http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080519/ap_on_el_pr/obama_wife;_ylt=AjTZRWPCinsP2X0WKQi9qUGs0NUE
Mon May 19, 7:58 AM ET
Obama tells Tenn.'s GOP: 'Lay off my wife'
WASHINGTON - Democrat Barack Obama has a message for Tennessee's Republican Party: "Lay off my wife."
Obama, his party's presidential front-runner, and his wife, Michelle, were asked in an interview aired Monday on ABC's "Good Morning America" about an online video last week by the state's GOP taking her to task for a comment some considered unpatriotic.
"The GOP, should I be the nominee, can say whatever they want to say about me, my track record," Obama said. "If they think that they're going to try to make Michelle an issue in this campaign, they should be careful because that I find unacceptable, the notion that you start attacking my wife or my family."
He called the strategy "low class."
The video, posted on YouTube, centered on remarks Michelle Obama made while campaigning in Wisconsin last February, when she said: "For the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country."
The four-minute video replayed the remark six times, interspersing it with commentary by Tennesseans on why they are proud of America. In a news release that included a link to the video, Tennessee's GOP said "the Tennessee Republican Party has always been proud of America." It urged radio stations to play "patriotic music" during Michelle Obama's visit to Nashville last Thursday.
Michelle Obama later clarified the remark, saying she meant she was proud of how Americans were engaging in the political process and that she had always been proud of her country.
"Whoever is in charge of the Tennessee GOP needs to think long and hard about the kind of campaign they want to run, and I think that's true for everybody, Democrat or Republican," Obama said in the ABC interview, adding: "These folks should lay off my wife."
Obama said his wife "loves this country. For them to try to distort or to play snippets of her remarks in ways that are unflattering to her is, I think, just low class. I think that most of the American people would think that as well."
Tennessee's Republican Party was roundly criticized in March, including by likely presidential nominee John McCain, for a news release that used Barack Obama's middle name — Hussein — and showed a photo of him wearing what it said was "Muslim attire."
The release ultimately was removed from the party's Web site at the urging of the state's two Republican senators and Republican National Committee Chairman Mike Duncan, who said he "rejects these kinds of campaign tactics."
Obama's campaign has made a big deal about everything Bill says. Now someone wants to speak about what Michelle says.
Why do the Obama people think they get special treatment?
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
Obama's campaign has made a big deal about everything Bill says. Now someone wants to speak about what Michelle says.
Why do the Obama people think they get special treatment?
It's creepy what you are doing RM. First off, race baiting differs dramatically from personal attacks. Secondly, Big Dissapointment Bill is a past President.
What's really creepy is you seem to be going out against the democratic nominee after being so supportive of Hilldog.
"The Obama People" do not think they get special treatment. Quite the opposite.
Nobody ran ads with Bill Clinton's "misstatements" being aired over and over. Besides, Michelle Obama is not the former president.
It was wrong when the right wing attacked Hillary for her "baking cookies" misstatement. It's wrong for them to attack Michelle Obama, too. I am quite sure we could find some "misstatements" from Cindy McCain. I wouldn't support using that either.
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
Nobody ran ads with Bill Clinton's "mistatements" being aired over and over. Besides, Michelle Obama is not the former president.
It was wrong when the right wing attacked Hillary for her "baking cookies" mistatement. It's wrong for them to attack Michelle Obama, too. I am quite sure we could find some "mistatements" from Cindy McCain. I wouldn't support using that either.
Yeah! . . . and don't forget Hillary's Sniper Fire "misstatements." After all, these are just words. Nothing to pay too much attention too!
It's funny how we get a new vocabulary word to emphasize with every election. I think "misstatement" is this cycle's vocabulary word. Lets soften and de-emphasize the importance of what our candidates say. Lets make words less important. Yeah! That's a good idea.
[}:)]
I think that Obama is thinking about the future, not the past. It seems that he's trying to set the boundaries for the debate. Attacking wives is not where this election needs to go and most of us know it.
Sure, Cindy's got problems, but how much time do we voters have to devote to stolen cookie recipes and hidden income tax statements? There are more important things happening in the world today; THAT's what the debate needs to be about, and Obama's confident that he can win that debate.
I guess that's better than saying "Lay On My Wife!"
Ok, that was just uncalled for. I apologize for my childish lack of control. [:(]
^^I have to say, though, I really thought that Cindy's family recipes being copied directly from FoodNetwork was pretty funny.
Not that people should attack her on that....
It's going to get worse FOTD. It always does. For a candidate to become offended this early by such innocuous commentary is going to be a problem for him.
You see, he is now going to be expected to react to similar or stronger commentary. If he does he will get the criticism that the media feeds off of. If he fails to react, the media will comment on why he shrinks from one topic and reacts to another.
He is being tested (he failed). The other candidates and the media have to find out what knocks him off of his balance. This is thier job. They know that when he gets flustered (like almost anyone else) he has the greatest chance of making candid statements.
His strong reaction to this early and mild criticism shows that he is a novice politician. Now that they know this, he's going to get absolutely pounded! We as a country have made the term "Politician" a bad word, but there is an art to being a politician that people need to recognize. Sure politicians skirt questions, and devise circular answers, and complicate things, but they also have the ability to think 10 moves ahead, like a good chess player. Obama doesn't seem to have that ability. His comments about Iran, his choice of words when speaking to female reporters (the most dangerous of all species on the planet!), and his choice of acquaintances, show a lack of anticipation.
I'm just not sure he's going to end up being your best candidate, but he's the only one you have.
You're right the criticism is going to become serious, but if he had not reacted as he did, he could still be safe.
He's shown several weaknesses, and the hyenas are circling.
There's a rumor that the Hildabeast's people have something on Obama so damaging and vile that she is not sure how or when to break it to the media. This may be hype and BS, but it's worth watching for.
Obama needs to quit being such a whiny ***** and grow some thicker skin if he wants to be President. It might also help if he and his wife weren't a couple of closet Marxists.
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
It's going to get worse FOTD. It always does. For a candidate to become offended this early by such innocuous commentary is going to be a problem for him.
You see, he is now going to be expected to react to similar or stronger commentary. If he does he will get the criticism that the media feeds off of. If he fails to react, the media will comment on why he shrinks from one topic and reacts to another.
He is being tested (he failed). The other candidates and the media have to find out what knocks him off of his balance. This is thier job. They know that when he gets flustered (like almost anyone else) he has the greatest chance of making candid statements.
His strong reaction to this early and mild criticism shows that he is a novice politician. Now that they know this, he's going to get absolutely pounded! We as a country have made the term "Politician" a bad word, but there is an art to being a politician that people need to recognize. Sure politicians skirt questions, and devise circular answers, and complicate things, but they also have the ability to think 10 moves ahead, like a good chess player. Obama doesn't seem to have that ability. His comments about Iran, his choice of words when speaking to female reporters (the most dangerous of all species on the planet!), and his choice of acquaintances, show a lack of anticipation.
I'm just not sure he's going to end up being your best candidate, but he's the only one you have.
You're right the criticism is going to become serious, but if he had not reacted as he did, he could still be safe.
He's shown several weaknesses, and the hyenas are circling.
There's a rumor that the Hildabeast's people have something on Obama so damaging and vile that she is not sure how or when to break it to the media. This may be hype and BS, but it's worth watching for.
Dude, you're smack in the middle of a crock of ****. Stick to Ron Paul where you have some keen insights. This ain't theatre, this is real life. If I remember right you're sure that Hillary is going to take the Democratic party to court over the primary too. Not much happening on that front. "Hildabeast" indeed. Cute. Seems sort of ...Limbaughish. Could you be perhaps a closet repug? I hope the McCain advisors' analysis is even half as lame cause the Democratic party will clean up if they adopt this attitude.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
It's going to get worse FOTD. It always does. For a candidate to become offended this early by such innocuous commentary is going to be a problem for him.
You see, he is now going to be expected to react to similar or stronger commentary. If he does he will get the criticism that the media feeds off of. If he fails to react, the media will comment on why he shrinks from one topic and reacts to another.
He is being tested (he failed). The other candidates and the media have to find out what knocks him off of his balance. This is thier job. They know that when he gets flustered (like almost anyone else) he has the greatest chance of making candid statements.
His strong reaction to this early and mild criticism shows that he is a novice politician. Now that they know this, he's going to get absolutely pounded! We as a country have made the term "Politician" a bad word, but there is an art to being a politician that people need to recognize. Sure politicians skirt questions, and devise circular answers, and complicate things, but they also have the ability to think 10 moves ahead, like a good chess player. Obama doesn't seem to have that ability. His comments about Iran, his choice of words when speaking to female reporters (the most dangerous of all species on the planet!), and his choice of acquaintances, show a lack of anticipation.
I'm just not sure he's going to end up being your best candidate, but he's the only one you have.
You're right the criticism is going to become serious, but if he had not reacted as he did, he could still be safe.
He's shown several weaknesses, and the hyenas are circling.
There's a rumor that the Hildabeast's people have something on Obama so damaging and vile that she is not sure how or when to break it to the media. This may be hype and BS, but it's worth watching for.
Dude, you're smack in the middle of a crock of ****. Stick to Ron Paul where you have some keen insights. This ain't theatre, this is real life. If I remember right you're sure that Hillary is going to take the Democratic party to court over the primary too. Not much happening on that front. "Hildabeast" indeed. Cute. Seems sort of ...Limbaughish. Could you be perhaps a closet repug? I hope the McCain advisors' analysis is even half as lame cause the Democratic party will clean up if they adopt this attitude.
Interesting response. Thank you.
There isn't a thing you said that was plausible, defensible, responsible or worthy of your obvious intellect.
Was that better?[:D]
I can't believe the rationalization I just read. She is not a former president so we can't talk about what she says?
She is on the campaign trail every day making speeches for her husband. She says something stupid and people comment on it.
No one is attacking his kids, his parents or anyone else in the family. She is campaigning.
How is she any different than any other campaign person? Other campaign people resign when they embarrass the campaign.
I am sorry, you don't get special rules just because you are married to the candidate. I will attack Cindy McCain for her refusal to turn over tax records for 28 years.
Obama doesn't get to decide what is "acceptable".
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
I can't believe the rationalization I just read. She is not a former president so we can't talk about what she says?
She is on the campaign trail every day making speeches for her husband. She says something stupid and people comment on it.
No one is attacking his kids, his parents or anyone else in the family. She is campaigning.
How is she any different than any other campaign person? Other campaign people resign when they embarass the campaign.
I am sorry, you don't get special rules just because you are married to the candidate. I will attack Cindy McCain for her refusal to turn over tax records for 28 years.
Obama doesn't get to decide what is "acceptable".
The cookie recipes man! Cindy's fraudulent recipes!! WE ALL WANT TO KNOW, DESERVE TO KNOW AND CONSIDER IT WEAKNESS AND SUSPICIOUS IF THE TRUTH IS NOT DIVULGED!
America is eating itself for dessert.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
Obama's campaign has made a big deal about everything Bill says. Now someone wants to speak about what Michelle says.
Why do the Obama people think they get special treatment?
It's creepy what you are doing RM. First off, race baiting differs dramatically from personal attacks. Secondly, Big Dissapointment Bill is a past President.
What's really creepy is you seem to be going out against the democratic nominee after being so supportive of Hilldog.
"The Obama People" do not think they get special treatment. Quite the opposite.
What are you talking about? Why would you bring race into this?
It was perfectly fine to attack Bill on the campaign trail, but not Michelle. What is your definition of special treatment?
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
There isn't a thing you said that was plausible, defensible, responsible or worthy of your obvious intellect.
Was that better?[:D]
So are you saying that the media, and other candidates are not going to hound this topic now?
Do you believe that he will not be thrown curve balls to evaluate his reaction?
Do you think he handled this correctly rather than just stating "I'm not going to dignify that with an answer" or some other dismissal of the topic?
Do you feel that he is displayed strategic decision making in his past associations?
I am sure you are correct and they will have no bearing on the direction the media takes. My apologies for suggesting so. I'm sure we will hear no more of this.
Never was a Ron Paul fan. Too much of a weenie for me!
I think it was smart of him to try to defend his wife. It makes him look stronger. Doesn't make it right.
There is a fine line between being a defender and being defensive.
No one will admit, even to themselves, that they would vote against Obama because he's black. But they will quickly latch on to any other reason, so they can say, " its not because he's black, its because of.".. fill in the blank. His preacher, his wife, his lack of a flag pin, his refusal to salute the the flag or put his hand over his heart.
I expect that because of this, you'll see the Repugni-cans play the race card a lot, because its all they have. Too bad for them they couldn't hide Rev Wright until October, because now, Barack has 5 more months to show that he is not the same guy as his preacher. While people will buy in to subtle reasons to oppose a black candidate, as soon as the appeals become blatantly racist, they stop working, because nobody wants to admit they are voting against someone, solely based on race.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
I can't believe the rationalization I just read. She is not a former president so we can't talk about what she says?
She is on the campaign trail every day making speeches for her husband. She says something stupid and people comment on it.
No one is attacking his kids, his parents or anyone else in the family. She is campaigning.
How is she any different than any other campaign person? Other campaign people resign when they embarrass the campaign.
I am sorry, you don't get special rules just because you are married to the candidate. I will attack Cindy McCain for her refusal to turn over tax records for 28 years.
Obama doesn't get to decide what is "acceptable".
Cindy and John file taxes separately. She has no obligation to turn over any of her tax records. If they filed jointly then it would be required.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
No one will admit, even to themselves, that they would vote against Obama because he's black. But they will quickly latch on to any other reason, so they can say, " its not because he's black, its because of.".. fill in the blank. His preacher, his wife, his lack of a flag pin, his refusal to salute the the flag or put his hand over his heart.
I expect that because of this, you'll see the Repugni-cans play the race card a lot, because its all they have. Too bad for them they couldn't hide Rev Wright until October, because now, Barack has 5 more months to show that he is not the same guy as his preacher. While people will buy in to subtle reasons to oppose a black candidate, as soon as the appeals become blatantly racist, they stop working, because nobody wants to admit they are voting against someone, solely based on race.
Strange how you seem to be the only person making race an issue. Who cares what color he is!
He's a man, a successful, intelligent man, with a successful, intelligent spouse. I will not vote for him because I disagree with his political standing on most issues. I will also not vote for him because he hasn't displayed the strength I believe is necessary to be the leader of my country. I feel no guilt for taking this position.
I am getting tired of liberals inferring that people are raciest if they don't want to vote for him!
I thought we had moved past this as a country!
No, this country has not moved past racism.
It's in the race for president. Big time. just look at WVA.
Go fight the war since your head is in the sand.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
No one will admit, even to themselves, that they would vote against Obama because he's black. But they will quickly latch on to any other reason, so they can say, " its not because he's black, its because of.".. fill in the blank. His preacher, his wife, his lack of a flag pin, his refusal to salute the the flag or put his hand over his heart.
