final proof that you do not think.:laugh:

Skinview

03-03-2008, 10:15 PM

You think? You obviously haven't used all your brain power to think.

Republicans want Hillary to win the nomination because they have a better chance of winning the presidency against her.

Let's break down the vote shall we?Ahhh, more insults from the riff raff. Well, that is a very interesting and sensible analysis of the situation. But, as scientists say from time to time: "Another beautiful theory destroyed by an ugly fact."

The last poll of likely voters that I heard on the news puts McCain ahead of Obama in the general election by one point. I think it was an ABC poll, but I'm not sure. Its a long way to November, but thats where it stood a couple of days ago.

Qikdraw

03-04-2008, 10:44 AM

Clinton's new rhetoric (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M70emIFxETs) or just a rehash of old ones (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fu-2Ew1ijg)?

*edit*

Latest Clinton tactic: Fake news reports (http://weblogs.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/politics/blog/2008/03/latest_clinton_tactic_fake_new.html)

Script:
"This is an election news update with a major news story reported by the AP. While Senator Obama has crisscrossed Ohio giving speeches attacking NAFTA, his top economic advisor was telling the Canadians that was all just political maneuvering. A newly released document from the Canadian government shows that Obama’s senior economic advisor met with the Canadian Consul General and made clear that Obama’s attack on NAFTA were just, quote, “political maneuvering,” not policy. Political maneuvering, not policy. In fact, the document shows that Obama’s advisor also assured the Canadians that these attacks against NAFTA would not continue. Obama would not want to be, quote, “fundamentally changing the agreement.” As Senator Obama was telling one story to Ohio, his campaign was telling a very different story to Canada. How will Ohioans decide whether they can believe Senator Obama’s words? We’ll find that out on election day. Paid for by Hillary Clinton for President."

The original CTV News report also said that aides for Clinton told Canadian officials not to worry about her strong anti-NAFTA rhetoric on the campaign trail - something her camp flatly denied. (http://www.canadaeast.com/rss/article/229480)

Qikdraw

KirkOntario

03-04-2008, 07:03 PM

I'd like to know what qualifications either Obama or Hillary have to be President. Other than being far too liberal (which will be bad for the United States) their resumes are pretty scant.
Neither of them has achieved much of anything or run much of anything.

nacktman

03-04-2008, 07:41 PM

I'd like to know what qualifications either Obama or Hillary have to be President.

They are both over the age of 35 and are natural born citizens of the United States - which are the only requirements and qualifications necessary to be president under the Constitution.

Other added features are bonuses.

KirkOntario

03-04-2008, 07:42 PM

Any cook can run the state?

Qikdraw

03-04-2008, 09:31 PM

Any cook can run the state?

Any idiot can run the country. Well run it into the ground anyway. As we have seen over the past 8 years.

Qikdraw

wantago9

03-04-2008, 10:49 PM

Qikdraw

03-05-2008, 12:27 AM

KirkOntario

03-05-2008, 04:20 AM

Obama is not a Muslim. He is a Christian.

Mccain has denounced torture so he cannot be characterized as being 'for torture'.
He does not 'want' the US to be Iraq for 100 years. He stated that the success of the mission was so great that it might be necessary to stay there for 100 years. A rather intemperate statement but there is no need to mischaracterize the statement.

Tax cuts for the wealthy? No he supports economic stimulation through tax cuts just as JFK did in 1960.

Croydon

03-05-2008, 05:05 AM

usmc1

03-05-2008, 06:09 AM

Well at the risk of being beheaded this here ole Texas boy is now an Obama delegate.

Did the Texas two step yesterday and it was one of my most rewarding and uplifting experiences. I voted early and cast my initial ballot for Edwards who was still on the ballot. My candidate, my vote, nothing "lost".

Mrs. USMC voted for Senator Clinton. She said she could have voted for Senator Obama with no problem, but had "a gut full of listening to fat, middle aged white guys and mealy-mouthed Christian women trashing her".

Then at 7:15 p.m. I returned to the polling place for our precinct caucus. The parking lot was jammed and there was more than a hundred people lined up. The GOP side had maybe ten people.

We took care of business and elected a permanent chair and secretary, signed up and declared our preference. Based on the total vote of our precinct in the last general election we were allocated 8 delegates. Those 8 delegates will go to the county convention and eventually, at the state convention, there will remain 67 delegates from around the state selected from the caucus process going to the national convention.

Here's the exciting thing about our caucus, of the 107 crammed into that small room, about 90 were attending their first caucus. They were excited and and so proud. Based on our declarations there were allocated, by a very complex mathematical formula, 7 Obama delegates and 1 Clinton delegate. Everything was wide open, and clearly explained each step of the way.

Then, since we had nine people standing for seven open delegate positions we had to introduce ourselves and do a bit of "stumping" for votes. I was selected, and actually got the most votes. So, now I'm an Obama delegate--yea-yippee! For the time being, at least.

At county and state, I have a fairly decent chance of being selected to move on since I do have some very strong activist and organizer credentials. We'll see.

But, the really exciting thing is to see how energized the Democrats are. I talked with an African-American man who told me about how his dad used to have to pay a "poll tax" to vote. And another, who took the day off from work, so he could vote and then come to the caucus and be part of supporting Obama.

Senator Clinton picked up the state, but, there are 67 caucus votes to be allocated, and, we'll have to wait and see how many go to Obama and how many go to her.

nacktman

03-05-2008, 06:24 AM

Originally Posted by wantago9 http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/showthread.php?p=185842#post185842)
"I'm too scare if Obama wins. You will never know what he would do to the Americans. His background, is that he is from the muslim families. The Muslims still do beheaded Christians. That is hard to believe Obama would devow to be a Christians. He did mention that he doesn't go to church as often as he should have but he do pray everyday. Yea, likewise the Muslim prays five times everyday anywhere."

Where the hell are people getting this load of crap? It is AMAZING to me how ignorant and educated some voters are. How many times does the man has to say "I AM NOT MUSLIM" for people to get the message. Wantago, do yourself a favor, STOP listening to Fox News and those damn Christian conservative blogs, papers, and your Christian friends. It is amazing how many Americans readily believe in gossip and rumors. When I come across people like Wantago, I just have to look at where they are from or their background. In his case, SE OH, perhaps poor or uneducated, and doesn't have a high education...it makes perfect sense why he believes the way he does.

Majority of voters are uninformed voters. Before voting, they do not take the time out to investigate the candidates but merely vote based on what they have heard or feel, yet never doing some fact checking.

For the millionth time, Obama isn't muslim. He has been a member of his current church for 20 years now.

So what he doesn't go to church as often as he wishes. What does that have to do with anything or his ability to be president. When selecting a politician to support, the frequency to which he attends church isn't on my radar. I am researching his policies and beliefs about various issues. In addition, how is his praying daily correlates to being Muslim? I am well aware of many Christians who pray daily...they pray in the morning before leaving home, pray during a meal, and pray before bed. Should I assume that they're really muslims? GIVE ME A BLOODY BREAK. Do you have any idea how stupid you sound?

It really is baseless and uneducated comments like this that really gives credit to the "Americans are dumb" comment/

Thanks Croydon, you saved me the bother of pointing out what an ignorant fool he is.
And prevented the resident wing-nuts from howling that I was just 'attacking' him because he 'disagreed' with me ... then again no, you didn't, they'll howl anyway - thanks for the effort though, intended or not.

As to your postulation that given his location he is uneducated ... well one tortured read of his post and its halting structure and horrid grammar puts any debate there to rest - he is not ... a bright and shining example of the core right wing-nut, though.

nacktman

03-05-2008, 06:30 AM

MoonShadow

03-05-2008, 06:44 AM

Good post, Croydon!

It torques my noodle at the blatant ignorance of so many people who have no clue who they are voting for. The last two elections screamed how ignorant voters are. But sadly, most who vote do not take the time to read about the candidates. They just hold on to either being a die hard party person or will vote according to who their best buds, their sunday school class or whathaveyou.

Still undecided here for who I will vote for, but leaning toward Obama.

nakeduni

03-05-2008, 09:22 AM

McCain is bush on stale steroids. If he gets elected, you can kiss this country good bye. It will be more of the same, draining this country of resources for a fool's war. He will lose to a democrat, 60% to 40%. There will be a Hillary-Obama ticket that's going to sweep this country, to clean up the republican mess of historic proportions. I am an Independent and I approve this message.

Qikdraw

03-05-2008, 09:42 AM

Obama is not a Muslim. He is a Christian.

Well I agree with you here.

Mccain has denounced torture so he cannot be characterized as being 'for torture'.

Yet the last anti-torture bill he voted against, so if you are anti-anti-torture, you are pro-torture.

He does not 'want' the US to be Iraq for 100 years. He stated that the success of the mission was so great that it might be necessary to stay there for 100 years. A rather intemperate statement but there is no need to mischaracterize the statement.

He also said there would be more wars. Couple that with the fact that he thinks the Iraq war is going fine, and the American peole are behind it, just goes to show how out of touch he is.

Tax cuts for the wealthy? No he supports economic stimulation through tax cuts just as JFK did in 1960.

And Bush's 'economic stimulation through tax cuts' has worked out great for this country hasn't it? 'Trickle Down' just doesn't work. Get over it, admit it, and move on.

Qikdraw

Qikdraw

03-05-2008, 09:49 AM

Well at the risk of being beheaded this here ole Texas boy is now an Obama delegate.

Congrats! And there should be more people like you who go out and get involved.

Qikdraw

Boreas

03-05-2008, 10:09 AM

Thanks Croydon! Way to go usmc, putting your money where your mouth is is wonderful! Thanks also for the story.

I have been leaning towards Obama during the campaign. I was though, glad to see how well Clinton did last night. The race will become very interesting now won't it?

Boreas

03-05-2008, 10:12 AM

McCain is bush on stale steroids.

What a wonderful description!

usmc1

03-05-2008, 10:17 AM

The count in Texas as of this moment:

Democrats: 2,807,811

Republicans: 1,317,008

Senators Clinton and Obama each got more votes than all the GOP candidates combined!

And the bind McCain is in is that from here on in he will have to stay center right which will leave hard-core conservatives and the radical religious right without a candidate. If he moves too far off center to the right to satisfy these constituiencies--ZAP! POW! BOOM! Holy Old middle-aged white guy in the dumper!

Sanslines

03-05-2008, 11:42 AM

Do people know about his religion. Clearly YOU don't know about his religion. He is NOT Muslim. Please get your facts straight. People assume he must be muslim because of his name. Obama has no affiliation with the muslim religion. He is a christian.

Yes Obama has stated many times that he is not and never was a Muslim. Attempts to label Obama a Muslim (let's be honest - with all of the unjustified paranoia and fear of Muslims in the USA) does a great deal of harm to both Obama and Muslims. It is just another cheap attempt to discredit Obama.

KirkOntario

03-05-2008, 01:09 PM

Where the hell are people getting this load of crap? It is AMAZING to me how ignorant and educated some voters are. How many times does the man has to say "I AM NOT MUSLIM" for people to get the message. Wantago, do yourself a favor, STOP listening to Fox News and those damn Christian conservative blogs, papers, and your Christian friends. It is amazing how many Americans readily believe in gossip and rumors.

The Muslim rumours are usually generated by a desparate Clinton camp. We them release photographs a couple of weeks ago.
I've never heard Fox News say the Obama is a Muslim.

KirkOntario

03-05-2008, 01:14 PM

He also said there would be more wars. Couple that with the fact that he thinks the Iraq war is going fine, and the American peole are behind it, just goes to show how out of touch he is.

And Bush's 'economic stimulation through tax cuts' has worked out great for this country hasn't it? 'Trickle Down' just doesn't work. Get over it, admit it, and move on.

Qikdraw
There will always be more wars. Such is the nature of the world. Can you show me a poll that says the American people wish to lose the Iraq war? I don't think you can. So in that respect, McCain is perfectly in touch with the American people.

You are correct there. The Bush tax cuts created a lot of jobs up until recently. Remember John Kerry used to trot out those job stats during the 2004 campaign that were a year out of date? (Memories...)

Sanslines

03-05-2008, 01:20 PM

The Muslim rumours are usually generated by a desparate Clinton camp. We them release photographs a couple of weeks ago.
I've never heard Fox News say the Obama is a Muslim.

I have also heard that the Muslim rumors were generated by the Clinton camp. When questioned, the Clinton camp has not directly and unequivocable stated that they never generated the rumors. Just wait as the mudslinging is going to get a whole bunch nastier before a clear winner emerges. Voters seem to delight in false accusations and mudslinging. Perhaps it provides cheap entertainment.

usmc1

03-05-2008, 01:24 PM

There will always be more wars. Such is the nature of the world. Can you show me a poll that says the American people wish to lose the Iraq war? I don't think you can. So in that respect, McCain is perfectly in touch with the American people.

You are correct there. The Bush tax cuts created a lot of jobs up until recently. Remember John Kerry used to trot out those job stats during the 2004 campaign that were a year out of date? (Memories...)

Hey, catch a clue. We won the war, hands down. We're losing the occupation and Americans a fed up watching our kids die for the oil fields.

Last night, I spoke with the wife of a GI in Iraq, and the brother of another. Short version is that what the GIs are telling their families and friends is that "you folks are being fed a line of BS, we're not fighting Al Quida, we're protecting oil fields, pipelines and securing areas around where new refineries are being built".

No, I will not put you in touch with those people. Take it or not.

Someday, the fates willing, our friend Nude Al will be back from his most recent tour in Iraq, and reiterate for us what we already know.

KirkOntario

03-05-2008, 01:35 PM

Last night, I spoke with the wife of a GI in Iraq, and the brother of another. Short version is that what the GIs are telling their families and friends is that "you folks are being fed a line of BS, we're not fighting Al Quida, we're protecting oil fields, pipelines and securing areas around where new refineries are being built".
.

Al Qaeda is in Iraq. They call themselves "Al Qaeda In Iraq' which should give you clue. They would be very foolish NOT to be in Iraq since they wish to kill Americans and Iraq is a good place to get at them and it's nearby.

Similarly, Americans would be very foolish not to be guarding oil pipelines and facilities since terrorists in Iraq have been targeting those facilities trying to disrupt oil supplies and some groups seek to steal oil to be sold to finance terror.

Sounds like a good strategy --guarding oil and attacking Al Qaeda-- and in both the Iraqi and American interests. We should support it.

chuckincville

03-05-2008, 01:40 PM

Great thread!
Interesting wording of the pole - chose the "worst".

I have nothing but respect for McCains military record! I liked his straight talk express back in the 2000 primary. But that McCain doesn't exist anymore - he sold out and has become Bush III. How about another four years of bushism?

Hillary? Tough, intelligent lady who believes in her wedding vows and gets dissed for it. I could never understand the love her / hate her feelings many people have had for her. But I've lost respect for Ms. Clinton after her fear mongering attack ads aimed at Obama. It's like she's taken a page from carl rove's playbook! I've had it with the fear mongering of the past eight years -Enough already!

Obama is my man. He is smart, young, energetic and charismatic!
Graviitas? His supposed "lack of experience" is a plus - he is not tainted by government as usual. If we can give him a Democratic congress he can put an end to Corporate Welfare and Fat Cat Tax Cuts. His message of hope is a breath of fresh air! We have had eight years of fear and hopelessness - it's refreshing, to say the least, to have someone suggest that there is a way out of the dark abyss that g.w. has put us in!

I hear a lot about how wonderful it is that Hillary and McCain are fighters - that's evidenced by the mud they and their campaigns sling.
Obama's is a different fight - a fight of restoration -- to restore our country to a "government of the people, for the people..."! - and to restore our damaged image abroad and to stop the loss of lives and dollars in that hell hole in the mid-east.

Ours is a great country!! -- Don't we deserve a leader who believes in the posibilities of positive change?

chuckincville

03-05-2008, 01:47 PM

Good grief - I do have my problems on this site.
Logged in - typed my reply to the "which is worst" poll -
site wouldn't let me post - said I wasn't logged in
so I logged in again
ended up posting my reply on the wrong thread!
aaaggghhhh!
Sorry!

nacktman

03-05-2008, 03:10 PM

The Muslim rumours are usually generated by a desparate Clinton camp. We them release photographs a couple of weeks ago.
Since when is McCain's press secretary working for the Clinton campaign then?

I've never heard Fox News say the Obama is a Muslim.
Turn up the volume control then, buddy ... evidently you are a tad bit hard of hearing.

The Bush tax cuts created a lot of jobs up until recently.
Curious ... I guess that is why unemployment rates have grown every quarter for the past seven and a half years, then. Who knew?!

We won't even touch the idiotic statements about 'guarding oil' and 'good strategy'. They stand as beacons of lunacy all on their own without any further illumination.

As it stands now barring a convention vote to nominate Edwards (which is a distinct possibility, in which case Edwards will be the next president), Obama will be the next president. Get used to the idea.

Boreas

03-05-2008, 03:20 PM

The Bush tax cuts created a lot of jobs up until recently.

What calibre of jobs are you speaking of? DO any of these alledged jobs pay a living wage? Do any have benefits, such as health insurance for our American friends? Are any of them full-time?

It seems to me that any jobs that have been created lately have been of the McJobs variety. You know, the ones that pay abysmally low wages and likely have no benefits. Walmart for instance has created the biggest drain on the social welfare system in the US since its employees need some "top up" in order to come close to a living wage.

But that is the joy of neo-liberalism. Spin it so people think that minimum wage jobs are wonderful, while in the meantime, the fat cats can get fatter, because profit is the ultimate goal isn't it. And stats can of course tell you anything if you want them to! :rolleyes: :p

Boreas

03-05-2008, 03:25 PM

Obama's is a different fight - a fight of restoration -- to restore our country to a "government of the people, for the people..."! - and to restore our damaged image abroad and to stop the loss of lives and dollars in that hell hole in the mid-east.

That is what tips the balance for me. Obama seems to be the most likely to heal some of the polarization wounds that Bush has created since his reign.

Don't we deserve a leader who believes in the posibilities of positive change?

Yes, you definitely do. It is past due also!

I like your "wrong thread" post. Thanks for the thoughtful response!

WacoTX

03-05-2008, 03:59 PM

Croydon

03-05-2008, 04:22 PM

The Muslim rumours are usually generated by a desparate Clinton camp. We them release photographs a couple of weeks ago.
I've never heard Fox News say the Obama is a Muslim.
Actually, you are incorrect.

The muslim rumors started last year and it began with Fox News. In their report, Fox news stated that Obama was raised a muslim and attended a madrassa, which is a school for muslim children where they are taught extremist ideologies. This is where the rumor started about his background and upbringing.

Shortly after that, CNN did a piece debunking Fox News. The school that Obama attended was not a madrassa nor was it affiliated with any religion. In the history of the school, it has never been associated with the muslim religion. In addition, CNN debunked the idea that Obama was raised muslim as his mother or his grandparents (who raised him) never associated with the religion.

After CNN came out with their story, Fox News made a public on air apology to Obama for its false report and admitted that the accusation and report was in fact FALSE.

Despite admitting that, the damage was done. The rumor followed him throughout the campaign and many conservatives continue to play it up. The rumor continue to hurt him as he has to keep repeating OVER and OVER that he isn't muslim and he shouldn't have to.

If you wish to read further click on below link
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.madrassa/

usmc1

03-05-2008, 04:54 PM

Hillarys win in Texas is very, very thin. Having worked at the poll from 6:30 am to 8:30 pm, from reading letters to the editor and listening to the political commentators on TV, it seems Hillary won because of senior citizens and Republican cross overs. Obama is still ahead in delegate count and Hillary will have to do something amazing to overcome Obamas lead.

Until the Texas caucus votes are counted and mixed in, it is not certain that Mrs. Clinton "won" Texas. Or, for that matter, actually gained in the overall delegate count. I'm hearing that there is a strong likelihood that Sen Obama may have picked up enough caucus delegates to offset, Sen Clinton's slight lead in primary delegates.

There is an increasing potential that neither can win on first ballot, should it come to that. My projection is that the super delegates, (party elders and office holders) will make the difference. If that happens, Clinton prevails. Too many debts are owed by establishment Democrats.

But, I can say this, as a community organizer and activist, the Obama campaign had an utterly awesome grassroots mobilization effort.

However this turns out, if we can maintain that grassroots enthusiasm and marry it to the Democratic party structure, it is going to be a blow-out in November.

Qikdraw

03-05-2008, 05:45 PM

Actually, you are incorrect.

KirkOntario incorrect? I find that impossible to believe!

:D

Qikdraw

Qikdraw

03-05-2008, 06:00 PM

There is an increasing potential that neither can win on first ballot, should it come to that. My projection is that the super delegates, (party elders and office holders) will make the difference. If that happens, Clinton prevails. Too many debts are owed by establishment Democrats.

And you know if that happens a lot of Obama supporters will either not vote, or vote 3rd party. That combined with the republican hatred of Clinton will secure the win for McCain.

Hillary has mentioned a dream team (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23480254/) of her and Obama, which may be forced on the candidates if it doesn't clear up soon. Dean said he wants it resolved before the convention, this may be the comprimise forced on both of them.

