This story is from today.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/05/18/record_obama_crowd_the_size_of.html
Quote
Record Obama Crowd, the Size of a City
By Matthew Mosk
PORTLAND, Ore. -- Sen. Barack Obama has seen his share of large crowds over the last 15 months, but his campaign said they have not approached the numbers gathered along the waterfront here right now.
The campaign, citing figures from Duane Bray, battalion chief of Portland Fire & Rescue, estimated that 75,000 people are watching him speak.
The scene suggests this is not an exaggeration. The sea of heads stretches for half a mile along the grassy embankment, while others watch from kayaks and power boats bobbing on the Willamette River. More hug the rails of the steel bridge that stretches across the water and crowds are even watching from jetties on the opposite shore.
http://www.youtube.com/v/jjXyqcx-mYY
This certainly shows that there are a lot of naive, easily led simpletons in Portland. I dont know about the "sense of identity" bit though. ;)
hahaha. :D :D
You really dont believe that Obama is not partisan, do you? He was rated the most liberal Senator in 2007! How about this? Name one bipartisan bill of substance he was an advocate for in the US Senate.
BTW, interesting to see a "conservative" "National Review reader" falling for such vacuous leftist nonsense. Why dont you just give up the ghost Stephen and admit that you too are now a big liberal?
Obama has purposefully made himself into a vessel in which naive, disaffected and well meaning people can pour their hopes and dreams. He is in reality a conventional leftist eager to raise taxes and regulations thereby strangling commerce, encourage abortion, expand 3rd world immigration, weaken penalties for criminals, nationalize health care, and surrender to our foreign enemies. And, he is highly partisan. Read his speeches when he talks about substance. If elected, he will be an utter disaster and a one term wonder.
Here is a great website for you, Stephen: http://obamamessiah.blogspot.com/
Obama is a wonderful release for all of your millenarian fantasies. Better to get back to church than to vote for this fraud. ;)
Here he is speaking on how Americans need to radically alter their lifestyles because the rest of the world demands it. This will play well in Peoria: ;)
Quote"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama said.
"That's not leadership. That's not going to happen," he added.
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5h-wpxs1Re-8vx2Zk5xnYygW1W67w
Quote from: stephendare on May 19, 2008, 12:32:35 AM
Quote from: RiversideGator on May 19, 2008, 12:28:04 AM
Obama has purposefully made himself into a vessel in which naive, disaffected and well meaning people can pour their hopes and dreams. He is in reality a conventional leftist eager to raise taxes and regulations thereby strangling commerce, encourage abortion, expand 3rd world immigration, weaken penalties for criminals, nationalize health care, and surrender to our foreign enemies. And, he is highly partisan. Read his speeches when he talks about substance. If elected, he will be an utter disaster and a one term wonder.
what a load of tripe.
Back up any of it.
I can provide clear and undeniable documentation for all of these positions listed above. They are those of Barack Obama. If you do not agree with them, do not vote for this huckster.
This is great. A comically but maniacally enthusiastic Obama supporter:
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2308/2286521650_15d399b8c2.jpg?v=0)
Here is a nice button for you to wear about town:
(http://images.cafepress.com/product/239941208v5_150x150_Front.jpg)
The only problem with your rant: Bush isnt a conservative on a great many issues.
If Bush was not a conservative and this is why things went wrong, the answer is not to then vote for a far left candidate like Obama though. The answer is to work for true conservative ascendancy within the GOP.
BTW, here is an insightful article on Che Obama:
Quote
A Living Lie
By Thomas Sowell
An e-mail from a reader said that, while Hillary Clinton tells lies, Barack Obama is himself a lie. That is becoming painfully apparent with each new revelation of how drastically his carefully crafted image this election year contrasts with what he has actually been saying and doing for many years.
Senator Obama's election year image is that of a man who can bring the country together, overcoming differences of party or race, as well as solving our international problems by talking with Iran and other countries with which we are at odds, and performing other miscellaneous miracles as needed.
There is, of course, not a speck of evidence that Obama has ever transcended party differences in the United States Senate. Voting records analyzed by the National Journal show him to be the farthest left of anyone in the Senate. Nor has he sponsored any significant bipartisan legislation -- nor any other significant legislation, for that matter.
Senator Obama is all talk -- glib talk, exciting talk, confident talk, but still just talk.
Some of his recent talk in San Francisco has stirred up controversy because it revealed yet another blatant contradiction between Barack Obama's public image and his reality.
Speaking privately to supporters in heavily left-liberal San Francisco, Obama let down his hair and described working class people in Pennsylvania as so "bitter" that they "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them."
Like so much that Obama has said and done over the years, this is standard stuff on the far left, where guns and religion are regarded as signs of psychological dysfunction -- and where opinions different from those of the left are ascribed to emotions ("bitter" in this case), rather than to arguments that need to be answered.
Like so many others on the left, Obama rejects "stereotypes" when they are stereotypes he doesn't like but blithely throws around his own stereotypes about "a typical white person" or "bitter" gun-toting, religious and racist working class people.
In politics, the clearer a statement is, the more certain it is to be followed by a "clarification," when people react adversely to what was plainly said.
Obama and his supporters were still busy "clarifying" Jeremiah Wright's very plain statements when it suddenly became necessary to "clarify" Senator Obama's own statements in San Francisco.
People who have been cheering whistle-blowers for years have suddenly denounced the person who blew the whistle on what Obama said in private that is so contradictory to what he has been saying in public.
However inconsistent Obama's words, his behavior has been remarkably consistent over the years. He has sought out and joined with the radical, anti-Western left, whether Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers of the terrorist Weatherman underground or pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli Rashid Khalidi.
Obama is also part of a long tradition on the left of being for the working class in the abstract, or as people potentially useful for the purposes of the left, but having disdain or contempt for them as human beings.
Karl Marx said, "The working class is revolutionary or it is nothing." In other words, they mattered only in so far as they were willing to carry out the Marxist agenda.
Fabian socialist George Bernard Shaw included the working class among the "detestable" people who "have no right to live." He added: "I should despair if I did not know that they will all die presently, and that there is no need on earth why they should be replaced by people like themselves."
Similar statements on the left go back as far as Rousseau in the 18th century and come forward into our own times.