What a ridiculous assertion. Everyone who is opposed or criticizes Obama only does so because they are secretly racist. Really?
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
No one will admit, even to themselves, that they would vote against Obama because he's black. But they will quickly latch on to any other reason, so they can say, " its not because he's black, its because of.".. fill in the blank. His preacher, his wife, his lack of a flag pin, his refusal to salute the the flag or put his hand over his heart.
What a ridiculous assertion. Everyone who is opposed or criticizes Obama only does so because they are secretly racist. Really?
I think the point he has made very clearly (whether intentional or not) is that his vote IS based solely on race.
FOTD you are correct sir, there is Raceism in this race.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
No one will admit, even to themselves, that they would vote against Obama because he's black. But they will quickly latch on to any other reason, so they can say, " its not because he's black, its because of.".. fill in the blank. His preacher, his wife, his lack of a flag pin, his refusal to salute the the flag or put his hand over his heart.
What a ridiculous assertion. Everyone who is opposed or criticizes Obama only does so because they are secretly racist. Really?
It's not a secret.
Fill in the blank.
Stick to the real issues if you dare or if you are even able. Try not to insert patriotism.
Please show one statement of mine about Obama that was racist. Ever.
How dare you call me that. I am through with you.
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
I can't believe the rationalization I just read. She is not a former president so we can't talk about what she says?
She is on the campaign trail every day making speeches for her husband. She says something stupid and people comment on it.
No one is attacking his kids, his parents or anyone else in the family. She is campaigning.
How is she any different than any other campaign person? Other campaign people resign when they embarrass the campaign.
I am sorry, you don't get special rules just because you are married to the candidate. I will attack Cindy McCain for her refusal to turn over tax records for 28 years.
Obama doesn't get to decide what is "acceptable".
Cindy and John file taxes separately. She has no obligation to turn over any of her tax records. If they filed jointly then it would be required.
So the Republican candidate is to be treated differently than the Democratic candidate? If I am not wrong the Republican party made a lot of noise 4 years ago about John Kerry's wife turning over her tax records. They set the precident, Mrs McCain should turn over her tax records.
quote:
Originally posted by joiei
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
I can't believe the rationalization I just read. She is not a former president so we can't talk about what she says?
She is on the campaign trail every day making speeches for her husband. She says something stupid and people comment on it.
No one is attacking his kids, his parents or anyone else in the family. She is campaigning.
How is she any different than any other campaign person? Other campaign people resign when they embarrass the campaign.
I am sorry, you don't get special rules just because you are married to the candidate. I will attack Cindy McCain for her refusal to turn over tax records for 28 years.
Obama doesn't get to decide what is "acceptable".
Cindy and John file taxes separately. She has no obligation to turn over any of her tax records. If they filed jointly then it would be required.
So the Republican candidate is to be treated differently than the Democratic candidate? If I am not wrong the Republican party made a lot of noise 4 years ago about John Kerry's wife turning over her tax records. They set the precident, Mrs McCain should turn over her tax records.
And. . . as I remember she did not. The rules are the same, no matter what side the obnoxious people are on. She has a right to the privacy of her tax records just like Mrs. Kerry does, just like you do, just like I do.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
No one will admit, even to themselves, that they would vote against Obama because he's black. But they will quickly latch on to any other reason, so they can say, " its not because he's black, its because of.".. fill in the blank. His preacher, his wife, his lack of a flag pin, his refusal to salute the the flag or put his hand over his heart.
What a ridiculous assertion. Everyone who is opposed or criticizes Obama only does so because they are secretly racist. Really?
It's not a secret.
Fill in the blank.
Stick to the real issues if you dare or if you are even able. Try not to insert patriotism.
FOTD you're not supposed to smoke the seeds! They'll give you a headache!
Gaspar, try to be a decent person. Advocating the decriminalization of a victimless crime does not make one a user.
You do the same thing to me that you do to these discussions...make them personal.
Tsk tsk.
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
...there is Raceism in this race.
Of course, racism still exists in America. When 95% of black males vote for Obama or when 20% of West Viginia whites say that they won't vote for Obama because of race.
But FOTD says everybody who doesn't support Obama is racist. I consider that proof that idiocy still exists in America as well.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Gaspar, try to be a decent person. Advocating the decriminalization of a victimless crime does not make one a user.
You do the same thing to me that you do to these discussions...make them personal.
Tsk tsk.
My apologies. I have nothing against smokin a fatty and poundin some wisdom out on the old keyboard. Do continue.
I was just commenting on your treatment of RM in this thread. He made the statement that "
What a ridiculous assertion. Everyone who is opposed or criticizes Obama only does so because they are secretly racist. Really?" and you replied with something incoherent.
I simply assumed that a seed had clogged the stem of your big blue bong (the one with with the space your face sticker on the side). I was wrong to make such an assumption, you have my apology.
Continue.
I've never said those that don't support Obama are racist. NEVER!
What I've said is there will be tactics used to substitute fear for the real issues.
Same as it's been with the republicans for many years now.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
I've never said those that don't support Obama are racist. NEVER!
What I've said is there will be tactics used to substitute fear for the real issues.
Same as it's been with the republicans for many years now.
Fear is used on both sides because it's a motivator. Obama spoke Friday in front of a bunch of older americans at a retirement home. He played that old favorite "the Republicans are going to take away your social security".
Don't act like fear is only a republican tactic! Emotion motivates, and both sides will offer the whole spectrum of emotional ploys to pull and push the less intelligent voters.
It all must boil down to simple logic for me. The positions, track record, capabilities, and manner in which the candidate handles the media and other leaders.
I'm starting to like Obama more, now that he has proposed the addition of an additional 7 states. And he's wearing his new 57 state lapel pin!
(http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/images/2008/05/10/newlapelpin.jpg)
Faux patriotism is not a real issue.
Social Security is a real issue. I look forward to an honest President who will warn me rather than scare me. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080518/ap_on_el_pr/democrats;_ylt=AtE39qhbHasW4dnJatwhnnqs0NUE
As a boomer, I am fearful the amount promised me by our government will not be there for me.
Name the new 7 states and the reason for you inserting them into this thread.
She should think more before she opens her cock-holster.....
Way to go BB... a hit and run sucker punch.
LOL
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
I can't believe the rationalization I just read. She is not a former president so we can't talk about what she says?
She is on the campaign trail every day making speeches for her husband. She says something stupid and people comment on it.
No one is attacking his kids, his parents or anyone else in the family. She is campaigning.
How is she any different than any other campaign person? Other campaign people resign when they embarrass the campaign.
I am sorry, you don't get special rules just because you are married to the candidate. I will attack Cindy McCain for her refusal to turn over tax records for 28 years.
Obama doesn't get to decide what is "acceptable".
While it may seem unfair, the fact that Clinton is the former president means that his statements are more significant than any other spouse's, for good or bad. His comments would make news even if his wife weren't running for president. Hillary's marriage to a former president is both helpful and harmful. And unlike the other spouses, Bill Clinton is a career politician. He
knows how to play these games--he's one of the best. So when he makes comments that are harmful to Obama, people naturally assume that they are intentional.
Ultimately, I think you are correct that this is only political posturing of Obama--of course Obama doesn't decide what is acceptable. No candidate does. But he can certainly strongly defend his wife (unlike Dukakis, who committed political suicide for not defending his).
Ultmiately, though, I think that what Michelle Obama mistakenly said a few months back has no bearing on whose spouse will make the best president.
I think, though, if you are going to insist that Cindy McCain release her tax records, shouldn't Bill Clinton release records of donations to his library?
OBAMA IS BLACK?!?!
Why didn't anybody tell me that?
I need to go change my vote, my voter registration and my dental plan.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Obama needs to quit being such a whiny ***** and grow some thicker skin if he wants to be President. It might also help if he and his wife weren't a couple of closet Marxists.
If it was a Republican who did this you'd be praising him for DEFENDING HIS WIFE AND DEFENDING HIS FAMILY.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZY6WLKGkJY
Here's some of his quotes:
"The GOP, should I be the nominee, can say whatever they want to say about me, my track record." "If they think that they're going to try to make Michelle an issue in this campaign, they should be careful because I find that unacceptable, the notion that you start attacking my wife or my family."... "low class"..."lay off my wife"...But since he's a dem, you're gonna characterize him as a whiny *****. Typical cheapshot republican tactic of trying everything you can to emasculate the dem candidate...
His wife grew up on the southside of Chicago... she is a very strong woman but... SHE IS NOT A POLITICIAN.
Let's see. You've previously characterized Hillary Clinton as a communist... so, if you consider Barack and Michelle Obama as "closet Marxists" then... based on that flawed logic... you sir, are a CLOSET FASCIST. [:o)]
If you should ever run for office Conan, I'd start a thread saying that if Adolf Hitler were alive, he'd be endorsing you... nothing like craptastic gotcha politics... and if you complain about any of my tactics, I'll just call you a "whiny *****." [}:)]
RM says: "It was perfectly fine to attack Bill on the campaign trail, but not Michelle. What is your definition of special treatment?"
Hmmm. "It was perfectly fine to attack Bill on the campaign trail, but not Chelsea. What is your definition of special treatment?" There. Fixed your post.... pot to kettle... come in kettle...Bill Clinton is a former president and one of slickest politicians this side of Richard Nixon... it's definitely a grey area with respect to treatment of spouses and children who campaign for their family... using one out-of-context sound bite to bludgeon a candidate's wife as unpatriotic and un-American... is well... unpatriotic and un-American.
"Amerika, Amerika, uber alles"... [B)]
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
OBAMA IS BLACK?!?!
Why didn't anybody tell me that?
I need to go change my vote, my voter registration and my dental plan.
But I've HEARD he's muslim too!
Hmmm. About a week ago John McCain goes ballistic and sounds like a whiny little nut sack when Obama muses that he might have lost his bearings. "HE'S SAYING I'M OLD!! NO FAIR!! HE CAN'T SAY I'M OLD. NOW HE'S IN TROUBLE!! SO ITS LIKE THAT EH? I'LL SHOW HIM OLD" Or something to that effect.[}:)] So tell me Gaspar, oh great reader of political tea leaves, how did that hit you? That sound like a real able political fighter whose holding his cards tight and ready for a good rumble? Or a whiny little Bush clone desperately looking for something to fight about other than issues. Wait till someone attacks his trophy wife and then compare reactions.
Oh yeah, sorry about the closet republican remark earlier. I mistook you for one of the many libertarians on this forum I have some respect for. You arent' in the closet at all apparently.
To be specific Obama is Mulatto: Half Black and half White.
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
To be specific Obama is Mulatto: Half Black and half White.
Does that make his detractors half racist?
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Faux patriotism is not a real issue.
Name the new 7 states and the reason for you inserting them into this thread.
You must have missed the speech last week where he kept referring to "These 57 states." It was just a slip, but funny none the less. I'm sure he knows how many states there are.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Faux patriotism is not a real issue.
Social Security is a real issue. I look forward to an honest President who will warn me rather than scare me. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080518/ap_on_el_pr/democrats;_ylt=AtE39qhbHasW4dnJatwhnnqs0NUE
As a boomer, I am fearful the amount promised me by our government will not be there for me.
Name the new 7 states and the reason for you inserting them into this thread.
If you are planning on government, i.e. ME, taking care of you when you are old, you are a very sad person. "The amount promised you" is a small fraction of the amount stolen from you by your government. Don't forget that!
I've paid over 2.5 million lifetime dollars to my government in the form of Social Security. I will probably only see 300k back.
You have drank the cool-aid and are singing the mantra, but it's obvious you carry no understanding!
quote:
Originally posted by spoonbill
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Faux patriotism is not a real issue.
Social Security is a real issue. I look forward to an honest President who will warn me rather than scare me. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080518/ap_on_el_pr/democrats;_ylt=AtE39qhbHasW4dnJatwhnnqs0NUE
As a boomer, I am fearful the amount promised me by our government will not be there for me.
Name the new 7 states and the reason for you inserting them into this thread.
If you are planning on government, i.e. ME, taking care of you when you are old, you are a very sad person. "The amount promised you" is a small fraction of the amount stolen from you by your government. Don't forget that!
I've paid over 2.5 million lifetime dollars to my government in the form of Social Security. I will probably only see 300k back.
You have drank the cool-aid and are singing the mantra, but it's obvious you carry no understanding!
Considering this is the same poster who made the incredible claim that the federal deficit is "imaginary," I'll give that rant the attention it deserves.
But the fact is that most people receive more money from Social Security benefits than they put in during their lifetimes.
And, frankly, people receive a lot of other benefits from the taxes the government collects -- Medicare, Medicaid, good highways, education, college grants, unemployment benefits ... I could go on and on.
To suggest the government is "stealing" from you and you're getting nothing in return is wrong.
First off, let me state that I am registered as a republican, though I am not a hard core or mainstream republican. I do my best to step back and look at any issue from the broadest veiwpoint, and come to a fair discision on it, and now what one party or the other tries to push on me.
Now that that is out, and since the whole thing about racism has come up, I will put my two cents in on it. I have yet to make up my mind how I will vote, but things do not look good for Obama for it. I have several reasons for this, and yes, race is one of them. Not because I don't think that a black man (or woman) can't be a good president, but because he has ran too much of his campaign on the fact that he is (half)black. This, in itself, I think, adds to the racist views of America. Because someone wants to be treated differantly because of their race ("vote for me because you want to empower a black man" is wanting to be treated differant based on race)it promotes a speration of race. Now if he would have gotten up there and said "vote for me, and yes, I know, I'm black. What about it?" I might be a little more prone to vote for him, but he has blundered in other ways that still would make me reconcider voting for him, in addition to what type of person he comes off to me as being. So yes, him being black can cost votes, but not always because the voter is racist.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
quote:
Originally posted by spoonbill
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Faux patriotism is not a real issue.
Social Security is a real issue. I look forward to an honest President who will warn me rather than scare me. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080518/ap_on_el_pr/democrats;_ylt=AtE39qhbHasW4dnJatwhnnqs0NUE
As a boomer, I am fearful the amount promised me by our government will not be there for me.
Name the new 7 states and the reason for you inserting them into this thread.
If you are planning on government, i.e. ME, taking care of you when you are old, you are a very sad person. "The amount promised you" is a small fraction of the amount stolen from you by your government. Don't forget that!
I've paid over 2.5 million lifetime dollars to my government in the form of Social Security. I will probably only see 300k back.
You have drank the cool-aid and are singing the mantra, but it's obvious you carry no understanding!
Considering this is the same poster who made the incredible claim that the federal deficit is "imaginary," I'll give that rant the attention it deserves.
But the fact is that most people receive more money from Social Security benefits than they put in during their lifetimes.