Hillary would need Obama, but many Obama supporters would know that this was just a political move on Hillary's part, not her choice. Without Obama Hillary will not win. However if Obama took the VP position, no one could argue in 4 or 8 years he lacks experience to be president.
Obama does not need Hillary, and really he should stay away if he is the winner. The Clinton name brings hatred to the republicans and they'll come out in droves to vote against her. The republicans that have crossed over for Obama will reconsider and some will vote for McCain. He should find someone with experience for his VP candidate.

If it comes to superdelegates its gonna pisss a lot of people off.

Qikdraw

Qikdraw

03-05-2008, 06:08 PM

There will always be more wars. Such is the nature of the world. Can you show me a poll that says the American people wish to lose the Iraq war? I don't think you can. So in that respect, McCain is perfectly in touch with the American people.

LOL

Nice try. Are you sure you're not a neocon pollster?

I guess we need to blame Reagan for terrorist attacks on Americans. He pulled out of Lebanon in '83 after the Marine Barracks were attacked. He showed that America was weak and open to attack. Yes. It is clear now that Reagan is to blame.

Qikdraw

Boreas

03-05-2008, 06:26 PM

LOL

Nice try. Are you sure you're not a neocon pollster?

I guess we need to blame Reagan for terrorist attacks on Americans. He pulled out of Lebanon in '83 after the Marine Barracks were attacked. He showed that America was weak and open to attack. Yes. It is clear now that Reagan is to blame.

Qikdraw

Well, that does explain a lot!

Frankly a lot of things did start with Reagan, Thatcher and Mulroney. That is when the neoliberal wave really got started. Of course though, that is something our friend Kirk celebrates I believe.

nacktman

03-05-2008, 06:29 PM

Can you show me a poll that says the American people wish to lose the Iraq war? I don't think you can.

No need to show you a "poll" that says we want to lose the Iraq War ... the United States military WON the war.
It has lost the occupation.
All armies throughout history have lost the occupation.

Damn, you need to get a clue!

nacktman

03-05-2008, 06:32 PM

LOL

Nice try. Are you sure you're not a neocon pollster?

I guess we need to blame Reagan for terrorist attacks on Americans. He pulled out of Lebanon in '83 after the Marine Barracks were attacked. He showed that America was weak and open to attack. Yes. It is clear now that Reagan is to blame.

Qikdraw

So very true, so very true ...
The darkest hours in our history until the shrub delved deeper into the darkening madness that is raygun.

Croydon

03-05-2008, 08:17 PM

The last poll of likely voters that I heard on the news puts McCain ahead of Obama in the general election by one point. I think it was an ABC poll, but I'm not sure. Its a long way to November, but thats where it stood a couple of days ago.

Really is that so because the last poll I read showed that in a hypothetical race, Obama would beat McCain by 12%.

McCain's issue is that he lacks substance. Throughout his campaign, he has said little about his plans to revive the economy, health care, education. He seems to talk more about his time in military and his feelings on Iraq. At the end of the day, "where's the beef?"

McCain isn't someone who can be a president, an advisor maybe. President? I don't think so.

For latest poll:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080306/pl_nm/usa_politics_poll_dc

KirkOntario

03-05-2008, 09:05 PM

No need to show you a "poll" that says we want to lose the Iraq War ... the United States military WON the war.
It has lost the occupation.
All armies throughout history have lost the occupation.

Damn, you need to get a clue!

Do you have a poll that shows Americans want to lose the 'occupation' then? Or are you just avoiding the question?

Naturist Mark

03-05-2008, 09:05 PM

I'm too scare if Obama wins. You will never know what he would do to the Americans. His background, is that he is from the muslim families. The Muslims still do beheaded Christians. That is hard to believe Obama would devow to be a Christians. He did mention that he doesn't go to church as often as he should have but he do pray everyday. Yea, likewise the Muslim prays five times everyday anywhere.

Obama's grandfather in Kenya was a Christian who worked for missionaries but later converted to Islam, his son, Barack Obama Sr. was a gifted student who came to America at the age of 23 to study economics at the University of Hawaii and later Harvard - but Barack Sr. was not religious, being an avowed atheist. He separated from his American wife when young Barack was 2 years old and later returned to his native Kenya - where he eventually served as a government minister in the administration of Jomo Kenyatta (a Christian) - the 1st president and founding father of the nation of Kenya.

Most of the people involved in young Barack's raising were not religious - his father was an atheist, his mother, stepfather, and maternal grandparents were non-religious. From the age of 6 to 10 Barack and his mother lived in Indonesia with his mother's second husband - where he attended non-religious public schools and Catholic schools - not an islamic madrassah as reported by FOX news. From the age of 10 until he left for college Barack was raised by his maternal grandparents in Hawaii.

Barack became a member of the United Church of Christ in 1988 - 20 years ago, he is hardly a 'secret muslim' who recently converted as a political ruse.

Here are Barack Obama's own words (http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060628-call_to_renewal/index.php) with regard to his religious beliefs:
...I think we make a mistake when we fail to acknowledge the power of faith in people's lives -- in the lives of the American people -- and I think it's time that we join a serious debate about how to reconcile faith with our modern, pluralistic democracy.

And if we're going to do that then we first need to understand that Americans are a religious people. 90 percent of us believe in God, 70 percent affiliate themselves with an organized religion, 38 percent call themselves committed Christians, and substantially more people in America believe in angels than they do in evolution.

This religious tendency is not simply the result of successful marketing by skilled preachers or the draw of popular mega-churches. In fact, it speaks to a hunger that's deeper than that - a hunger that goes beyond any particular issue or cause.

Each day, it seems, thousands of Americans are going about their daily rounds - dropping off the kids at school, driving to the office, flying to a business meeting, shopping at the mall, trying to stay on their diets - and they're coming to the realization that something is missing. They are deciding that their work, their possessions, their diversions, their sheer busyness, is not enough.

They want a sense of purpose, a narrative arc to their lives. They're looking to relieve a chronic loneliness, a feeling supported by a recent study that shows Americans have fewer close friends and confidants than ever before. And so they need an assurance that somebody out there cares about them, is listening to them - that they are not just destined to travel down that long highway towards nothingness.

And I speak with some experience on this matter. I was not raised in a particularly religious household, as undoubtedly many in the audience were. My father, who returned to Kenya when I was just two, was born Muslim but as an adult became an atheist. My mother, whose parents were non-practicing Baptists and Methodists, was probably one of the most spiritual and kindest people I've ever known, but grew up with a healthy skepticism of organized religion herself. As a consequence, so did I.

It wasn't until after college, when I went to Chicago to work as a community organizer for a group of Christian churches, that I confronted my own spiritual dilemma.

I was working with churches, and the Christians who I worked with recognized themselves in me. They saw that I knew their Book and that I shared their values and sang their songs. But they sensed that a part of me that remained removed, detached, that I was an observer in their midst.

And in time, I came to realize that something was missing as well -- that without a vessel for my beliefs, without a commitment to a particular community of faith, at some level I would always remain apart, and alone.

And if it weren't for the particular attributes of the historically black church, I may have accepted this fate. But as the months passed in Chicago, I found myself drawn - not just to work with the church, but to be in the church.

For one thing, I believed and still believe in the power of the African-American religious tradition to spur social change, a power made real by some of the leaders here today. Because of its past, the black church understands in an intimate way the Biblical call to feed the hungry and cloth the naked and challenge powers and principalities. And in its historical struggles for freedom and the rights of man, I was able to see faith as more than just a comfort to the weary or a hedge against death, but rather as an active, palpable agent in the world. As a source of hope.

And perhaps it was out of this intimate knowledge of hardship -- the grounding of faith in struggle -- that the church offered me a second insight, one that I think is important to emphasize today.

Faith doesn't mean that you don't have doubts.

You need to come to church in the first place precisely because you are first of this world, not apart from it. You need to embrace Christ precisely because you have sins to wash away - because you are human and need an ally in this difficult journey.

It was because of these newfound understandings that I was finally able to walk down the aisle of Trinity United Church of Christ on 95th Street in the Southside of Chicago one day and affirm my Christian faith. It came about as a choice, and not an epiphany. I didn't fall out in church. The questions I had didn't magically disappear. But kneeling beneath that cross on the South Side, I felt that I heard God's spirit beckoning me. I submitted myself to His will, and dedicated myself to discovering His truth.

That's a path that has been shared by millions upon millions of Americans - evangelicals, Catholics, Protestants, Jews and Muslims alike; some since birth, others at certain turning points in their lives. It is not something they set apart from the rest of their beliefs and values. In fact, it is often what drives their beliefs and their values.

And that is why that, if we truly hope to speak to people where they're at - to communicate our hopes and values in a way that's relevant to their own - then as progressives, we cannot abandon the field of religious discourse.

Because when we ignore the debate about what it means to be a good Christian or Muslim or Jew; when we discuss religion only in the negative sense of where or how it should not be practiced, rather than in the positive sense of what it tells us about our obligations towards one another; when we shy away from religious venues and religious broadcasts because we assume that we will be unwelcome - others will fill the vacuum, those with the most insular views of faith, or those who cynically use religion to justify partisan ends.

There you have it. Barack Obama is a religious Christian, a member of one of the most inclusive and accepting of denominations. He was raised in secular households, but grew up knowing and respecting people of many backgrounds and religions, including Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Animists and Christians of many sorts.

Those of you who are suspicious of Obama's religious beliefs shouldn't worry that he is a secret muslim, rather you should be alarmed that he is a man of faith who doesn't share your prejudice and suspicions of other faiths than his own.

KirkOntario

03-05-2008, 09:09 PM

We won't even touch the idiotic statements about 'guarding oil' and 'good strategy'. They stand as beacons of lunacy all on their own without any further illumination.

So if you were commander you'd leave oil facilities unguarded then? Is that your position?

nacktman

03-05-2008, 09:16 PM

Those of you who are suspicious of Obama's religious beliefs shouldn't worry that he is a secret muslim, rather you should be alarmed that he is a man of faith who doesn't share your prejudice and suspicions of other faiths than his own.

:applause:Bravo!:applause:Well, said!:applause:

As Paul Simon said "Paranoia strikes deep ..."

Naturist Mark

03-05-2008, 09:24 PM

The Muslim rumours are usually generated by a desparate Clinton camp. We them release photographs a couple of weeks ago.
I've never heard Fox News say the Obama is a Muslim.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/sk0tb_Xuti8"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/sk0tb_Xuti8" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Qikdraw

03-05-2008, 10:40 PM

Do you have a poll that shows Americans want to lose the 'occupation' then? Or are you just avoiding the question?

Do you have a poll that shows Americans want to stay in Iraq?

You seem to tie pulling out with losing, so using your own method of thinking you must think that Reagan was the one who started losing the war on Terrorism by pulling out of Lebanon.

Qikdraw

KirkOntario

03-06-2008, 04:40 PM

Do you have a poll that shows Americans want to stay in Iraq?

The two opinions are not inconsistent. Americans can BOTH want to not lose a war and withdraw from Iraq. Whether you can do both is another matter.

Qikdraw

03-06-2008, 06:18 PM

The two opinions are not inconsistent. Americans can BOTH want to not lose a war and withdraw from Iraq. Whether you can do both is another matter.

Then why do you insinuate that pulling out of Iraq is losing the war?

You still haven't answered my question on if you think Reagan is responsible for making America look weak and vulnerable by pulling out of Lebanon...

Qikdraw

Qikdraw

03-06-2008, 06:22 PM

nacktman

03-06-2008, 06:35 PM

Clinton's lie to win Ohio (http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/13269)

So basically everything Hillary said about Obama and 'NAFTAgate'... Can be attributed to her, and not Obama. She accuses him of what she is doing. Nice.

Qikdraw

She is taking a page out of the Roveian playbook which isn't surprising given she is but one step removed from being an actual conservative herself anyway.

Boreas

03-06-2008, 07:50 PM

Clinton's lie to win Ohio (http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/13269)

So basically everything Hillary said about Obama and 'NAFTAgate'... Can be attributed to her, and not Obama. She accuses him of what she is doing. Nice.

Qikdraw

I love that this story is making our PM squirm. Poor guy. His party has been accused of bribing a dying Member of Parliament in order to win his vote (didn't work) and now that one of Harper's bigwigs has leaked this story. Beautiful! We get some drama at our PM's expense. He needs this after accusing "The Previous Government" of all manner of corruption!

KirkOntario

03-06-2008, 07:56 PM

Then why do you insinuate that pulling out of Iraq is losing the war?

You still haven't answered my question on if you think Reagan is responsible for making America look weak and vulnerable by pulling out of Lebanon...

Qikdraw

I think historians agree that far from making America look 'weak and vulnerable' that Reagan made America look strong and powerful and that he restored American pride. So the answer to your question is 'no.'

Skinview

03-06-2008, 08:05 PM

No need to show you a "poll" that says we want to lose the Iraq War ... the United States military WON the war.
It has lost the occupation.
All armies throughout history have lost the occupation.

Damn, you need to get a clue!

Riiiight. Thats why Germany is still a NAZI state today...
And Italy is facist...
And Japan...
And Grenada is communist...
And Quebec has reunified with France...
And the Confederacy is independant....
And Puerto Rico is part of Spain...
And Tibet is independant...

nacktman

03-06-2008, 09:14 PM

"Thats why Germany is still a NAZI state today...
And Italy is facist...
And Japan...
And Grenada is communist...
And Quebec has reunified with France...
And the Confederacy is independant....
And Puerto Rico is part of Spain...
And Tibet is independant..."

Oh, where to begin!

1. Troops occupying Germany after WW2 suffered horrendous loses from "insurgents" until they withdrew leaving the governance of Germany to the Germans themselves. Now, why does that sound familiar?

2. Troops occupying Italy after WW2 - Hey, wait, there were no troops occupying Italy after WW2, my bad.

3. Troops occupying Japan after WW2 were segregated away from the populace on orders from Mac Arthur who dealt with the process of reorganizing the nation in a rapid fashion and withdrew in the same fashion thus minimizing the effect of an occupation on the general populace. However when the troops did come in contact with the populace the result was more often than not detrimental to the troops.

4. Grenada was never communist and was never occupied by the United States ... in point of fact the occupying army - that would be the Cuban army by the way - lost in it's bid at occupying Grenada.

5. Okay, since when is Quebec occupied by a foreign army? Other than the French and/or English a couple of hundred years ago.

6. Troops occupying the Confederacy suffered tremendous loses and withdrew into "camps" and stayed there for the most part until withdrawn completely or disbanded whichever came first.

7. Troops have never occupied Puerto Rico since the Spanish lost their bid at occupying it.

8. As to Tibet, the Chinese are losing at their bid to occupy that nation and will withdraw sooner rather than later.

As I stated ALL nations that try to occupy another lose in that attempt and have throughout history and always shall.

This of course has nothing to do with the topic at hand but in answering absurdities from certain posters who endeavor to divert and pervert every thread one must deviate at times.

Of the two, Obama or Clinton, Obama is the best choice.

KirkOntario

03-06-2008, 09:40 PM

If this is your definition of failure...let's have failure then.

American troops didn't withdraw from Germany. The occupation of Germany and Japan cannot be characterized as anything but successes. Germany ended a democracy and a close ally of the United States as has Japan which made the transition of militarism to a successful liberal democracy. Thanks to Douglas Macarthur.

FYI, the citadel next to the Plains of Abraham where the British defeated the French has the 'occupying troops' stationed in it. Quebec remains a part of Canada. The separatist FLQ terrorist organization defeated by Pierre Trudea in 1970 with imposition of the War Measures Act (and it worked).

China's occupation of Tibet has been brutal and due to that brutality and massive influx of non-Tibetan colonists into Tibet it is unlikely that Tibet will ever gain independence. But we will see...

A statement that all occupations in history have failed is reckless generalization and factually untrue.

nacktman

03-06-2008, 10:07 PM

Still with the head in the sand, I see.

United States troops withdrew as an occupying force just as did the British and French.
Any troops there since that time were 'visiting' personnel to bases in that country on the largess of the Germany people and their government. I know I was one of those "troops" for a time.
Germany did not become an ally of the United States until after the withdrawal of the occupying troops.

As for Japan just insert the word 'Japan' in place of Germany in the statement above and you will have the correct idea.

It is not a reckless generalization nor factually untrue to say ALL occupying armies have lost the occupation. History proves that statement true over and over and over again. Going back (and not in precise chronological order either) United States, Russia, Soviet Union, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Japan - and that is only the 20th century - Ottoman Empire, Britain, Germany, France, United States, Spain - in the 19th century - and before that Britain, France, Rome, Greece, Vandals, Goths, Huns, Mongols, Mughars, China ...

Naturist Mark

03-06-2008, 10:14 PM

Riiiight. Thats why Germany is still a NAZI state today...
And Italy is facist...
And Japan...
And Grenada is communist...
And Quebec has reunified with France...
And the Confederacy is independant....
And Puerto Rico is part of Spain...
And Tibet is independant...

Although there are still American troops in Germany, Italy and Japan - you can hardly say they are being occupied. Nor is Quebec. Nor the South. Puerto Rico has troops, but not in occupation, there is no military rule there - and PR has rejected independence several times, even though it has had the option. Grenada was never Communist, and the few hundred Cuban construction workers hardly controlled the island.

Tibet? Hell yes, THAT is an occupation - and a particularly grim one.

So ... if you look at the cases where there really were true occupations, the single salient feature of the successful ones is that they were ended early and peacefully.

Skinview

03-06-2008, 10:42 PM

Although there are still American troops in Germany, Italy and Japan - you can hardly say they are being occupied. Nor is Quebec. Nor the South. Puerto Rico has troops, but not in occupation, there is no military rule there - and PR has rejected independence several times, even though it has had the option.

Tibet? Hell yes, THAT is an occupation - and a particularly grim one.

So ... if you look at the cases where there really were true occupations, the single salient feature of the successful ones is that they were ended early and peacefully.
All armies throughout history have lost the occupation.
Thank you for agreeing with me, Mark. But I never said those places are being occupied, I just ment that their occupations were successes.

Skinview

03-06-2008, 11:03 PM

4. Grenada was never communist and was never occupied by the United States ... in point of fact the occupying army - that would be the Cuban army by the way - lost in it's bid at occupying Grenada
Grenada was never Communist, and the few hundred Cuban construction workers hardly controlled the island.

From wikipedia:

Invasion of Grenada

Date October 25, 1983 - December 15, 1983
Location Grenada
Result Decisive U.S.-led victory
Communist regime toppled

On March 13, 1979 the New Jewel Movement under Maurice Bishop launched a revolution against the government of Eric Gairy to establish a people's provisional government. The government suspended the constitution and began to rule by decree. All other political parties were banned and no elections were ever held. Internationally, the government quickly aligned itself with Cuba and other communist governments. Under Bishop, Grenada began a military build-up.

The invading forces encountered about 1,500 Grenadian soldiers and about 700 Cubans, most of whom were construction workers. Also present were 60 advisors from the Soviet Union, North Korea, East Germany, Bulgaria, and Libya.

KirkOntario

03-07-2008, 04:50 AM

It is not a reckless generalization nor factually untrue to say ALL occupying armies have lost the occupation. .

Yes, it is a reckless statement and the only way you can defend it is to redefine 'failure' to suggest that occupations that lasted centuries were 'failed occupations' such as Roman occupation of Gaul which went on for centuries. BTW the Romans occupied the Italian pennisula as well. Was that a 'failure' even though it last something like 700 years? Sicily was occupied for over 500 years. "Failure" also?

The occupations of Germany and France turned into warm alliances and both countries became liberal democracies. They cannot be counted failures.

I suggest staying away from such sweeping generalizations in the future.

Sanslines

03-07-2008, 05:48 AM

An important quesion to ask at this point is this: "what is the exact and agreed upon definition of an occupation?"

Skinview

03-07-2008, 06:30 AM

I have a dictionary that has the most pertinent definition under "army of occupation":

army of occupation; an army sent into a defeated country to ensure compliance with the terms of the peace treaty: the army of occupation excercises military rule of the territory.

-Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, second edition, c 1983

nacktman

03-07-2008, 07:02 AM

What those who have diverted this thread from it's topic fail to realize is that an occupation of a defeated nation does not have a time period nor a set formula in which it is to be performed.
Occupations of defeated nations have lasted from a few hours to hundreds of years and not one has been successful during the occupation ... the fact that seems beyond keen.

However, the topic is "Obama or Clinton?".

Again, I say of the two, Obama is the best candidate.

usmc1

03-07-2008, 07:34 AM

<center> International Law Aspects of the Iraq War
and Occupation

</center> This section examines the legality of the 2003 US-UK war on Iraq. Shortly before the outbreak of hostilities, UN Secretary General stated that the use of force without Council endorsement would "not be in conformity with the Charter" and many legal experts now describe the US-UK attack as an act of aggression, violating international law. Experts also point to illegalities in the US conduct of the war and violations of the Geneva Conventions by the US-UK of their responsibilities as an occupying power. The section also looks at wartime violations on the Iraqi side.