It is understandable that young people are so strongly attracted to Obama. Youth is another name for inexperience -- and experience is what is most needed when dealing with skillful and charismatic demagogues.
Those of us old enough to have seen the type again and again over the years can no longer find them exciting. Instead, they are as tedious as they are dangerous.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2008/04/15/a_living_lie?page=full
Quote from: stephendare on May 19, 2008, 01:16:42 AM
The entire article has not a single fact in it. Not even a single quote by Obama.
This is literally a fact free screed about someone whose words are so hard to twist that Sowell (one of the least luminary lights of the conservative movement) cant even quote an entire sentence.
Why?
Because liars like Sowell have been reduced to creating straw men out of the whole cloth of hundred year old quotes from dead socialists.
Obama is not a leftist. You and Sowell are radical Rightists who have been so long unchallenged in your delusions that you cant accurately define what 'liberal' even means anymore.
What about this quote? Are these the words of someone who is not a leftist:
Quote"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama said.
"That's not leadership. That's not going to happen," he added.
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5h-wpxs1Re-8vx2Zk5xnYygW1W67w
Let's dissect this truly radical, bizarre and anti-American statement:
1) "We cant drive our SUVs": why not? As Americans we have the freedom to do whatever we want to within the law. If people can afford to drive SUVs and want them, it is fine with me.
2) "We cant eat as much as we want": What?? Now he is attacking obese Americans. We wont even have the freedom to eat what we please under an Obama regime?? Watch out Stephen. He's coming for you on this one. ;)
3) "We cant keep our homes on 72 degrees all the time": Really? Is he advocating that we outlaw central heat and air now? Perhaps a return to fans only? Why cant we keep our homes comfortably heated and cooled consistent with our wishes and financial abilities? Is America now so broken down and bankrupt that under an Obama regime he will have the Feds monitoring our thermostats? This is truly disturbing and ridiculous.
4) "and then just expect other countries are going to say, ok": Why should we care at all about what other countries think about our energy use? They dont care what we think about their forms of government or economic systems or human rights records but now we have to worry about them. Perhaps Zimbabwe's Mugabe could control your thermostat, Stephen. What an absolute joke!
Obama is a smooth sounding prophet of doom. He is in reality, beneath all the veneer a defeatist loser who thinks American must submit to the wishes of foreign governments and must be brought low because of all of our past "sins". This is indeed change, but not a kind that America wants or needs.
Quote from: stephendare on May 19, 2008, 09:30:53 AM
(http://wonkette.com/assets/resources/2008/05/obamaHUGE2.jpg)
::) ::)
(http://images.cafepress.com/product/239941208v5_150x150_Front.jpg)
I see lots of sheep in that picture.
Partisanship really does suck, so how has Obama shown his willingness to support anything coming from the right or worked with a conservative to accomplish anything??
Quote from: stephendare on May 19, 2008, 02:02:28 PM
What working program initiated by the Right would you want him to adopt johnny?
Give me some idea of what you mean so that I can understand your question.
Did Obama work with McCain to break the judicial logjam in a bipartisan way? No. Did he work with McCain to help to fix the immigration mess in a bipartisan way? No. Did he sponsor any legislation designed to appeal to moderates? No. Has he accomplished anything of substance in his brief tenure in the Illinois legislature or the US Senate? No again. All talk, no action.
Name one tangible accomplishment of Obama, other than winning some caucuses and primaries, please.
Quote from: stephendare on May 19, 2008, 02:22:48 PM
Warren Buffet, the oracle of Omaha, just endorsed Obama.
(http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/22723/thumbs/s-BUFFET-OBAMA-large.jpg)
QuoteFRANKFURT (AFP) - Warren Buffett, the world's richest man, is backing Barak Obama for US president and thinks current US economic policy will push the dollar lower against other global currencies
ADVERTISEMENT
Buffett told a press conference here Monday he had offered support to both Obama and Democratic rival Hillary Clinton but that since it appeared Obama would win the party's nomination, "I will be very happy if he is elected president.
"He is my choice," Buffett said.
No surprise here. Buffet is a liberal and he waited till the end of the campaign to see who would be the likely nominee for the Dems and then endorsed him.
BTW, I support a strong dollar too and I am a conservative. Most conservatives support a strong dollar in fact.
BTW, rap artists and musicians in general are some of the dumbest people on the planet, so a music video is not exactly an impressive endorsement.
I wonder who Tupac endorsed in 1992? ::)
Can someone please tell me why I should vote for Obama? I am sorry but I have not heard one solid plan from him for anything (winning the war, health care, education, welfare control, reduction of taxes and spending, absolutely nothing). I haveheard he attends (ed... still a question) a racist church, that his wife has made some derogatory comments about America (apparently she is happy enough to live here and take advantage of all this country has to offer, but has never been "proud of America", that he has slammed the working class, and he supports LATE term abortion without a threat to life.
Sorry but all of this turns my stomach, and I have not heard a real defined argument from him to balance all the negative, in fact all I have heard so far is "I hate bush and so do you!) Why can't we get any decent, qualified and experienced candidates to run anymore?!!!
Quote from: stephendare on May 19, 2008, 03:09:01 PM
Nothing is more ignorant than discussing the work of people you have neither read nor taken the time to understand. It is the biggest sign of a really dumb person.
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. The hilarious thing is that you don't realize it.
Stephen: I have read all of your posts and posted articles, not counting the silly videos you have a penchant for posting. It isnt that I havent read it. The problem is you are dead wrong.
And, calling me "dumb" just goes to show that you cannot win the debate.
From Stephen's formerly beloved National Review:
QuoteGreat Divider
Unless America is supposed to unite on the far Left, Obama won't unite us.
By Kathryn Jean Lopez
There’s a lot we don’t know about Democratic senator Barack Obama. But there’s also a lot we do. This presidential election swing has lasted more than a year now, and many of us have been watching him since his big speech at the 2004 Democratic convention. We have his record in the U.S. Senate and the Illinois state legislature. His political advent after the Iowa caucuses may have been announced by choirs of angels, but he has an earthly history that’s goes back further than that. In short: We ought to start paying attention to what information we have and stop projecting our hopes and dreams onto his frequent, energizing, but largely empty rhetoric at campaign rallies.
Consider what we do know about Obama. He says he’ll “immediately†pull American troops out of Iraq. And, bizarrely, also promises that if there is a resurgence of al-Qaeda there, he’ll send the troops back in.
