[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
His pastor is a raving lunatic,
Most of them are.
his wife has NEVER been proud of America
Hence the whole “change” platform. There’s not much to be proud about a country that aggresses nations on the other side of the planet.
he refuses to wear an American flag.
What do you mean? Is it a requirement?[/quote]
You are an idiot.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Add his refusal to wear the American flag to the mix and he looks pretty bad. I am voting for Hillary next month.
He looks bad because he doesn’t wear a pin?
Could you be a less serious person?
His pastor is a raving lunatic, his wife has NEVER been proud of America until Obama became a candidate for president, he refuses to wear an American flag. These are not good signs.[/quote]
speaking next to and in front of the flag and saying this “country is everything to me” not enough apparently…one has to actually wear the flag as an accessory…
of course Mccain doesn’t wear one either, and his spiritual advisors are “raving lunatics” and his wife, hmm… she’s done some crazy things…
I can only conclude…again…for the millionth time…
you are not a rational person.
This might be interesting to some. Slavery
is ongoing in modern Africa. I am posting
from Mauritania where an estimated 90,000
blacks are enslaved to Arab owners.
Have spent some time in several African
nations—next stop Congo—and however
badly blacks have been treated in the US,
a housing project in the slums of any American city beats what I’ve seen on
the dark continent.
Mauritania is listed as 100% black and 100%
muslim so I guess they are counting Arab/Berbers as black. Anyway, blacks were enslaving each other for centuries before the first Europeans arrived and they continue to do so. Mauritania is by no means the only African nation where slavery is still practiced. Somehow this has to be George Bush’s fault. Somehow related to the war in Iraq. Help me out here.
Hard to believe Obama didn’t see this coming. Has Hillary’s DNA all over it—
her modus operandi as well. Karl Rove would’ve saved it till the third week of October. Maybe she was right—he hasn’t been vetted by the Republicans like she has.
Any chance the Dems might lapse into tempo-
rary sanity in Denver and nominate someone
who wouldn’t embarass the country, like John
Edwards? Four years ago I considered him
the worst of the Dems. This time I signed
on as a volunteer for him even though I’m
registered as Republican now. Am now signed on with Mc Cain.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
lixy wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
Racism works both ways.
True. However, you have to remember that black people have suffered at the hands of whites. Not the other way around.
It’s effectively a double standard, but there’s more to that picture than what you are presenting.
Yes, but the relevant facts are: Racism should discouraged at every level regardless of which race that it is involved. And at this point I’m just about convinced that Obama is a racist. His wife obviously holds deep seated hostility toward white America. His Pastor is one of the most hateful bigots that I’ve ever had the displeasure of listening to.
Tell me…how far away from these two people is Obama in his thinking regarding “white America”?
No self-respecting individual who is truly against racism should even consider voting for Barrack Hussein Obama.
And I have a feeling there is going to be more to come on this and other fronts regarding this unknown candidate.
[/quote]
LOL! My guess is, most black men and women in this country over the age of 40 “holds deep seated hostility toward white America”. What country are you people living in?
It is an insane position to think that an entire group of people can be denied from being full Americans themselves until the late 70’s or later, but that they should hold no hard feelings and that society as a whole is now so balanced that those same people are now at fault if they do.
People do seem to be living in the world they wish we had instead of the one we have.
Unfortunately, there are people who won’t vote a for a man because he’s black and others will vote for him just because he is.
Sad but that’s the way it is. If Obama was
going to transcend the racial divide he needed to distance himself from Wright years
ago. It’s too late now. Few of us are able to exercise as much control over our
feelings as we might like to. It is dreaming to think whites are going to vote for a man they think hates them just because of the color of their skins no matter how much justification he may have for feeling the way he does. It takes a
lot of self loathing to do that.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Gael brought up Fox’s smear campaign against Obama. You jumped in and, in effect, defended Fox.
I think the “madrassa bit” is indefensible and illustrates Gael’s point in a more clear-cut manner.[/quote]
Wrong - we were discussing his claims of a “smear” campaign as it pertained to use of Obama’s name.
Add value to this thread by subtracting yourself.