<center> <hr> Back to: Main Iraq Index (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/irqindx.htm) <hr> Also see GPF's Pages on: the Renewal of the Multinational Force Mandate | (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/mnfindex.htm)Torture and Prison Abuse in Iraq (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/tortureindex.htm) | Siege Tactics and Attacks on Population Centers (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/fallujindex.htm)| Indiscriminate and Especially Injurious Weapons (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/weaponindex.htm) | Atrocities and Criminal Homicides (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/atrocitindex.htm) | Occupation and Rule (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/occupindex.htm) | Resistance to the Occupation (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/resistindex.htm) | UN Role (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/unindex.htm)
<hr> </center> <center> 2008 (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/lawindex.htm#2008) | 2007 (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/lawindex.htm#2007) | 2006 (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/lawindex.htm#2006) | Archive (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/arclawindex.htm) </center>
http://www.globalpolicy.org/images/highli.gifBritish Attorney General's Advice to Blair on Legality of Iraq War (March 7, 2003) (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/document/2003/0307advice.htm)
In his legal advice to British Prime Minister Tony Blair on the legality of the Iraq war, Attorney General Lord Goldsmith describes regime change in Iraq as a disproportionate response to Saddam Hussein's alleged failure to disarm, illegal in the eyes of international law. Goldsmith stresses that in terms of legality, "regime change cannot be the objective of military action."

<center> 2008

</center> Will Blackwater Be Rehired? (January 23, 2008) (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/law/2008/0123bwrehired.htm)
Despite the controversy surrounding Blackwater and its killing of Iraqi civilians, the US State Department plans to renew a contract with the security firm. In addition to the immunity granted by the State Department, other factors impede the progress of prosecuting Blackwater guards in criminal offenses. Human rights organizations contend that the Bush administration lacks “the political will” to prosecute criminal cases against Blackwater, thereby creating a “culture of impunity.” (Time)
<center> 2007

</center> Iraqis Challenge Britain’s Right to Detain Them Indefinitely (November 3, 2007) (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/law/2007/1103iraqischallenge.htm)
Lawyers acting for an Iraqi-British national held in Basra argue that the UK is manipulating international law to justify indefinite detention. The European Convention on Human Rights dictates that governments must either prosecute or release prisoners. But, the British government claims that its forces in Iraq operate under the UN Security Council mandate and not the Convention. The mandate provides for “internment where necessary for imperative reasons of security.” International lawyers argue that the detainees are in an area controlled by Iraqi, and to a lesser extent, British forces and not the UN or its institutions. (Guardian)
America's Own Unlawful Combatants? (October 15, 2007) (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/law/2007/1015americasown.htm)
In the aftermath of the September 2007 Blackwater shootings, lawyers for the US State, Justice and Defense departments debate whether private security contractors fall under the same broad definition of “unlawful combatants” which the Bush administration uses to justify detentions in Guantanamo Bay. Legal commentators criticize the Bush administration for failing to clarify the legal status of contractors before putting them into military roles. (Los Angeles Times)
Human Rights Law Applies in Iraq Killing, Lords Rule (June 13, 2007) (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/law/2007/0613hrlaw.htm)
Ruling on the death of an Iraqi civilian in British custody, the House of Lords declared that the UK's obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights apply to British troops in Iraq . The decision means that the Human Rights Act protects anyone held in British custody abroad and grants a right to life, a right not to be tortured and the right to access to a fair trial. Attorney General Lord Goldsmith, a close advisor to Tony Blair, had earlier ruled that human rights standards did not apply.(Guardian)
The Legacy of Fallujah (April 4, 2007) (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/fallujah/2007/0404legacyfallujah.htm)
During the sieges of Fallujah in 2004, the US used chemical weapons such as white phosphorus and a napalm derivative, causing indiscriminate harm and unnecessary suffering in the civilian population. Although the use of those weapons is banned under several international treaties and the Geneva Conventions, no government or the United Nations has condemned such acts and these crimes remain unpunished. Three years after the sieges, the population of Fallujah continues to face innumerable hazards, living with daily attacks and factional violence and having no access to clean water or health care. (Guardian)
Iraq Says British Raid Was a Violation (April 6, 2007) (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/law/2007/0406raidviolation.htm)
British troops raided the National Iraqi Intelligence Agency in Basra, claiming the act aimed to capture a death squad leader and that they found 30 prisoners with signs of torture. However, the Iraqi government condemned the raid, saying it violated Iraqi sovereignty in contravention of UN Security Council Resolution 1546. According to a report by the Iraqi government, the British forces violated the orders of an Iraqi judge by arresting prisoners already in Iraqi custody and were negligent in allowing several prisoners to escape during the raid. (Associated Press)
Spanish Judge Calls for Architects of Iraq Invasion to Be Tried for War Crimes (March 27, 2007) (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/law/2007/0327iraqwararchitects.htm)
One of Spain’s leading judges on war crimes and terrorism-related cases, Baltasar Garzon, ranks the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq among “the most sordid and unjustifiable episodes in recent human history.” The judge criticizes US President George W. Bush and his allies, including British and Spanish Prime Ministers Tony Blair and Jose Maria Aznar, who supported the attack “despite having doubts and biased information.” Garzon’s condemnation of the leaders reflects growing disenchantment worldwide with the Iraq catastrophe. (World Socialist Web Site)
Four Years into the Occupation: No Health for Iraq (March 21, 2007) (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/consequences/2007/0321nohealth.htm)
This BRusssells Tribunal article points out that the conditions of Iraq’s health system are deteriorating. According to the Iraq Medical Association, 90 percent of hospitals in Iraq lack essential equipment and 18,000 of 34,000 physicians left the country. Further, the report of the NGO Coordinating Committee in Iraq revealed that military forces occupied Mosul Hospital and ambulances have been attacked on a regularly basis in Najaf, Fallujah and other parts of Anbar province. US forces have been also intruding into hospitals daily and Iraqis have refrained from using hospitals for fear of being shot. The US occupation of Iraq has resulted in a massive public health disaster for Iraqis.
Armed Groups Occupy Hospitals and Kidnap Doctors (February 13, 2007) (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/consequences/2007/0213armedgroups.htm)
A growing number of Iraqis have been refraining from using hospitals due to fear of being shot or arrested by insurgent groups and official forces. US troops intrude into hospitals on a daily basis, placing or looking for snipers on the roof and arresting doctors. According to an Iraqi doctor, “whatever we say they arrest us and treat us, doctors, as if we are terrorists. They take us for interrogation and threaten us. So, in reality, we face danger from the insurgents as well as from the [official] troops.” This constitutes a violation of the Geneva Conventions, which state that hospitals are and should remain neutral and accessible to everybody, especially civilians. (Integrated Regional Information Networks)
<center> 2006

</center> The Courts Are Starting To Accept That the War against Iraq Is A Crime (October 17, 2006) (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/law/2006/1017courts.htm)
A British domestic court has ruled that the damage caused to military planes and equipment by two anti-war protestors was not illegal because the defendants sought “to prevent specific war crimes from being committed” in Iraq, where the planes and munitions would ultimately end up. Furthermore, in a German court an army major has successfully argued that the US and the UK did not legally invade Iraq, therefore he broke no laws in refusing to obey a military order. The author concludes that such decisions set a precedent for the recognition of the Iraq war as an act of aggression, and therefore a war crime – of which the British government should be very wary. (Guardian)
Bush and Saddam Should Both Stand Trial, Says Nuremberg Prosecutor (August 25, 2006) (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/law/2006/0825bushstandtrial.htm)
A prosecutor of Nazi war crimes at Nuremberg, Benjamin Ferenccz, believes US President George W. Bush’s aggressive war in Iraq constitutes a “supreme international crime” capable of prosecution in an international court. Claiming that the atrocities of the Iraq war were “highly predictable," Ferenccz points to the UN Charter, which unequivocally states that no nation can use armed force without UN Security Council permission. He convincingly argues that, due to his invasion of Iraq and the subsequent acts of the US military, Bush should face charges for war crimes along with Saddam Hussein. (OneWorld)
Iraqi Leaders Question US Troops' Immunity (July 6, 2006) (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/law/2006/0706immunity.htm)
Iraqi leaders have called for a review of the US-implemented law that prevents prosecution of coalition forces in Iraqi courts. Following reports of several alleged atrocities by US troops against Iraqi civilians, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said that immunity from prosecution encourages members of coalition forces to “commit such crimes in cold blood.” This Washington Post article concludes that challenges to the immunity order could widen a rift between US and Iraqi authorities.
UN Security Council Should Ensure Full Accountability for Multinational Force Abuses (June 14, 2006) (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/unrole/2006/0614amnesty.htm)
In a statement ahead of a Council meeting reviewing the mandate of the Multinational Force (MNF), Amnesty International USA calls on the UN Security Council and the Iraqi government to hold to account “those who commit crimes under international law in Iraq, including members of the US-led MNF.” Amnesty demands that the Council not extend the immunity from legal proceedings for abuses by the MNF or their contractors and concludes that “the Iraqi criminal justice system should be able to exercise jurisdiction over any crime committed in Iraq.”
Iraq Tells UN it Wants Multinational Force to Stay (June 13, 2006) (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/unrole/2006/0613mnfstay.htm)
Iraq’s Foreign Minister Hoshiyar Zebari has formally notified the UN Security Council that it wants the US-led multinational force (MNF) to remain in place. Resolution 1637 said the Council would terminate the MNF’s mandate at the request of Iraq's government. The letter's (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/document/2006/0609zebariletter.htm) release coincided with a five-hour visit to Baghdad by US President George W. Bush. (Reuters)
Letter from the Permanent Representative of Iraq to the United Nations Addressed to the President of the Security Council (June 9, 2006) (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/document/2006/0609zebariletter.htm)
Iraqi Minister for Foreign Affairs Hoshyar Zebari has requested that the Security Council extend the mandate of the Multinational Force (MNF) in Iraq, due for review in June. In a letter addressed to the President of the Council, Zebari thanked the MNF for its assistance in “providing security and stability in Iraq.” Under Resolution 1637 (2005), the Council can terminate the force’s mandate at any time if Iraq’s government asks it to do so. In addition, Zebari welcomed the continuation of the current arrangements for the Development Fund for Iraq and the International Advisory and Monitoring Boards.
NGO Letter to the Security Council (May 19, 2006) (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/unrole/2006/0519iraqletter.htm)
A group of 27 NGOs points out that the US-led Multinational Force (MNF) in Iraq has seriously violated international law, including bans on the use of torture, illegal detentions, siege tactics against population centers, and “indiscriminate and especially injurious” weapons. Furthermore, the MNF is responsible for failing to address patterns of corruption and mismanagement in Iraq’s development fund and reconstruction programs. Citing numerous official reports and legal texts, the letter urges Council members to “substantially reconsider, revise or terminate” the MNF’s mandate to bring it into conformity with international law. (Global Policy Forum)
A Safer Weapon, With Risks (May 18, 2006) (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/consequences/2006/0518laser.htm)
The US military has developed a laser weapon device for use in Iraq that temporarily blinds oncoming drivers approaching military checkpoints. The device, which can be attached to an M-4 rifle, was designed to allow soldiers to “dazzle” rather than fire at drivers who fail to stop. Though the military designed the device to reduce death and injury, human rights groups have criticized laser weapons, calling them cruel, unusual and illegal under Protocol IV of the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects. (Los Angeles Times)
NGO Letter to the Security Council on Iraq (March 14, 2006) (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/unrole/2006/0314letter.htm)
On the eve of the Security Council’s quarterly discussion on the situation in Iraq, a group of NGOs has written the Council to voice their concern. Several disturbing reports have been released by Secretary General Kofi Annan, the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI), and human rights organizations. These reports have highlighted significant violations of international human rights and humanitarian law, especially in the area of detention practices. In response, the NGOs ask the Council to break its pattern of pro forma review, “accept its responsibility” and “substantially review the mandate it has given to the MNF.”
Tortured Logic (February 28, 2006) (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/torture/2006/0228logic.htm)
According to former US Army interrogator Anthony Lagouranis, mid- and low-level officials have shouldered all responsibility for prison abuse in Iraq, despite signals from high level officials justifying the use of torture. Interrogators routinely use dogs, hypothermia, and other “enhancements” while interrogating prisoners, despite clear violations of international law. Colonel Thomas Pappas, the top intelligence officer at Abu Ghraib, admitted authorizing such techniques without regard for the Geneva Conventions. Though US President George Bush has signed legislation banning torture, he asserts the right to interpret the legislation "in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the president" as justification for the continued use of torture. (New York Times)
Former UN Human Rights Chief in Iraq Says US Violating Geneva Conventions, Jailing Innocent Detainees (February 28, 2006) (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/torture/2006/0228johnpace.htm)
In this interview, former United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI) human rights chief John Pace discusses sectarian violence, US military operations, and the legality of the war. According to Pace, ongoing US military operations have led to widespread civilian displacement and destruction, and along with the rise in sectarian militias contribute most to instability in Iraq. Furthermore, US detentions violate the Geneva Conventions and as many as 90 percent of all Iraqi prisoners are innocent. “Normalization,” Pace says, cannot go forward in Iraq so long as the US military occupation remains. (Democracy Now!)
Ocampo Turns Down Iraq Case: Implications for the US (February 2006) (http://www.globalpolicy.org/intljustice/icc/2006/02ocampo.htm)
International Criminal Court Prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo announced that his office will not investigate war crimes committed in Iraq by coalition forces. The Bush administration has staunchly opposed the ICC claiming it will “unfairly target” US military personnel. Ocampo’s decision gives evidence of the court's impartiality. (Citizens for Global Solutions)
Blair in Secret Plot with Bush to Dupe UN (January 29, 2006) (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/justify/2006/0129dupe.htm)
Leaked White House documents reveal that UK Prime Minister Tony Blair and US President George Bush planned to invade Iraq regardless of whether or not they won UN approval. Though Blair has asserted that the final decision to invade was made only twenty-four hours before the war began, the leaked documents from a high-level meeting between Bush and Blair indicate that the decision was made before the Security Council discussed - but never adopted - a second resolution authorizing war against Iraq. (Mail on Sunday)
Accession through the Backdoor (January 2006) (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/consequences/2006/01wto.htm)
When bullying fails, the US uses military force to further its trade agenda. On February 11, 2004, less than a year after the US invasion, Iraq was granted observer status at the World Trade Organization (WTO) while under the rule of Paul Bremer’s Coalition Provisional Authority. Though not yet a WTO member, Iraq has steadily progressed in the secretive process of WTO accession thanks to heavy US prodding. UK Attorney General Lord Peter Goldsmith has warned that structural economic reforms, as imposed by the US occupation and required for WTO membership, “would not be authorized under international law.” (Focus on the Global South)
Willy Peter (January 2006) (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/fallujah/2006/01willypeter.htm)
This article examines the US military’s use of white phosphorus, an incendiary weapon commonly known as “Willy Peter,” in the November 2004 attacks on Fallujah. Though white phosphorous munitions are banned under the 1980 Geneva Convention on Biological and Chemical Weapons, the US has not signed the agreement and instead classifies white phosphorous as a “psychological” weapon. As ZMag points out, there is nothing psychological about a weapon that melts skin to the bone while damaging the nervous system and blocking the circulation of blood.
See Archived Articles (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/arclawindex.htm)

<hr> Back to the Main Iraq Index (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/irqindx.htm)
More Information on International Justice (http://www.globalpolicy.org/wldcourt/index.htm)

Naturist Mark

03-07-2008, 08:21 AM

Thank you for agreeing with me, Mark. But I never said those places are being occupied, I just ment that their occupations were successes.

LOL, in that case I suppose the British/Canadian occupation of America also counts as a success!

(is the 'occupation' question supposed to represent Obama or Clinton? it seems unclear to me)

nacktman

03-07-2008, 08:31 AM

LOL, in that case I suppose the British/Canadian occupation of America also counts as a success!

(is the 'occupation' question supposed to represent Obama or Clinton? it seems unclear to me)

:applause:
Damned unclear to me as well?!

Naturist Mark

03-07-2008, 08:31 AM

From wikipedia:

Invasion of Grenada

Date October 25, 1983 - December 15, 1983
Location Grenada
Result Decisive U.S.-led victory
Communist regime toppled

On March 13, 1979 the New Jewel Movement under Maurice Bishop launched a revolution against the government of Eric Gairy to establish a people's provisional government. The government suspended the constitution and began to rule by decree. All other political parties were banned and no elections were ever held. Internationally, the government quickly aligned itself with Cuba and other communist governments. Under Bishop, Grenada began a military build-up.

The invading forces encountered about 1,500 Grenadian soldiers and about 700 Cubans, most of whom were construction workers. Also present were 60 advisors from the Soviet Union, North Korea, East Germany, Bulgaria, and Libya.

Yet the NJM did not establish a communist system in Grenada, it was just another military dictatorship, virtually indistinguishable from the military dictatorships our government supported in the region with the exception of from whom they received aid.

The NJM did aspire to create a communist utopia - in the distant future:
After the revolution, the NJM described itself as a Marxist Leninist Vanguard Party. The party did not consider itself to be a communist party because it did not consider that either the NJM or Grenada had reached a level of development where that was possible within their political doctrine. The NJM aspired to reach a point where a communist party could be formed and pursued policies that end. The NJM considered itself to be not ready due to the party not being led by a proletarian class and due to the low level of education in Marxist Leninist politics.

So I ask, is the non existent status of Granadine communism an Obama or Clinton topic?

Skinview

03-07-2008, 12:09 PM

LOL, in that case I suppose the British/Canadian occupation of America also counts as a success!I'm sure you have a thought here, but I don't see your point.

Skinview

03-07-2008, 12:25 PM

So I ask, is the non existent status of Granadine communism an Obama or Clinton topic?Well, you claimed that the government there wasn't communist (O or C topic??), and I was just pointing out that it is considered to have been communist, (whether or not they had implemented socialism yet). If the government was headed by avowed communists allied to Cuba, then it was communist. If you want to call it something else because they hadn't gotten around to squashing their free market yet, then I don't think there is much more to be said.

Is

International Law Aspects of the Iraq War and Occupation

a Clinton or Obama topic???

usmc1

03-07-2008, 12:29 PM

I'm sure you have a thought here, but I don't see your point.

Were you acquainted with history, or even if you knew a "native" American, you would see Mark's succinct and excellent point and how it utterly derails and holds up to ridicule your "occupation" quarrels.

I'll tell you what, I wouldn't want to play chess with that old boy. He's subtle.

KirkOntario

03-07-2008, 12:29 PM

Well, you claimed that the government there wasn't communist (O or C topic??), and I was just pointing out that it is considered to have been communist, (whether or not they had implemented socialism yet). If the government was headed by avowed communists allied to Cuba, then it was communist. If you want to call it something else because they hadn't gotten around to squashing their free market yet, then I don't think there is much more to be said.

Good post.
Leftwing thugs conceal their intentions until established while naive Western liberals defend them tooth and nail and when they reveal themselves as Soviet bloc murderous dictators the same naive Western liberals then bash the US has having 'driven' them to dictatorship and hardcore thug communism.

usmc1

03-07-2008, 12:31 PM

Good post.
Leftwing thugs conceal their intentions until established while naive Western liberals defend them tooth and nail and when they reveal themselves as Soviet bloc murderous dictators the same naive Western liberals then bash the US has having 'driven' them to dictatorship and hardcore thug communism.

Gee, this is the guy lamenting name-calling earlier today. Keep it up, you're hell bent on proving us right.

KirkOntario

03-07-2008, 12:36 PM

Gee, this is the guy lamenting name-calling earlier today. Keep it up, you're hell bent on proving us right.

Sorry, I never called you a name. I am free to criticize Democrats, Republicans, leftwingers, rightwingers. I'm not free to enage in personal attacks on other participants in this forum.

You seem to feel free to bash 'neocons', 'Republicans' and 'smirking chimps.' You do so repeatedly in thousands of posts and year after year.

Go ahead. Just don't call other forum members 'idiots' or other names. That's the rule here. Let's all abide by it. I'm sure you are a fine person. I disagree with your politics.

usmc1

03-07-2008, 01:01 PM

Sorry, I never called you a name. I am free to criticize Democrats, Republicans, leftwingers, rightwingers. I'm not free to enage in personal attacks on other participants in this forum.

You seem to feel free to bash 'neocons', 'Republicans' and 'smirking chimps.' You do so repeatedly in thousands of posts and year after year.

Go ahead. Just don't call other forum members 'idiots' or other names. That's the rule here. Let's all abide by it. I'm sure you are a fine person. I disagree with your politics.

Oh, I get it. Harsh rhetoric is bad if I or someone else does it , but you're exempt because you're directing it at someone who won't see it. The rhetoric itself isn't the problem then? It's just who is using it and who it is directed toward!

Just like Skinview's point, which you've supported, that advocating gun violence and the murder of a historical figure is ok since you can't actually commit the murder. The advocacy of gun violence and murder itself is not the problem, with you, I take it.

Keep it up, you're hell bent on proving people right about you.