Obama has said: “Listening to the views, even of those who we violently disagree with, that sends a signal to the world that we are going to turn the page on the failed diplomacy that the Bush administration has practiced for so long.†And so, as the president of the United States, he would sit down with Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a charter member of the “Axis of Evil.â€
He regularly took his daughters to hear the Rev. Jeremiah “God Damn America†Wright preach. He and his wife chose to make Wright a part of their family’s life and career; it was only after Wright was invited to Obama’s campaign announcement that the offer was reconsidered and taken back.
Obama has the most liberal voting record in Congress, according to National Journal.
Why are we not getting this picture? Obama is a radical left-winger, however saccharine his rhetoric.
When the National Journal ratings came out in January, an Obama campaign spokesman tried to explain away his score: “As Sen. Obama travels across the country, and as we’ve seen in the early contests, he’s the one candidate who’s shown the ability to appeal to Republicans and the ability to appeal to independents.†Liberal congresswoman Zoe Lofgren of California said: “Instead of focusing in on what divides us, it’s focusing in on what can unite us. People are sick of the divisions. Republicans I know â€" and I know quite a few â€" are very enthused by this guy.â€
Surrender does not unite our country. (We may not like the war in Iraq, but we also do not like losing.) Higher taxes will not unite America. Jeremiah Wright does not unite America.
Obama is not a savior, for black, white, or any other American.
As much as the Obama campaign would like to think it is a problem in their past, the Wright issue will continue to be a problem for Obama. And it should be.
Recently, on Bill Bennett’s morning radio show, Gary MacDougal, who was chairman of the Illinois Governor’s Task Force on Human Services Reform and is the author of Make a Difference: A Spectacular Breakthrough in the Fight Against Poverty, pointed out the depressing danger of Obama domestically: He gives a boost to the likes of Wright â€" people who damage communities by holding back others from striving for and attaining the American Dream.
In the Washington Post, MacDougal wrote: “Imagine getting up each morning to go to work in a society that doesn’t want you, doesn’t respect you and seeks to hold you back. Your spiritual leader has told you this, after all. . . . If this is the message you got from your mentor, would you expect that you could succeed? Would you try very hard, if at all?â€
Further, MacDougal, who’s worked with Obama, says his experience echoes the National Journal rating: Obama’s a man of the Left.
Also on Bennett’s show, former Minnesota Congressman Vin Weber said of the now-presumed Democratic presidential nominee and his presumably Democrat-majority Congress: “They’re going to raise the capital-gains tax. They’re going to severely impede trade policy. . . . The regulations that we’re going to see as a result of the Democratic approach to climate change are going to truly be burdensome and costly.â€
Acknowledging business leaders who have endorsed Obama, Weber observed that some of them are succumbing to the same thing folks at Obama rallies are: “Business doesn’t like Washington. They don’t like politics. They don’t like partisanship.†Weber concluded: “We’re headed toward a big left turn in economic policy if this guy is elected president.â€
Listen to Obama. Look at his record. Are we all of a sudden supposed to believe that he’s no longer the strident man of the Left that his record and associations indicate? Are we supposed to believe, on the strength of a series of campaign speeches, rather than legislative action, that Obama has changed, and is now ready to govern as a centrist? That’s not change I can believe in.
â€" Kathryn Jean Lopez is the editor of National Review Online.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTBiM2IyYTM3OTFlYzkxYWE1MTE2NDNjMWNlNDE5ZGQ=
Quote from: stephendare on May 19, 2008, 04:13:45 PM
Quote from: RiversideGator on May 19, 2008, 04:11:07 PM
Quote from: stephendare on May 19, 2008, 03:09:01 PM
Nothing is more ignorant than discussing the work of people you have neither read nor taken the time to understand. It is the biggest sign of a really dumb person.
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. The hilarious thing is that you don't realize it.
Stephen: I have read all of your posts and posted articles, not counting the silly videos you have a penchant for posting. It isnt that I havent read it. The problem is you are dead wrong.
And, calling me "dumb" just goes to show that you cannot win the debate.
So you are going to make the claim here that you are acquainted with the works and lyrics of international Rap (or even American Rap) and understand any element of the art form, politics or anything else having to do with Rap?
Because that is what you originally claimed was 'dumb'.
Id be very interested in hearing your analysis of Tupac's work incidentally.
I do not find rap appealing as an art form. Others can listen to it if they please but it does not appear to require a great deal of musical talent as much as marketing talent.
Also, generally, musicians are gifted in the area of music far more than they are with intellect.
BTW, that laundry list of proposals means more bureaucracy, more government workers, more federal spending, more taxes, more federal control over state and local governments, less prosecution of criminals, and less economic growth. This is hardly a conservative or even moderate agenda. Sorry, but this is nothing more than revamped Jimmy Carter.
I really dont think rap "music" is anything more of a distraction here.
Now that I think about it, I guess the real point of this thread to highlight your orgasmic love for Obama:
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2308/2286521650_15d399b8c2.jpg?v=0)
Who is going to pay for all these programs, in every single instance provided it referenced “federal fundingâ€. Stephen, I really do want to help the little guy, but I am a little guy too. The super rich in this country are not going to foot this bill alone, people like me ( middle class) are going to be footing a big part of this, and yet, I won’t be able to take advantage of any of the programs.
I am not slamming Obama; I am still trying to decide. I am concerned about all the federal spending growth indicated in his platform you posted, and I am also still concerned about the racist/class hating aspects of the comments floating around in the media. I can’t be taxed anymore than I am, I just flat out do not have any more money to give or else I will be living in public housing or in a vacant home here in beautiful Springfield. I want to live the dream of Obama, but can’t afford the payments. Instead of spending more on our social system which is already failing miserably, we should be spending less and streamlining it. There was a comment in the “Kite Runner†where in the father writes a check to the government for an orphanage. His advisor says something like “how foolish, you know they will skim half of it†and the father says “Only half? Then they are getting lazy!†This could fit for our government right now. How is Obama going to make good on all these promises he is making the poor in this country? Really, convince me….I am still undecided
Quote from: stephendare on May 19, 2008, 04:33:00 PM
the republican plan for the future involves totally removing the burden from the wealthy and placing the future cost of all repairs and maintenance onto the middle class.