And, frankly, people receive a lot of other benefits from the taxes the government collects -- Medicare, Medicaid, good highways, education, college grants, unemployment benefits ... I could go on and on.
To suggest the government is "stealing" from you and you're getting nothing in return is wrong.
Oh you remember. How sweet!
I don't mean to offend your religion, but government run social security does not pay out more except to support those who paid very little to begin with. Anyway, why would you think this a good thing?
I said nothing of any other taxes, I was just speaking of SS. It's a bad system that allows government to steal from it to fund other interests. If it continues to exist, it must be separate, and therefore private.
But, I don't have to prove this point, If you are reliant on this system it will make it's own point eventually. Good luck!
I am fortunate enough to have provided for my own comfortable retirement. I feel sorry, and in many cases angry, when I see my friends trying to live on government beans, when they could have been very comfortable, had they not bought into the myth that SS would take care of them.
quote:
Originally posted by spoonbill
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
quote:
Originally posted by spoonbill
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Faux patriotism is not a real issue.
Social Security is a real issue. I look forward to an honest President who will warn me rather than scare me. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080518/ap_on_el_pr/democrats;_ylt=AtE39qhbHasW4dnJatwhnnqs0NUE
As a boomer, I am fearful the amount promised me by our government will not be there for me.
Name the new 7 states and the reason for you inserting them into this thread.
If you are planning on government, i.e. ME, taking care of you when you are old, you are a very sad person. "The amount promised you" is a small fraction of the amount stolen from you by your government. Don't forget that!
I've paid over 2.5 million lifetime dollars to my government in the form of Social Security. I will probably only see 300k back.
You have drank the cool-aid and are singing the mantra, but it's obvious you carry no understanding!
Considering this is the same poster who made the incredible claim that the federal deficit is "imaginary," I'll give that rant the attention it deserves.
But the fact is that most people receive more money from Social Security benefits than they put in during their lifetimes.
And, frankly, people receive a lot of other benefits from the taxes the government collects -- Medicare, Medicaid, good highways, education, college grants, unemployment benefits ... I could go on and on.
To suggest the government is "stealing" from you and you're getting nothing in return is wrong.
Oh you remember. How sweet!
I don't mean to offend your religion, but government run social security does not pay out more except to support those who paid very little to begin with. Anyway, why would you think this a good thing?
Because it keeps retired people from going into poverty.
I mean, that's one of the real success stories that few people talk about. The Social Security system has kept millions of elderly people from being on the poverty rolls. Back in the old days, elderly people who didn't have a nest egg, often for no fault of their own, had to keep working until they dropped, or move in with their children. Social Security offers the elderly a lot more flexibility and freedom. I see that as a good thing.
It seems like you've done well enough for yourself, so I don't know why you're bitter about paying more than some people.
I just found this link on another forum, I have no idea if it's true or not but it's definitely interesting... If it's true, depending on when it's released it could potentially impact the democratic nomination process or the election.
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/05/19/obama-freakout-over-michelle-video-the-ticking-whitey-time-bomb/
quote:
Originally posted by midtownnewbie
I just found this link on another forum, I have no idea if it's true or not but it's definitely interesting... If it's true, depending on when it's released it could potentially impact the democratic nomination process or the election.
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/05/19/obama-freakout-over-michelle-video-the-ticking-whitey-time-bomb/
I heard about that last week but didn't want to elaborate. Supposedly it was acquired by a Clinton campaign operative, and she can't figure out how to release it because it is quite vile in nature, and would surly backfire if Hillary simply let it out.
It was referred to as "Hillary's November Surprise".
I don't know if she will use it before the convention or simply rely on her 2012 plans, and allow it to be presented by the McCain camp when the time is right.
I bet it will get leaked before then.
I have read about this tape on the blogs for a couple of days now. I assume that the story is a lie.
First, if a tape of Michelle Obama existed saying terrible racist things, I think it would have surfaced by now. Secondly, who uses the word "whitey"?
Supposedly now the story is that Larry Johnson, retired CIA, has viewed the tape, and it is in the hands of the McCain camp.
There is also some Billionare Republican who hates McCain, and wants to pay a million dollars to anyone who will deliver the tape to him without leaking it so that he can destroy it.
I love the internet rumor mill. You can't make this stuff up, or can you? [:O]
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
Secondly, who uses the word "whitey"?
Karl Rove [;)]
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
Secondly, who uses the word "whitey"?
Karl Rove [;)]
I prefer Cracker. It just rolls off the tung.
Here is today's USA Today editorial...
Responding to an ad from the Tennessee Republican Party that reruns Michelle Obama's now famous "proud of my country" line, Barack Obama warned Monday that his opponents should "lay off my wife." Regardless of whether the Republicans listen to him, he is trying to establish some limits. On the Republican side, John McCain's campaign is also trying to set some spousal limits. Following the lead of Cindy McCain, the campaign insists that her tax records are none of the public's business.
It's natural that candidates want to shelter their spouses, who aren't on the ballot, from scrutiny and criticism. And it's understandable that they would seek to apply some parameters of privacy and decency to a campaign likely to have little of either by the time it's all over. But it's hard to see why these spouses deserve the protections the candidates advocate.
In Mrs. Obama's case, she is an accomplished professional who has campaigned vigorously on her husband's behalf. If the Obamas seek the benefits of having her do so, they must be willing to accept the scrutiny that her words — and gaffes — attract. This is not to say that all criticisms of spouses are fair. The Tennessee GOP critique of Michelle Obama based on one line in February about being proud of her country for the first time in her adult life — she later said she meant that she was proud of the political process for the first time — is, at best, a manipulative effort to suggest that the Obamas are unpatriotic or ungrateful.
In Mrs. McCain's case, her vast wealth raises legitimate questions about potential conflicts of interest and how she could be indirectly aiding his campaign through such practices as allowing him the use of her company's jet. For her, the issue is less a personal attack than it is a criticism of her secrecy on money issues. Her situation is similar to that of Teresa Heinz Kerry, an heir to the Heinz ketchup fortune, and wife of 2004 Democratic nominee John Kerry, who eventually agreed to release a portion of her tax forms. In both cases, the imperatives of ensuring open and honest government trump the privacy desires of candidate spouses. (The third candidate spouse, Bill Clinton, raises a number of issues as well, but neither he nor his wife, Hillary Clinton, has tried to suggest that a former president isn't fair game.) The fact is, candidate spouses are a legitimate consideration for voters. At least since Eleanor Roosevelt, they have played political roles and represented the nation in various ways. Even Pat Nixon, one of the more traditional political spouses in modern times, served an important function in the rise of her husband. In 1952, when questions were raised about Richard Nixon's finances, the then-vice presidential candidate famously told television viewers that he had not been able to provide a mink coat for Pat, but that she looked great in her "respectable Republican cloth coat."
Since then, the role of most spouses has grown larger. And the more involved they are in campaigns, the more legitimate they are as a topic of debate. Like it or not, spouses have become an important part of the process. They do not deserve to be dragged into the mud. But nor are they entitled to blanket immunity.
MSM! Who owns that rag?
Let's drag the spouses into it.
Cindy McCain, what are you holding?
I want her tax returns. Now!
And BTW, there is not a black woman on the face of America who does not have a racist view of their country. Too bad. It's well deserved. Our white people need to accept it just as we have learned to accept Bush/Cheney. Obama still is more acceptable than the neo con because his response will not be "so".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fK6pGQZXN8
quote:
Originally posted by custosnox
First off, let me state that I am registered as a republican, though I am not a hard core or mainstream republican. I do my best to step back and look at any issue from the broadest veiwpoint, and come to a fair discision on it, and now what one party or the other tries to push on me.
Now that that is out, and since the whole thing about racism has come up, I will put my two cents in on it. I have yet to make up my mind how I will vote, but things do not look good for Obama for it. I have several reasons for this, and yes, race is one of them. Not because I don't think that a black man (or woman) can't be a good president, but because he has ran too much of his campaign on the fact that he is (half)black. This, in itself, I think, adds to the racist views of America. Because someone wants to be treated differantly because of their race ("vote for me because you want to empower a black man" is wanting to be treated differant based on race)it promotes a speration of race. Now if he would have gotten up there and said "vote for me, and yes, I know, I'm black. What about it?" I might be a little more prone to vote for him, but he has blundered in other ways that still would make me reconcider voting for him, in addition to what type of person he comes off to me as being. So yes, him being black can cost votes, but not always because the voter is racist.
When has Obama
ever made "being black" part of his campaign? When has he ever said, vote for me cuz I'll empower the black man? What did you expect him to do, put white shoe polish on his face before he decided to run? According to some news reports, Obama's campaign offices have been vandalized and had racist graffiti spray painted, yet he has not raised this in his campaign. I imagine it is because he knows that a black man pointing out racism scares a lot of white people. And
any reference to race makes white people like you refuse to vote for him.
quote:
Originally posted by custosnox
First off, let me state that I am registered as a republican, though I am not a hard core or mainstream republican. I do my best to step back and look at any issue from the broadest veiwpoint, and come to a fair discision on it, and now what one party or the other tries to push on me.
Now that that is out, and since the whole thing about racism has come up, I will put my two cents in on it. I have yet to make up my mind how I will vote, but things do not look good for Obama for it. I have several reasons for this, and yes, race is one of them. Not because I don't think that a black man (or woman) can't be a good president, but because he has ran too much of his campaign on the fact that he is (half)black. This, in itself, I think, adds to the racist views of America. Because someone wants to be treated differantly because of their race ("vote for me because you want to empower a black man" is wanting to be treated differant based on race)it promotes a speration of race. Now if he would have gotten up there and said "vote for me, and yes, I know, I'm black. What about it?" I might be a little more prone to vote for him, but he has blundered in other ways that still would make me reconcider voting for him, in addition to what type of person he comes off to me as being. So yes, him being black can cost votes, but not always because the voter is racist.
That's odd. All the national press have been quite impressed that he never made race an issue in this campaign and only responded, quite magnificently, when the Wright issue was forcibly linked to race. Since then the only people talking race are...well, anyone but him. Sorry man, you are coming out of left field on this one.
PM and WB....atta boys! You are soooo correct.
Despite his not bringing the subject of racism up (until he had to), it's inherent in society.
I really think school integration has made Obama. Today's young have lived with Black society and often adored and accepted their wonderful heritage. They hang together, play together, and even pray together. That NEVER happened until the mid 70's. It goes to show the liberals were right on this one. Those who belly ache about equalizing the playing field may see results in November they can't comprehend but will learn to accept.
Just like they will learn to accept and forgive those that say they are finally proud of their country. Count me as one of those. Not since man stepped on the moon have I felt the way I do....You see, sometimes our bitterness overshadows other times that we were proud of our great country.
So anyone who doesn't vote for Obama or may challenge him on policy is a closet racist?
Wow, I thought it could be because his policies are just a teency weency left of George McGovern, Dick Durbin, Dennis Kucinich and John Conyers, Jr.
It is a weak response by Obama supporters who need to learn to support their candidate more than just claiming the opposition is racist.
FOTD is using a shame tactic to make any white person who isn't leaning toward voting for Obama feel as if they have some sort of subconscious race issue. It's sophomoric.
There's definitely racism in America, but it's not just white on black. There's also been subtle hints thrown out as to why Jack$on and $harpton failed as Presidential contendors- they were too black. Obama is just white enough to be a mainstream candidate and just black enough to get the black vote out en masse in November.
I'm going to vote based the stated policies and initiatives of candidates which most closely matches my own values and paradigms. Obama hasn't stated much of anything which appeals to my own values or paradigms. Were his ideals closer to my own, I'd definitely vote for him. I really couldn't give two ****s.
There's no call for someone to be hinting that anyone who doesn't vote for Obama secretly hates blacks. That's baiting.
I was thinking that if even Obama wants his wife laid off that much....we should just give her a pink slip.
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Obama needs to quit being such a whiny ***** and grow some thicker skin if he wants to be President. It might also help if he and his wife weren't a couple of closet Marxists.
If it was a Republican who did this you'd be praising him for DEFENDING HIS WIFE AND DEFENDING HIS FAMILY.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZY6WLKGkJY
Here's some of his quotes: "The GOP, should I be the nominee, can say whatever they want to say about me, my track record." "If they think that they're going to try to make Michelle an issue in this campaign, they should be careful because I find that unacceptable, the notion that you start attacking my wife or my family."... "low class"..."lay off my wife"...
But since he's a dem, you're gonna characterize him as a whiny *****. Typical cheapshot republican tactic of trying everything you can to emasculate the dem candidate...
His wife grew up on the southside of Chicago... she is a very strong woman but... SHE IS NOT A POLITICIAN.
Let's see. You've previously characterized Hillary Clinton as a communist... so, if you consider Barack and Michelle Obama as "closet Marxists" then... based on that flawed logic... you sir, are a CLOSET FASCIST. [:o)]
If you should ever run for office Conan, I'd start a thread saying that if Adolf Hitler were alive, he'd be endorsing you... nothing like craptastic gotcha politics... and if you complain about any of my tactics, I'll just call you a "whiny *****." [}:)]
RM says: "It was perfectly fine to attack Bill on the campaign trail, but not Michelle. What is your definition of special treatment?"
Hmmm. "It was perfectly fine to attack Bill on the campaign trail, but not Chelsea. What is your definition of special treatment?" There. Fixed your post.... pot to kettle... come in kettle...
Bill Clinton is a former president and one of slickest politicians this side of Richard Nixon... it's definitely a grey area with respect to treatment of spouses and children who campaign for their family... using one out-of-context sound bite to bludgeon a candidate's wife as unpatriotic and un-American... is well... unpatriotic and un-American.
"Amerika, Amerika, uber alles"... [B)]
Okay, you've been Godwinned [;)]
Ruf, I'm too much of a whiny ***** to ever run for office.
quote:
Originally posted by HazMatCFO
So anyone who doesn't vote for Obama or may challenge him on policy is a closet racist?
Wow, I thought it could be because his policies are just a teency weency left of George McGovern, Dick Durbin, Dennis Kucinich and John Conyers, Jr.
It is a weak response by Obama supporters who need to learn to support their candidate more than just claiming the opposition is racist.
Policy? Never would the race issue enter into a policy decision under Obama nor any other President I can think of over the past 30 years. Not since the Civil Rights legislation of the 60's has there been such a thing.
But swift boating and race baiting will be a constant and all good and tolerant people will expose it and their messengers for stooping so low.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
FOTD is using a shame tactic to make any white person who isn't leaning toward voting for Obama feel as if they have some sort of subconscious race issue. It's sophomoric.
There's definitely racism in America, but it's not just white on black. There's also been subtle hints thrown out as to why Jack$on and $harpton failed as Presidential contendors- they were too black. Obama is just white enough to be a mainstream candidate and just black enough to get the black vote out en masse in November.