KirkOntario

03-07-2008, 01:04 PM

I dont' claim any exemption from the rules of this forum. Attacking other participants of this forum is not permitted. Skinview may have been over the top and 'harsh'. He can do that. So can you. He didn't attack anyone personally who is on this forum when he made that post. He didn't break any rule.

KirkOntario

03-13-2008, 01:51 PM

Naturist Mark

03-13-2008, 03:34 PM

So much for being postive. Obama's Reverend, in a church called upon God to Damn America. "God damn America." Shocking.

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/03/13/video-jeremiah-wright-and-god-damn-america/

The Rev. Wright is a good friend of Barack's, and the source of some of his best lines, like The Audacity of Hope, but that doesn't mean that Rev. Wright speaks for Barack or that Barack supports everything Wright has ever said, indeed if you read Obama's two books, you'll see where he often has divergent views. If you are going down that road, Saint McCain is in a heap o trouble once you scrutinize some of the slimeballs he's been cozying up to. I'll take a good man like Wright any day.

By the way. Rev. Wright did NOT call upon God to damn America, he was describing what, in his reading if the Bible, God's response would be to the crimes being committed by the Bush Administration - apparently God doesn't respond to criminal acts with blessings upon the thieves, persecutors and war makers.

-Mark

KirkOntario

03-13-2008, 03:37 PM

Yes, he's telling us that a just God would punish America. What a great American. And Obama sits in that church. Obama also has this man as his spiritual leader.

No wonder his wife has never been proud of her country.

Boreas

03-13-2008, 03:58 PM

By the way. Rev. Wright did NOT call upon God to damn America, he was describing what, in his reading if the Bible, God's response would be to the crimes being committed by the Bush Administration - apparently God doesn't respond to criminal acts with blessings upon the thieves, persecutors and war makers.

That is how I read it too. He was condemning the Bush administration and said that God would punish that. I would argue that he is suggesting that there is a better and more Christian way to operate.

I think he is a fine American.....one who wants far better for his country. A subtlety that can get lost on some.

G I Joe

03-13-2008, 04:15 PM

Neither. Unfortunately, I usually find myself voting against one more than for someone. This time is a washout for me. I'm not for ANY of them!

KirkOntario

03-14-2008, 11:57 AM

This story of Obama's wacky spiritual mentor is starting to grow, try as many media outlets do to ignore it. This calls into question a great deal about Obama's capacity for judgment. I'm shocked any rational man would allow his children to listen to such a person...

The Democrats really know how to pick 'em (not that Republicans are much better)!

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120545277093135111.html?mod=opinion_main_comment aries

In a sermon delivered at Howard University, Barack Obama's longtime minister, friend and adviser blamed America for starting the AIDS virus, training professional killers, importing drugs and creating a racist society that would never elect a black candidate president.

Mr. Wright thundered on: "America is still the No. 1 killer in the world. . . . We are deeply involved in the importing of drugs, the exporting of guns, and the training of professional killers . . . We bombed Cambodia, Iraq and Nicaragua, killing women and children while trying to get public opinion turned against Castro and Ghadhafi . . . We put [Nelson] Mandela in prison and supported apartheid the whole 27 years he was there. We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God."

"Considering this view of America, it's not surprising that in December Mr. Wright's church gave an award to Louis Farrakhan for lifetime achievement. "

Boreas

03-14-2008, 12:47 PM

In a sermon delivered at Howard University, Barack Obama's longtime minister, friend and adviser blamed America for starting the AIDS virus, training professional killers, importing drugs and creating a racist society that would never elect a black candidate president.

You mean he is wrong in these allegations?

I would think a good candidate would want to fix some of this.

MoonShadow

03-14-2008, 01:23 PM

Oh gracious, another holy roller getting his political kicks in!

Nothing is beyond the political agendas

KirkOntario

03-14-2008, 02:02 PM

Right and had Mr Obama been a Republican we've had every news organization going doing a story on the pernicious influence of Christianity over party politics in America.

nacktman

03-14-2008, 02:10 PM

Originally posted by Boreas: ... A subtlety that can get lost on some.

True, so true.:disappointed:

Of course the subtlety of a 2 x 4 smashed across the bridge of their nose escapes them as well.:sneaky:;)

Qikdraw

03-14-2008, 08:28 PM

Media Hold McCain, Obama to Different Standards

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3316

Media coverage of the presidential campaign has lately been dominated by discussions of videotaped comments made by Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama's pastor at the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. Pundits and reporters are questioning to what lengths Obama must go to distance himself from some of Wright's more controversial remarks. This is not the first time that the press has devoted significant time to raising questions about Obama's associations or connections with various public figures, but it is something the press seems far less interested in doing with John McCain.

One example is Chicago real-estate developer Tony Rezko, now on trial for bribery charges. Referring to Rezko, conservative columnist Robert Novak reported on March 3 that "Sen. Hillary Clinton's operatives have tried frantically, but not effectively, to interest U.S. news media outside Chicago in Obama's possible connection with his home state's latest major scandal." But if media aren't interested in Senator Obama's relationship to Rezko, one would hate to see what interest would look like.

A search of U.S. newspapers and wires in the Nexis news database turned up 946 stories containing "Obama" and "Rezko" between January 1 and March 14, 2008. This in a matter where, as blogger Glenn Greenwald pointed out (Salon, 3/5/08), not only is there "no credible evidence of any wrongdoing on the part of Obama...there aren't even any theoretical allegations or suggestions as to what he might have done wrong at all."With Obama, simply being connected to a person with what Time columnist Joe Klein called (3/6/08) a "suspicious visage" (is that code for "Syrian-born"?) merits being mentioned over and over again.

By contrast, when Republican presidential candidate John McCain was accused of doing political favors for a lobbyist, Vicki Iseman (New York Times, 2/21/08), the controversy generated only 352 stories in the same Nexis file over the same time period--and many of these stories focused on criticism of the New York Times for invading McCain's private life.

Likewise, both Obama and McCain have been endorsed by religious figures with a history of intolerant statements--Obama by Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, who called Judaism a "gutter religion," and McCain by John Hagee, who has called Roman Catholicism a "false cult system," an "apostate church" and a "great *****." Hagee has also stated (NPR Fresh Air, 9/18/06) that the Quran mandates Muslims to kill Christians and Jews, and has blamed Hurricane Katrina on a New Orleans gay pride parade. So far this year, U.S. media have found Farrakhan's Obama endorsement much more interesting than Hagee's McCain endorsement: The Nexis file had 478 stories on Obama and Farrakhan, 123 on McCain and Hagee.

Obama was grilled over the issue by MSNBC moderator Tim Russert at the February 26 Democratic debate, even after the senator stated that he denounced Farrakhan's anti-Semitic comments as "unacceptable and reprehensible," "did not solicit this support" and gave assurances that his campaign was "not doing anything, formally or informally, with Minister Farrakhan." In response to Obama's clear denunciation of Farrakhan, Russert nevertheless pressed on, reiterating Farrakhan's anti-Semitic comments and asking whether Obama was "in any way suggesting that Farrakhan epitomizes greatness." Only after Obama declared "if the word 'reject'... is stronger than the word 'denounce,' then I'm happy to concede the point, and I would reject and denounce," did Russert drop the issue. Even then, MSNBC either aired or discussed the exchange at least nine different times occasions the day after the debate (Media Matters, 2/28/08).

Other media pundits showed great interest in exactly how Obama distanced himself from Farrakhan. The distinction between "denunciation" and "rejection" was taken up that weekend in the New York Times (3/2/08). The L.A. Times (2/27/08) referred to Obama as having "hedged about whether he would reject his support." The exchange was dubbed Obama's "worst moment" of the February 26 debate (Newsday, 3/3/08). And according to Joe Klein (Time, 3/6/08), Obama's repeated denunciations of Farrakhan's anti-Semitism constituted unacceptable "political word games" the candidate allegedly "played before rejecting the support of the bigot Louis Farrakhan."

On the other hand, McCain actively solicited Hagee's support, and did not initially repudiate Hagee's intolerant remarks. On February 29, McCain stated that Hagee "supports what I stand for and believe in." He added that he was "proud" of Hagee's spiritual leadership. Yet the media response to McCain's enthusiastic embrace of Hagee's endorsement was considerably more favorable than it had been in the case of Obama's repudiation of Farrakhan's endorsement. A brief Washington Post news article (2/28/08) about the endorsement failed to note that Hagee was even a controversial figure, merely noting that "Hagee's endorsement could be of particular help to McCain in Texas, where the Arizona senator will face former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee on Tuesday."

The comparability of the two controversial endorsements was acknowledged in some media reports. CNN host Wolf Blitzer (3/2/08) asked the obvious question when he stated, "Should John McCain repudiate and reject the comments, the support from John Hagee, just as Barack Obama has done that with the Rev. Louis Farrakhan?" Yet for most of the media, the answer seemed to be no.

In contrast to Farrakhan's endorsement of Obama's campaign, the endorsement of McCain by a religious figure with a history of intolerant statements was framed as a matter of complex political strategy, rather than a moral outrage. As NPR's Scott Horsley put it (Morning Edition, 3/1/08), the endorsement was a "mixed blessing": "The episode underscores the fine line McCain is walking as he tries to reach out to social conservatives without losing the moderates and independent voters who fueled his campaign so far."

CNN news correspondent Brian Todd introduced a segment (3/1/08) about the Hagee endorsement by saying, "On the surface, it seemed like a much-needed conservative endorsement for John McCain." Commenting on McCain's initial failure to reject Hagee's endorsement, Todd continued, "Analysts say that may not move the ball far enough with Catholic voters in key states like Pennsylvania and Ohio." CNN's Bill Schneider commented that "if John McCain is saying or accepting an endorsement that is offensive to Catholics and doesn't repudiate it, he risks alienating a crucial swing group."

Meanwhile, CNN commentator Bill Bennett (3/3/08) urged McCain to "denounce the statements that deserve denunciation. But, understand, the guy's career and his work and his ministry has done a lot of good." This is not an approach pundits urged Obama to take with respect to Farrakhan.

When McCain finally responded (3/7/08) to the pressure from Catholic groups by saying (Boston Globe, 3/8/08) that he "categorically reject[ed] and repudiate[d] any statement that was made that was anti-Catholic"--without saying that he regretted soliciting Hagee's support--the issue of Hagee's endorsement was more or less dropped by the media, in a way that Obama's alleged initial "equivocation" was not. Unlike Obama, McCain was allowed to denounce his endorser's comments and not reject his support.

As Deborah Douglas wrote (Chicago Sun Times, 2/29/08), this double standard is part of a long-standing pattern that posits "the renunciation of Farrakhan as a litmus test for black leaders." Indeed, the media's calls for Obama to dissociate himself from Farrakhan began even before the controversial minister endorsed the candidate. In a January 15 column headlined "Obama's Farrakhan Test," Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen was already talking about Obama's "obligation to speak out" on Farrakhan.

But media's inclination to hold Obama to a different standard from McCain seems to cut across many issue areas. Obama was criticized for supposedly going back on a pledge to accept public financing for his campaign, even though what he had actually promised to do if he became the nominee (which he so far is not) was negotiate an agreement to accept public financing with his Republican opponent--an agreement that would take into account the possibility of outside spending on the race. The L.A. Times inaccurately reported (2/27/08) that Obama "agreed last year to accept public financing--and the attendant spending limits," but now "seem[ed] to be waffling."

In contrast, McCain, who actually had accepted public financing for his primary campaign before deciding that he would be better off with unlimited fundraising, has gotten little criticism for this questionably legal maneuver (Washington Wire, 2/26/08). A New York Times story (2/28/08) seemed to acknowledge that Obama was getting more criticism on this issue than McCain was. In an attempt at an explanation, reporter David D. Kirkpatrick explained, "The issue may be more sensitive for Mr. Obama, though, because [he] has run in part on his record as an advocate of stricter government integrity rules, including the public financing system."

It would surely be difficult for the New York Times to explain why it feels that John McCain is not running in part on his reputation as a campaign-finance reformer. But perhaps it would be harder to admit that the corporate media just has a bias for McCain.

Naturist Mark

03-14-2008, 10:06 PM

Right and had Mr Obama been a Republican we've had every news organization going doing a story on the pernicious influence of Christianity over party politics in America.

LOL, just like they AREN'T following the stories of the two radical reverends that McCain has enthusiastically courted for endorsements?

Meet Rev. Hagee: (http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977283463)

John McCain stated recently he was "proud to have the endorsement of Pastor John Hagee."

Who is Rev. John Hagee? He is the pastor who said that Hurricane Katrina was punishment from God because "New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God and they were recipients of the judgment of God for that."

Then there is his position that "All Muslims are programmed to kill and we can thus never negotiate with any of them. " (NPR interview with Terry Gross)

Or how about his "slave sale" where he announced that participants should "make plans to come and go home with a slave." (San Antonio Express-News 3/7/96)

Hagee has also come under fire for his anti-Catholic remarks, calling the Catholic Church "the great whoar of Babylon".

One of John Hagee's most disturbing beliefs is that The End Times -- Rapture -- is imminent and "the U.S. Government must do what it can to hasten it."

Meet Rev. Parsley: (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/03/13/mccains-other-crazed-evangelist-ally/)

Senator John McCain hailed as a spiritual adviser an Ohio megachurch pastor Rod Parsley who has called upon Christians to wage a “war” against the “false religion” of Islam with the aim of destroying it.

McCain, with Parsley by his side at the Cincinnati rally, called the evangelical minister a “spiritual guide.”

The leader of a 12,000-member congregation, Parsley has written several books outlining his fundamentalist religious outlook, including the 2005 Silent No More. In this work, Parsley decries the “spiritual desperation” of the United States, and he blasts away at the usual suspects: activist judges, civil libertarians who advocate the separation of church and state, the homosexual “culture” (”homosexuals are anything but happy and carefree”), the “abortion industry,” and the crass and profane entertainment industry. And Parsley targets another profound threat to the United States: the religion of Islam.

"The fact is that America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed, and I believe September 11, 2001, was a generational call to arms that we can no longer ignore."

Parsley isn’t a one-trick pony — sure, he hates Muslims, but his bread and butter includes attacks on gays, abortion, the federal judiciary, and civil libertarians. Best of all, his rhetoric frequently includes what sounds like appeals to violence, telling his followers, “I came to incite a riot! Man your battle stations. Ready your weapons.” (One wants to assume he’s speaking metaphorically, but it’s not entirely clear.)

Tell me, why aren't McCain and these two nut jobs as great a media obsession as Obama and Rev. Wright? Could it be that the so called 'liberal' media gives Republicans in general and McCain in particular a pass while piling on Democrats?

-Mark

usmc1

03-15-2008, 05:28 AM

Rev. Wright is off the campaign. Compare how quickly Obama moved to distance himself from Wright's remarks to how long Clinton allowed
Ferrero's comments to stand without action.

KirkOntario

03-15-2008, 05:52 AM

Tell me, why aren't McCain and these two nut jobs as great a media obsession as Obama and Rev. Wright? Could it be that the so called 'liberal' media gives Republicans in general and McCain in particular a pass while piling on Democrats?

-Mark

Because these men are not McCain's personal spiritual leaders. They just happened to endorse him and he thanked them for it. Wright inspired the title of Obama's book and he's been associated with him for a very long time. This is the man who on a weekly basis either influences and inspires a possible future President's mind or he reflects Obama's views. In either case it is downright scary. This man is a hatefillled racist. Obama has written about how when he was younger he hated white people. Does he still hate white people? Wright raises that question.

It matters not that he resigned from the campaign. The question is....what sort of judgment does this man have who had him on his committee in the first place?

The MessiahObama appears to be a fraud.

usmc1

03-15-2008, 06:03 AM

Because these men are not McCain's personal spiritual leaders. They just happened to endorse him and he thanked them for it. Wright inspired the title of Obama's book and he's been associated with him for a very long time. This is the man who on a weekly basis either influences and inspires a possible future President's mind or he reflects Obama's views. In either case it is downright scary. This man is a hatefillled racist. Obama has written about how when he was younger he hated white people. Does he still hate white people? Wright raises that question.

The MessiahObama appears to be a fraud.

Wrongo bongo, Does he still hate white people? Wright raises that question. Wright does not raise that question, you're raising the question

But, the answer to your "leading" question (which by the way is a very poorly framed nonsequitor) is no!, since Wright is now off the campaign!

KirkOntario

03-15-2008, 06:21 AM

Wrongo bongo. (See, I've taken to the local vernacular). Doesn't matter that Wright is off the campaign. This is Obama's spiritual mentor. What his spiritual mentor has to say is very very important.

nacktman

03-15-2008, 06:47 AM

I see the dogmatics are still obsessed and confused.

KirkOntario

03-15-2008, 06:49 AM

Just address the point Nachtman instead of providing personal attacks on members of the forum you don't agree with.

nacktman

03-15-2008, 07:10 AM

Just address the point NachtmanI am addressing the point.
And my statement was not directed at anyone in particular, either.
But as the saying goes - Guilty dogs ...

Also, it would behoove you to learn to spell.
(Now, that statement is directed to you.)

Boreas

03-15-2008, 08:35 AM

The issue of Obama hating white people when he was young is moot. It is common among people of colour to dislike white people at certain points in their lives. They often have had good reason as well. Also, Obama lives somewhere that has had racial issues for some time. I think things are improving. Never-the-less, the idea that a person of one race would hate a person of another in the US, is not exactly a totally rare thing. It is even likely to happen in Canada.shocked

Of course, I would expect that a man who is running for president would have dealt with that by now and would have gotten over it.

KirkOntario

03-15-2008, 10:00 AM

Strom Thurmond could have run for President in your estimation then?

KirkOntario

03-15-2008, 10:24 AM

This guy is vulnerable in a general election. He can't handle tough questions. (He only learns about what his close spiritual leader and advisor believes by watching Fox???)

Very interesting indeed. Maybe Democrats are having second thoughts and maybe Hillary and Bil and their supporters can buy enough votes to keep this guy from winning the nomination.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uT-z9q6E_3k&eurl=http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/

Looks like support for Obama is taking a nose-dive!!

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

usmc1

03-15-2008, 02:29 PM

Wrongo bongo. (See, I've taken to the local vernacular). Doesn't matter that Wright is off the campaign. This is Obama's spiritual mentor. What his spiritual mentor has to say is very very important.

Only to you and your fellow travelers.

KirkOntario

03-15-2008, 02:35 PM

And CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc etc etc

Naturist Mark

03-15-2008, 02:42 PM

This man (Wright) is a hatefillled racist.

Bull'crap'

This so called 'hatefilled racist' was the pastor of a huge multi-racial church, which although predominantly black has many members who are white and other races, they are families, singles and gay (the UCC is one of the few mainline denominations that enthusiastically welcome all races, men and women and straight and gay into their congregations and into their pastorate). One of Dr. Wright's associate pastors is a white woman.

From a 'Fox' (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,256078,00.html) interview with Sean Hannity and Alan Colmes (later edited out of a hit piece on Dr. Wright by Hannity):Alan Colmes: I want the public to understand where your church is coming from, because you're being accused of being a black separatist church, and thus Obama is being accused by default of being a black separatist. Can you straighten that out for us, please?

Wright: OK. The African-centered point of view does not assume superiority, nor does it assume separatism. It assumes Africans speaking for themselves as subjects in history, not objects in history.

You might want to read what some people who know Dr. Wright have to say rather than what Fox's 'experts' opine without (and despite) the evidence.

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070402/26665_Keeping_the_Faith_at_Trinity_United_Church_o f_Christ.htm

http://www.zimbio.com/Jeremiah+Wright+Jr/articles/31/truth+Barack+Obama+church

You might also want to check out FactCheck.org: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_obama.html

And the UCC talking points: http://www.religionnews.com/weblogs/religionblog/2008/01/talk-about-talking-points-memo.html

Now you can easily cherry pick out of context statements, but the people who know him say that Dr. Wright is not anti white, yellow, red, or brown, nor hatefilled.

Of course in the last few months Obama has publicly repudiated (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barack-obama/on-my-faith-and-my-church_b_91623.html) some of Dr. Wright's statements as not representative of his own views. Barack recently wrote: While Rev. Wright's statements have pained and angered me, I believe that Americans will judge me not on the basis of what someone else said, but on the basis of who I am and what I believe in; on my values, judgment and experience to be President of the United States.

So far the howls of the rights and their lackeys in the mainstream media are bent on proving Obama wrong.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_7piGy0u43c&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_7piGy0u43c&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object> <object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/lk3Rra3CgMA&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/lk3Rra3CgMA&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

-Mark

KirkOntario

03-15-2008, 03:14 PM

Now you can easily cherry pick out of context statements, but the people who know him say that Dr. Wright is not anti white, yellow, red, or brown, nor hatefilled.

-Mark

Sorry Mark. This is not cherry picking. These are outrageous hate-filled statements and it defies belief to believe Obama has not heard this man say similar things in private conversation. One can only imagine what Wright says in private when he is prepared to say these sorts of things in public.