Pay attention to the past 8 years. Consecutive tax cuts for the wealthy while deficit spending like crazy, and the raising of the tax burden on the middle class every time a choice had to be made.
If you are sick of being the only one paying taxes Downtown Dweller, then for God's sake dont vote Republican.
spoken like a true southern baptist republican. :)
hey -guess what...i'm a left-wing radical democrat. i just don't believe anything that they believe or hold any of their core values!!!
dear hijacker of all things glorious,
your left-wing antics do not fool anybody. McCain reaches across the nation and brings people together from all walks of life...
Obama: Genocide is Okay, No Big Deal
http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2007/07/19/obama-genocide-is-okay/
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2007/07/20/obama_ap/
from LA publication... "Why Hispanics Like McCain"...
http://www.dailybreeze.com/ci_9256590
gays for mccain
http://www.widespectrum.net/gay-blog/2008/2/3/gays-for-mccain.html
ps - is it true that Chelsea Clinton was fathered by Janet Reno???
there your boys too. let it go stephen. there is always 2012.
Why don't you just realize that at the end of the day, Obama who is our front, lacks the "electibility" that hillary has being far behind in the vote. This is what is scary, if the super dupers go with the o-man, then the dems are going to lose. Can I bet on this in Vagas? :D
Quote from: stephendare on May 20, 2008, 12:42:26 AM
wow. kinda racist. And I think the country will surprise you. The same way it surprised the shit our of little miss inevitable.
um...do you think this might have been just TAD BIT bigoted stephen? i am appalled.
Quote from: gatorback on May 19, 2008, 11:33:54 PM
Why don't you just realize that at the end of the day, Obama who is our front, lacks the "electibility" that hillary has being far behind in the vote. This is what is scary, if the super dupers go with the o-man, then the dems are going to lose. Can I bet on this in Vagas? :D
Actually, you can bet on politics in Vegas, and online too I believe.
Just don't bet any more money than you can afford to lose, because you very well could making that bet.
There is a rumor circling around the web that there is a new video, which will be released at an appropriate time, of Obama's wife attacking "whitey":
QuoteI now have it from two three four sources (three who are close to senior Republicans) that there is video dynamiteâ€"Michelle Obama railing against “whitey†at Jeremiah Wright’s church. Republicans may have a lousy record when it comes to the economy and the management of the war in Iraq, but they are hell on wheels when it comes to opposition research. Someone took the chance and started reviewing the recordings from services at Jeremiah Wright’s United Church of Christ. Holy smoke!! I am told there is a clip that is being held for the fall to drop at the appropriate time. The last thing Barack and Michelle need is a new clip that raises further questions about her judgment and temperament.
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/05/16/will-barack-throw-mama-from-the-train/
Now, I believe this blogger is a Hillary supporter but, if true, this would throw the election into disarray.
Quote from: stephendare on May 20, 2008, 12:42:26 AM
wow. kinda racist. And I think the country will surprise you. The same way it surprised the shit our of little miss inevitable.
Among the ultra-left, any opposition to their dear leader, Obama, is now considered racist.
That is clear proof that the Republican Party, and by extension yourself, are nothing more than a racist cabal. :D
Quote from: RiversideGator on May 20, 2008, 11:34:39 AM
There is a rumor circling around the web that there is a new video, which will be released at an appropriate time, of Obama's wife attacking "whitey":
QuoteI now have it from two three four sources (three who are close to senior Republicans) that there is video dynamiteâ€"Michelle Obama railing against “whitey†at Jeremiah Wright’s church. Republicans may have a lousy record when it comes to the economy and the management of the war in Iraq, but they are hell on wheels when it comes to opposition research. Someone took the chance and started reviewing the recordings from services at Jeremiah Wright’s United Church of Christ. Holy smoke!! I am told there is a clip that is being held for the fall to drop at the appropriate time. The last thing Barack and Michelle need is a new clip that raises further questions about her judgment and temperament.
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/05/16/will-barack-throw-mama-from-the-train/
Now, I believe this blogger is a Hillary supporter but, if true, this would throw the election into disarray.
I guess anything is possible, after all, the drunk driving charges against W came out just before the election in 2000.
But knowing that the GOP would rather face Hillary, it is just as likely these Republicans are planting this to keep the Hillary saga going, and enbolden her supporters. Karl Rove and his ilk don't have 'truth' as a prerequisite for an attack.
Plus, it is impossible to believe that after the Jeremiah Wright stuff came out, that Hillary's folks (not to mention the vast army of the media) didn't scower any such recordings that might exist. Obviously, Hillary's folks didn't find anything or else they would have put it out there before now. If anyone in the media found anything, they would want to break the story before someone else did. I'll believe it when I see it.
Probably right now the thoughts of her daughters wedding this past weekend in Texas.
Quote from: stephendare on May 20, 2008, 12:57:46 PM
And again, Michelle Obama is not the candidate.
One can only imagine what is rattling around in Laura Bush's brain.
Michelle Obama is an accomplished, highly educated woman who is out there vigorously campaigning for Obama. I dont know why she should be shielded from public questioning as if she was some wilting violet. Her statements are also relevant as she is clearly a member of a team with Obama.
BTW, wasnt it you who just brought up Nancy Reagan's interest in astrology? What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
spoken like a true Southern Baptist Republican.
At the risk of being roasted, IF (and it hasn't been proven one way or another) Mrs. Obama is racist then it DOES have a lot to do with the issues. In case no one has noticed racial relations have been in a downward spiral for a while now. I think comparing one's biased view of people based on color, religion, or job/earning powers/station in life is a LOT different then someone who likes to party or enjoys/believes in astrology. I think stating this is a "non-issue" is like saying a woman elected to president with a husband that is a Grand Wizard is a non issue, of course that would be an issue!
That being said I wish someone would come clean on all this, because they seem to be ignoring it, yet more and more keeps popping up. I will tell ya'll straight up I would not vote for anyone who was known to be, or even alleged to be and not confronting the allegations VERY strongly, racist, no matter who they were discriminating against. I do find it very hard to believe these guys went to such a hateful racist church for so long and never participated in any of the hate mongering? Isn't that a little strange? Wish someone could clear this up once and for all <sigh>
And Mrs. Obama being racist wouldn't be that far out of line with the other myriad poor decisions that Barak has made in his near past life that he now rejects. OK.