I'm going to vote based the stated policies and initiatives of candidates which most closely matches my own values and paradigms. Obama hasn't stated much of anything which appeals to my own values or paradigms. Were his ideals closer to my own, I'd definitely vote for him. I really couldn't give two ****s.
There's no call for someone to be hinting that anyone who doesn't vote for Obama secretly hates blacks. That's baiting.
Please stop with the there have been oppressed white people too routine. "Obama is just white enough to be a mainstream candidate and just black enough to get the black vote out en masse in November." Ridiculous. Can you not judge a man by the content of his character rather than the color of his skin?
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
FOTD is using a shame tactic to make any white person who isn't leaning toward voting for Obama feel as if they have some sort of subconscious race issue. It's sophomoric.
There's definitely racism in America, but it's not just white on black. There's also been subtle hints thrown out as to why Jack$on and $harpton failed as Presidential contendors- they were too black. Obama is just white enough to be a mainstream candidate and just black enough to get the black vote out en masse in November.
I'm going to vote based the stated policies and initiatives of candidates which most closely matches my own values and paradigms. Obama hasn't stated much of anything which appeals to my own values or paradigms. Were his ideals closer to my own, I'd definitely vote for him. I really couldn't give two ****s.
There's no call for someone to be hinting that anyone who doesn't vote for Obama secretly hates blacks. That's baiting.
Please stop with the there have been oppressed white people too routine. "Obama is just white enough to be a mainstream candidate and just black enough to get the black vote out en masse in November." Ridiculous. Can you not judge a man by the content of his character rather than the color of his skin?
I think that's just it. We haven't found the content yet.
All I have is:
1. He is a great speaker with the power to appeal to emotion.
2. He has a fierce record of supporting very liberal, unsuccessful policies.
3. He proposes a very vague platform of new programs to the tune of a half a trillion dollars that seems to grow every day he is on the campaign trail.
4. He is making reckless statements regarding national security without any basis or research simply to appease crowds.
5. When unprepared on a subject, he is still willing to engage people without the pertinent research, background, or authority necessary to make policy (big danger!).
I invite you to provide me with some additional information into his character. Please refrain from uttering the word "Change" or making up cute nick names or using profanity.
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
FOTD is using a shame tactic to make any white person who isn't leaning toward voting for Obama feel as if they have some sort of subconscious race issue. It's sophomoric.
There's definitely racism in America, but it's not just white on black. There's also been subtle hints thrown out as to why Jack$on and $harpton failed as Presidential contendors- they were too black. Obama is just white enough to be a mainstream candidate and just black enough to get the black vote out en masse in November.
I'm going to vote based the stated policies and initiatives of candidates which most closely matches my own values and paradigms. Obama hasn't stated much of anything which appeals to my own values or paradigms. Were his ideals closer to my own, I'd definitely vote for him. I really couldn't give two ****s.
There's no call for someone to be hinting that anyone who doesn't vote for Obama secretly hates blacks. That's baiting.
Please stop with the there have been oppressed white people too routine. "Obama is just white enough to be a mainstream candidate and just black enough to get the black vote out en masse in November." Ridiculous. Can you not judge a man by the content of his character rather than the color of his skin?
I think that's just it. We haven't found the content yet.
All I have is:
1. He is a great speaker with the power to appeal to emotion.
2. He has a fierce record of supporting very liberal, unsuccessful policies.
3. He proposes a very vague platform of new programs to the tune of a half a trillion dollars that seems to grow every day he is on the campaign trail.
4. He is making reckless statements regarding national security without any basis or research simply to appease crowds.
5. When unprepared on a subject, he is still willing to engage people without the pertinent research, background, or authority necessary to make policy (big danger!).
I invite you to provide me with some additional information into his character. Please refrain from uttering the word "Change" or making up cute nick names or using profanity.
1. He is a great speaker with the power to appeal to emotion.
reply....he has intellectual appeal. Emotional appeal to a degree.
2. He has a fierce record of supporting very liberal, unsuccessful policies.
reply...please back that up. They said the same of Clinton at this point in the campain. Just wasn't to be. Please define "very liberal".
3. He proposes a very vague platform of new programs to the tune of a half a trillion dollars that seems to grow every day he is on the campaign trail.
reply....nothing could be as costly as the last 8 years. Nothing.
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf
While somewhat vauge, what has his opponent proposed different from what we have but flip from 2000 to flop in 2008?
4. He is making reckless statements regarding national security without any basis or research simply to appease crowds.
reply....what do you refer to as reckless statements? Be specific. And don't take comments out of the context intended by the candidate. Reckless would be to keep the war going in Iraq.
5. When unprepared on a subject, he is still willing to engage people without the pertinent research, background, or authority necessary to make policy (big danger!).
reply....again, be specific. Big danger Dick and dry drunk Dumbya spent 8 years doing just that. So, don't give me that bs.
"I invite you to provide me with some additional information into his character."
Read, read, read. It's all over the place. How about beating off the Clittons? What type of character did that take? He assembled an amazing strategy with great people and a positive attitude.
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
quote:
Originally posted by custosnox
First off, let me state that I am registered as a republican, though I am not a hard core or mainstream republican. I do my best to step back and look at any issue from the broadest veiwpoint, and come to a fair discision on it, and now what one party or the other tries to push on me.
Now that that is out, and since the whole thing about racism has come up, I will put my two cents in on it. I have yet to make up my mind how I will vote, but things do not look good for Obama for it. I have several reasons for this, and yes, race is one of them. Not because I don't think that a black man (or woman) can't be a good president, but because he has ran too much of his campaign on the fact that he is (half)black. This, in itself, I think, adds to the racist views of America. Because someone wants to be treated differantly because of their race ("vote for me because you want to empower a black man" is wanting to be treated differant based on race)it promotes a speration of race. Now if he would have gotten up there and said "vote for me, and yes, I know, I'm black. What about it?" I might be a little more prone to vote for him, but he has blundered in other ways that still would make me reconcider voting for him, in addition to what type of person he comes off to me as being. So yes, him being black can cost votes, but not always because the voter is racist.
When has Obama ever made "being black" part of his campaign? When has he ever said, vote for me cuz I'll empower the black man? What did you expect him to do, put white shoe polish on his face before he decided to run? According to some news reports, Obama's campaign offices have been vandalized and had racist graffiti spray painted, yet he has not raised this in his campaign. I imagine it is because he knows that a black man pointing out racism scares a lot of white people. And any reference to race makes white people like you refuse to vote for him.
Now let's back this up just a bit, since you have decided to actually try to make personal attacks on me on this issue. First off, you are
assuming I am white. Second, you state that I refuse to vote for him. Now, not knowing anything about me other then what I have posted on these boards, and I seldom actually post on the political threads, you are going to decide what type of person I am. Glad to see you can decide things based on so few facts at your desposal.
Now, back to the issue, I was obviously mistaken on the "I am black" campaign stance. Since I am a registered republican, I have been only watching the periphials on the democratic sides. Ever since the start, I have been hammered about the fact that he is black by just about every outlet out there, and with a lot of what has been said, it was an easy jump to assume he was on this wagon (yes, I made an assumption). Once the primary is over, (hey, Hillary could still get it, there are super-delagets in florida after all (hanging chad anyone?)), and the election day draws near, I will look more closely at the parties involved. I will do more research, try to reduce my own, uneducated, assanine comments, and make a decision based on hard facts based on my personal beliefs. And in my opinion, just so you know where I stand on the issue, I think that we should do away with all hyphinated american titles, and race should be nothing more then a discription to identify a person (yes officer, it was a skinny male, with white skin that stole my wallet; Have you seen mike? he stands yea tall, slightly overweight, balding and has dark black skin?). The last I checked all of us (US citizens that is) are Americans. Let's all get on this boat together. No special treatment for the color of your skin, or your place of birth. I just wish we were closer to this then we are, but all we can do is try.
And to answer the question that I know (okay, guessing) is hanging in your mind, I am light skinned, with a mixed heritage, including black and Cherokee, though I am considered white.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by custosnox
First off, let me state that I am registered as a republican, though I am not a hard core or mainstream republican. I do my best to step back and look at any issue from the broadest veiwpoint, and come to a fair discision on it, and now what one party or the other tries to push on me.
Now that that is out, and since the whole thing about racism has come up, I will put my two cents in on it. I have yet to make up my mind how I will vote, but things do not look good for Obama for it. I have several reasons for this, and yes, race is one of them. Not because I don't think that a black man (or woman) can't be a good president, but because he has ran too much of his campaign on the fact that he is (half)black. This, in itself, I think, adds to the racist views of America. Because someone wants to be treated differantly because of their race ("vote for me because you want to empower a black man" is wanting to be treated differant based on race)it promotes a speration of race. Now if he would have gotten up there and said "vote for me, and yes, I know, I'm black. What about it?" I might be a little more prone to vote for him, but he has blundered in other ways that still would make me reconcider voting for him, in addition to what type of person he comes off to me as being. So yes, him being black can cost votes, but not always because the voter is racist.
That's odd. All the national press have been quite impressed that he never made race an issue in this campaign and only responded, quite magnificently, when the Wright issue was forcibly linked to race. Since then the only people talking race are...well, anyone but him. Sorry man, you are coming out of left field on this one.
Just wanted to say thanks for pointing out my apparent error, while at the same time not trying to put me down for it.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
I can't believe the rationalization I just read. She is not a former president so we can't talk about what she says?
She is on the campaign trail every day making speeches for her husband. She says something stupid and people comment on it.
No one is attacking his kids, his parents or anyone else in the family. She is campaigning.
How is she any different than any other campaign person? Other campaign people resign when they embarrass the campaign.
I am sorry, you don't get special rules just because you are married to the candidate. I will attack Cindy McCain for her refusal to turn over tax records for 28 years.
Obama doesn't get to decide what is "acceptable".
I'm not a Mrs. Clinton supporter but Recycle Michael has a good point. I agree with RM's disagreement with Cindy McCain's refusal to turn over tax records.
First Ladies play an important role in the Presidency. I see no reason why Mrs. Obama's public statements should be disregarded considering her influence over him, as any wife has.
All of this stuff needs to be looked at, scrutinized, and considered upon; regardless of Republican, Democrat, or otherwise.
I'm not too enamored with the candidates we have (nor have I been for some time), but I sure as heck want the candidates (and their wives) looked over closely.
May the best, most capable person with the potential to be a great President win, and I mean that with all sincerity - man, woman, Democrat or Republican.
This country needs some real leadership right now.
quote:
Originally posted by HazMatCFO
So anyone who doesn't vote for Obama or may challenge him on policy is a closet racist?
Wow, I thought it could be because his policies are just a teency weency left of George McGovern, Dick Durbin, Dennis Kucinich and John Conyers, Jr.
It is a weak response by Obama supporters who need to learn to support their candidate more than just claiming the opposition is racist.
As a center-left Democrat and Obama supporter, I would like to respectfully invite both you and Conan71 to ignore FOTDs more pungent ranting about race and judge Candidate Obama in the way that he seems to want to be judged: by his ability, his record to date and proposals going forward, and by his personal history and makeup (a part of which -- but certainly not all -- is his race).
Obama himself has tried exceedingly hard to make his campaign about transcending race rather than fighting the same old battles -- which, IMHO, FOTD is doing here. But please don't assume that all of us Obama-ites out there will be pummeling you with the Ball-Peen Hammer of Racism if you want to take a hard look at him and then make another choice.
On the other hand, Gaspar, I'd like to invite you to vote for Lyndon LaRouche. You seem so constantly disappointed with Obama that I wouldn't want your feelings hurt when he doesn't return us to the gold standard.
quote:
Originally posted by custosnox
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
quote:
Originally posted by custosnox
First off, let me state that I am registered as a republican, though I am not a hard core or mainstream republican. I do my best to step back and look at any issue from the broadest veiwpoint, and come to a fair discision on it, and now what one party or the other tries to push on me.
Now that that is out, and since the whole thing about racism has come up, I will put my two cents in on it. I have yet to make up my mind how I will vote, but things do not look good for Obama for it. I have several reasons for this, and yes, race is one of them. Not because I don't think that a black man (or woman) can't be a good president, but because he has ran too much of his campaign on the fact that he is (half)black. This, in itself, I think, adds to the racist views of America. Because someone wants to be treated differantly because of their race ("vote for me because you want to empower a black man" is wanting to be treated differant based on race)it promotes a speration of race. Now if he would have gotten up there and said "vote for me, and yes, I know, I'm black. What about it?" I might be a little more prone to vote for him, but he has blundered in other ways that still would make me reconcider voting for him, in addition to what type of person he comes off to me as being. So yes, him being black can cost votes, but not always because the voter is racist.
When has Obama ever made "being black" part of his campaign? When has he ever said, vote for me cuz I'll empower the black man? What did you expect him to do, put white shoe polish on his face before he decided to run? According to some news reports, Obama's campaign offices have been vandalized and had racist graffiti spray painted, yet he has not raised this in his campaign. I imagine it is because he knows that a black man pointing out racism scares a lot of white people. And any reference to race makes white people like you refuse to vote for him.
Now let's back this up just a bit, since you have decided to actually try to make personal attacks on me on this issue. First off, you are assuming I am white. Second, you state that I refuse to vote for him. Now, not knowing anything about me other then what I have posted on these boards, and I seldom actually post on the political threads, you are going to decide what type of person I am. Glad to see you can decide things based on so few facts at your desposal.
Now, back to the issue, I was obviously mistaken on the "I am black" campaign stance. Since I am a registered republican, I have been only watching the periphials on the democratic sides. Ever since the start, I have been hammered about the fact that he is black by just about every outlet out there, and with a lot of what has been said, it was an easy jump to assume he was on this wagon (yes, I made an assumption). Once the primary is over, (hey, Hillary could still get it, there are super-delagets in florida after all (hanging chad anyone?)), and the election day draws near, I will look more closely at the parties involved. I will do more research, try to reduce my own, uneducated, assanine comments, and make a decision based on hard facts based on my personal beliefs. And in my opinion, just so you know where I stand on the issue, I think that we should do away with all hyphinated american titles, and race should be nothing more then a discription to identify a person (yes officer, it was a skinny male, with white skin that stole my wallet; Have you seen mike? he stands yea tall, slightly overweight, balding and has dark black skin?). The last I checked all of us (US citizens that is) are Americans. Let's all get on this boat together. No special treatment for the color of your skin, or your place of birth. I just wish we were closer to this then we are, but all we can do is try.
And to answer the question that I know (okay, guessing) is hanging in your mind, I am light skinned, with a mixed heritage, including black and Cherokee, though I am considered white.
I apologize. I know many of the posters on this board, all of whom are white men. I just assumed the same of you, but that was wrong.
I hope you do take the time to investigate Obama. I would suggest you read his books, which IMO provide tremendous insight not only on his positions, but how he thinks. To me, that is critical to a president--how will he approach problems that aren't even foreseen.