[quote]sherekahn wrote:
This might be interesting to some. Slavery
is ongoing in modern Africa. I am posting
from Mauritania where an estimated 90,000
blacks are enslaved to Arab owners.
Have spent some time in several African
nations—next stop Congo—and however
badly blacks have been treated in the US,
a housing project in the slums of any American city beats what I’ve seen on
the dark continent.[/quote]
Why don’t you start another thread on this topic. We can discuss it further.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
sherekahn wrote:
This might be interesting to some. Slavery
is ongoing in modern Africa. I am posting
from Mauritania where an estimated 90,000
blacks are enslaved to Arab owners.
Have spent some time in several African
nations—next stop Congo—and however
badly blacks have been treated in the US,
a housing project in the slums of any American city beats what I’ve seen on
the dark continent.
Why don’t you start another thread on this topic. We can discuss it further.
[/quote]
I concur - this would be a great and new perspective on the issue, very different from the one we usually get.
[quote]100meters wrote:
of course …[Mccain’s] spiritual advisors are “raving lunatics” and his wife, hmm… she’s done some crazy things…[/i]
…[/quote]
Please let us know whom McCain has referred to as a “spiritual adviser”? Or even a religious figure McCain has said he turned to for spiritual or other advice? Or even someone named by people close to McCain as his spiritual adviser or a religious leader to whom he turns for advice? Does he even attend church?
I see he was raised Episcopalian and attends or attended a Baptist church in Phoenix. I had to dig a bit to pull that up, and apparently the only reason I could find anything at all is that some people were accusing him of not really being Baptist.
Also, what “crazy things” has McCain’s wife done? I’m aware of her previous addiction to prescription drugs and the surrounding circumstances, which occurred back in the early 1990s ( Cindy McCain - Wikipedia ).
A liberal’s take - pretty much the reasonable best-case scenario for Obama:
EXCERPT:
[i] Obama’s going to have a hard time explaining that I take to be the truth, namely that his relationship with Trinity has been a bit cynical from the beginning. After all, before Obama was a half-black guy running in a mostly white country he was a half-white guy running in a mostly black neighborhood.
At that time, associating with a very large, influential, local church with black nationalist overtones was a clear political asset (it’s also clear in his book that it made him, personally, feel “blacker” to belong to a slightly kitschy black church).
Since emerging onto a larger stage, it’s been the reverse and Obama’s consistently sought to distance himself from Wright, disinviting him from his campaign’s launch, analogizing him to a crazy uncle who you love but don’t listen to, etc.
The closest analogy would probably be to Hillary Clinton’s inconsistent accounting of where she’s from (bragging about midwestern roots when trying to win in Iowa, promptly forgetting those roots when explaining away a loss in Illinois, developing a sporadic affection for New York sports teams) �?? banal, mildly cynical shifts of association as context changes.
This is why I don't, as an American citizen, worry that President Obama would be objectionable. But Americans take their religion seriously and aren't going to want to hear this story. So Obama's going to have to do some awkward further distancing.
[/i]
But of course, when you’re a candidate who’s sold yourself as the change to politics as we know it, that’s not exactly a good thing…
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
A liberal’s take - pretty much the reasonable best-case scenario for Obama:
EXCERPT:
[i] Obama’s going to have a hard time explaining that I take to be the truth, namely that his relationship with Trinity has been a bit cynical from the beginning. After all, before Obama was a half-black guy running in a mostly white country he was a half-white guy running in a mostly black neighborhood. At that time, associating with a very large, influential, local church with black nationalist overtones was a clear political asset (it’s also clear in his book that it made him, personally, feel “blacker” to belong to a slightly kitschy black church). Since emerging onto a larger stage, it’s been the reverse and Obama’s consistently sought to distance himself from Wright, disinviting him from his campaign’s launch, analogizing him to a crazy uncle who you love but don’t listen to, etc. The closest analogy would probably be to Hillary Clinton’s inconsistent accounting of where she’s from (bragging about midwestern roots when trying to win in Iowa, promptly forgetting those roots when explaining away a loss in Illinois, developing a sporadic affection for New York sports teams) �?? banal, mildly cynical shifts of association as context changes.