Quote from: Driven1 on May 20, 2008, 06:42:44 PM
spoken like a true Southern Baptist Republican.
I hereby declare myself an extremely liberal Unitarian. Now, I do not agree with the direction in which they have taken my liberalism or the Unitarian faith but they are the perverts not me. :D
Quote from: stephendare on May 20, 2008, 05:22:18 PM
Quote from: RiversideGator on May 20, 2008, 05:19:29 PM
Quote from: stephendare on May 20, 2008, 12:57:46 PM
And again, Michelle Obama is not the candidate.
One can only imagine what is rattling around in Laura Bush's brain.
Michelle Obama is an accomplished, highly educated woman who is out there vigorously campaigning for Obama. I dont know why she should be shielded from public questioning as if she was some wilting violet. Her statements are also relevant as she is clearly a member of a team with Obama.
BTW, wasnt it you who just brought up Nancy Reagan's interest in astrology? What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
It was in response to this same sort of non issue dumbness.
So then you agree that John McCain should have to answer for his wife's somewhat colorful and checkered background, right? and Rush Limbaugh's well publicized arrests for oxy contin? And the opinions of John Hagee and Rod Parsely?
All members of Team McCain.
So obscure preachers who endorsed McCain and radio talk show hosts are of equal or greater relevance than Obama's racist pastor of 20 years and his potentially racist and anti-American wife of 20 years? That makes a lot of sense. Keep drinking the kool-aid.
The silly season, it is upon us.
I hear McCain has an illegitimate love child, who by the way, happens to be black.
Like I said, truth is not a prerequisite.
I nearly forgot to mention Obama's Sweetie-Gate scandal:
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/05/16/video-media-absolves-obama-over-sweetiegate/
Quote from: vicupstate on May 20, 2008, 11:34:27 PM
The silly season, it is upon us.
I hear McCain has an illegitimate love child, who by the way, happens to be black.
Like I said, truth is not a prerequisite.
Except McCain does not have a black love child. Obama does have a racist preacher (and possibly wife too). That is the key distinction here. :)
More on the Obama/Wright connection from Stephen's beloved National Review (founded by WFB):
QuoteLeft in Church
Deep inside the Wright Trumpet.
By Stanley Kurtz
Since repudiating his former pastor, the Reverend Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., at an April 29 news conference, Barack Obama has done everything in his power to minimize the nature of his relationship with Wright. Supposedly, Obama found Wright’s recent and controversial remarks at the National Press Club shocking, unfamiliar, and out-of-character. In fact, we now know that Wright’s controversial remarks were entirely in character, and that regular church attendance, and even limited familiarity with church publications, would have made Wright’s radical views entirely evident. Indeed, a bit of digging now turns up information that makes it next-to-impossible not to conclude that Obama has long been familiar with Wright’s radicalism.
As Obama himself notes in a 2004 newspaper interview, within the constraints of his schedule, he regularly attended weekly services at Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ. In that interview, Obama characterized his relationship with Wright as that of a “close confidant.†We know that the doctrines of “black-liberation theology†are included in new-member packets, and are taught in new-member classes, which Obama and his wife attended. It now emerges that over the years, Obama has worked closely with Wright on a number of political projects. Finally, we can now conclude that Obama had to have had knowledge of Wright’s radical and highly political church magazine, since Obama himself was interviewed for a 2007 cover story for that publication.
Read the rest of the extensive article here: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjRhNDQ4MGFlYjk0YzUwNDk0MzYyNTE1ZDkwYmNmNDc=
Geraldine Ferraro may not and Joe Lieberman (both former Democrat VP nominees) will not be supporting Obama in the general election against McCain. Ferraro also calls Obama a sexist:
QuoteGeraldine Ferraro, calling Barack Obama "sexist," may not back him
Might fully one-third of the six surviving Democratic vice presidential nominees end up opposing their party's national ticket this November?
Former Democratic vice presidential candidate Gerladine Ferraro says she might not vote for the frontrunner for her party's presidential nomination, Barack Obama That possibility arose today based on comments Geraldine Ferraro, the 1984 Democratic veep candidate, made to The New York Times.
Sen. Joe Lieberman, who occupied the No. 2 slot for the Democrats in 2000, months ago declared for presumptive Republican White House nominee John McCain.
And Ferraro, a staunch Hillary Clinton supporter who sparked a brouhaha earlier this year over whether she made a racially dismissive remark about Barack Obama, apparently is no longer a reliable Democratic vote.
Ferraro, in the NYT story, terms Obama "terribly sexist." And, as a result, she says she may not be able to cast her ballot for him if, as anticipated, he gains the Democratic presidential nod.
On the positive side for Democrats, no signs of apostasy are emanating from the four other one-time party veep candidates still alive -- John Edwards (the '04 nominee who officially signed on with Obama last week), Al Gore (the nominee in 1992 and '96), Walter Mondale (the 1976 and 1980 nominee) and Sargent Shriver (George McGovern's running mate in 1972 -- they may have gotten trounced by the GOP's Richard Nixon/Spiro Agnew pairing, but their longevity is impressive).
-- Don Frederick
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/05/geraldine-ferra.html
QuoteIn that interview, Obama characterized his relationship with Wright as that of a “close confidant.†We know that the doctrines of “black-liberation theology†are included in new-member packets, and are taught in new-member classes, which Obama and his wife attended. It now emerges that over the years, Obama has worked closely with Wright on a number of political projects. Finally, we can now conclude that Obama had to have had knowledge of Wright’s radical and highly political church magazine, since Obama himself was interviewed for a 2007 cover story for that publication.
ouch...that is pretty stinging RG...i had not heard such solid evidence. i was "questioning" of the whole thing before, but this really puts it into perspective. i agree - you don't just go to church every Sunday (or every 5th or 8th Sunday foir that matter) and not get a strong feeling for what a pastor believes.
people, "Obey Obama" at your own peril.
no-uh. he is racist. i cannot support a racist president. lol "none of it matters" - - WHO CARES IF HE IS RACIST???
here is the best candidate...
(http://samueljscott.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/mccain.jpg)
i heard obama has a love child out there somewhere. and she is white.
If by "conservative" you really mean "liberal" you would be accurately describing Hagel. And up is down too. What a joke!