Reasonable people (not the partisans of this board) will ask themselves how a man who claims he should be elected --despite of his inexperience-- because of his good judgment could have the eminently BAD judgment to associate himself and with this spiritual mentor and "Uncle" when the man has said....that whites supply drugs to black people to oppress them, that America deserved the 9/11 attacks, that calls upon God to 'damn America'.

Why on earth would this man of hate be on Obama's advisory committee?

His entire claim to the mantle of power is based on two things.

1. A claim to be bi-partisan (but he associates himself with radical partisans)
2 More importantly, to have good judgment where he lacks experience. (and this calls that into question)

Naturist Mark

03-15-2008, 06:42 PM

Sorry Mark. This is not cherry picking. These are outrageous hate-filled statements

On the contrary, that is EXACTLY what it is. Cherry picked, and out of context.

The 'God damn America' remark that has so delightfully enflamed those who wish to be enflamed was not at all what it being implied.

A DailyKos diarist examines those statements in context:

Rev. Wright's Sermon Dissected (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/14/105920/107)

That clip from Rev. Wright's Sermon was a barn burner! Whoo!

Why is he so angry? And how dare he say 'God damn America'?

In this diary, I intend to examine each and every one of his claims from the clip to see if anything he said makes any sens at all.

First let's examine the first claim.

Rev. Wright: "They give us the drugs."

Unfortunately, that is a true and well documented statement. Anyone old enough to remember the Iran Contra hearings will remember that the illegal operation was financed by the CIA through the sale of crack cocaine. As the dailykos community has debated the injustice of disparate sentencing guidelines, most of us are aware that black and latino communities were targeted to receive the crack and suffered devestating effects because of it. Worse still, many of the evil geniuses who brought us Iran Contra have been prominently featured in George Bush's government where they have presided over rendition, torture, murder and all the other skills they picked up in the 1980s.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/bbt9PsaSUiI&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/bbt9PsaSUiI&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Rev. Wright: "They built bigger prisons."

Yes, the U.S. government expanded prisons and built new ones including assistance to the growing private prison industry. Only last week, I read diaries on this website expressing dismay at the rate of adult incarceration in this country. Rev. Wright is merely connecting the dots.

Rev. Wright: "Passes a three strike law."

Who can deny the truth of this? This is only one of the laws that disproportionately impacts the poor and people of color.

Rev. Wright: "...and then they want us to say, God Bless America. Naw, naw, naw...God Damn America."

Here is the thing. You don't have to be black to see and agree with Rev. Wright's case against America. In the clip he refers to South African Apartheid as state sponsored terrorism and points out the United States supported the system for years. Who here disagrees with that characterization? He has not said anything in his clip that I have not seen the mostly white bloggers here at dailykos saying for the last several years. I think most Kossacks who visited Wright's church would find themselves nodding their heads in agreement most of the time during his sermons. I know, I do.

But...even accepting the truth of the case against our country, we all have a choice to make. We can either damn America as Rev. Wright does or we can resolve to save America.

Barack Obama is just young enough to have reached the conclusion that America is worth saving. And because we can see the palpable strength of his belief in this country, many of us who are weary, are able to give the political process one more try. And new people who tune out politics are willing to get involved.

I realize that people in this country have no long term memory. But some individuals do. And to condemn a man for stating matters of public record from the pulpit is the definition of cynicism.

The diarist even soft peddled his defense of Wright's statement since he did not point out that the rest of the sentence is “No, no, no, God damn America, that’s in the Bible for killing innocent people.” Which is true, if somewhat old covenant.

Obama objects to Wrights rhetorical excesses, which is his prerogative, but from the little I've seen, and in context with what I've heard and read from people who know Dr. Wright, I don't find his statements all that troubling or even incorrect. The anger that Wright sometimes displays is at injustice. It is easy to conflate anger at racism and injustice as reverse racism and hatred of America, especially if that is what you are trying to achieve, but the proof is in the life and acts of the person who made the statements - and that person is clearly on the side of the angels.

-Mark

David77

03-15-2008, 07:03 PM

On TV news tonight it was stated that Rev. Wright was removed from Obama's advisory group and Obama indicateded that he does not agree with all statements of others around him.

Wright is a preacher in the United Church of Christ which is the most liberal protestant demonination, with a seminary in St. Louis County, Eden Seminary, not far from my home, so Wright is not a conservative. For instance, his denomination readily sanctions gay and women ministers.

I view Rev. Wright as undiplomatic in shooting off his mouth in a most detrimental way, and the church board should deal with him on this matter for him to hopefully change.

KirkOntario

03-16-2008, 02:18 AM

The 'God damn America' remark that has so delightfully enflamed those who wish to be enflamed was not at all what it being implied.

A DailyKos diarist examines those statements in context:

-Mark

Mark, 'explaining' the context based on the Daily Kooks point of view doesn't cut it with the mainstream of Americans. They don't share the hatred of America that gave rise to gloating over the burning and dismemberment of the Blackwater contractors. Remember the "Screw them" coment?

Unlike the average Daily Kook, Americans don't hate their country and they would never damn it which is why Reverend Wright's comments are so unacceptable. Suggesting they are justified is not going to work for mainstream voters and it is completely at odds with the spirit and attraction of Obama's campaign (which is this scandal will resurface in the general election...as it should).

usmc1

03-16-2008, 04:58 AM

Mark, 'explaining' the context based on the Daily Kooks point of view doesn't cut it with the mainstream of Americans. They don't share the hatred of America that gave rise to gloating over the burning and dismemberment of the Blackwater contractors. Remember the "Screw them" coment?

Unlike the average Daily Kook, Americans don't hate their country and they would never damn it which is why Reverend Wright's comments are so unacceptable. Suggesting they are justified is not going to work for mainstream voters and it is completely at odds with the spirit and attraction of Obama's campaign (which is this scandal will resurface in the general election...as it should).

So now you speak for all of mainstream America? So also claims that megalomaniac and noted dry-drunk sociopath, George W. Bush. He too is mistaken in his assumptions of for whom he speaks.

Kirk there are many Americas. There is the America of land-grant colleges where people can get low-cost educations and there is the America where kids are burdened with high-rate and burdensome student-loans. There is the America where young people are nurtured and the America where young people are cast aside. There is the America of retirement to gated communities and then there is the America of squalid studio apartments in low-end neighborhoods. There is the America of hope, trust and charity and there is the America of poverty, despair and hopelessness. There is the America of street drugs, street crimes, and jail and prison and there is the America of T-Ball, Little Leagues, FFA, chess-clubs and school bands.

Guess which of those America's the reverend was calling on God to damn?

Obama will pay no great price for the good reverend's rhetoric. The only people who will be aghast will be those already disposed against him and looking for something about him to vilify. Same old, same old.

Now if McCain would just grow a set, and repudiate the reprehensible comments of those self-anointed, self-righteous, old reprobates of the radical religious right and the hated that they vomit up periodically, we'd have something goin' on! Wouldn't we.

Mainstream America, supports Blackwater? You haven't hear how those mainstream Americans down there outside Sand Diego, near El Cajon--I think it was--joined together in a grassroots citizens protest and petition drive and legal battle to keep Blackwater from building a training facility near their community. Yep, that's how enthralled with Blackwater is mainstream America.

Croydon

03-16-2008, 05:02 AM

nacktman

03-16-2008, 05:15 AM

Gotta go with Croydon here, responding to that particular poster with other than derision, lampoon, and so forth is fruitless.
While said derision, lampoon, etc., have their moments of jocularity, even they wear thin as the moronic mewlings from that poster continue.

The poster is a Troll, pure and simple and based on previous infestations by this Troll, it has almost run its course and it will be crawling back under the rock it calls home in the fetid swamp of whatever fantasy world in inhabits shortly.

usmc1

03-16-2008, 05:18 AM

USMC1 & Naturist Mark, as interested as I am in the Obama/Clinton debates, I must ask, can you guys not respond to Kirk anymore?

I realize he just doesn't get it. I enjoy educated debates but this isn't a debate. Simply arguing with someone who just isn't bright enough to get it.

Let's move on to different topic or something else

I get your point. And while one certainly ignores things such as old uncle Harold's flatulence at the Thanksgiving dinner table, one shouldn't let stand, without response, the ill-informed, the uninformed and illogically, fact-deprived writings of this person, should they.

I mean were we to do that, innocent people parsing through these threads might come to believe that since there is no opposition that he is correct. I mean, if one does not pluck the weeds from the garden shortly they take over, don't they.

Secondly, without opposition, this person and his ilk, would gain confidence and become ever more obnoxious, wouldn't they?

I don't think, in the case of people such as he and his ilk, that ignoring them works. As I said, it just breeds their confidence and further repetition of their canards, and mis-truths. Our responses do not change him and his fellow travelers at all. But, perhaps they let others know how wrong are he his ilk.

At the very least, it informs him that there are those who see through him. One doesn't ignore bullies---one meets them head on in the only terms they understand.

But, I take your point, and to some extent agree. It's just that I don't think it would be effective with this person.

KirkOntario

03-16-2008, 05:24 AM

nacktman

03-16-2008, 05:40 AM

KirkOntario

03-16-2008, 06:45 AM

Croydon

03-16-2008, 06:50 AM

Stop engaging in personal attacks. If you wish to dispute the point, dispute the point. Arguing your opponent isn't 'bright' is not an argument and it violate the TOS of this forum.

Arguing implies that I am debating with someone if you are bright or not. I am not debating with anyone or pleading my case. I am just saying it.

KirkOntario

03-16-2008, 07:05 AM

Stating that your opponent 'isn't bright' is a personal attack. It is not an argument and it is not civil and therefore violates the TOS of this forum.

Boreas

03-16-2008, 07:20 AM

I mean were we to do that, innocent people parsing through these threads might come to believe that since there is no opposition that he is correct. I mean, if one does not pluck the weeds from the garden shortly they take over, don't they.

Speaking in generalities here, there are times where giving more fuel to the "fire" makes the individual feel more self-righteous and correct. When one side believes that they are correct and rational and that their opponent is irrational and emotional, no amount of "discourse" will help.

I pray that the US does get better leadership. I also hope that those accused of hating America because they challenge the views of the current leadership, will be heard.

EricNY

03-16-2008, 08:22 AM

EricNY

03-16-2008, 08:42 AM

This is getting very tiresome. Stop the name calling! Stop debating if we are debating or not. Let us not discuss other members mental status.

Stay on topic and be as civil as possible.

Kirk remember you are getting a second chance here. You are also choosing to engage American citizens in topics with lots of strong emotions and opinions attached. Discussing politics is a tough court for volley, and one might get bruised during the game.

Naturist Mark

03-16-2008, 09:18 AM

USMC1 & Naturist Mark, as interested as I am in the Obama/Clinton debates, I must ask, can you guys not respond to Kirk anymore?

I realize he just doesn't get it. I enjoy educated debates but this isn't a debate. Simply arguing with someone who just isn't bright enough to get it.

Ah, but that is just the point. He is plenty bright enough to get it, and plenty bright enough to obfuscate and mislead. John Kerry proved that not responding to disinformation allows too many people to accept it as truth. Even today many Americans believe the lies of the Swiftboaters, even though the mainstream media and US Navy *under the Bush administration*, eventually disproved their allegations.

What we have here is an election being set up to turn on either of two issues - racism or sexism (along with the usual fear) depending on the Democratic nominee. The Republicans are praying (and voting) for Hillary to get the nomination because they would find it much easier to run a sub-rosa sexist campaign, but they'll go racist if they need to. What we see with the highly edited videos of Rev. Wright and the attacks by association on Obama is the framing of Barack Obama as a racist - a patently absurd allegation, but a useful one that allows the inflammation of racist fears about Obama in voters who would otherwise consciously reject anti-black racist appeals.

That racist framing needs to be exposed wherever it shows its filthy fingerprints, and its framers need to be shamed - if they are capable of it - and those who would carelessly fall for it need to be educated so that they can recognize it for the racist misdirection that it is.

Kirk's carrying of water for those who are fitting a racist frame on Obama is probably not witting on his part, but he is plenty bright enough to recognize it if he wants to. To be honest I don't blame him for it, I do not believe he is wittingly abetting racism, critical thinking is a highly discouraged skill in recent decades, especially among devotees of right wing radio and its fellow travelers. But there is hope for everyone, and if not them, then for the innocent bystanders who stand within earshot of their frames.

-Mark

Naturist Mark

03-16-2008, 09:25 AM

If you wish to dispute the point, dispute the point.

For instance - disputing the analysis of the meaning of the statements in Dr. Wright's sermon because of the source "Mark, 'explaining' the context based on the Daily Kooks point of view doesn't cut it with the mainstream of Americans" and then smearing them (http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/showpost.php?p=187780&postcount=128) as anti-American rather than making any attempt to dispute the points made?

KirkOntario

03-16-2008, 09:49 AM

You attempted to defend Reverend Wright's extreme beliefs by using arguments raised in an extreme left wing website --the Daily Kos--which is arguably anti-american and often ant-semitic as well. I was correct to point out that this was not the way to go about defending Obama. The majority of American voters will simply not agree with Reverend Wrights anti-American opinions. The majority of Americans --unlike members of the left --do not believe that America is a nation ruled by unjust murderous rich white people. The majority of Americans do not believe America deserved the 9/11 attacks. The majority of Americas do not believe that the American government invented the AIDS virus to wipe out black people.

Obama himself has condemned Reverend Wright' opinions. Why do you persist in trying to defend them?

Boreas

03-16-2008, 09:55 AM

That racist framing needs to be exposed wherever it shows its filthy fingerprints, and its framers need to be shamed - if they are capable of it - and those who would carelessly fall for it need to be educated so that they can recognize it for the racist misdirection that it is.

I agree with you up to a point. I think capability of being shamed is key here. We certainly must expose racism when we can, and when we can't, we can find another way or venue.

For instance - disputing the analysis of the meaning of the statements in Dr. Wright's sermon because of the source "Mark, 'explaining' the context based on the Daily Kooks point of view doesn't cut it with the mainstream of Americans" and then smearing them (http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/showpost.php?p=187780&postcount=128) as anti-American rather than making any attempt to dispute the points made?

Thank you for exposing that discrepancy. Apparently "disputing the point" and "personal attacks" have different meanings depending upon which side of the fence you reside.

KirkOntario

03-16-2008, 10:22 AM

Last time I checked "Daily Kos" was not a registered user of this forum.

Qikdraw

03-16-2008, 10:49 AM

The majority of Americans --unlike members of the left --do not believe that America is a nation ruled by unjust murderous rich white people.

Really? Do you live in the US? Or do you just get your news from 'Fixed News' and other right wing propaganda outfits? Cause I'll tell you that a lot of people I have come across think this nation is ruled by unjust rich white people. (I took out murderous cause you just put that in there to incite)
My neighbours were staunch republicans, and I've had many good debates with them, they are going to vote democrat in the next election. The reason? Because of all the crap this administration has done with the war, the economy and all the things corporations are getting away with. They are sick and tired of it, and its not just my neighbours.

The majority of Americans do not believe America deserved the 9/11 attacks. The majority of Americas do not believe that the American government invented the AIDS virus to wipe out black people.

Quit the personal attacks. Just because you're insinuating, does not mean you're not attacking. ErcNY already said you're here on a second chance. So stop the insinuations. And just to point out what you are insinuating, because you will try and back off it...

You insinuate that everyone on the 'left' thinks that the US deserved 9/11.
You insinuate that everyone on the 'left' beleives the government created the AIDs virus.

Everyone on the 'left', means everyone who disagrees with you, specially those on this board that have the temerity to argue with you. So please stop the insinuating personal attacks.

Bye the bye... It was Jerry Fallwel who said that America deserved 9/11.

Qikdraw

KirkOntario

03-16-2008, 11:11 AM

Just as you are permitted to criticize Fox News I am permitted to criticize 'the Left,' Ted Kennedy and Democrats. Criticizing a set of ideas, politician, or an institution is not the same thing as directly attacking a registered member of this forum.

One expects a debate to be lively and fillled with accusations and colourful adjectives but the rules exist to prevent us from directly insulting one another by engaging in name calling. I have not accused any member of this forum of anything. I have criticized Daily Kos which is leftwing political website. It does not have feelings and is not directly involved here.

I have heard the nastiest comments about Bush, Republicans, Fox News, Cheney etc etc which I do not take personally. I am not one of those people or institutions and I have the ability to separate myself from criticism of those whom I have been known to support.

You should do likewise.

BTW, I'm still waiting for someone to tell me why I should people should vote for Obama. What has he accomplished? What experience does he have in administration, domestic affairs or foreign affairs? So far, I've been told he is 'over the age of 35' and thus qualified to run. Anything else in his favour?

Naturist Mark

03-16-2008, 11:23 AM

Everyone on the 'left', means everyone who disagrees with you, specially those on this board that have the temerity to argue with you. So please stop the insinuating personal attacks.

Bye the bye... It was Jerry Fallwel who said that America deserved 9/11.

To be fair, Dr. Wright DID say that 9/11 showed that “America’s chickens are coming home to roost” (echoing the words of Ward Churchill). Unlike the Reverends Falwell and Robertson he did not say that God caused 9/11 to punish America, Dr. Wright was saying that 9/11 was the blowback from decades of ill conceived US covert actions and public policy in the Middle East.

Was he wrong?

usmc1

03-16-2008, 02:36 PM

Make the argument. Stop attacking posters personally. The terms of service apply here and state "All opinions and beliefs are welcome." And "Our community exists to provide a friendly place to meet others and share the fun of nude recreation. While in the public forums, please keep things civil. "

You are free to refute any point I make or disagree with a conclusion, but you have been asked by the moderators on a number of occasions to refrain from personal attacks.

If you don't like my opinions don't read them or use the 'ignore' button.

Or, hold them up for the ridicule they deserve. Once again, there are more options available than you list. This is part of your rhetorical gamesmanship. Beg the question as though only two options are available. The red one or the blue one. Most people here are bright enough to see through that, Kirk. And, it is patronizing of you to continue to resort to that flawed rhetoric, straw men, nonsequitors and appeals to authority as though we won't notice. We do!

As in this instance, there are always more options than you cite. So, the option I choose is to read, not ignore, and proceed with ridicule, scorn and sarcasm to expose just how wrong you are and the hideous philosophical base from which you come.

And Kirk, guess what! No one here has to tell you why they support Obama. We're not accountable to you, and really owe you no explanations.

But, all that aside, were I you, I'd desist from this sniveling about TOS and name-calling, and attempts to speak as though you were a moderator. That is tediously pretentious of you.

Bob S.

03-16-2008, 03:01 PM

I want to see a more civil discussion. Do not make fun of a person, their opinions, or their political beliefs. If you want to discuss the issues, do so, but make sure you are only debating the issues and are not resorting to name calling.

Bob S.
moderator

nacktman

03-16-2008, 04:25 PM

Apparently "disputing the point" and "personal attacks" have different meanings depending upon which side of the fence you reside.

Boreas, Great minds do think alike!:cheering:

It is amazing how the wing-nuts are always only 'disputing the point' and all others are making 'personal attacks'.:confused:
Humm ... that sounds a tad like paranoia to me, but I make no diagnosis ... here.:sneaky:
(Displacement and Transference at the least.;))

The topic of this thread asked the simple question "Clinton or Obama?", and the reason(s) why one was preferred over the other.

However, the thread perverters slimed in as they are wont to do ... only 'disputing the point' mind you ... and diverted the thread to rail and spit and sputter and spew their nonsense and fabrications of whatever fantasy they are told they can have.

So, back to topic: Clinton or Obama ... and what reasons do you have for supporting one or the other?

Boreas

03-16-2008, 04:46 PM

usmc1

03-16-2008, 04:47 PM

Boreas, Great minds do think alike!:cheering:

It is amazing how the wing-nuts are always only 'disputing the point' and all others are making 'personal attacks'.:confused:
Humm ... that sounds a tad like paranoia to me, but I make no diagnosis ... here.:sneaky:
(Displacement and Transference at the least.;))

The topic of this thread asked the simple question "Clinton or Obama?", and the reason(s) why one was preferred over the other.

However, the thread perverters slimed in as they are wont to do ... only 'disputing the point' mind you ... and diverted the thread to rail and spit and sputter and spew their nonsense and fabrications of whatever fantasy they are told they can have.

So, back to topic: Clinton or Obama ... and what reasons do you have for supporting one or the other?

Well I like Senator Clinton for her ability to drive nutsy-bonkers these middle-aged, white-guy, conservatives and their church-lady counterparts. That is sufficient reason to support her. But, in all honesty, she left me standing in the rain with her Iraq Invasion vote. That, and the fact that she really is more of an Eisenhower Republican than a true liberal democrat. She is wine and cheese, and country club and chamber-of-commerce..and sold out, long ago.

I like Senator Obama because he was right about the Iraq invasion, and his background as an community activist and organizer tells me he has the street savvy, and real concern (not political opportunism) for the people and understands that you only accomplish change by educating, organizing and mobilizing people. His credentials are very strong, from serving in state government to the U.S. Senate.