This is why I don't, as an American citizen, worry that President Obama would be objectionable. But Americans take their religion seriously and aren't going to want to hear this story. So Obama's going to have to do some awkward further distancing.
[/i]
But of course, when you’re a candidate who’s sold yourself as the change to politics as we know it, that’s not exactly a good thing…[/quote]
I think it’s ridiculous that politics even involves the extensive rummaging through someone’s life to find anything negative to use against you. No one speaks for me but me. Why should any politician have to answer for every association they have in the first place?
I can guarantee that if we searched through the families and friends, associates and acquaintances of people in this thread, we would find quite a few quotes that could be used against you…if we assumed you agreed with everything those people believe and say.
I also doubt this will make a big difference in how anyone is going to vote.
I don’t even think it will make a small difference.
In fact, NO difference is possibly the take home message.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
lixy wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
Racism works both ways.
True. However, you have to remember that black people have suffered at the hands of whites. Not the other way around.
It’s effectively a double standard, but there’s more to that picture than what you are presenting.
Yes, but the relevant facts are: Racism should discouraged at every level regardless of which race that it is involved. And at this point I’m just about convinced that Obama is a racist. His wife obviously holds deep seated hostility toward white America. His Pastor is one of the most hateful bigots that I’ve ever had the displeasure of listening to.
Tell me…how far away from these two people is Obama in his thinking regarding “white America”?
No self-respecting individual who is truly against racism should even consider voting for Barrack Hussein Obama.
And I have a feeling there is going to be more to come on this and other fronts regarding this unknown candidate.
LOL! My guess is, most black men and women in this country over the age of 40 “holds deep seated hostility toward white America”. What country are you people living in?
It is an insane position to think that an entire group of people can be denied from being full Americans themselves until the late 70’s or later, but that they should hold no hard feelings and that society as a whole is now so balanced that those same people are now at fault if they do.[/quote]
Good post. I think there’s a fair degree of blindness on this point among white people.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
100meters wrote:
of course …[Mccain’s] spiritual advisors are “raving lunatics” and his wife, hmm… she’s done some crazy things…[/i]
…
Please let us know whom McCain has referred to as a “spiritual adviser”? Or even a religious figure McCain has said he turned to for spiritual or other advice? Or even someone named by people close to McCain as his spiritual adviser or a religious leader to whom he turns for advice? .[/quote]
Hmmm…I was going to say Parsley, whom Mccain called “a spiritual guide”, but to be fair he didn’t say “my spirital guide”…and you’ve already pointed out there’s apparently nothing morally objective about seeking out the endorsements of lunatics who say crazy things for the purpose of political pandering, even if you’re the “straight-talk” express.
.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Good post. I think there’s a fair degree of blindness on this point among white people.[/quote]
It’s the level of arrogance that gets me. It is like saying, “White America did this to you all but…that was years ago and no backsies. By the way, you are now all considered racist if you speak about white America in a negative light. Oh, and you know any social programs that are designed to get rid of institutionalized racism in the work place? We will call that racist too. Have a great life y’all and yaaaaay equality!!”
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
But of course, when you’re a candidate who’s sold yourself as the change to politics as we know it, that’s not exactly a good thing…[/quote]
And I think this is the difference - Obama has sold a completely different image from the one we have gotten independently. Obama has told every navel-gazing follower the same speech about the importance of Unity, only for us to find out that outside of a speech to his acolytes, his behavior and his associations suggest a very partisan, very narrow ideology.
Obama is shaping up to have a credibility and integrity problem.
Truth is, I actually blame the Democrats that support him. So obsessed with celebrity instead of substance, the Democrats pushed Obama - himself in 2004 saying he didn’t think a 2008 candidacy was a good idea - into the race because they wanted a President that sounded and looked a certain way, rather than demanding a candidate who had the gravitas to govern.
For all the eye-rolling liberal Democrats do about the stupidity of “pop culture”, the Democrats have backed a candidate who is the quintessential “pop-culture” candidate - a contrived show of saccharin, imagery, and feelgoodism backed by Pure Hype, only to find that there are concerns no one will pick the program up after the pilot episode.