Hagel is just trying to get the word out that there is a white love child out there of Obama's somewhere. WE MUST FIND HER. Amber Alert.
Quote from: stephendare on May 21, 2008, 12:37:06 AM
ah. Hagel now joins Warren Buffet in the League of the Secret Liberals!
um...it is no secret that Buffet is a liberal. have you had your head in the sand for the past 5 years?
here is who everyone should vote for NEXT BEST PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!!!
(http://whoisjohnmccain.name/who-is-john-mccain.jpg)
Quote from: stephendare on May 21, 2008, 12:55:20 AM
John McCain.
He betrayed his country under torture and made propaganda videos for the Vietnamese
That is nothing compared to Obama burning down a suburban, mostly white Methodist church in his Neo Black Panther days. I think that was the same night he fathered a white love child. (i figured as long as we are making stuff up, let's get as creative as possible.)
A lot can be said of McCain, but coward, traitor, and thieve just doesn't fit. Let's keep this on the "issues". Can we please pick at McCain’s issues and not denigrate a boy sent to fight for his country who happened to be captured and tortured worse than anything happening at Gitmo. I mean really, that is like poor people in America comparing their standard of living to a poor person in Darfur. I am still waiting for someone to convince me that the Obama's are not a racist/elitist threat to our country. All I keep reading is how everyone else has issues, but no clear cut response to this racist/elitist labels? Come on CONVINCE me he is the best candidate, put my mind to rest over these accusations...(BTW spell check comes back w/Osama everysingle time-is this a hint?)
Quote from: Downtown Dweller on May 21, 2008, 07:02:00 AM
A lot can be said of McCain, but coward, traitor, and thieve just doesn't fit. Let's keep this on the "issues". Can we please pick at McCain’s issues and not denigrate a boy sent to fight for his country who happened to be captured and tortured worse than anything happening at Gitmo. I mean really, that is like poor people in America comparing their standard of living to a poor person in Darfur. I am still waiting for someone to convince me that the Obama's are not a racist/elitist threat to our country. All I keep reading is how everyone else has issues, but no clear cut response to this racist/elitist labels? Come on CONVINCE me he is the best candidate, put my mind to rest over these accusations...(BTW spell check comes back w/Osama everysingle time-is this a hint?)
I agree about McCain. The man is a bonafied hero, just like John Kerry. It is depicable that either man has/had to defined their service to their country.
Dweller, don't you think that everyone that is propagating these accusations about Obama have an agenda of their own?
Why are they more trustworthy than the Obama's. I too was disturbed by Rev. Wright's comments, but I think the conservatives merely smell blood in the water and want to make it that much bloodier, so they make up sh*t and send out SPAM. It has been proven that such folks will play dirty, VERY dirty.
I agree on all accounts!!
I am just disturbed that we have all seen what this pastor is all about, they have gone to this church for a looong time, and the only defense they have put forward that I have heard, is they had no idea he had this type of stance on race. I just find that hard to believe. I want to believe people aren't really like this, but when we are talking about the potential leader of the free world I want to have a little more assurance then what we have been given :-\
Everyone has a right in this country to make whatever comments they so choose to make (because of brave men like Kerry and McCain), but sometimes commen sense and good taste should be applied ;)
I think I would be more comfortable if Obama just admitted Wright is part of the political machine in Chicago that he needed to get started.
I'm sure many won't agree and I don't expect most here will. I don't have a major issue with Wright's rhetoric. Its probably because I'm black and I've heard many of these things first hand from my own family members and people in the hood over the years and I understand where that point-of-view comes from even though he uses the wrong platform and has a bad way of getting his message across by mixing up some truths with tales. Take a black history course or listen to some of MLK's speeches during the 60s and you'll hear just as many "shocking" statements and point of views from a minority based perspective.
For example, I understood the God Damn America rant and agree that the way we treat others can come back to negatively affect us. However, the government created Aids thing is a stretch. Nevertheless, when I first started hearing the Wright clips on Fox News, the first thing that popped up in my head was....wow, the truth hurts. Heck, I even understood where Michelle Obama was coming from about the proud American statement. On the other hand, I do have a problem with the prospect of putting a 72 year old in the white house that had issues with MLK day. Primarily because we've been down this road before. Nevertheless, I don't equate any of it to being Anti-American. If anything, it just shows how different our points of views towards certain issues can be from a racial perspective.
Regarding Obama and Wright's church, I doubt the guy (Obama) even attends church on a regular basis. Considering he's a Senator, I can't imagine him being in church and attending all the services and scheduled events like a religious fanatic. He seems to be the type who drops his kids off at church with a little money for the collection plate, while he goes fishing, home to sleep or to the sports bar to watch whatever game comes on that day, when he's in town.
So as I see it, does he agree with Wright on everything. Most likely not. I don't agree with everything I hear, from my family, friends, people on this website and even what I hear at the church I attend. I'm my own person and smart enought to develop my own opinions, so I expect that Obama, Billary and McCain would all be the same.
Quote from: thelakelander on May 21, 2008, 10:07:03 AM
I don't have a major issue with Wright's rhetoric.
As it relates to Obama or issue with someone preaching things like Bill Clinton was "riding dirty" on black people while he was in office?
I believe in the whole separation between church and state thing. My only issue with Wright would be that I personally don't believe the pulpit is the right place to preach personal or political opinions.
I felt the same way when a co-worker of mine passed out local election candidate information from his church about if the candidates agreed with abortion or stem cell research, when the positions they were running for were the water management district and a city council seat.
Lake's comments about not always agreeing with people that you are close to you, are a large part of why I don't hold Obama fully accountable for Wright's comments. We also don't know if Wright's comments after 9/11 were typical of him or not. We do know he fought for the country that he said he condemned that day. Maybe he let his emotions get the better part of his judgement. I do consider it racist that Wright thinks the federal government created AIDS as a more recent version of Tuskegee-like experiments.
I do think Wright and Obama are closer on a personal level than Lake's comments might suggest. I love my sister, but nearly all of her political views are very different than mine. Our values are similiar, but my life experiences have been far different from hers. I just let that sleeping dog lie. I bet Obama and Wright do something similiar.
As far as McCain's age, I think it should not be an issue in and of itself.
As far as the MLK issue, his change of heart is due to either one of two things 1) his opinion on the issue evolved over time or 2) political expediancy. If it is political expediancy, then Lake's concerns would be quite justified.