The fact of the matter is that the President can only set the vision, the real test will be when one or the other is elected and we see who they staff into key posts to attempt to implement and carry out that vision.

I think both are very bright, very capable people who, present us with a very difficult decision. I would have preferred Edwards, but, he is not strong enough to "bolt" a deadlocked convention--Reagan tried that in KC, and failed, and he was much stronger than is Edwards.

So, we are left with Clinton or Obama. I prefer Obama, and am proud to be a precinct delegate for him.

nacktman

03-16-2008, 05:01 PM

That'd be usmc, Boreas.

I am leaning toward Obama although when the national convention rolls around it may still be Edwards we nominate.

I will be there as an "unaffiliated delegate" whom you may have heard referred to as a 'Super' and the Mrs., will be an 'affiliated delegate' after the primary here in North Carolina.

nacktman

03-16-2008, 05:23 PM

Was just reading the blog "Grow-A-Brain" (something a couple we could name should do, but I digress), and came across this news item that was not reported by most news outlets and especially not FauxNews.

*****

AUSTIN — Ginny McCallum, 43, who has been confined to a wheelchair for much of her adult life, came to hear presidential candidate Barack Obama speak at the University of Texas.
Afterward she found herself in a wheelchair access breezeway as Obama and his entourage exited the arena. The candidate spotted her, came over, grabbed her hand and pulled her up.
She found herself standing for the first time in eleven years (http://www.larknews.com/march_2008/print.php?page=1). "He smiled at me and said, ‘Yes, you can,’" she says. "I was so stunned I didn’t know what to do."
McCallum is among hundreds of people who say they have been healed by the Democratic candidate, in one of the most surprising and little-acknowledged aspects of his campaign. Reporters have shied away from the story, chalking it up to "Obama-mania" and people’s feelings of elation.

*****

Whether or not one 'believes' in faith-healing or just a temporary adrenalene rush allowing seemingly 'miraculous' physical "recoveries" the fact is a goodly number of people are reporting to have experienced or witnessed just such 'events' throughout the Obama campaign.

Now, we can all just sit back and wait for the knee-jerking to begin.

Boreas

03-16-2008, 05:24 PM

Qikdraw

03-16-2008, 05:33 PM

I believe I already commented about why I believe Obama might be a bit better. He seems to have a more uniting personality. He seems to be someone who has a dream and vision for the country. I think we are badly in need of that type of politician these days. It is scary how polarized it has become down there, and how the terms "liberal" or "neo-con" can be used to shut down any meaningful discourse.

Meaningful discourse was gone long ago in this country. Sadly. Its all sound bites.

My concern with Clinton is that she is linked to Bill, and that seems to be fodder for the right to attack. I also think it might be easier to attack her based on her sex than it would be to bring out the race card for Obama. We know that American politics bring out the best in mudslinging. Clinton has already been criticized for being too ambitious and such, and I doubt such criticisms would have been raised had she been male. It would also be nice to see a name other than Clinton or Bush in the White House.

If Hiallry were male he'd still be criticized for ambition. The way the campaign has been run has bee pretty pathetic. There is simply no way for her to win now unless she trys it with super delegates. If that happens and Obama still holds the lead in delegates and votes, it will tear the party apart. Hillary should step down now and allow the democratic party to concentrate on winning the presidential election. That she hasn't just shows how much her personal ambition overshadows her desire to serve the country.

I would probably happy with either Clinton or Obama in the office. I do not want to see McCain. I believe he will be a continuation of the same dogma we have seen for the past eight years. We need different dogma at least.

Yup. I hoe that is the message they take to the presidential campaign too. McCain wants nothing more than to continue Bush's failed policies. Keep pushing that and the democrats will win. The most important thing in this election is the economy, keep that topic number one, and McCain is dead. You can argue him on Iraq, but keep the economy the number one issue. Its what most Americans are worried about anyway. McCain doesn't know anything about the economy, so keep hitting him on his weak spot.

Qikdraw

nacktman

03-16-2008, 05:35 PM

I thought Edwards was out of the race. He could be a good option too.

I do like the idea of someone who is not a white male being president this time, but that is not mandatory. :) (lest I be accused of discriminating against the poor, devalued white male ;))

No, he is not 'out of the race'. He dropped out of the campaign.
The party nominee does not have to be any of the ones campaigning for it.
Granted the nominee usually is, but it is not required they be so.

I look to see some combination of Obama/Edwards or Edwards/Obama in the Whitehouse come January 2009 - Barring any total dropping of the farce and the outright declaration of the shrub as dictator ... of course should that happen it would be a true civil war and the anti-junta side of that conflict will have world wide support and aid.

Boreas

03-16-2008, 06:09 PM

If Hiallry were male he'd still be criticized for ambition. The way the campaign has been run has bee pretty pathetic. There is simply no way for her to win now unless she trys it with super delegates. If that happens and Obama still holds the lead in delegates and votes, it will tear the party apart. Hillary should step down now and allow the democratic party to concentrate on winning the presidential election. That she hasn't just shows how much her personal ambition overshadows her desire to serve the country.

I am a little concerned about that now too. It seemed like the Democrats had an easy win ahead of them. Now there seems to be more fuel for the fire, and if they don't select a candidate soon, they will crash and burn. I have noticed a difference in the atmosphere of the campaign and election race. Now McCain can just go and start his canpaign for president, while the Dems are still fighting with themselves. I hope it does not hurt them.

Bob S.

03-16-2008, 06:50 PM

I see a Clinton nomination as a way to fire up the Conservative base to vote against her. Obama isn't as disliked as Clinton and therefore won't be such a lightning rod.

McCain hasn't exactly lit up the base of the Repubs so he will need help.

"Super"nacktman:"I will be there as an "unaffiliated delegate" whom you may have heard referred to as a 'Super' and the Mrs., will be an 'affiliated delegate' after the primary here in North Carolina."

Are you a party leader? I have a basic understanding of what a Superdelegate is but I am not exactly sure how one goes about becoming one.

Bob S.

nacktman

03-16-2008, 07:39 PM

Are you a party leader?

I've been a leader at every party I have ever been to!:laugh:;)

nacktman

03-16-2008, 08:13 PM

Another point incongruent ...

And I quote:
"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)

Frank Schaeffer (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer), 03.16.2008
"When my late father, Religious Right leader Francis Schaeffer, denounced America and called for the violent overthrow of the US government, he was invited to lunch with presidents Ford, Reagan and Bush, Sr."

nacktman

03-16-2008, 08:23 PM

Full text of item posted previously:

Frank Schaeffer has this to say ...

 "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"

Qikdraw

03-16-2008, 08:49 PM

I've been a leader at every party I have ever been to!:laugh:;)

Does that mean you're the first one running around clothed with the lamp shade on your head?

Qikdraw

Naturist Mark

03-17-2008, 05:58 AM

Here's another good point about Dr. Wright's sermons as compared to the RRR's damning of America: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.

- from an essay by Jeff Sharlet (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/03/16/remembering-another-jeremiah/#more-27328), author of the upcoming book The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power

usuallylurk

03-17-2008, 06:42 AM

Here's another good point about Dr. Wright's sermons as compared to the RRR's damning of America:

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

Falwell is deceased. Robertson has a limited following, but has become a comic figure, and has no influence anymore; he's almost a comic figure.

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

Who is John Hagee? Isn't he a TV huckster/preacher?

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.

I've heard of him. This message is true ... although Wright's been a little controversial himself. But , because of his theories of inclusiveness -- so much so, that Obama's had to distance himself from him a bit.

However, these are NOT the Christian leaders of America. Look to the leadership of the major Christian denominations -- they are NOT the "radical religious right."

Having a satellite downlink does not make you a religious leader with a lot of influence Look to the leaders - Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Episcopal, Methodist, Baptist, Congregational, Presbyterian -- which incorporate most of us who call ourselves "Christians" ... and I don't hear too many political messages.

Indeed, what is extremely disturbing to me, is the LACK of activism and dissent on the current administration's policies. The Vietnam War adventure was harshly criticized by many influential religious leaders of the day; two Roman Catholic priests and a Roman Catholic nun were notorious yet highly influential in anti-conscription activities (The Berrigan Brothers and Sister Elizabeth McAllisiter's actions scared the CRAP out of the government -- if their movement had caught on, it would have stopped the Vietnam War in its tracks); here in Boston, The Arlington Street Church and the theology schools were noted for their anti-war preachings and stances.

And some of our churches declared themselves to be sanctuaries for draft resisters and deserters. There was one notorious incident where several were in sanctuary in a Cambridge church and neither the city nor state police would assist in their removal. This forced the US Marshals to actually raid a church -- IIRC the incident was televised locally, live, but its broadcast was suppressed across the country.

WHERE ARE THESE PEOPLE TODAY??????

usmc1

03-17-2008, 07:16 AM

...Indeed, what is extremely disturbing to me, is the LACK of activism and dissent on the current administration's policies. The Vietnam War adventure was harshly criticized by many influential religious leaders of the day; two Roman Catholic priests and a Roman Catholic nun were notorious yet highly influential in anti-conscription activities (The Berrigan Brothers and Sister Elizabeth McAllisiter's actions scared the CRAP out of the government -- if their movement had caught on, it would have stopped the Vietnam War in its tracks); here in Boston, The Arlington Street Church and the theology schools were noted for their anti-war preachings and stances...

And some of our churches declared themselves to be sanctuaries for draft resisters and deserters. There was one notorious incident where several were in sanctuary in a Cambridge church and neither the city nor state police would assist in their removal. This forced the US Marshals to actually raid a church -- IIRC the incident was televised locally, live, but its broadcast was suppressed across the country.

WHERE ARE THESE PEOPLE TODAY??????

The short answer is the Patriot Act. People are fearful of the consequences of standing up against governmental excesses and wrongs.

The longer answer is that the Patriot Act has had a very chilling effect on adversarial journalism, resistance, dissent, protest and peaceful civil disobedience and activism. People fear the government's unrestrained ability to snoop, take into custody, "harshly" interrogate (torture-as in water boarding) and incarcerate those "suspected" of being terrorists or their supporters.

It was not that long ago that much of the population was willingly complicit in the yellow ribbon, support the troops, invade Iraq, fear everything bandwagon. "if you criticise our President, you're a traitor and responsible for getting a soldier killed in Eye-Rack!"

Some of us did speak out. And slowly ebbing is the tide of jingoistic, mindless support of the psychopaths who got us into this mess. A handful of good, decent men and women are fighting in Congress right now to stand up to Bush's bullying and GOP hectoring on a new FISA wiretap law, returning judicial overview to the process and eliminating retroactive protection for the telecoms who so willing violated our rights to privacy.

nacktman

03-17-2008, 07:39 AM

Falwell is deceased. Robertson has a limited following, but has become a comic figure, and has no influence anymore; he's almost a comic figure.

Who is John Hagee? Isn't he a TV huckster/preacher?

However, these are NOT the Christian leaders of America.

... and I don't hear too many political messages.

Falwell is in hell, true and was a joke before his only act to benefit mankind - his demise.
Robertson - same thing ... only we are still waiting on his performing his act for the benefit of mankind.
Hagee, yep he's a huckster as they all are.

They ARE the christian leaders in America whether you like it or not. It does not matter the 'size' of their following(s) the fact they have a following makes them leaders.

If you are not "hearing" too many political messages, you might want to consider wax removal from your ears ... the messages are out there and in shrill tones.

It would be enlightening for you to read my earlier post of what Frank Schaeffer has to say about this matter.
He is one of the very ones who help found the RRR and foist it's perversions on the world but has since had his epiphany and worked to repair and erase all the damage he and his former ilk (Falwell, Robertson, et al.), have done to the world.

KirkOntario

03-17-2008, 12:29 PM

Juan Williams nails Obama's little Reverend Wright problem ....And the polls are showing it's eating into his support.

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/03/16/video-juan-williams-lowers-the-boom-on-obama/

Skinview

03-17-2008, 02:05 PM

Rev. Wright: "They give us the drugs."

Unfortunately, that is a true and well documented statement. Anyone old enough to remember the Iran Contra hearings will remember that the illegal operation was financed by the CIA through the sale of crack cocaine.Do you have a reference for this? My recollection is that Oliver North sold weapons to Iran and used the money to finance the Contra rebels. I recall nothing about drugs.

Edit - Wikipedia comes to the rescue again:

From the 1980s onward, allegations were made that the Contras were being funded through cocaine distribution.

One of the earliest such allegations was contained in a lawsuit filed in 1986 by two journalists represented by the Christic Institute, alleging that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and other parties were engaged in criminal acts, including financing the purchase of arms with the proceeds of cocaine sales.[38] The suit was dismissed; several of the named participants subsequently sued the Christic Institute for libel and won. It is commonly accepted that the Christic Institute's entire suit was false, since all of its "witnesses" denied their alleged involvement with said organization.

Wikipedia goes on about other investigations, some involving Clinton:

"The Wall Street Journal reported on January 29, 1997[46] on activities at the Mena, Arkansas airport allegedly involved then-governor Bill Clinton in a coverup of illegal drug-trading activity."

It seems that the closest thing to what Naturist Mark wrote is that the Reagan administration may have protected Contras from law enforcement investigating Contra - drug connections. The Contras seem to have been selling drugs, not the CIA. It was the CIA that exposed the involvement of the Reagan administration..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_Affair

Ah, but that is just the point. He is plenty bright enough to get it, and plenty bright enough to obfuscate and mislead. John Kerry proved that not responding to disinformation allows too many people to accept it as truth.

usmc1

03-17-2008, 02:44 PM

Skinview

Try Googling CIA - Air America - Vietnam - Cocaine.

All is revealed in due time.

Skinview

03-17-2008, 03:01 PM

LOL, in that case I suppose the British/Canadian occupation of America also counts as a success!
Were you acquainted with history, or even if you knew a "native" American, you would see Mark's succinct and excellent point and how it utterly derails and holds up to ridicule your "occupation" quarrels.
Ahhh, I was thinking British/Canadian occupation of The United States, ala Revolutionary War or War of 1812. If he is writing about European occupation of indian North America, then he certainly has supported my position. We are still here, and we run the place.

usmc1

03-17-2008, 03:01 PM

Instead of running, instead of parsing and denying, instead of pretending, Obama is going right out and getting in front of the story and on top of the Wright and race issue. No surrogates, no programmed TV spots, no Sunday talk show circuit spin and damage control--he's taking it on!

And, I suspect saying the things that need to be said.

Plus, remember what I said about the battle in PA being between urban and suburban Democrats when Clinton played the Ferraro race card? This speech will solidify his urban support and allay some of the angst of the suburban and rural voters generated by Ferraro's comments and the Wright dust up.

Man, I do like the way he handles his dukes, I am so looking forward to helping him get elected in November.

PITTSBURGH, Pennsylvania (CNN) — Far from putting the controversial issue of race behind him, Barack Obama has decided to address the issue head on in a speech Tuesday.

"I am going to be talking not just about Reverend Wright, but the larger issue of race in this campaign — which has ramped up over the last couple of weeks," Obama told reporters in Monaca, Pennsylvania.

Obama's chief strategist David Axelrod characterized the speech, to be delivered in Philadelphia, as "a discussion on race and politics."
"Given the events of the last few weeks, Obama felt it was time to address the issue of race and politics directly, and what it means in our country," Axelrod said.

News of the speech comes days after the Illinois senator formally denounced controversial sermons delivered by his former minister and longtime friend, Jeremiah Wright. The racially-charged remarks came under fire after being the subject of an ABC News report last week.
Axelrod described the Illinois senator as "a force for reconciliation" and said he wants the opportunity "to put this into context."

Speaking with reporters, Obama said the media is portraying Wright inaccurately.

"I think the caricature that is being painted of him is not accurate, and so part of what I will do tomorrow is to talk about how these issues are perceived from within the black church community for example which I think skews this very differently."

Skinview

03-17-2008, 03:17 PM

Skinview

Try Googling CIA - Air America - Vietnam - Cocaine.

All is revealed in due time.
I did. I wikipedia mentions a book that alleges the CIA was using drug money to fund covert operations in Vietnam. Now I suppose that it is possible that CIA people may have been trying to make money for themselves (but this has not been alleged there), but it makes no sense that the CIA would use drug money to fund covert operations. The US has plenty deep pockets, and doesn't need drug money to fund anything. Back then, the CIA could do all kinds of things that it can't do anymore. At any rate, its just allegations to be lapped up by left wingers.

Naturist Mark

03-17-2008, 06:19 PM

The US has plenty deep pockets, and doesn't need drug money to fund anything. Back then, the CIA could do all kinds of things that it can't do anymore

Even black budgets are not unlimited (and most of the CIA budget is not black). In the case of Iran/Contra, Congress specifically prohibited any funding or aid to the the Contras when it passed the Boland Amendment in 1984. Iran/Contra was essentially a money laundering scheme to do what Congress had outlawed.

Many details were revealed in the late 80s in a Congressional investigation by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's Subcommittee on Terrorism, Narcotics and International Operations chaired by John Kerry. This was the initial public investigation that broke the Iran Contra drug connection. Due to his vigor in pushing this investigation Kerry was later shut out of further Iran Contra hearings for the sin of being prematurely right. Kerry's findings were however considered solid enough to use to justify the Panama invasion and the trial of Manuel Noriega.

In 1996 the San Jose Mercury News published Gary Webb's "Dark Alliance" series that detailed many of the same drug connections exposed by the Kerry investigation and went further in placing blame for the origin of the crack epidemic on this CIA/Contra enterprise. His work was furiously assailed by much of the corporate press - including the NYT and Washington Post, and eventually even the SJMN backed away from his story, but most of the other main structure of the story remained unchallenged.

In 1998 a Department of Justice investigation, headed by Inspector General Michael R. Bromwich spent 15 months specifically addressing the allegation in the "Dark Alliance" series, its findings were that the specific charges that this enterprise caused the crack epidemic were unfounded, but it confirmed CIA knowledge and complicity in the drug trade. A CIA Inspector General investigation came to substantially the same conclusions. Both investigations confirmed drug trade allegations by Contra figures and CIA subcontractors (i.e. Southern Air - which was originally a CIA owned 'front company' later 'sold' to the company president), while absolving the CIA of direct responsibility for drug trades. Ironically you could make the same argument for CIA 'innocence' in the arms trading part of the scheme.

-Mark

nacktman

03-17-2008, 07:56 PM

I did. I wikipedia mentions a book that alleges the CIA was using drug money to fund covert operations in Vietnam. Now I suppose that it is possible that CIA people may have been trying to make money for themselves (but this has not been alleged there), but it makes no sense that the CIA would use drug money to fund covert operations. The US has plenty deep pockets, and doesn't need drug money to fund anything. Back then, the CIA could do all kinds of things that it can't do anymore. At any rate, its just allegations to be lapped up by left wingers.

No allegations - fact.

The largest drug importer into the USA is the DEA and has been since raygun forced us to pull out if a very successful covert drug interdiction program.
Before that, it was the CIA that was the largest importer - Air America was/is nothing more than a drug running operation and the drug interdiction program began through them using it to literally kill off the competition in the "Golden Triangle" (and we did a damn good job of it, too! And I mean we in the first person sense as well.). Fortunately they used the military to perform the interdictions so they lost control of them and we actually did all but eradicate the heroin trade and were making good progress to that end against the cocaine trade until raygun that is. The rest is history.

The DEA imports cocaine. The CIA imports heroin.
How do you think the wing-nut's darlings over at Blackwater are paid?!

Oh, and by the by the USA does not have deep pockets. In fact it is insolvent and sinking quickly. Remember that $600.00 or so cash for an economic 'stimulus' you're looking to get this late spring or early summer? Well, you can thank the Chinese for it because it is their money you'll be getting not the US's.

nacktman

03-17-2008, 08:29 PM

Here's a smiley graphic one can use to reply to posts of inane and languid sorts.

http://img84.exs.cx/img84/6927/palizaconsilla7eo.gif

Perfect for one or two posters on this thread in particular.

Feel free to apply liberally!

usmc1

03-18-2008, 04:39 AM

I did. I wikipedia mentions a book that alleges the CIA was using drug money to fund covert operations in Vietnam. Now I suppose that it is possible that CIA people may have been trying to make money for themselves (but this has not been alleged there), but it makes no sense that the CIA would use drug money to fund covert operations. The US has plenty deep pockets, and doesn't need drug money to fund anything. Back then, the CIA could do all kinds of things that it can't do anymore. At any rate, its just allegations to be lapped up by left wingers.

Allegations to be lapped up by left-wingers? So much for the collegial discourse and staying within the bounds of debate.

So, I guess the black list of that perfidious bastard Nixon, and Cointelpro, and Arms for Hostages and the Pentagon's release of a report last week indicating that there was zero relationship or involvement between Iraq and Al Quiada, were just allegations lapped up by left-wingers.

That's how you dismiss anything that does not fit into your rigidly narrow point of view. Oh, that's just a left-wing allegation.

The advantages of using drug money are many; you're off the books--less accountability, funding activities that are illegal, you can pay kites to do the nastiness at no risk to you, creates a front organization which draws in others creating more kites, informers and operatives, but most of all' sometimes a bit o'change falls off the truck and the only honest thing to do is pick it up and secure it in a safety-deposit box somewhere.