Obama’s campaign is a living, breathing parody of the lightweight politician whose campaign is pure entertainment and advertisement. Unfortunately, this parody beat out the likes of Bill Richardson for the job.
EDIT: added “and his associations”
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
But of course, when you’re a candidate who’s sold yourself as the change to politics as we know it, that’s not exactly a good thing…
And I think this is the difference - Obama has sold a completely different image from the one we have gotten independently. Obama has told every navel-gazing follower the same speech about the importance of Unity, only for us to find out that outside of a speech to his acolytes, his behavior and his associations suggest a very partisan, very narrow ideology.
Obama is shaping up to have a credibility and integrity problem.
Truth is, I actually blame the Democrats that support him. So obsessed with celebrity instead of substance, the Democrats pushed Obama - himself in 2004 saying he didn’t think a 2008 candidacy was a good idea - into the race because they wanted a President that sounded and looked a certain way, rather than demanding a candidate who had the gravitas to govern.
For all the eye-rolling liberal Democrats do about the stupidity of “pop culture”, the Democrats have backed a candidate who is the quintessential “pop-culture” candidate - a contrived show of saccharin, imagery, and feelgoodism backed by Pure Hype, only to find that there are concerns no one will pick the program up after the pilot episode.
Obama’s campaign is a living, breathing parody of the lightweight politician whose campaign is pure entertainment and advertisement. Unfortunately, this parody beat out the likes of Bill Richardson for the job.
EDIT: added “and his associations”[/quote]
I’ve mentioned this before and you dodged it. Please explain how George Bush has an ideology that isn’t narrow but broad.
Please explain how George Bush doesn’t have an integrity problem.
Please explain the “substance” and “gravitas” President Bush has.
I want to know if you used the same criteria last time.
I have a distinct feeling his approach has more than likely gotten him closer to election than your advice would have.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I’ve mentioned this before and you dodged it. Please explain how George Bush has an ideology that isn’t narrow but broad.
Please explain how George Bush doesn’t have an integrity problem.
Please explain the “substance” and “gravitas” President Bush has.
I want to know if you used the same criteria last time.
I have a distinct feeling his approach has more than likely gotten him closer to election than your advice would have.[/quote]
Well, I didn’t dodge it - normally I skip reading your posts.
But a few threads back, in a discussion about Obama, you immediately reacted by asking similar questions about Bush, and I directly responded that you are presenting a “red herring” - what President Bush is or isn’t is completely irrelevant to an assessment to Barack Obama. Bush might be the worst president ever, or the best president ever, and it has exactly…wait for it…zero to do with an independent analysis of Obama’s character and candidacy.
Go read up on “red herring”:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html
As for whether I used “the same criteria” for Bush last time, you seem to be very, very confused - I am evaluating Obama’s candidacy compared to the growing body of facts that contradict his advertising. I am not “measuring” whether I would vote for him - I had the same concerns about GOP candidate Mitt Romney, who I thought had problems matching his candidacy to his claims of his politics, creating an integrity problem.
And more besides, outside of being a red herring, the comparison is a bad one - in the 2004 election, Bush was a known commodity. He had already won one election and presided over one of the greatest tragedies on American soil. In 2004, Bush had no surprises to offer - everyone knew what they were getting, and they either voted for it or against it. In 2004, love him or hate him, there was no disconnect between Bush’s “advertising” and his reality.
To sum up - no one is claiming Bush doesn’t have a narrow ideology, and Bush’s ideology isn’t relevant to the issue I raised.
As you can see, this ground has already been plowed:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Just so I know, could you tell me what Bush had in his “past, present or future” that suggested he would “do well when faced with difficult decisions”? Did Bush do well? Were you right?
[b]Red herring. No one is voting for or against Bush in 2008. It has nothing to do with whether or not Obama is a good candidate, but it was a predictable response - someone was bound to “answer” criticism of Obama this way.
As for the answer, you mean outside of being elected governor to a state that has the 2d largest GDP in the nation and 15th largest in the world? [/b]
I’m just here to learn.
[b]If so, go learn up on what a “red herring” is: http://www.nizkor.org/...ed-herring.html
That would be a great place to start.[/b][/quote]