However, I think it is fair to say that his views evolved over time. I say that because his other political views have also evolved over time. When he went to Congress in 1982, he was a run-of-the-mill, marching orders, conservative, Reaganite. But as he got older, he became more open-minded, more moderate and much more independent. That is a large part of why he appeals to me, and why he actually still has a chance of winning.
Also, I think all of us, if we are being honest with ourselves, have evolved on the issue of race over the course of our lifetime. If I give Obama the benefit of the doubt on Rev. Wright, I personally feel I should do the same for McCain on MLK Day.
If further evidence proves to me that Obama fully subscribes to Wright's world-view or that McCain change of heart wasn't genuine, I would no doubt change my opinion of either one.
The most regrettable thing IMO, is that this campaign (and the Wright controversy in particular), COULD be a means to have a truly meaningful discussion about race, and where we as a nation are in that regard.
Instead of that, what we have gotten, and most likely will continue to get, is a game of political one upmanship that neither elightens us on the candidates, nor leads to greater understanding between the races.
I agree with Vic's comments above. However, I would like to see all of the candidates move forward with the actual issues facing our country. One of the things I'm most interested in, is the candidate's plans for our urban areas. To this date, it seems this has been completely overlooked.
Quote from: stephendare on May 19, 2008, 04:33:00 PM
the republican plan for the future involves totally removing the burden from the wealthy and placing the future cost of all repairs and maintenance onto the middle class.
Pay attention to the past 8 years. Consecutive tax cuts for the wealthy while deficit spending like crazy, and the raising of the tax burden on the middle class every time a choice had to be made.
If you are sick of being the only one paying taxes Downtown Dweller, then for God's sake dont vote Republican.
Wow... keep spinning buddy... we all pay less in taxes...
http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html
We don't know if Obama definitely agrees with whatever Wright said, but that's not the point. The point is that if Obama knowingly and willingly had Wright as a personal confidant and mentor, with what we know about Wright's political and religious beliefs, Obama's agenda becomes highly questionable. Hagee's endorsement of McCain is nothing...because McCain does not have the same relationship. Those Obama quotes in San Francisco are not lies...Obama himself tried to correct his gaffes in later interviews. The church that he is a member of subscribes to black liberation theology, which is a dangerous form of mixing perverted Christian doctrine and elements of communism. He has ties to a domestic terrorist organization, the Weather Underground, in his relations with Bill Ayers. His wife has black militant ties.
Good Lord, Stephen, how much have you been drinking (Kool-Aid, straight vodka, etc.)? I do think that you are rather intelligent, even though you subscribe to different views than I, but your blind devotion and sheer loyalty to Obama really has disappointed me. I thought that you as a thinking man would see right through the political rhetoric that this man utters in each and every speech.
Quote from: Charleston native on May 21, 2008, 11:20:43 AM
We don't know if Obama definitely agrees with whatever Wright said, but that's not the point. The point is that if Obama knowingly and willingly had Wright as a personal confidant and mentor, with what we know about Wright's political and religious beliefs, Obama's agenda becomes highly questionable.
I haven't followed that particular church or Wright's past enough to declare I know what his religious views are. However, is it possible for someone to have different political views from their preacher? I would say so. I'm someone who would fit that bill to a certain degree.
This is where the point of view perspective comes into play and it will range from person to person. For example, I view my dad and many of my closest friends as personal confidants and mentors, but I certainly don't agree with them on everything. But with me, the stuff Hannity continues to base his show around have never been real issues. The war, economy and the improvement of our urban areas (especially in regards to mass transit and energy) are my major issues that they'll will be ultimately judged on.
Quote from: thelakelander on May 21, 2008, 11:11:53 AM
I agree with Vic's comments above. However, I would like to see all of the candidates move forward with the actual issues facing our country. One of the things I'm most interested in, is the candidate's plans for our urban areas. To this date, it seems this has been completely overlooked.
Agreed. That subject has been totally ignored. There is tremendous room for improvement too.
Maybe if McCain and Obama both took a pledge to not answer questions about B.S., and only talk about substantive issues.
No more flag lapel pins, flag burning amendments, guilt by association nonsense, political gimmick ideas like the gas tax repeal, woud all count as BS.
Stephen, I can admit that the size of the crowds he generates are amazing. I can also admit that these crowds are amazingly foolish to practically worship Obama in zombie-like fashion. It's almost like a cult.
Lake, you have to follow the subtle hints that are sometimes revealed throughout Obama's speeches. His words may not be as blatant as Wright's, but the context of what he says casts a familiar tone. In addition, his voting record as state and U.S. senator gives more perspective into his frame of mind. In many cases, I ask myself if I can see Wright acting in similar fashion, and usually, the answer is yes.
Lately, Obama's responses to his criticisms are evocative of fascist essence. He and most his followers (Olbermann, Matthews) basically imply that anyone who criticizes him is a racist or bigot. They're saying that Obama is above criticism and does not deserve it. In essence, they are quelling free speech and dissent. It's really scary.
yes Johnny...looking behind the spin (lies) of our good little buddy, we can find some facts...here they are...
as of 2005, the top 25% of wage earners pay a whopping 86% of income tax revenue that the IRS receives. take note that the AGI of these wage earners is $60,000. the facts show that the services provided for the "middle" and "lower middle class" that the democrats claim to pander so hard towards is largely supported on the backs of the upper middle and higher wage earners.
further, it is astounding that those evil, greedy, capitalist "rich" people who earn $150,000 or more only make up 5% of the wage-earners in the U.S., YET PAY 60% OF THE TAX BURDEN IN THIS COUNTRY!!!
lastly, if memory serves me correctly, GWB was elected in 2000 and has been President since (thank God)....go to the link below to see how after an initial relieving of the tremendous tax burden on the "rich" (it would be a strong argument to say they deserved it), their burden has increased each tax year to now greatly surpass the burden BEFORE GWB went into office (that would be when a democrat was President). verify this here...
http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6
so, let's not talk about how those big, bad meany republicans are giving tax breaks to their wealthy friends. it is those wealthy friends that are footing the bill for the growing socialistic welfare programs.
also, from
FactCheck.org...