I would like to move beyond race, but I don't think we are there yet. Remember, it was not so long ago that white men received all of the benefits because of their skin color. It will be hard to complete move beyond race. IMO, humans are just inclined to look for differences before they look for similarities. And people tend to generalize based upon their limited observations. Until we have more knowledge, more experience with eachother, we will continue to see race-based generalizatios on all sides.
I am not white, in fact, more pink than anything else.
I'm still enjoying this thread, but it has devolved. FOTD, I hereby request that you rename this thread "Lay off my wife, please."
Henny Youngman (//%22http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henny_Youngman%22) was much cooler than us.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Quote
Read, read, read. It's all over the place. How about beating off the Clittons? What type of character did that take? He assembled an amazing strategy with great people and a positive attitude.
Hmm. I can't stomach the Huffington Post, and Air America (XM channel 167) uses too much profanity for me to listen to at work. We do Saturday mornings at Border's, so I will pick up a copy of his book and read through it.
I really would like to know more about him, but from what I've already learned. I'm just not impressed. He seems to be a child's candidate. He reflects the naive nature of much of his constituency.
I've heard all of his televised speeches and I keep looking for him to actually say something, to make some comment that makes me go "wow, that's a good idea" but while what he says is beautiful and full of rhyme and excellent canter, it carries only a very basic message. I can't get anything from that, yet people in the audience are fainting and cheering when he blows his nose.
I think his speaking ability gives him the future possibility of being a great statesman, but his current economic and political standing is what I believe to be destructive to a free market economy.
We all have different personal goals that relate to our choices for a leader. I am personally reliant on a very free market minimally regulated system of government inviting to entrepreneurship, development, and the birth of new business. This is why I am a Libertarian and therefore typically support candidates that advocate the conservative application of government.
So far Mr. Obama, does not promote what I believe in. New programs and the regulation of medicine, free-trade restrictions, new government bureaucracies and programs to limit competition and compensation, are not friendly to me.
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Quote
Read, read, read. It's all over the place. How about beating off the Clittons? What type of character did that take? He assembled an amazing strategy with great people and a positive attitude.
Hmm. I can't stomach the Huffington Post, and Air America (XM channel 167) uses too much profanity for me to listen to at work. We do Saturday mornings at Border's, so I will pick up a copy of his book and read through it.
I really would like to know more about him, but from what I've already learned. I'm just not impressed. He seems to be a child's candidate. He reflects the naive nature of much of his constituency.
I've heard all of his televised speeches and I keep looking for him to actually say something, to make some comment that makes me go "wow, that's a good idea" but while what he says is beautiful and full of rhyme and excellent canter, it carries only a very basic message. I can't get anything from that, yet people in the audience are fainting and cheering when he blows his nose.
I think his speaking ability gives him the future possibility of being a great statesman, but his current economic and political standing is what I believe to be destructive to a free market economy.
We all have different personal goals that relate to our choices for a leader. I am personally reliant on a very free market minimally regulated system of government inviting to entrepreneurship, development, and the birth of new business. This is why I am a Libertarian and therefore typically support candidates that advocate the conservative application of government.
So far Mr. Obama, does not promote what I believe in. New programs and the regulation of medicine, free-trade restrictions, new government bureaucracies and programs to limit competition and compensation, are not friendly to me.
Sounds like you're describing every successful politician who ever ran for office. Details are not for campaigns. You get skewered with them. When a candidate like Ron Paul provides them, you call him a whining sissy!! So a candidate projects a personality, a manner of decisionmaking and an aura of competence. People misread Bush and thought he was the plain speaking, honest, competent Texas oilman that you could have a beer with and talk the common sense that the country needed. He wasn't, and never was, but it got him elected.
I would guess you suffer from the red barn complex. The color red absorbs all other colors but reflects only red. You go looking for a red barn with a blue flashlight and you'll never find it. Switch colors and go looking again. Of course, if you don't know what a barn looks like...
Amazing how different Libertarians can be. It must be one of those giant umbrellas that cover everone. Like living in Ok and telling people you have a little bit of Indian blood. You aren't the same Libertarian CannonFodder is who seems to see all sides of each candidate or issue. That is something I respect. The one thing many of you do have in common is a truly self serving attitude of government. Free trade works well for you so it must be good for the whole country. Pretty limiting attitude. And for heavens sake man, health care is in crisis. It is a system worthy of comparing to Social Security that you so despise. As much as we brag about technological breakthroughs in America we offer the worst health care among our peers. How does your conservative outlook benefit the country on that stage? Unless maybe once again, it benefits you personally.
I grow weary of hearing how Obama supporters are childlike, naive and gullible. Its pathetic if you have to resort to elitist condescending bs like that. I still remember your ilk from my youth when McGovern supporters were described as college educated, sandal wearing, bike riding intellectuals. Probably describes you now doesn't it? But at the time that was a perjorative description believe it or not. As for me, a college educated, kayak paddling, pragmatist jogger, I look at the failure of conservative politics of the last decade and ask myself if I want more of the same just because the latest candidate isn't a perfect match to my politics and the answer is easy. No.
I will make sure I do a lot of research on the canidates before election day comes. My biggest dilema right now is this, I am very pro-military (please don't confuse this with pro-war), and I don't want to see the military weakened by Hillary or Obama, but at the same time, our canidate that would push military, McCain, doesn't come off to me as the best answer to lead our nation, especially with our economy the way it is right now. Now I'm not saying that Hillary or Obama are anti-military, but I don't think either of them are ready to keep a military readiness level that I think we, well, I won't say need, but perhaps that we should have. And for the Hillary supporters, I don't think I would ever vote for her, and this is mainly because (and I will admit, has little to do with actual facts) she just rubs me the wrong way. There is just something about her that really makes me afraid of what will happen if she is voted in. It's one of those things that you just can't get yourself past. I could be wrong, but it's there for me.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Amazing how different Libertarians can be. It must be one of those giant umbrellas that cover everone. Like living in Ok and telling people you have a little bit of Indian blood. You aren't the same Libertarian CannonFodder is who seems to see all sides of each candidate or issue. That is something I respect. The one thing many of you do have in common is a truly self serving attitude of government. Free trade works well for you so it must be good for the whole country. Pretty limiting attitude. And for heavens sake man, health care is in crisis. It is a system worthy of comparing to Social Security that you so despise. As much as we brag about technological breakthroughs in America we offer the worst health care among our peers. How does your conservative outlook benefit the country on that stage? Unless maybe once again, it benefits you personally.
+1, Waterboy. Nicely put.
I think knowing as much as possible about a first lady is real important these days. Who drove the Clinton health care plan? We got a two-fer with the Clintons, and I sense Michelle Obama would likely be more influential in her husband's White House than Laura Bush, though maybe not as much as HC was.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
I think knowing as much as possible about a first lady is real important these days. Who drove the Clinton health care plan? We got a two-fer with the Clintons, and I sense Michelle Obama would likely be more influential in her husband's White House than Laura Bush, though maybe not as much as HC was.
Yeah, I agree. If there is a sense of activism from a spouse, the country deserves to know but it doesn't seem as important as the candidate themselves. The Clinton twofer was not the norm. Eleanor Roosevelt had an impact on FDR and was able to accomplish much of her own agenda due to the proximity to power but in the end his views prevailed. Going after Michelle seems to be a way of needling him. It will not be effective.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Quote
Read, read, read. It's all over the place. How about beating off the Clittons? What type of character did that take? He assembled an amazing strategy with great people and a positive attitude.
Hmm. I can't stomach the Huffington Post, and Air America (XM channel 167) uses too much profanity for me to listen to at work. We do Saturday mornings at Border's, so I will pick up a copy of his book and read through it.
I really would like to know more about him, but from what I've already learned. I'm just not impressed. He seems to be a child's candidate. He reflects the naive nature of much of his constituency.
I've heard all of his televised speeches and I keep looking for him to actually say something, to make some comment that makes me go "wow, that's a good idea" but while what he says is beautiful and full of rhyme and excellent canter, it carries only a very basic message. I can't get anything from that, yet people in the audience are fainting and cheering when he blows his nose.
I think his speaking ability gives him the future possibility of being a great statesman, but his current economic and political standing is what I believe to be destructive to a free market economy.
We all have different personal goals that relate to our choices for a leader. I am personally reliant on a very free market minimally regulated system of government inviting to entrepreneurship, development, and the birth of new business. This is why I am a Libertarian and therefore typically support candidates that advocate the conservative application of government.
So far Mr. Obama, does not promote what I believe in. New programs and the regulation of medicine, free-trade restrictions, new government bureaucracies and programs to limit competition and compensation, are not friendly to me.
Sounds like you're describing every successful politician who ever ran for office. Details are not for campaigns. You get skewered with them. When a candidate like Ron Paul provides them, you call him a whining sissy!! So a candidate projects a personality, a manner of decisionmaking and an aura of competence. People misread Bush and thought he was the plain speaking, honest, competent Texas oilman that you could have a beer with and talk the common sense that the country needed. He wasn't, and never was, but it got him elected.
I would guess you suffer from the red barn complex. The color red absorbs all other colors but reflects only red. You go looking for a red barn with a blue flashlight and you'll never find it. Switch colors and go looking again. Of course, if you don't know what a barn looks like...
Amazing how different Libertarians can be. It must be one of those giant umbrellas that cover everone. Like living in Ok and telling people you have a little bit of Indian blood. You aren't the same Libertarian CannonFodder is who seems to see all sides of each candidate or issue. That is something I respect. The one thing many of you do have in common is a truly self serving attitude of government. Free trade works well for you so it must be good for the whole country. Pretty limiting attitude. And for heavens sake man, health care is in crisis. It is a system worthy of comparing to Social Security that you so despise. As much as we brag about technological breakthroughs in America we offer the worst health care among our peers. How does your conservative outlook benefit the country on that stage? Unless maybe once again, it benefits you personally.
I grow weary of hearing how Obama supporters are childlike, naive and gullible. Its pathetic if you have to resort to elitist condescending bs like that. I still remember your ilk from my youth when McGovern supporters were described as college educated, sandal wearing, bike riding intellectuals. Probably describes you now doesn't it? But at the time that was a perjorative description believe it or not. As for me, a college educated, kayak paddling, pragmatist jogger, I look at the failure of conservative politics of the last decade and ask myself if I want more of the same just because the latest candidate isn't a perfect match to my politics and the answer is easy. No.
Then it seems you have found your candidate. I never said Obama supporters were gullible. They are simply not asking the questions they should be. They are following for the sake of following. I understand your ache for change, but not simply for the sake of change.
Healthcare is in crisis because of government regulation, and now that same system wants to fix it with more regulation. Great!
Help me to see the other side of Mr. Obama. Why is it when ever I ask for explanations, I get quips, demonistic nick naming, or playground language.
1. Tell me how he is going to fix healthcare and maintain an attractive environment for research, development, and medical practice. How is he going to satisfy the needs of the patient without limiting their choice and diminishing care.
2. Tell me how he is going to bring the troops home without creating a total political collapse in Iraq, that will avoid solidifying, in the minds of other countries and terrorist organizations that the, the US is a weak and beatable adversary?
When the collapse takes place how is he going to keep Iran and Syria from creating an Islamic state, using Iraq as the keystone to leverage and invade the other countries in the region that they have already vowed to destroy?
3. Because of his loose campaign statement about opening talks with state sponsors of terrorism, how is he going to maintain relations with Israel, a state that already wants nothing to do with him because of his remarks. In many instances we (the US) is the only thing that has held them from totally annihilating the Palestinians, and launching devastating attacks on Iran. They are ready to go to war. We hold the cork to the genie's lamp.
4. Domestically, with a half a trillion in new programs that will cost additional billions every year, how much will he need to raise taxes. By only raising taxes on the wealthiest of americans (basically any business that files under an LLC) how is he going to then combat the reduced jobs created by eliminating income to these businesses. As this slows economic expansion, what will be needed to fend of recession? Is this really the right thing to do during a time of increasing national debt? Since it is proven that lowering taxes on businesses actually increases tax revenue due to the economic expansion that is a result, why would he even propose such a thing?
5. Finally, everything in his speeches has to do with taking from one group of americans and giving to another, or restriction of trade, or AID of some form or another. Where is the talk of encouraging innovation and economic development? The government doesn't build business, people do.
Even Hillary has addressed and answered some of these questions. She realized that she needed to change her position on some of her early convictions based on the Political or Economic logic of the real world. Obama has not.
You want converts? You want people that view both the red and the blue? Stop making one side emotionally based, and the other side logically based. I will flock to logic, as will most conservatives and libertarians, even if all of the policies don't match up perfectly.
You are absolutely correct, Libertarians are a big mixed blend of different people with different backgrounds, beliefs, sexual preferences, addictions, hobbies, skin colors, languages and political histories, but the one thing we all share is the ability to separate logic from emotion and the understanding of the ability of individual rights.
I believe that every individual is naturally entitled to do as he pleases with himself and the fruits of his labor, so far as it in no way interferes with any other men's rights. – Abraham Lincoln
Is he reading my posts?
Mr. Obama has changed his mind. Iran is no longer a "Tiny Threat", they are now a "Grave Threat." He must have gotten hold of a newspaper or something.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121130545086407543.html?mod=rss_opinion_main
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Quote
Read, read, read. It's all over the place. How about beating off the Clittons? What type of character did that take? He assembled an amazing strategy with great people and a positive attitude.
Hmm. I can't stomach the Huffington Post, and Air America (XM channel 167) uses too much profanity for me to listen to at work. We do Saturday mornings at Border's, so I will pick up a copy of his book and read through it.
I really would like to know more about him, but from what I've already learned. I'm just not impressed. He seems to be a child's candidate. He reflects the naive nature of much of his constituency.
I've heard all of his televised speeches and I keep looking for him to actually say something, to make some comment that makes me go "wow, that's a good idea" but while what he says is beautiful and full of rhyme and excellent canter, it carries only a very basic message. I can't get anything from that, yet people in the audience are fainting and cheering when he blows his nose.
I think his speaking ability gives him the future possibility of being a great statesman, but his current economic and political standing is what I believe to be destructive to a free market economy.
We all have different personal goals that relate to our choices for a leader. I am personally reliant on a very free market minimally regulated system of government inviting to entrepreneurship, development, and the birth of new business. This is why I am a Libertarian and therefore typically support candidates that advocate the conservative application of government.
So far Mr. Obama, does not promote what I believe in. New programs and the regulation of medicine, free-trade restrictions, new government bureaucracies and programs to limit competition and compensation, are not friendly to me.
Sounds like you're describing every successful politician who ever ran for office. Details are not for campaigns. You get skewered with them. When a candidate like Ron Paul provides them, you call him a whining sissy!! So a candidate projects a personality, a manner of decisionmaking and an aura of competence. People misread Bush and thought he was the plain speaking, honest, competent Texas oilman that you could have a beer with and talk the common sense that the country needed. He wasn't, and never was, but it got him elected.