You apparently did not do a very thorough Google search if you settled on Wikipedia and a book review.

Hell's bells boy, I figured a crusty old right-winger like you would have at least stumbled over MENA - Arkansas - Clinton. But, since it's all left-wing allegations, that doesn't matter either!

usmc1

03-18-2008, 05:12 AM

Poll: Majority of Democrats prefer Obama

Story Highlights
CNN/Opinion Research Corp. Poll finds enthusiasm for Obama's candidacy
52% of registered Democrats say they'd like to see Obama get the nomination
About a quarter of Democrats say they would be dissatisfied if Clinton won
Poll also examines superdelegates, Michigan and Florida primarieshttp://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/17/poll.democrats/index.html

Skinview

03-18-2008, 06:54 AM

So much for the collegial discourse and staying within the bounds of debate.Rather funny, considering the prior post:

http://img84.exs.cx/img84/6927/palizaconsilla7eo.gif

Perfect for one or two posters on this thread in particular.

And later in your own post:
That's how you dismiss anything that does not fit into your rigidly narrow point of view.

Hell's bells boy, I figured a crusty old right-winger like you would have at least stumbled over MENA - Arkansas - Clinton.Go back and reread my post. Its in there, you missed it. I threw it in for fun. I'm not enamored of conspiracy theories, but I figured I'd throw in a silly right wing allegation to float around with all the other silly allegations here.

Skinview

03-18-2008, 07:07 AM

Speaking of silly allegations...
The DEA imports cocaine. The CIA imports heroin.
How do you think the wing-nut's darlings over at Blackwater are paid?!

It got $1 billion of our tax dollars.

nacktman

03-18-2008, 07:35 AM

Speaking of silly allegations...

It got $1 billion of our tax dollars.

Then where did the other $5 billion come from?

I was one of the ones that all but eradicated the drug trade in the late 70s and we would have but for raygun and others of your ilk so instead I spent the last years of my service training the Iraqis under orders from raygun despite the fact we had already planned to fight them ... but those little pieces of data are still 'secret'.

Face it your gods have F'd up this nation and the world and had it planned from the beginning.

usmc1

03-18-2008, 01:00 PM

There are times in our history, when we have passed through dark deep woods frought with peril at every turn of the path, and there seems to be nothing around the bend except for more darkness and worse peril, that a leader emerges. That leader for our time emerged today!

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/03/18/text-of-obamas-speech-a-more-perfect-union/print/

Please read the full text of his speech and I think even the most hardened cynic and critic will find the truth and honesty of this man and the potential for his greatness. No demogoguery, no spin, no political posturing, just gut level honesty!

At the very least, it is good to hear a politician who knows how to use words strung out in a sentence and joined with other sentences to express complex issues in a way that makes sense.

KirkOntario

03-18-2008, 02:15 PM

nacktman

03-18-2008, 02:23 PM

As MoonShadow says it on another thread ...

Whirrr, whirrr, whirrr the spinning goes 'round
and the National Socialist's sputter and spew.:rolleyes:
Fantasy and idiot-ology flows forth abounding
same old same old, recycled and nothing new.

Confused obsession leading into outright paranoia ...

(Poetic license on the citation a bit was added to it)

usmc1

03-18-2008, 03:04 PM

Obama lied. He now admits he's heard Rev Wright say extreme things. Last week he said he hadn't heard him say those things....(not that anyone believed him).

Obama's been playing both side of the street. Playing to black voters to launch his career and now trying to pretend he wasn't part of those extremist racialized identity politics he so needed to get him off the ground in Chicago.

He's just another politician.

Yeah? Well, we can take comfort in the fact that you don't have a vote in the matter. So, as that great American philosopher from the Southwest, Charles Hardin Holley, once said..."Rave On!"

KirkOntario

03-18-2008, 03:16 PM

Yeah? Well, we can take comfort in the fact that you don't have a vote in the matter. So, as that great American philosopher from the Southwest, Charles Hardin Holley, once said..."Rave On!"

It is not 'raving' to express an opinion.

Naturist Mark

03-18-2008, 03:50 PM

nacktman

03-18-2008, 04:00 PM

It is not 'raving' to express an opinion.

It is when your 'opinion' does not matter.http://img84.exs.cx/img84/6927/palizaconsilla7eo.gif

Skinview

03-18-2008, 04:38 PM

KirkOntario

03-18-2008, 04:39 PM

Croydon

03-18-2008, 04:58 PM

Naturist Mark

03-18-2008, 05:51 PM

My vote counts! But Obama isn't just another politician, he is the most extreme liberal in the US Senate!

LOL

He is according to the National Journal .... who just happened to name John Kerry as the 'most liberal' senator 4 years ago... Hmmm .... could there be a pattern here?

Does anyone else suspect that the National Journal picked its 'winner' first, then picked the benchmarks to fit?

One of the National Journal's benchmarks to label Obama a liberal 'extremist' is that he voted for an ethics bill (TRUE! In fact he sponsored it!). OK, interest in ethics reform is obviously anathema to conservatives (certainly of the neo-con flavor)

Still, I find Obama rather moderate compared to Russ Feingold, Bernie Sanders, Sherrod Brown, Jack Reed, Barbara Boxer, Tom Harkin, Patrick Leahy, or .... Ted Kennedy. In fact his voting record is nearly indistinguishable from Hillary Clinton's (#16 on the National Journals list). But if Hillary wins the nomination I'm sure the National Journal will be amenable to revising her rating.

Nope, this is just the National Journal's attempt to tar the candidate they are most afraid will win with the dirty epithet 'liberal'. Only thing is, 'liberal' isn't really the curse word it used to be - the so called 'sheeple' are catching on to the manipulation of language and no longer accept the characterization of such labels uncritically.

-Mark

Croydon

03-18-2008, 05:56 PM

My vote counts! But Obama isn't just another politician, he is the most extreme liberal in the US Senate!
And I am willing to bet that your statement is something that came out of your *** and that you don't have ONE CLUE about Obama's voting record in senate. I GUARANTEE.

KirkOntario

03-18-2008, 06:20 PM

No need to be abusive. Obama voted 'present' a great deal to avoid taking a stand on any issues since he wanted to get votes from everyone.

http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490

Naturist Mark

03-18-2008, 06:39 PM

Obama voted 'present' a great deal to avoid taking a stand on any issues since he wanted to get votes from everyone.

Please cite your source for Obama's motives. Telepathy? Sorcery? Do you have access to his secret diary?

KirkOntario

03-18-2008, 06:59 PM

Burning political ambition. The audacity of the desire for power.

Newt on Obama's little Pastor Problem.....

http://en.sevenload.com/videos/YliHsiO/gingrich-obama

nacktman

03-18-2008, 08:21 PM

Nacktman, do you have an extra chair I can use?

Sure do!

Originally posted by Croydon: And I am willing to bet that your statement is something that came out of your *** and that you don't have ONE CLUE about Obama's voting record in senate. I GUARANTEE.Now, come on, Croydon, you know better than that!
Stuff like that comes out the arses of their masters to be gobbled up and regurgitated by the troglodyte faithful ad nauseum infinitum.

EricNY

03-18-2008, 11:47 PM

:grouphug::bussi:

Lets take a time out for a group hug! In other words be nice! If in fact y'all are capable of that;)

usmc1

03-19-2008, 04:29 AM

My vote counts! But Obama isn't just another politician, he is the most extreme liberal in the US Senate!

I hope so. I so hope so! And I'm betting we'll be able to shirt-tail some more "extreme" liberals into congress and the senate.

And, I guess I'll have to vote twice to cancel your vote. Time to pay rent on my other place down there in Duval County. Hmmmm, I've got an option on a deer lease down in Bexar County, I bet I could set up a mailbox on it, register there too and vote 3-times. Then Mrs. USMC could do the same. Whoa Nellie, that's six votes for Obama to your one.

And since we "extreme" liberals love all those "illegal immigrants", I'll get a whole passel of them registered and absentee voted---wow, I feel an LBJ-like landslide coming on. Like extreme, dude, extreme.

Anything to get an "extreme" liberal in. Not merely a liberal, but an "extreme" one.

I am so extremely pleased to have all these extreme liberals heading into office. Extremely so!

MoonShadow

03-19-2008, 05:13 AM

"Extreme liberal" --- here we go again using the word, liberal, (and used with a modifier "extreme",) totally out of context. Sheesh!

Obama is far from an "extreme". He makes the most sense of all the candidates and is consistent. Check his voting record out while being senator and check out McCain's and Clinton's. Don't think you will find him "extreme liberal".

G I Joe

03-19-2008, 06:21 AM

He must be in trouble. He's surrounding himself with American flags. The same ones he won't wear on his lapel pin. (Maybe he's trying to educate his wife who has never felt proud of her country in her entire adult life. )

This is actually one quote I can agree with. Of course, most ANY politician will say anything or do anything to get elected--Clinton probably being the worst of the current lot. It is a real temptation to set this election out. I believe it is a right and a privilege to vote--so I will, but I will cast my ballot while screaming from the inside!

Skinview

03-19-2008, 06:38 AM

And, I guess I'll have to vote twice to cancel your vote. Time to pay rent on my other place down there in Duval County. Hmmmm, I've got an option on a deer lease down in Bexar County, I bet I could set up a mailbox on it, register there too and vote 3-times. Then Mrs. USMC could do the same. Whoa Nellie, that's six votes for Obama to your one.

And since we "extreme" liberals love all those "illegal immigrants", I'll get a whole passel of them registered and absentee voted---wow, I feel an LBJ-like landslide coming on. Like extreme, dude, extreme.

Anything to get an "extreme" liberal in. Not merely a liberal, but an "extreme" one.
Ooooo, you are advocating vote fraud!??? Bad bad bad usmc1. Now we know all about your charactor!
Yada yada yada, ...assasination... yada yada ...president... yada yada yada Skinjoy...

Skinview

03-19-2008, 06:42 AM

And I am willing to bet that your statement is something that came out of your *** and that you don't have ONE CLUE about Obama's voting record in senate. I GUARANTEE.WRONG. The National Journal reported that Obama had the most liberal voting record of any Senator in 2007.

spiceant

03-19-2008, 02:19 PM

On one side you have obama wanting to give UN the power and on the other you have Billary who wants the same. Neither are going to stop the war or even think about any significant change on the war of terror or its fraudulent premise, quillotines in shackled boxcars, concentration camps throughout the US, the illegal iraq war in any significant period, use of depleted uranium weapons, preemptive nuclear war and both are going to expand government fascist powers or to use a discomforting phrase the big nanny state. Both are proliferating on fear tactics.

Obamas mentors have been to bilderberg and so has billary. Gonna use the F word, fascist?

Don't pick a poison, LOOK! The question is not why they are selling it, but why are you buying it?

nacktman

03-19-2008, 03:24 PM

The National Journal reported that Obama had the most liberal voting record of any Senator in 2007.

The national journal also reported that little green men were transmitting thoughts into the heads of dolphins, too!:rolleyes:

KirkOntario

03-19-2008, 03:49 PM

The national journal also reported that little green men were transmitting thoughts into the heads of dolphins, too!:rolleyes:

On what page?

usmc1

03-19-2008, 04:01 PM

On what page?

Hey, I saw it too, but ooops, I was reading it in the privy, and wouldn't you know that was the page that....well, you understand. Can't help you.

Naturist Mark

03-19-2008, 06:16 PM

nacktman

03-19-2008, 06:27 PM

KirkOntario

03-19-2008, 06:37 PM

Qikdraw

03-19-2008, 06:40 PM

nacktman

03-19-2008, 06:44 PM

I believe that is Obama's point is it not? That patriotism does not come packaged in a lapel pin? (made in China)

Qikdraw

By, George, Methinks thou hast got it!

Qikdraw

03-19-2008, 07:22 PM

By, George, Methinks thou hast got it!

A number of years ago I wrote an article, that I never sent in, that was called 'Plastic Patriotism'. (can you guess what its about? :D ) Sadly its on a HD that is disconnected, cause it doesn't like me much. I'll have to see if I can boot it up and pull it off.

*edit* Found it in a PM on another board. :) I wrote it it 2005.

Plastic Patriotism

Its very ‘chic’ these days to display a flag on your car window, have a ribbon magnet that says ‘Support the Troops’, or buying little American flags that say ‘United We Stand’, or ‘We Remember’, or ‘September 11, 2001’ with an image of the Twin Towers on it. But what does this have to do with being patriotic or supporting the troops? Absolutely nothing.

Americans have been bamboozled, swindled and tricked into believing that buying these products makes you more of an American, makes you more Patriotic, and makes you believe that you actually support the troops. Almost every store carries an American flag something or other to sell to you, they’re usually at the cash register to grab your ‘impulse buying’ urge.

Of course many people will say that this is just an extension of the pride they feel, and they want to let people know how much they care for the United States. While there is nothing really wrong with that, should they be expressing their pride in such a way that hurts Americans? If you look at the packaging these things come in you’ll see they are made in Taiwan or China. Wouldn’t a better show of American patriotism be only buying these items if they were made in the US, or the profits going to actually support the troops? Isn’t patriotism a good enough reason to spend the few extra dollars it would take to give an American a job?

Why do I never see a sign next to these items saying ‘proceeds go to help buying soldiers Kevlar’, or ‘help support a military family’ or anything like that? The profits go to the store and the company that outsources its factory work. I fail to see how that supports the troops, or shows how patriotic you are. I suppose that is the beauty of marketing though, we see so many commercials and advertising that have American flags on them, we automatically believe that having an item with a flag on it means you are actually patriotic.

There are many other ways to be patriotic. Support organizations like ‘Operation Gratitude’ (www.opgratitude.com) or ‘Books for Soldiers’ (www.booksforsoldiers.com) or some of the many other organizations out there. Donate time at a local VA hospital, search for military families whose spouse is deployed and cook them a meal, walk up to a soldier and thank them for serving their country. You don’t have to support the war to do any of these things. You can give your support to soldiers, and their families, who risk their lives because they felt called to put their lives on the line so you would not have to. Theirs is the greater patriotism, and buying a foreign-made American flag to mislead yourself into believing you’re actually supporting the troops is a sad second place.

Qikdraw

Qikdraw

03-19-2008, 07:55 PM

Different Standards for Black and White Preachers (http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/13556)

Qikdraw

Naturist Mark

03-19-2008, 08:09 PM

Different Standards for Black and White Preachers (http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/13556)

Qikdraw

Here's one difference. The white ministers in question preach in favor of hated, while the black minister preaches against hatred. The media labels the black minister a 'hater' and ignores the white ones. That isn't a double standard - its a brain aneurysm.

-Mark

nacktman

03-19-2008, 09:02 PM

Hey, Qikdraw get a load of this!

http://www.bartcop.com/no-flag-pin.jpg

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

Qikdraw

03-19-2008, 09:58 PM

:rofl:

Qikdraw

Croydon

03-20-2008, 01:50 AM

Different Standards for Black and White Preachers (http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/13556)

Qikdraw
There is a double standard in the treatment of Reverend W. Initially, when the story broke, I was quite judgemental of Rev. Wright and his speech. I was also upset at Obama for not cutting his ties long time ago.

I was able to watch the WHOLE Reverend Wright. Although, I disagreed with some of things he said, I didn't find the sermon racist or offensive. Then I begin to realize how the media and "white backlash" of Rev. Wright and Obama shows how oblivious white America is towards the lives and experience of African Americans. The feelings of white America, in my opinion, is shock. Because so many are "blisfully ignorant" then find the sermon racist. Many whites do not have black friends or surround themselves with whites so they can not possibly know what African Americans lives are all about or the struggle of blacks.

Even after a WONDERFUL and touching speech, people are STILL not satisfied and refuse to understand where Rev. Wright is coming from. Sadly, the media has ruined him and his reputation. I did some research on Rev. Wright and learned the many great things he has done over the past 30 years. Helping the poor, creating programs for inner city youths, housing for those living with HIV/AIDS, protesting along WHITE blue collar workers who lost their jobs when the local factory moved oversees. No one seems to be talking about that. Yes in his speech he talks about whites and their ignorance but in the same speech, Rev. Wright chastises blacks for their many flaws.

Many continue to say that Obama should have cut ties with Wright. How do you end a 20 years relationship? I ask the same people, did you distance yourself from your white relatives who speak negatively of other races or gays? I highly doubt it. If you didn't do that, how do you expect Obama to do such thing? In such cases, we disagree with our relatives but we don't end our relationship with them because we know that their views is not a reflection of who we are.

As I heard Obama's speech, I was absolutely moved. He was able to explain that we have come a long way with the issue of racism but it STILL exists. One thing that got me is his discussion about the black anger. Rev. Wright is an angry man. You know something else? I too am an angry black man.

Despite the fact that I have an education, do well for myself, have a prestigious job, I am still upset. Why? I am upset that I had to work 2x harder than my white counterparts to get where I am, I am upset that I had to work 2x harder to get the same level of respect and acknowledgment, I am upset that being called a ****** in my all white HS was a common thing, and I am upset that in college, a teacher accused me of cheating when I aced his exam.

I don't expect white America to understand my anger, I don't want them to apologize, I don't want their sympathy and I don't want them to feel guilty. What I do not want is to be told that I am overreacting, making things up, or being paranoid. Wake up America. Because the KKK is no longer burning crosses on door steps doesn't mean racism doesn't exist. It still exist and it exist as something subtle. You don't see what I see, you don't hear what I hear, and you don't feel what I feel. Black Americans aren't blaming you but we are saying that racism is still here, and it is real.

KirkOntario

03-20-2008, 03:30 AM

Obama camp is still attempting to hide extremist connections.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/19/obama-web-site-still-carries-new-black-panther-party-endorsement/

"Barack Obama’s campaign has rejected the support of the New Black Panther Party, after removing an endorsement by the group from its Web site Wednesday.

Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor issued a statement rejecting the Panther backing, and told FOXNews.com: “The page in question has been removed from our campaign Web site. It’s our policy with any content generated by a group that advocates violence.”"

cmasson

03-20-2008, 04:24 AM

i think most people in u k would sooner see mrs clinton become the next president of the united states

usmc1

03-20-2008, 04:47 AM

... As I heard Obama's speech, I was absolutely moved. He was able to explain that we have come a long way with the issue of racism but it STILL exists. One thing that got me is his discussion about the black anger. Rev. Wright is an angry man. You know something else? I too am an angry black man.

Despite the fact that I have an education, do well for myself, have a prestigious job, I am still upset. Why? I am upset that I had to work 2x harder than my white counterparts to get where I am, I am upset that I had to work 2x harder to get the same level of respect and acknowledgment, I am upset that being called a ****** in my all white HS was a common thing, and I am upset that in college, a teacher accused me of cheating when I aced his exam.

I don't expect white America to understand my anger, I don't want them to apologize, I don't want their sympathy and I don't want them to feel guilty. What I do not want is to be told that I am overreacting, making things up, or being paranoid. Wake up America. Because the KKK is no longer burning crosses on door steps doesn't mean racism doesn't exist. It still exist and it exist as something subtle. You don't see what I see, you don't hear what I hear, and you don't feel what I feel. Black Americans aren't blaming you but we are saying that racism is still here, and it is real.

I long for the day that we can get beyond this. It will not come in my lifetime, but we will make progress. I too was deeply touched by Senator Obama's speech. So much so that I posted a link to it. I was touched at both an emotional level and intellectual level.

The fact that we have before us, declared for the Presidency, a bi-racial person who sees the issues and problems facing all races in America is a telling moment of the progress which has been made and is yet to come.

Slowly the face of America is changing from glaringly western European white to a sort of a cafe ole' tone signaling a mixture of Europe, Africa, Asia, Mexican, and South American. In a hundred years, we will be predominately multi-racial---but, until then, we have some very racist people among us.

Many whites do not want the racial issue to be settled or solved. They benefit from it. They benefit economically, and politically. They benefit by finding scapegoats to divert our attention from the real issues. And, almost without exception those issues are economic.

Senator Obama spoke of the wants and needs and aspirations of all of us. He did not use code words. He spoke the truth with simple eloquence, which for men such as you and I Croydon, came inspiration, and for the racists among us, came a shiver of fear and a tightening sphincter of dread.

No one can know completely the pain caused another person by racism. But, we can have understanding and empathy that the pain is valid and the only solution is to deal with it out in the open and with honesty---Senator Obama did that, and I admire and respect him for it.

But, yes your anger is valid, as is the anger of many of us. Our challenge is to understand the source of our anger and to convert it positive action and progressive change. That is a very difficult task, because it requires that we find a gut-level honesty about ourselves and lose our fear of others. As a nation, we can do this---if we have the leadership. I sincerely believe that Obama can do that and indeed is the person of our time!

Sanslines

03-20-2008, 04:49 AM

i think most people in u k would sooner see mrs clinton become the next president of the united states

Why? What is it about Hillary that appeals so strongly to those in the UK?