I would guess you suffer from the red barn complex. The color red absorbs all other colors but reflects only red. You go looking for a red barn with a blue flashlight and you'll never find it. Switch colors and go looking again. Of course, if you don't know what a barn looks like...
Amazing how different Libertarians can be. It must be one of those giant umbrellas that cover everone. Like living in Ok and telling people you have a little bit of Indian blood. You aren't the same Libertarian CannonFodder is who seems to see all sides of each candidate or issue. That is something I respect. The one thing many of you do have in common is a truly self serving attitude of government. Free trade works well for you so it must be good for the whole country. Pretty limiting attitude. And for heavens sake man, health care is in crisis. It is a system worthy of comparing to Social Security that you so despise. As much as we brag about technological breakthroughs in America we offer the worst health care among our peers. How does your conservative outlook benefit the country on that stage? Unless maybe once again, it benefits you personally.
I grow weary of hearing how Obama supporters are childlike, naive and gullible. Its pathetic if you have to resort to elitist condescending bs like that. I still remember your ilk from my youth when McGovern supporters were described as college educated, sandal wearing, bike riding intellectuals. Probably describes you now doesn't it? But at the time that was a perjorative description believe it or not. As for me, a college educated, kayak paddling, pragmatist jogger, I look at the failure of conservative politics of the last decade and ask myself if I want more of the same just because the latest candidate isn't a perfect match to my politics and the answer is easy. No.
Then it seems you have found your candidate. I never said Obama supporters were gullible. They are simply not asking the questions they should be. They are following for the sake of following. I understand your ache for change, but not simply for the sake of change.
Healthcare is in crisis because of government regulation, and now that same system wants to fix it with more regulation. Great!
Help me to see the other side of Mr. Obama. Why is it when ever I ask for explanations, I get quips, demonistic nick naming, or playground language.
1. Tell me how he is going to fix healthcare and maintain an attractive environment for research, development, and medical practice. How is he going to satisfy the needs of the patient without limiting their choice and diminishing care.
2. Tell me how he is going to bring the troops home without creating a total political collapse in Iraq, that will avoid solidifying, in the minds of other countries and terrorist organizations that the, the US is a weak and beatable adversary?
When the collapse takes place how is he going to keep Iran and Syria from creating an Islamic state, using Iraq as the keystone to leverage and invade the other countries in the region that they have already vowed to destroy?
3. Because of his loose campaign statement about opening talks with state sponsors of terrorism, how is he going to maintain relations with Israel, a state that already wants nothing to do with him because of his remarks. In many instances we (the US) is the only thing that has held them from totally annihilating the Palestinians, and launching devastating attacks on Iran. They are ready to go to war. We hold the cork to the genie's lamp.
4. Domestically, with a half a trillion in new programs that will cost additional billions every year, how much will he need to raise taxes. By only raising taxes on the wealthiest of americans (basically any business that files under an LLC) how is he going to then combat the reduced jobs created by eliminating income to these businesses. As this slows economic expansion, what will be needed to fend of recession? Is this really the right thing to do during a time of increasing national debt? Since it is proven that lowering taxes on businesses actually increases tax revenue due to the economic expansion that is a result, why would he even propose such a thing?
5. Finally, everything in his speeches has to do with taking from one group of americans and giving to another, or restriction of trade, or AID of some form or another. Where is the talk of encouraging innovation and economic development? The government doesn't build business, people do.
Even Hillary has addressed and answered some of these questions. She realized that she needed to change her position on some of her early convictions based on the Political or Economic logic of the real world. Obama has not.
You want converts? You want people that view both the red and the blue? Stop making one side emotionally based, and the other side logically based. I will flock to logic, as will most conservatives and libertarians, even if all of the policies don't match up perfectly.
You are absolutely correct, Libertarians are a big mixed blend of different people with different backgrounds, beliefs, sexual preferences, addictions, hobbies, skin colors, languages and political histories, but the one thing we all share is the ability to separate logic from emotion and the understanding of the ability of individual rights.
I believe that every individual is naturally entitled to do as he pleases with himself and the fruits of his labor, so far as it in no way interferes with any other men's rights. – Abraham Lincoln
I think I'm having my first internet political forum crush. [:I]
Good points Gaspar. I'm a registered GOP, but find my views are much more Libertarian myself.
I haven't seen nor heard a whole lot out of this guy that leads me to believe he is the savant his supporters have made him out to be. Eloquent speaker, yes. And he is every bit as much bought and paid for by a political machine just as McCain is. The one that paid for Obama scares me a whole lot more.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
I think I'm having my first internet political forum crush. [:I]
Good points Gaspar. I'm a registered GOP, but find my views are much more Libertarian myself.
I haven't seen nor heard a whole lot out of this guy that leads me to believe he is the savant his supporters have made him out to be. Eloquent speaker, yes. And he is every bit as much bought and paid for by a political machine just as McCain is. The one that paid for Obama scares me a whole lot more.
Thanks Conan.
My point is that I can't understand why Obama supporters have no concept of what he is proposing and they are OK with that? Hillary is a known entity, so I fully understand her supporters. She has made very clear points that I understand and disagree with. She is a true political candidate.
Obama is simply a personality. He's done nothing to clarify his positions in a logical manner, and when you engage any of his supporters, you simply get more emotion and fanatic allegiance. This scares me. History if full of examples of what happens when a Cult of Personality rises to power.
Do not Godwin me!
A quick read of your post hasn't shown much to influence me. I have to go to work but I promise I will respond as I think you have made assumptions and assertions that simply have evolved from company talking points. For instance the medical industry is not in crisis because of government regulation. Puhleeze...That just simply is not true. Talk to a doctor about insurance companies or a hospital administrator about uninsured patients.
Yeah, we're all Libertarians to some extent. We're all Indians too. I'm 1/16 Cherokee but for some reason the tribe doesn't care!
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
A quick read of your post hasn't shown much to influence me. I have to go to work but I promise I will respond as I think you have made assumptions and assertions that simply have evolved from company talking points. For instance the medical industry is not in crisis because of government regulation. Puhleeze...That just simply is not true. Talk to a doctor about insurance companies or a hospital administrator about uninsured patients.
Yeah, we're all Libertarians to some extent. We're all Indians too. I'm 1/16 Cherokee but for some reason the tribe doesn't care!
I'm at least 1/16 from the Whinealot Tribe from down on the Crymea River. [;)]
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
My point is that I can't understand why Obama supporters have no concept of what he is proposing and they are OK with that?
And I really don't know why you believe that. Why would Obama supporters know less about Obama than Hillary supporters of Hillary? Or Mccain's people of McCain? Help me understand, because your characterization of Obama supporters -- especially en masse, like we're legions of screaming teenage rock groupies, or zombified morons who blindly follow where he leads -- are neither correct nor especially fair to those of us who are making adult decisions about how we vote.
I'm cool acknowledging that he's got the Beatles-playing-Wembley thing down. He can bring in the crowds and he's one of the most talented public speakers we've had in a generation. But are you really saying that the stadium glamor completely cancels out the logical choice that millions of us have made? And HOW long has this primary season lasted again? These are some of the best vetted candidates the Democratic party has ever had, if you measure by time-in-primary.
All of this is to say that, I think your premise is disingenuous. Obama voters aren't naive and ignorant. We're some of the best informed Democrats in a long long while.
BTW, if you're looking for me to tick off his proposals and whether I do, do not, or somewhat support them, you'll have to look elsewhere. (//%22http://www.barackobama.com/issues/%22)
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
My point is that I can't understand why Obama supporters have no concept of what he is proposing and they are OK with that?
And I really don't know why you believe that. Why would Obama supporters know less about Obama than Hillary supporters of Hillary? Or Mccain's people of McCain? Help me understand, because your characterization of Obama supporters -- especially en masse, like we're legions of screaming teenage rock groupies, or zombified morons who blindly follow where he leads -- are neither correct nor especially fair to those of us who are making adult decisions about how we vote.
I'm cool acknowledging that he's got the Beatles-playing-Wembley thing down. He can bring in the crowds and he's one of the most talented public speakers we've had in a generation. But are you really saying that the stadium glamor completely cancels out the logical choice that millions of us have made? And HOW long has this primary season lasted again? These are some of the best vetted candidates the Democratic party has ever had, if you measure by time-in-primary.
All of this is to say that, I think your premise is disingenuous. Obama voters aren't naive and ignorant. We're some of the best informed Democrats in a long long while.
BTW, if you're looking for me to tick off his proposals and whether I do, do not, or somewhat support them, you'll have to look elsewhere. (//%22http://www.barackobama.com/issues/%22)
Thanks, Wevus. There's some logic for you Gassy. Keep implying that Obama supporters are all emotion and no logic, prop your feet up, light your stogie, hoist a Cabernet and do what you faux Libertarians always do. Act like you're intellectual, independent, conservatives with open minds...then vote for the Republican. That's how our country got Bush for 8years. That's also why he only visited around election time to rake in the donations.
1. Insurance companies and pharmaceutical lobbyists are the problem with the medical industry. If you don't understand that, and apparently you didn't, then logic escapes you. Do you know any doctors or administrators who think their problems stem from too much oppressive government regulation? What regulations? No, its uninsured patients, malpractice insurance, drug companies co-opting the integrity of the system and inflating their drug costs that are the culprits. The collapsing economy will force all the players in the game to the table eventually to create a workable plan. If you think no government involvement is necessary then logic is the red barn and you have a blue flashlight.
2. What? You want peace with honor? Thirty years too late for that one. You actually think they will hold us in less esteem if we recognize a mistake, secure our troops and continue bringing them home? Why? You think it will make us less safe at home? Why? They are pleased to be holding us at bay and using their own people as bait to slowly drain our resources and divide ourselves. Meanwhile the rest of the world continues on its way using their resources to whip us in the global market while Bush-lite beats the drums for going after Iran with some of the same logic (they may have nukes, they are aiding the terrists) they used to go into Iraq.
Is that the Libertarian position? Don't mess with our own people but use our peoples resources against their will to go after other countries cause they may or may not continue their 1000 years or so of conquering each other? Smart stuff there. We can help them more by understanding that it was a mistake and one we can recover from without having to spend 100 years more there. Reagan pulled out of Lebanon after realizing the same thing.
3. Why do you swallow the "we hold the cork of the Israeli genie" stuff? Israel does just fine without our meddling. I remember when our great ally took one of our spy ships by force back in about 1967. They never apologized and it isn't common knowledge but they're our allies as long as we do what they can't. They like our aid and they bluster about their enemies but its not our efforts that keep them from genocide. There are other barns out there in the forest Gas. But you have to know that they exist. Europe is a player as well. But once again, why would a Libertarian want to take the resources of a predominantly Christian country that doesn't even understand the complexities of a Jewish homeland that separates and subjugates its residents and is divided itself as to how to solve the problems? His "loose talk" betrays your republicanism. He asserts and many in the rest of the world agree that you must engage in discourse with those assumed to be your enemies. Nixon spoke to China, Reagan spoke to Russia, and it seemed to work well.
And that's where your thinking starts to degrade into party talk. Big spender? No one outdoes the republicans...no one. Anti business, anti-entreprenuerial? Yeah, same ole stuff the conservatives have trotted out in every election.
You might note that Congress and the courts play a larger role in the direction of the country and such things as the reformation of health care than a president does. Before Bush there was a balance of the three. Now its king of the mountain.
Sorry, I'm not looking to convert anyone to Obama, and for sure not in a state that has suckled its children on a toxic formula of religion, anti-labor, anti-government, anti-public education, liberal hating conservatism that has kept them from seeing any other way of life since the mid sixties. Waste of time.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
My point is that I can't understand why Obama supporters have no concept of what he is proposing and they are OK with that?
And I really don't know why you believe that. Why would Obama supporters know less about Obama than Hillary supporters of Hillary? Or Mccain's people of McCain? Help me understand, because your characterization of Obama supporters -- especially en masse, like we're legions of screaming teenage rock groupies, or zombified morons who blindly follow where he leads -- are neither correct nor especially fair to those of us who are making adult decisions about how we vote.
I'm cool acknowledging that he's got the Beatles-playing-Wembley thing down. He can bring in the crowds and he's one of the most talented public speakers we've had in a generation. But are you really saying that the stadium glamor completely cancels out the logical choice that millions of us have made? And HOW long has this primary season lasted again? These are some of the best vetted candidates the Democratic party has ever had, if you measure by time-in-primary.
All of this is to say that, I think your premise is disingenuous. Obama voters aren't naive and ignorant. We're some of the best informed Democrats in a long long while.
BTW, if you're looking for me to tick off his proposals and whether I do, do not, or somewhat support them, you'll have to look elsewhere. (//%22http://www.barackobama.com/issues/%22)
Thanks, Wevus. There's some logic for you Gassy. Keep implying that Obama supporters are all emotion and no logic, prop your feet up, light your stogie, hoist a Cabernet and do what you faux Libertarians always do. Act like you're intellectual, independent, conservatives with open minds...then vote for the Republican. That's how our country got Bush for 8years. That's also why he only visited around election time to rake in the donations.
1. Insurance companies and pharmaceutical lobbyists are the problem with the medical industry. If you don't understand that, and apparently you didn't, then logic escapes you. Do you know any doctors or administrators who think their problems stem from too much oppressive government regulation? What regulations? No, its uninsured patients, malpractice insurance, drug companies co-opting the integrity of the system and inflating their drug costs that are the culprits. The collapsing economy will force all the players in the game to the table eventually to create a workable plan. If you think no government involvement is necessary then logic is the red barn and you have a blue flashlight.
2. What? You want peace with honor? Thirty years too late for that one. You actually think they will hold us in less esteem if we recognize a mistake, secure our troops and continue bringing them home? Why? You think it will make us less safe at home? Why? They are pleased to be holding us at bay and using their own people as bait to slowly drain our resources and divide ourselves. Meanwhile the rest of the world continues on its way using their resources to whip us in the global market while Bush-lite beats the drums for going after Iran with some of the same logic (they may have nukes, they are aiding the terrists) they used to go into Iraq.
Is that the Libertarian position? Don't mess with our own people but use our peoples resources against their will to go after other countries cause they may or may not continue their 1000 years or so of conquering each other? Smart stuff there. We can help them more by understanding that it was a mistake and one we can recover from without having to spend 100 years more there. Reagan pulled out of Lebanon after realizing the same thing.
3. Why do you swallow the "we hold the cork of the Israeli genie" stuff? Israel does just fine without our meddling. I remember when our great ally took one of our spy ships by force back in about 1967. They never apologized and it isn't common knowledge but they're our allies as long as we do what they can't. They like our aid and they bluster about their enemies but its not our efforts that keep them from genocide. There are other barns out there in the forest Gas. But you have to know that they exist. Europe is a player as well. But once again, why would a Libertarian want to take the resources of a predominantly Christian country that doesn't even understand the complexities of a Jewish homeland that separates and subjugates its residents and is divided itself as to how to solve the problems? His "loose talk" betrays your republicanism. He asserts and many in the rest of the world agree that you must engage in discourse with those assumed to be your enemies. Nixon spoke to China, Reagan spoke to Russia, and it seemed to work well.
And that's where your thinking starts to degrade into party talk. Big spender? No one outdoes the republicans...no one. Anti business, anti-entreprenuerial? Yeah, same ole stuff the conservatives have trotted out in every election.
You might note that Congress and the courts play a larger role in the direction of the country and such things as the reformation of health care than a president does. Before Bush there was a balance of the three. Now its king of the mountain.
Sorry, I'm not looking to convert anyone to Obama, and for sure not in a state that has suckled its children on a toxic formula of religion, anti-labor, anti-government, anti-public education, liberal hating conservatism that has kept them from seeing any other way of life since the mid sixties. Waste of time.
Thank you for taking a great deal of thought in formulating your answers, I can see that your political choices come from your passion. I cannot debate that, nor do I care to. While I respect your world view, I simply cannot agree with it. I no longer wish to fuel your hatred.
I also have one less thing to criticize Obama for, he has now retracted his statements about talking to Iran and state sponsors of terror.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/may/22/barackobama.usforeignpolicy?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront
He is learning, unfortunately he is still speaking before he understands, therefore he has to make these quiet retreats from his policies. It doesn't really matter, at this point he can say anything and his cult will follow.
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
My point is that I can't understand why Obama supporters have no concept of what he is proposing and they are OK with that?
And I really don't know why you believe that. Why would Obama supporters know less about Obama than Hillary supporters of Hillary? Or Mccain's people of McCain? Help me understand, because your characterization of Obama supporters -- especially en masse, like we're legions of screaming teenage rock groupies, or zombified morons who blindly follow where he leads -- are neither correct nor especially fair to those of us who are making adult decisions about how we vote.
I'm cool acknowledging that he's got the Beatles-playing-Wembley thing down. He can bring in the crowds and he's one of the most talented public speakers we've had in a generation. But are you really saying that the stadium glamor completely cancels out the logical choice that millions of us have made? And HOW long has this primary season lasted again? These are some of the best vetted candidates the Democratic party has ever had, if you measure by time-in-primary.
All of this is to say that, I think your premise is disingenuous. Obama voters aren't naive and ignorant. We're some of the best informed Democrats in a long long while.
BTW, if you're looking for me to tick off his proposals and whether I do, do not, or somewhat support them, you'll have to look elsewhere. (//%22http://www.barackobama.com/issues/%22)
Thanks, Wevus. There's some logic for you Gassy. Keep implying that Obama supporters are all emotion and no logic, prop your feet up, light your stogie, hoist a Cabernet and do what you faux Libertarians always do. Act like you're intellectual, independent, conservatives with open minds...then vote for the Republican. That's how our country got Bush for 8years. That's also why he only visited around election time to rake in the donations.
1. Insurance companies and pharmaceutical lobbyists are the problem with the medical industry. If you don't understand that, and apparently you didn't, then logic escapes you. Do you know any doctors or administrators who think their problems stem from too much oppressive government regulation? What regulations? No, its uninsured patients, malpractice insurance, drug companies co-opting the integrity of the system and inflating their drug costs that are the culprits. The collapsing economy will force all the players in the game to the table eventually to create a workable plan. If you think no government involvement is necessary then logic is the red barn and you have a blue flashlight.
2. What? You want peace with honor? Thirty years too late for that one. You actually think they will hold us in less esteem if we recognize a mistake, secure our troops and continue bringing them home? Why? You think it will make us less safe at home? Why? They are pleased to be holding us at bay and using their own people as bait to slowly drain our resources and divide ourselves. Meanwhile the rest of the world continues on its way using their resources to whip us in the global market while Bush-lite beats the drums for going after Iran with some of the same logic (they may have nukes, they are aiding the terrists) they used to go into Iraq.
Is that the Libertarian position? Don't mess with our own people but use our peoples resources against their will to go after other countries cause they may or may not continue their 1000 years or so of conquering each other? Smart stuff there. We can help them more by understanding that it was a mistake and one we can recover from without having to spend 100 years more there. Reagan pulled out of Lebanon after realizing the same thing.
3. Why do you swallow the "we hold the cork of the Israeli genie" stuff? Israel does just fine without our meddling. I remember when our great ally took one of our spy ships by force back in about 1967. They never apologized and it isn't common knowledge but they're our allies as long as we do what they can't. They like our aid and they bluster about their enemies but its not our efforts that keep them from genocide. There are other barns out there in the forest Gas. But you have to know that they exist. Europe is a player as well. But once again, why would a Libertarian want to take the resources of a predominantly Christian country that doesn't even understand the complexities of a Jewish homeland that separates and subjugates its residents and is divided itself as to how to solve the problems? His "loose talk" betrays your republicanism. He asserts and many in the rest of the world agree that you must engage in discourse with those assumed to be your enemies. Nixon spoke to China, Reagan spoke to Russia, and it seemed to work well.
And that's where your thinking starts to degrade into party talk. Big spender? No one outdoes the republicans...no one. Anti business, anti-entreprenuerial? Yeah, same ole stuff the conservatives have trotted out in every election.
You might note that Congress and the courts play a larger role in the direction of the country and such things as the reformation of health care than a president does. Before Bush there was a balance of the three. Now its king of the mountain.
Sorry, I'm not looking to convert anyone to Obama, and for sure not in a state that has suckled its children on a toxic formula of religion, anti-labor, anti-government, anti-public education, liberal hating conservatism that has kept them from seeing any other way of life since the mid sixties. Waste of time.
Thank you for taking a great deal of thought in formulating your answers, I can see that your political choices come from your passion. I cannot debate that, nor do I care to. While I respect your world view, I simply cannot agree with it. I no longer wish to fuel your hatred.
I also have one less thing to criticize Obama for, he has now retracted his statements about talking to Iran and state sponsors of terror.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/may/22/barackobama.usforeignpolicy?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront
He is learning, unfortunately he is still speaking before he understands, therefore he has to make these quiet retreats from his policies. It doesn't really matter, at this point he can say anything and his cult will follow.
I am both left handed and Christian. I know a left handed compliment when I hear one and I know to forgive you.
These words come to mind. Condescending, Dismissive, and Egotistical. Maybe you are a college political science professor. Otherwise your opinions and analyses are no better than mine. You continue to think that only passion, cultism and emotion determine Obama support. That's an error I hope republican leadership shares. We do indeed live in different worlds.
If you detect hatred, look inward. I am not the one who has a history of demeaning others with name calling.
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
I hope you do take the time to investigate Obama. I would suggest you read his books, which IMO provide tremendous insight not only on his positions, but how he thinks. To me, that is critical to a president--how will he approach problems that aren't even foreseen.
Oh, you mean quotes like these? How's about a little weed or cocaine whenever it gets a bit stressful in the oval office?
From Dreams of My Father: 'I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites.'
From Dreams of My Father: 'I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity gainst my mothers race.'
From Dreams of My Father: 'There was something about him that made me wary, a little too sure of himself, maybe. And white.'
From Dreams of My Father: 'It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names.'
From Dreams of My Father: 'I never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa , that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself, the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela.'
From Audacity of Hope: 'I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.'
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
I hope you do take the time to investigate Obama. I would suggest you read his books, which IMO provide tremendous insight not only on his positions, but how he thinks. To me, that is critical to a president--how will he approach problems that aren't even foreseen.
Oh, you mean quotes like these? How's about a little weed or cocaine whenever it gets a bit stressful in the oval office?
From Dreams of My Father: 'I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites.'
From Dreams of My Father: 'I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity gainst my mothers race.'
From Dreams of My Father: 'There was something about him that made me wary, a little too sure of himself, maybe. And white.'
From Dreams of My Father: 'It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names.'
From Dreams of My Father: 'I never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa , that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself, the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela.'
From Audacity of Hope: 'I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.'
Dude! You're going to spoil it for me. Don't tell me the ending. That's my reading assignment for this weekend.
I thought I'd cut to the chase so you could enjoy something like "Friend Of The Devil" by Peter Robinson or Grisham's new legal thriller instead of a sales pitch for the latest Democrat Party rock star creation.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
I thought I'd cut to the chase so you could enjoy something like "Friend Of The Devil" by Peter Robinson or Grisham's new legal thriller instead of a sales pitch for the latest Democrat Party rock star creation.
You missed it. Completely. Doofus.
Have you and Gaspar hooked up yet?
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
I thought I'd cut to the chase so you could enjoy something like "Friend Of The Devil" by Peter Robinson or Grisham's new legal thriller instead of a sales pitch for the latest Democrat Party rock star creation.
Bitter Partisans, party of two! Bitter Partisans, your table is ready!
PS. if you liked Obama, you're gonna LOVE the next Democratic Party rock star creations!
(http://www.nationallampoon.com/thezaz/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/nkotb.jpg)
Personally, I can't wait to see the kind of national healthcare that Donny Wahlberg's cookin' up!
Talk about the masters of context. Conan- just when were those statements by Obama made? My understanding from a reviewer was that they were during adolescence and detailed his struggle with being a mixed race child. IOW, typical identity issues mixed with angst. But then that wouldn't sound nearly as inflammatory would it?
And spin this:
I am Christian, but I will stand with the Jews should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.
Kind of sounds noble doesn't it? Maybe something Falwell would have said. Not the same cachet when you throw in the word Muslim though. Even though they are part of our American fabric just like Christians, Jews, Budhists and Polygamists.
Context, as you and Gassy point out, means everything.
...chirp...chirp...chirp...
Personal attack deleted.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Talk about the masters of context. Conan- just when were those statements by Obama made? My understanding from a reviewer was that they were during adolescence and detailed his struggle with being a mixed race child. IOW, typical identity issues mixed with angst. But then that wouldn't sound nearly as inflammatory would it?
And spin this:
I am Christian, but I will stand with the Jews should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.
Kind of sounds noble doesn't it? Maybe something Falwell would have said. Not the same cachet when you throw in the word Muslim though. Even though they are part of our American fabric just like Christians, Jews, Budhists and Polygamists.
Context, as you and Gassy point out, means everything.
...chirp...chirp...chirp...
Obama wrote it. He can't lay claim to not having racial issues and racial identity issues.
His most ardent supporters want to neutralize the race issue, yet Obama has left a paper trail and has called a man his "spiritual advisor" who preaches Black Liberation Theology.
Christian standing with Jews or Obama standing w/ Muslims- apple/orange, please don't be so glib, I've got a lot more respect for you than that.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Talk about the masters of context. Conan- just when were those statements by Obama made? My understanding from a reviewer was that they were during adolescence and detailed his struggle with being a mixed race child. IOW, typical identity issues mixed with angst. But then that wouldn't sound nearly as inflammatory would it?
And spin this:
I am Christian, but I will stand with the Jews should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.
Kind of sounds noble doesn't it? Maybe something Falwell would have said. Not the same cachet when you throw in the word Muslim though. Even though they are part of our American fabric just like Christians, Jews, Budhists and Polygamists.
Context, as you and Gassy point out, means everything.
...chirp...chirp...chirp...
Obama wrote it. He can't lay claim to not having racial issues and racial identity issues.
His most ardent supporters want to neutralize the race issue, yet Obama has left a paper trail and has called a man his "spiritual advisor" who preaches Black Liberation Theology.
Christian standing with Jews or Obama standing w/ Muslims- apple/orange, please don't be so glib, I've got a lot more respect for you than that.
Come on Conan!
Obama didn't mean it. He was just joking. He's changed his mind! He was young, and you know how kids are. He grown up a lot. That was the old Obama. We all make mistakes. Sometimes we say things we don't mean. He was having a bad day. You took those comments out of context.
And the winner is. . . YOUR A RACEST!
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
QuoteI also have one less thing to criticize Obama for, he has now retracted his statements about talking to Iran and state sponsors of terror.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/may/22/barackobama.usforeignpolicy?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront
He is learning, unfortunately he is still speaking before he understands, therefore he has to make these quiet retreats from his policies. It doesn't really matter, at this point he can say anything and his cult will follow.
I have read ALL of Obama's positions and have been following his political career for nearly a decade now...
I am so tired of condescending comments from pompous pie-in-the-sky so-called libertarians...
I could be a libertarian except I'm not nearly that naive... I understand that if we had a "liberatarian" government, ONLY THE WEALTHY WOULD HAVE POWER IN THIS COUNTRY.
I am not so naive as to realize that it doesn't really matter what specific proposals come from politicians... but how many of Reagan's specific proposals came to fruition?... you end up voting for a direction, a direction in which the country should be going.
Arguing the "cult of Obama" is as disingenuous as insinuating everybody who supported George W. Bush only did so because he was the candidate "they'd rather have a beer with" --
Obama is an inspiring, elequent LIBERAL... he is a statesman... America needs good liberals... people who will dispel the conservative media-driven notions that liberals are unpatriotic, wimpy, closet-communist "appeasers" who want to steal from the rich to give to the poor...
I just heard Obama's speech in Miami... finally some sense. Finally, some intellect on display. Finally, someone who KNOWS what he's talking about. Obama's foreign policy will be a breath of fresh air-- I want to see an Obama foreign policy team with Colin Powell, Chuck Hagel and Dick Lugar which along with dems in the cabinet will clean up some of the awful mess the Bush administration has left us...
If you don't like Obama, don't vote for him. If you don't like his positions, don't vote for him. If you HATE liberals because the media has told you as much, and FoxNews and ClearChannel have you drinking their KoolAid... don't vote for him.
But don't imply that those of us who support Obama are STUPID for our decision to do so... I'm giving money to the campaign because it is HUGELY IMPORTANT to dispel the myths that you and others like you insist upon perpetuating...
I understand Obama may make mistakes, but he will most definitely learn from them, unlike the current administration...
And Conan will insist on demonizing Rev Wright, Al $harpton and Je$$e Jack$son and insist any democrat who wields any sort of political power or influence is some sort of "closet communist" or "closet marxist" or is utterly corrupt....... conservative propaganda knows no bounds...
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Talk about the masters of context. Conan- just when were those statements by Obama made? My understanding from a reviewer was that they were during adolescence and detailed his struggle with being a mixed race child. IOW, typical identity issues mixed with angst. But then that wouldn't sound nearly as inflammatory would it?
And spin this:
I am Christian, but I will stand with the Jews should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.
Kind of sounds noble doesn't it? Maybe something Falwell would have said. Not the same cachet when you throw in the word Muslim though. Even though they are part of our American fabric just like Christians, Jews, Budhists and Polygamists.