ParaNude

03-20-2008, 04:51 AM

Sanslines

03-20-2008, 04:58 AM

There is a double standard in the treatment of Reverend W. Initially, when the story broke, I was quite judgemental of Rev. Wright and his speech. I was also upset at Obama for not cutting his ties long time ago.

I was able to watch the WHOLE Reverend Wright. Although, I disagreed with some of things he said, I didn't find the sermon racist or offensive. Then I begin to realize how the media and "white backlash" of Rev. Wright and Obama shows how oblivious white America is towards the lives and experience of African Americans. The feelings of white America, in my opinion, is shock. Because so many are "blisfully ignorant" then find the sermon racist. Many whites do not have black friends or surround themselves with whites so they can not possibly know what African Americans lives are all about or the struggle of blacks.

Even after a WONDERFUL and touching speech, people are STILL not satisfied and refuse to understand where Rev. Wright is coming from. Sadly, the media has ruined him and his reputation. I did some research on Rev. Wright and learned the many great things he has done over the past 30 years. Helping the poor, creating programs for inner city youths, housing for those living with HIV/AIDS, protesting along WHITE blue collar workers who lost their jobs when the local factory moved oversees. No one seems to be talking about that. Yes in his speech he talks about whites and their ignorance but in the same speech, Rev. Wright chastises blacks for their many flaws.

Many continue to say that Obama should have cut ties with Wright. How do you end a 20 years relationship? I ask the same people, did you distance yourself from your white relatives who speak negatively of other races or gays? I highly doubt it. If you didn't do that, how do you expect Obama to do such thing? In such cases, we disagree with our relatives but we don't end our relationship with them because we know that their views is not a reflection of who we are.

As I heard Obama's speech, I was absolutely moved. He was able to explain that we have come a long way with the issue of racism but it STILL exists. One thing that got me is his discussion about the black anger. Rev. Wright is an angry man. You know something else? I too am an angry black man.

Despite the fact that I have an education, do well for myself, have a prestigious job, I am still upset. Why? I am upset that I had to work 2x harder than my white counterparts to get where I am, I am upset that I had to work 2x harder to get the same level of respect and acknowledgment, I am upset that being called a ****** in my all white HS was a common thing, and I am upset that in college, a teacher accused me of cheating when I aced his exam.

I don't expect white America to understand my anger, I don't want them to apologize, I don't want their sympathy and I don't want them to feel guilty. What I do not want is to be told that I am overreacting, making things up, or being paranoid. Wake up America. Because the KKK is no longer burning crosses on door steps doesn't mean racism doesn't exist. It still exist and it exist as something subtle. You don't see what I see, you don't hear what I hear, and you don't feel what I feel. Black Americans aren't blaming you but we are saying that racism is still here, and it is real.

Racism exists in ALL ethnic groups. There certainly are white racists who openly discriminate against others, but there are also other non white groups that openly discriminate against whites. There never seems to be much mention of racism lodged against whites. Our society is full of age and gender discrimination that all groups promote and experience.

NudeTopher

03-20-2008, 05:01 AM

If it were between Obama and McCain, then I would vote for Obama. If it were between Clinton and McCain, I would vote for McCain.

I feel that Obama wants to go to DC to do something good for his country and Clinton just wants to go back to the big house and show us who the smart one was the whole time she and Bill lived their before. I don't blame her for that, however, it's a really poor reason to seek the job.

That's my two cents...

But, that just doesn't follow logically. If you are going to say that Obama's view's and opinion's, and legislative history are totally different then Mcain's and you agree with Obama then wouldn't you need to judge Sen Clinton with the same yardstick? Wouldn't you compare her Senate record, view's, and opinion's with that of McCain to determine which one is closest to your worldview?

Naturist Mark

03-20-2008, 05:36 AM

Racism exists in ALL ethnic groups. There certainly are white racists who openly discriminate against others, but there are also other non white groups that openly discriminate against whites. There never seems to be much mention of racism lodged against whites. Our society is full of age and gender discrimination that all groups promote and experience.

Anger over racism is not racism.

Dr. Wright's rhetoric was angry and over the top at times, it obviously doesn't work for most white audiences - especially if they only see cherry picked excerpts - BUT anger over racism is not racism. Dr. Wright is preaching against hate, not by denying it exists, but by confronting and rejecting it, his rhetoric may fail at times, but his meaning is clear to those who listen rather than cherry pick - and his long history of service to the community - black and white and everywhere in between - is the antithesis of racism.

I'd pick Dr. Wright's anti-hate ministry over the right's Revs. Hagee, Parsley, or Robertson's message of holy hate any day.

Qikdraw

03-20-2008, 10:51 AM

Mike Huckabee on Barack Obama's Speech on Race and Wright

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTFLOu8fjxU

Qikdraw

KirkOntario

03-20-2008, 12:55 PM

Obama looks set to lose Pennsylvanian as he should. He slagged his grandma while failing to ditch his racist Pastor.

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=CB593185-3048-5C12-00F9EE6880399149

"A week ago, her customers at Rauchut’s Tavern in Tacony didn’t have much to say about Barack Obama. But when she returned to work Wednesday, a day after the Illinois senator attempted to quell the furor over his pastor’s racially incendiary remarks, the reaction inside the corner bar was raw and unapologetic.

“People are not happy with Obama,” Gill said. “It’s the race stuff.”

“He lied to Anderson Cooper,” said Rodica Mitrea, an aesthetician and immigrant from Romania, referring to an Obama interview Friday with the CNN anchor. "

Naturist Mark

03-20-2008, 03:45 PM

Obama looks set to lose Pennsylvanian as he should. He slagged his grandma while failing to ditch his racist Pastor.

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. I understand when their fans adopt those views - they substitute what they are told for critical thinking. But I can't understand how an intelligent adult can listen to Obama's speech and so miserably fail to understand it.

usmc1

03-20-2008, 03:48 PM

After Wright's sermon was aired, Obama's poll numbers slipped nearly 6 points and he fell behind Clinton. since his speech, his numbers have steadily improved with CBS today showing him back ahead of Clinton 46 - 43.

His challenge is with blue-collar Democrats, but his speech has opened the door, and we can expect him to continue to hold open that door, and walk through it with hand extended, with another significant speech and outreach at his nomination acceptance at the convention and during the ensuing debates with McCain---one wonders if they'll allow Lieberman to whisper in McCain's ear to keep him on track?

Sanslines

03-20-2008, 03:51 PM

Anger over racism is not racism.

Dr. Wright's rhetoric was angry and over the top at times, it obviously doesn't work for most white audiences - especially if they only see cherry picked excerpts - BUT anger over racism is not racism. Dr. Wright is preaching against hate, not by denying it exists, but by confronting and rejecting it, his rhetoric may fail at times, but his meaning is clear to those who listen rather than cherry pick - and his long history of service to the community - black and white and everywhere in between - is the antithesis of racism.

I'd pick Dr. Wright's anti-hate ministry over the right's Revs. Hagee, Parsley, or Robertson's message of holy hate any day.

Anger over racism is not racism but......

All groups experience racism and all groups should be angry about racism. No group has a complete monopoly over discrimination and racism. Personally, I listen to Obama's message and make my decisions based upon what he intends to do for his country. However, I am still very aware that many people will not vote for him only because of his race. This is very sad and yet there is hope for more and more people are progressive enough to understand how stone age and wrong that this kind of mentality is.

Eric6420

03-20-2008, 04:11 PM

You know, racism is quite everywhere, and I am a bit surprised to see a black man as the most popular right now to become president of the USA.

In any european country and even in Canada, I think it could be quite difficult to get such a high position for a black man.

What is even more surprising is that it happens in a country where the extreme-right is extremely vocal and powerfull. Just think of Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage not to mention the religious right that is extremely homophobic. The USA is a country where its army rejects gay people and where 45 millions people do not get a health care.

This is a country where inter racial marriage was forbidden not so long ago. So to see a black man as president in a country where the huge majority is white, and where a big percentage is white-christian-right-homophobic is quite a surprise.

Rush Limbaugh and Micheal Savage must be quite upset to see a liberal black man in the head of the state.

Boreas

03-20-2008, 04:39 PM

Decorative flags and lapel pins.

Does anyone really think this is a serious issue during a war? Dammit people are dying, the Constitution is being shredded, the treasury has been looted, and our skies are being poisoned. There are deadly consequences to the upcoming election, and lapel pins have nothing to do with it.

:applause: Amen!

It is amazing that labels keep getting thrown around such as "extreme liberal". For one thing, there is no such thing in US politics. Generally US politics has a LONG way to go before there is anything resembling radical left down there. shocked

I would love if those who are throwing out labels and criticisms would actually provide some useful alternate views. I have been away for a couple of days and am catching up. I am noticing a distinct pattern of just throwing barbs without any useful alternate info. :rolleyes:

Qikdraw

03-20-2008, 04:49 PM

Welcome back! We missed you! :dance:

[quote]I am noticing a distinct pattern of just throwing barbs without any useful alternate info. :rolleyes:

NOOOOOOOoooooo! Say it ain't so!

:D

Qikdraw

Boreas

03-20-2008, 04:54 PM

Qikdraw, I love your post about plastic patriotism. Very true. The posts supporting Obama and his speech are wonderful. Croydon, thank you for your wise and thoughtful post.

I heard bits of Obama's speech the other day, and am glad he had the courage to speak that way. It is also sad that courage was what seems to have been needed, in this day and age. I certainly hope that Obama can start to bridge the racial gap. I also hope the right-wing natterings and misinformation and sound bits does not win. Hopefully the people of the US will be able to see beyond that stuff.

My understanding is that most Canadians support Obama. I believe he is viewed as the most likely person to be able to start to heal the extreme polarization we have seen developing in the past eight years.

Boreas

03-20-2008, 04:56 PM

Welcome back! We missed you! :dance:

NOOOOOOOoooooo! Say it ain't so!

:D

Qikdraw

Thanks Qikdraw. I loved your posts a page or two ago. I had a long drive today and a couple of days in a seminar so I am short a few brain cells. You might get a more articulate response later!

BTW, the man who taught the workshop I was in was from the US. California to be exact. He is also a graduate from Berkley and would have graduated in the 60's. He had some wonderful things to say about Obama!

Skinview

03-20-2008, 05:05 PM

You know, racism is quite everywhere, and I am a bit surprised to see a black man as the most popular right now to become president of the USA.

What is even more surprising is that it happens in a country where the extreme-right is extremely vocal and powerfull.

This is a country where inter racial marriage was forbidden not so long ago. So to see a black man as president in a country where the huge majority is white, and where a big percentage is white-christian-right-homophobic is quite a surprise.

Rush Limbaugh and Micheal Savage must be quite upset to see a liberal black man in the head of the state.Not at all! There was a dramatic change in attitude with the civil rights movement of the 1960's. Americans became aware of the mistreatment and injustices blacks endured and were appalled. Older racists died off with time, others changed their minds. Racists came to be considered pariahs. Outside of the south, white-christian-right has nothing to do with racism. People of both parties are itching to see a black become president. Polls showed that Colin Powell could have walked into the presidency in 1996 if he had only wanted it. Obama has a good chance of getting in, despite the fact that he is to the far left, and has almost no political track record. Normally, to get into the White House, you have to first be a state Governor, Vice President, or victorious General. Geraldine Ferraro is correct. Obama wouldn't be where he is if he wasn't black.

Qikdraw

03-20-2008, 05:21 PM

For me racism is just a word, like a lot of the 'ism' words. Its a label. I'm not overly fond of labels, I just call it what it is. IGNORANCE. I don't care how smart someone may be, if they don't like someone because of their colour, they're ignorant.

When I was younger I was asked, a number of times, to leave a public swimming pool because of the way I looked. My parents were told that they should not allow me to be around their children. I was stared at, pointed at, laughed at, called names, pushed around, etc... I am white, but with severe scoliosis. I was born with it and at age 12 I had a 115 degree curve in my spine.

Ignorance comes in many forms, but it all boils down to people being plain old ignorant, and in many cases willfully ignorant.

Qikdraw

Qikdraw

03-20-2008, 05:27 PM

Thanks Qikdraw. I loved your posts a page or two ago.

Glad you liked it. I should send it to my local newspaper and see if they'll print it. They have a few times before with other letters.

I am short a few brain cells.

Must... Refrain... From... Comment...

BTW, the man who taught the workshop I was in was from the US. California to be exact

What was your workshop aboot?

Qikdraw

Naturist Mark

03-20-2008, 05:50 PM

Normally, to get into the White House, you have to first be a state Governor, Vice President, or victorious General.
NONE of the 3 top contenders this year has ever served as a Governor, Vice President, or victorious General.

Obama has 11 years experience in elective office - more than Hillary Clinton or even George W. Bush before he became president (or after, since he was never 'elected') or his father H.W.. That is also considerably more than either Roosevelt had, or Wilson, or Lincoln. President Taft never held any elective office other than president. Lincoln, Taft and FDR never served as Governor, Vice President, or victorious General - not bad company.

Geraldine Ferraro is correct. Obama wouldn't be where he is if he wasn't black.While it is undeniable that it had to be an important factor in how he became the man he is, I think it is closer to the truth to say that Obama's extraordinary popularity is despite his ethnic background, not because of it.

-Mark

Eric6420

03-20-2008, 06:11 PM

Personally, I think that racism is a very complicated subject.

If you take the example of Europe, it is very interesting. Almost evrybody in Europe now aggrees that there is an immigration problem in Europe. No matter how left wing you are, or how anti-racist you are, the obvious is that from Spain to Scandinavia, you have an immigration of millions of Africans who do not assimilate and do not want to assimilate into the European culture.

You have, for example in Scandinavia, girls that are raped by muslims and the local muslim community blaming the girls for their own rape "because they did not dress enough" wich could go as far as not having a veil on your face if you are a woman or a girl, and we are talking about Sweeden, not Saudi Arabia...

Frankly, if you own a French restaurant, you simply do not want to hire a muslim boy from a poor subberb who cannot speak good French.

That's the reason most Europeans do not want to receive to much immigrants. France had almost closed its borders from immigration because more of it would be suicidal for Europe. Europe do not need people who have no respect at all for europeans values and people.

In the Netherlands, after the assassination of the grand son of Vincent Van Gogh, the famous painter by a muslim fanatic, The Netherlands sended a warning to all muslim and religious countries that the future immigrants to the Netherlands will have to assimilate to the Dutch culture and they are very serious about it.

The fact is that there are differents civilisations in our World. There is the European civilisation, the American Civilisation, The African, The Chinese, The Muslims, The Hindus...

The bottom line is that some of these civilisations have no problem living toghether peacefully, but others are more problematics.

For me racism is just a word, like a lot of the 'ism' words. Its a label. I'm not overly fond of labels, I just call it what it is. IGNORANCE. I don't care how smart someone may be, if they don't like someone because of their colour, they're ignorant.

When I was younger I was asked, a number of times, to leave a public swimming pool because of the way I looked. My parents were told that they should not allow me to be around their children. I was stared at, pointed at, laughed at, called names, pushed around, etc... I am white, but with severe scoliosis. I was born with it and at age 12 I had a 115 degree curve in my spine.

Ignorance comes in many forms, but it all boils down to people being plain old ignorant, and in many cases willfully ignorant.

Qikdraw

Boreas

03-20-2008, 06:33 PM

Obama wouldn't be where he is if he wasn't black.

The fact that you say this confirms that racism is still alive and well. Colour would not be an issue at all otherwise.

Boreas

03-20-2008, 06:35 PM

Must... Refrain... From... Comment...

Smart man!!!! :applause:

Oh, and the workshop was about an adoption homestudy format. The man presenting it was a social worker. Is it any wonder he leaned in a leftward direction? (I am also a social worker for the record)

As for the racism and "ism" issue. I agree with the idea that it comes down to ignorance. At the same time, there is an institutionalised racism or other isms in place all around us. Like I said in my previous post, the statement that Obama is where he is because he is black is one indicator of that. How differences are handled in general are indicators of the institutionalised isms. All forms of oppression and ways to keep people "in their place" are wrongs which need to be challenged.

nacktman

03-20-2008, 08:10 PM

There's more to it than they're letting on ...
and we've see it before.

(CNN) - On three occasions since January, Sen. Barack Obama's passport file was looked at by three different contract workers, said State Department spokesman Sean McCormack.

The contractors accessed information in the file in an unauthorized way, he said.

Two contractors were fired and one was disciplined by the contractor's company, McCormack said.

He said the contractors are not linked.

The State Department hires contractors to design, build and maintain their systems and help employees with searches. McCormack said two of the contractors in the Obama case were "low-level" personnel and the other was in a mid-level position with no management role.

The breach seems like "imprudent curiosity" among the contract workers, said McCormack, adding that senior management at the State Department was not aware of the incidents until Thursday afternoon. Breaches occurred January 9, February 21 and March 14.

Obama's campaign is asking for a complete investigation to find out who looked at Obama's passport file and why.

"This is an outrageous breach of security and privacy, even from an administration that has shown little regard for either over the last eight years," said Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton in a statement.
"Our government's duty is to protect the private information of the American people, not use it for political purposes."

Doug Hattaway, a spokesman for Sen. Hillary Clinton, Obama's rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, said, "If it's true, it's reprehensible, and the Bush administration has a responsibility to get to the bottom of it."

The White House declined comment Thursday evening, just hours after the State Department upper management learned of the breach.

The news was reminiscent of a breach of Bill Clinton's passport information during the 1992 presidential campaign. The FBI launched an investigation after the State Department reported that someone had ripped out pages from his passport file from the late 1960s and '70s.

The department concluded that a search of Clinton's passport records was an attempt to influence the presidential election, reportedly by trying to show that Clinton tried to seek citizenship in another country to avoid the draft. Clinton was running against President George H.W. Bush.

Then-State Department Inspector General Sherman Funk found no evidence the White House ordered department staffers to dig for political dirt in Clinton's passport files. However, Funk said the White House probably knew it was happening.

Sen. Joseph Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, issued a statement late Thursday.
"I am deeply troubled that State Department contract employees sought access to Sen. Barack Obama's passport files. Firing or disciplining those responsible is an important first step. But we need to understand why these employees had access to this information in the first place, why they sought the information, and why it took over two months for this matter to come to light. I urge the Secretary of State to promptly refer this matter to the State Department Inspector General for investigation."

*****

Leopards just don't change their spots now do they!?:sneaky:

Skinview

03-20-2008, 09:20 PM

The fact that you say this confirms that racism is still alive and well. Colour would not be an issue at all otherwise.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. Would that be if he was white? I also think there are a lot of whites who want to see a black person become President. I would like to see a black person become President. Just not Obama.

Skinview

03-20-2008, 10:01 PM

NONE of the 3 top contenders this year has ever served as a Governor, Vice President, or victorious General.There was just one Governor, from the empty state of New Mexico, running in the Democrat race, Huckabee was a goofy creationist Baptist minister, and Romney held two positions on every issue. There were no Vice Presidents or Generals running, but McCain is a war hero who commanded a Navy attack squadron. He has had more time in the Senate than the other two Democrats have had in elective office combined. Clinton is running as ex co-President.
Lincoln, Taft and FDR never served as Governor, Vice President, or victorious General - not bad company.FDR was Governor of New York from 1928 - 1932. Taft was Governor-General of the Phillipines, and Governor of Cuba. He was Secretary of War, Acting Secretary of State, and Acting President when Roosevelt was traveling. Tons (300 lbs anyway) of executive and foreign policy experience. Before all that he was a Federal Appeals Court Judge. Lincoln was a looong time ago, and he only got 39.9% of the vote. But I am glad to see your approval of those Republicans. ;-)

Boreas

03-20-2008, 10:08 PM

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. Would that be if he was white? I also think there are a lot of whites who want to see a black person become President. I would like to see a black person become President. Just not Obama.

I figured that you would respond to this. Again, the fact that colour is an issue at all suggest that racism is alive and well. Colour should not matter. Perhaps black voters are glad to see someone of colour who is actually a contender for the White House. Imagine that. It is 2008 and they now have someone of colour who could be president. Someone who would perhaps represent a view other than that of privileged white male. Yep, racisim is alive and well.

usmc1

03-21-2008, 04:10 AM

Bill Richardson to endorse Obama (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/21/obama.richardson/index.html)

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson plans to endorse Sen. Barack Obama in the Democratic race for president today, an Obama campaign spokesperson told CNN. In an e-mail to supporters, Richardson said Obama will be a "historic and a great President, who can bring us the change we so desperately need.

Naturist Mark

03-21-2008, 05:23 AM

FDR was Governor of New York from 1928 - 1932.
Ooops, that's right. I scooped up Roosevelt into my list because he was only been in elective office for 3 years before becoming president, but should not have included him among the non-governors/vice-presidents/generals.
Taft was Governor-General of the Phillipines, and Governor of Cuba. Appointed positions - not elective office.

Don't misunderstand, my point is not that Theodore Roosevelt, Taft, or Lincoln were unaccomplished or ill suited for the presidency, just the opposite. 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.

If the 2008 election were run solely on the basis of resume, Richardson would be the only ... person ... standing.

-Mark