Context, as you and Gassy point out, means everything.
...chirp...chirp...chirp...
Obama wrote it. He can't lay claim to not having racial issues and racial identity issues.
His most ardent supporters want to neutralize the race issue, yet Obama has left a paper trail and has called a man his "spiritual advisor" who preaches Black Liberation Theology.
Christian standing with Jews or Obama standing w/ Muslims- apple/orange, please don't be so glib, I've got a lot more respect for you than that.
Come on Conan!
Obama didn't mean it. He was just joking. He's changed his mind! He was young, and you know how kids are. He grown up a lot. That was the old Obama. We all make mistakes. Sometimes we say things we don't mean. He was having a bad day. You took those comments out of context.
And the winner is. . . YOUR A RACEST!
No, the problem is, you have little empathy for anyone outside your own little political culture clique... I find that to be a problem in Tulsa more than I have other cities...
I am not the same person I was in the mid-80s... neither is Obama... I consider Rev Wright to be alot like the drill sargent who says all kinds of crazy XXXX but by the end of it all, a young kid finds his focus, discipline, pride, committment to family etc...
Obama's speech on race...http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/03/18/us/politics/20080318_OBAMA_GRAPHIC.html#
Obama's principled opposition to the war on Iraq...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhpKmQCCwB8
Obama's speech on our empathy deficit...http://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/stories/2006/06/barack.html
The world doesn't just revolve around you.
There's a lot of talk in this country about the federal deficit. But I think we should talk more about our empathy deficit – the ability to put ourselves in someone else's shoes; to see the world through those who are different from us – the child who's hungry, the laid-off steelworker, the immigrant woman cleaning your dorm room.
As you go on in life, cultivating this quality of empathy will become harder, not easier. There's no community service requirement in the real world; no one forcing you to care. You'll be free to live in neighborhoods with people who are exactly like yourself, and send your kids to the same schools, and narrow your concerns to what's going in your own little circle.
Not only that – we live in a culture that discourages empathy. A culture that too often tells us our principal goal in life is to be rich, thin, young, famous, safe, and entertained. A culture where those in power too often encourage these selfish impulses.
They will tell you that the Americans who sleep in the streets and beg for food got there because they're all lazy or weak of spirit. That the inner-city children who are trapped in dilapidated schools can't learn and won't learn and so we should just give up on them entirely. That the innocent people being slaughtered and expelled from their homes half a world away are somebody else's problem to take care of.
------------------------------------------------
The second lesson I learned after college, when I had this crazy idea that I wanted to be a community organizer and work in low-income neighborhoods.
My mother and grandparents thought I should go to law school. My friends had applied for jobs on Wall Street. But I went ahead and wrote letters to every organization in the country that I could think of. And finally, this small group of churches on the south side of Chicago wrote back and gave me a job organizing neighborhoods devastated by steel-plant closings in the early 80s.
The churches didn't have much money – so they offered me a grand sum of $12,000 a year plus $1,000 to buy a car. And I got ready to move to Chicago – a place I had never been and where I didn't know a living soul.------------------------------------------------
So, keep playing your political games and drinking your chardonnay, all the while accusing Obama of being an elitist... and pretending that if the government is dismantled and libertarians ruled the world, that everything would be just peachy... but I know better.
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
[
So, keep playing your political games and drinking your chardonnay, all the while accusing Obama of being an elitist... and pretending that if the government is dismantled and libertarians ruled the world, that everything would be just peachy... but I know better.
You're not getting it, but that's ok. Your values are different than mine and I can respect that.
Self-interest is not myopic selfishness. It is whatever it is that interests the participants, whatever they value, whatever goals they pursue. The scientist seeking to advance the frontiers of his discipline, the missionary seeking to convert infidels to the true faith, the philanthropist seeking to bring comfort to the needy – all are pursuing their interests, as they see them, as they judge them by their own values. – Milton Friedman
http://cliffschecter.firedoglake.com/2008/06/04/mccains-past-infidelities-ongoing-sanctimony-haunt-him-in-town-hall-meeting/
McCain's Past Infidelities, Ongoing Sanctimony Haunt Him In Town Hall Meeting
The best against Obama's personal cock-holster is yet to come....
quote:
Originally posted by Breadburner
The best against Obama's personal cock-holster is yet to come....
Why'd he leave his sick wife?
Why'd he play around on his wife?
Whitey married a rich cheerleader 17 years his younger?
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
quote:
Originally posted by Breadburner
The best against Obama's personal cock-holster is yet to come....
Why'd he leave his sick wife?
Why'd he play around on his wife?
Whitey married a rich cheerleader 17 years his younger?
I though Obama's campaign was going to be above all the politics of personal destruction. What value do these questions add to the broader dialogue?
Just passing on information....not passing on judgement.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1024927/The-wife-John-McCain-callously-left-behind.html
"Some of McCain's acquaintances are less forgiving, however. They portray the politician as a self-centred womaniser who effectively abandoned his crippled wife to 'play the field'. They accuse him of finally settling on Cindy, a former rodeo beauty queen, for financial reasons. "
"Ted Sampley, who fought with US Special Forces in Vietnam and is now a leading campaigner for veterans' rights, said: 'I have been following John McCain's career for nearly 20 years. I know him personally. There is something wrong with this guy and let me tell you what it is – deceit. "
"But Ross Perot, who paid her medical bills all those years ago, now believes that both Carol McCain and the American people have been taken in by a man who is unusually slick and cruel – even by the standards of modern politics.
'McCain is the classic opportunist. He's always reaching for attention and glory,' he said.
'After he came home, Carol walked with a limp. So he threw her over for a poster girl with big money from Arizona. And the rest is history.'"
Defeat deceit!
Laura Bush Makes Surprise Trip To Afghanistan
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/08/larua-bush-makes-surprise_n_105893.html
I like Laura Bush. Don't know why, but she seems ok.
You really have got to feel sorry for her.
Classic.....real classy first lady material!
"Your wife, Cindy, was addicted to prescription painkillers. She stole pills from a medical-aid charity she heads and she used the names of unsuspecting employees to get prescriptions."
http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/1994-09-08/news/opiate-for-the-mrs/full
Betty Ford was class.....Cindy's donkey....and you know just a rich beach cheerleader. No substance. Just abuse....
JOHN MCCAIN'S WIFE HIDING WAR PROFITS, UNTAXED OFF-SHORE ACCOUNTS?
http://www.tulsanow.net/forum/post.asp?method=Reply&TOPIC_ID=10133&FORUM_ID=24
Federal agents: Cindy McCain's full tax returns will show war profits, pre-9/11 insider trading, secret off-shore accounts linked to 1241 Class C Nevada corporation payoffs and bribes.....
Wicked.
http://wonkette.com/381567/mccain-releases-dumb-tax-returns-cindys-fortune-kept-secret
http://www.fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/government/fraud/elections_campaigning/news.php?q=1213896894
http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/voices.php/2008/06/18/john_mccain_s_wife_hiding_war_profits_un
Stepford wife?
The tragic hero....Laura Bush. You gotta feel for her....[:(]
DREAMS OF LAURA
By MAUREEN DOWD
Published: July 9, 2008
WASHINGTON
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/09/opinion/09dowd.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin
"The headline on the conservative blog, Townhall, stormed: "Book to Smear First Lady's Sex Life."
Radar magazine proclaimed: "On the gossip front, the novel doesn't disappoint," adding that its steamy and lurid scenes were "sure to send the White House into a fury."
MSNBC.com called the sex scenes "too graphic to reprint."
The cover of this fantasy version of Laura Bush's life, "American Wife," is alluring, a woman's shapely figure in a white gown, with white opera gloves and a diamond ring.
The author is not Anonymous, or Eponymous or Pseudonymous, yet there is the air of a "Primary Colors" stunt about this political roman à clef, which is timed to come out during the Republican convention.
Still, it's not a salacious tell-all, and words like "smear" and "gossip" are misplaced. It's a well-researched book that imagines what lies behind that placid facade of the first lady, a women's book-club novel by a young woman named Curtis Sittenfeld who has written two best sellers, including "Prep."
It's the sort of novel Laura Bush might curl up with in the White House solarium if it were not about Laura Bush. It would be interesting to hear how that lover of fiction feels about being the subject of fiction.
You don't get any fingerprints from Laura Bush. When you look into her eyes during an interview, you feel as if she is there somewhere, deep inside herself, miles and miles down. But though she is lovely and gracious, the main vibe she gives off is an emphatic: "I am not going to show you anything."
Once in a while, you'll read about something she's said, like that legendary line she uttered to her future in-laws — "I read, I smoke, and I admire" — that makes you realize how intriguing it would be to see the real Laura. One with her guard down and outside of the Kabuki-like job of first lady.
But there's only one vessel that can ferry you past Laura's moat, and that's fiction. Ms. Sittenfeld has creatively applied her crayons to all the ambiguous blanks in the coloring book. It isn't an invasion of privacy. Art has always been made out of the stories of kings and queens. Fictionalizing historical figures is fine. Fantasies about public figures are inevitable. The question of an ostensibly ordinary girl who lives through extraordinary things will always be gripping. For "Madame Bovary," Flaubert partly drew on the real-life story of Delphine Delamare, a village doctor's unhappy wife who had lots of lovers and a premature and humiliating death.
And the story of the quiet, pretty librarian who could suffer the fate of being an old maid if not rescued by the dashing hero is a favorite American narrative — from "The Music Man" to "It's a Wonderful Life."
During her husband's presidential runs, many reporters shied away from asking Laura Bush about the freakishly horrible accident she had when she was 17. Hurrying to a party, she ran a stop sign in Midland, Tex., one night on Farm Road 868 and ran into a car that turned out to be driven by the golden boy of her high school, a cute star athlete she was believed to have had a crush on. He died instantly of a broken neck.
As Ann Gerhart wrote in "The Perfect Wife": "Killing another person was a tragic, shattering error for a girl to make at 17. It was one of those hinges in a life, a moment when destiny shuddered, then lurched in a new direction. In its aftermath, Laura became more cautious and less spontaneous, more inclined to be compassionate."
Laura has rarely spoken publicly about it, except to say in 2000 that "it was crushing ... for the family involved and for me as well."
How could a novelist not be drawn to such a tragedy? It's easy to imagine all that guilt, shame, conscience, fear, sex and nightmares in the hands of Eudora Welty or Larry McMurtry.
Ms. Sittenfeld was not out to sensationalize but sympathize. The portraits of Laura and W. — known as Alice and Charlie Blackwell here — are trenchant and make you like them more. The Barbara Bush doppelgänger, dubbed "Maj," for Her Majesty, is as tart as ever. "When she turned her attention to me," Alice says of Maj, "I always felt, and not in a positive way, as if we were the only ones in the room and total vigilance were required."
In 2004, Ms. Sittenfeld wrote a Salon piece confessing that despite her "flaming" liberalism and disdain for W.'s policies, she loved Laura Bush. She called the first lady "an easy heroine to root for — smart and nice, but just flawed enough (she still sneaks cigarettes!) to remain likable." She identified with Laura's omnivorous fiction reading.
In the novel, Alice, tormented by the choices her husband has made about the war that she's stood by, blurts out to a grieving father that she thinks the war should end. In life, we can only wonder how Laura feels. "
Let's see if the MSM is up to chasing a juicy story, even if it is about McCain: McCain was still married to his wife when he got married to his mistress .....
Steelers or Packers, John?
http://www.americablog.com/2008/07/mccain-was-still-married-to-his-wife.html
McCain's broken marriage and fractured Reagan friendship
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-divorce11-2008jul11,0,5924926,full.story
Scary having such a polygamist in the Senate ...... Romney would be a good running mate.....or wing man.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/18/AR2008071802557.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
Black. Female. Accomplished. Attacked.
"We're endlessly familiar with the problem Michelle Obama is confronting -- being looked at, as black women, through a different lens from our white counterparts, who are portrayed as kinder, gentler souls who somehow deserve to be loved and valued more than we do. So many of us are hoping that Michelle -- as an elegant and elusive combination of successful career woman, supportive wife and loving mother -- can change that. "
"Recently, a friend who's a married professional mother of three girls wrote to me: "I think one of the most interesting things about Michelle Obama is that what she and her husband are doing is pretty revolutionary these days -- and I don't mean running for president. For a black man and woman in the U.S. to be happily married, with children, and working as partners to build a life -- let alone a life of service to others -- all while rearing their children together is downright revolutionary."
Anyone else notice Cindy Lou sportin' a cast on her left arm? She said someone in a crowd shook her hand too hard. Hmmmm, back to the pain pills?
And!
Election 2008
Cindy McCain's Half Sister 'Angry' She's Hidden
by Ted Robbins
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93708729
The devil could care less what this beetch would do for the image of "First Lady"......not to worry. Not gonna happen.
Then there's Cindy MCain, drug addict and potential first lady, making a stupid comment, she must have made that comment after sucking down a 6 of Bud, as to Palin's lack of national security experience, Cindy McCain said, "Alaska is the closest part of our continent to Russia. So, it's not as if she doesn't understand what's at stake here. It's also about making decisions and be targeted in what she thinks. She has a great mind. And she has a very serious direction in where she goes." So, because Alaska is close to Russia, Palin has foreing policy experience?
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Then there's Cindy MCain, drug addict and potential first lady, making a stupid comment, she must have made that comment after sucking down a 6 of Bud, as to Palin's lack of national security experience, Cindy McCain said, "Alaska is the closest part of our continent to Russia. So, it's not as if she doesn't understand what's at stake here. It's also about making decisions and be targeted in what she thinks. She has a great mind. And she has a very serious direction in where she goes." So, because Alaska is close to Russia, Palin has foreing policy experience?
Well of course. The Hawiaan senators are always at the discussions about Chinese diplomacy and we look to Michigan when dealing with Canada. Actually Detroit mayors. And nobody knows Mexican foreign policy issues like the Governor of Texas. Or the previous ones.
Cindy...shut up. People suspect you're all appearance, wealth and no substance. You're proving it.
UH OH?
Michelle Obama Has a Rabbi in Her Family
Capers Funnye, Leading Black Israelite, Is Aspiring First Lady's Cousin
By Anthony Weiss
http://www.forward.com/articles/michelle-obama-has-a-rabbi-in-her-family-02454/
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
UH OH?
Michelle Obama Has a Rabbi in Her Family
Capers Funnye, Leading Black Israelite, Is Aspiring First Lady's Cousin
By Anthony Weiss
http://www.forward.com/articles/michelle-obama-has-a-rabbi-in-her-family-02454/
Congratulations, Bubi.
Did I mention I'm Jewish?
I know, I don't look it. Get THAT all the time.
Michelle O?
http://thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/candy-mag-e1355887484674.jpg[/img]