QuoteThe top 1 percent of all households got 18 percent of all personal income and paid nearly 28 percent of all federal taxes in 2005, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The top 1 percent now pay a significantly larger share of taxes than before President Bush's tax cuts, and also have a larger share of income.
lastly, here is the latest 2007 data...
http://www.taxfoundation.org/press/show/22652.html
Quote from: Charleston native on May 21, 2008, 11:52:46 AMLake, you have to follow the subtle hints that are sometimes revealed throughout Obama's speeches. His words may not be as blatant as Wright's, but the context of what he says casts a familiar tone. In addition, his voting record as state and U.S. senator gives more perspective into his frame of mind. In many cases, I ask myself if I can see Wright acting in similar fashion, and usually, the answer is yes.
Can you point out a few examples of the subtle hints in his speeches and voting his record?
Quote from: Charleston native on May 21, 2008, 11:52:46 AM
Lately, Obama's responses to his criticisms are evocative of fascist essence. He and most his followers (Olbermann, Matthews) basically imply that anyone who criticizes him is a racist or bigot. They're saying that Obama is above criticism and does not deserve it. In essence, they are quelling free speech and dissent. It's really scary.
amen brother. this is nothing new due to Obama being the candidate though. this is basic left-wing class warfare that rears its ugly head every four years, regardless of who the candidate is from the democrats. for fun, you can check the number of instances that stephendare uses the word "bigot" or "racist" in his posts on this site for the last 6 months compared to the prior 6 months. you will see a big jump. i predict the number of accusations of "bigot" and "racist" will only grow from here until November. the democrats sure have a way of stirring up that left wing of theirs. i'll give that to them.
those evil, evil money makers. i think i'm catching on to your idea here stephendare. we should all rise up and overthrow the rich and take all their belongings so the middle class and lower class can have the things they never have and so everything is fair (example: it is NOT FAIR that they own 95% of the wealth - as you purport with no fact source given - and yet only pay 68% of the taxes). we'll show them...we'll make it fair.
it can be our little class struggle and we'll call it a Cultural Revolution. workers unite and rise up!!!
(http://pekingduck.org/archives/wsjguard.jpg)
Quote
Thats because in personal observation as well as in the record of your posts on this board you are clearly a racist and bigoted person, an impression whose validity you have proven time and again.
Certainly in your repeated remarks about gay people and your insinuations that they cannot be christians or go to heaven.
And why is is that the only time you talk about racial issues or about african americans that it is usually in the context of 'those stupid reverse racist negroes!"
If I had a nickel for every time that you have referenced the general "Negroes who are really racist" theme on these boards, we could probably do away with the income tax.
To be honest, while its a free country, I find you kind of sickening and I hope that you spend all of your time in hell processing the welfare checks of single white women in an all gay office.
stephendare...how could you forget the muslims??? remember...i hate the "towel-heads" too!!
:)
seriously though. as it relates to discourse in a public forum, i live by something i call the "factor clause". what it is - is i take the accepted credibility of someone i am debating with (on a scale of 0 to 10, with 10 being the highest) and multiply that by the degree of veracity of the statement they make (0 being completely false and 10 being completely true).
here, since it is you posting (you score a 0 in publicly accepted credibility - see "Truth or Dare" article from Folio Weekly) and you score another big fat ZERO in the truth of the words you just posted.
if i find a "factor clause" of 5 or higher, i probably will reply. but in this case, i multiply 0 x 0. zero multiplied by any number (including itself) is still zero.
therefore, i feel absolutely no compulsion at all to have to defend myself. there really is no need to.
:)
oh....someone is upset. did i get the best of you lil guy? :D
Driven, Stephen. Lets keep this debate on topic and not dive into personal jabs.
recent proven history (just view his last few posts on this thread) has proven that it is difficult for stephendare to not get personal in these issues...
i agree completely lake.
(http://pekingduck.org/archives/wsjguard.jpg)
Do women shave their legs in OR?
Nuff said LOL!!!
from wikipedia...
QuotePopulism is a discourse which supports "the people" versus "the elites". Populism may involve either a political philosophy urging social and political system changes and/or a rhetorical style, deployed by members of political or social movements competing for advantage within the existing party system.
Obama is populism defined.
(http://kara.allthingsd.com/files/2007/12/herd-of-sheep.jpg)
I happened to be at the Obama rally in Portland this weekend and it was beyond description. To share a space with that many people, all of them there with the desire to facilitate positive change in our government â€" it was moving, as cheesy as that sounds.
And, Downtown Dweller, I can assure you women in Portland shave their legs (not that they should have to), although I'm not sure why that's relevant.
Quote from: Driven1 on May 21, 2008, 02:25:16 PM
(http://kara.allthingsd.com/files/2007/12/herd-of-sheep.jpg)
look at that crowd!!! as far as the eye can see.
Quote from: thelakelander on May 21, 2008, 12:00:52 PM
Can you point out a few examples of the subtle hints in his speeches and voting his record?
I thought some of those were covered earlier in this thread, but sure, I'll point out a few:
Quote from keynote address to
Sojourners:
QuoteFor one thing, I believed and still believe in the power of African-American religious tradition to spur social change. . . . the black church understands in an intimate way the biblical call to feed the hungry and cloth the naked and challenge the powers and principalities. . . .
Right, so what is he implying with the "white" church? Every "white" church I've ever been in has sponsored soup kitchens, shelters, domestic and international hunger/poverty missions, and community outreach such as Habitat for Humanity. As far as challenging powers and principalities...uh, last time I checked, that wasn't a Christian's main responsibility.
QuoteWhat remains for the GOP is a campaign premised more on issues of national identity, aimed largely at that portion of our population for which ‘American’ is synonymous with ‘white’ and ‘Christian,’ than any national campaign has been since the American Party (also known as the Know Nothings) based its 1856 campaign chiefly on Protestant bigotry against Irish and German Catholic immigrants.
Hmmm...notice the subtle, racism hint, there?
QuoteYou go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them…And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.
And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.
Sorry to dispell Stephen's comment about this being an "urban legend" or "political lie", but Obama did say this. If you can't read between the lines here, I can't help you. As a matter of fact, he tried to explain himself, and his true beliefs still hover around:
QuoteThere are a whole bunch of folks in small towns in Pennsylvania, in towns right here in Indiana, in my home town in Illinois, who are bitter. They are angry… So I said, well ya know, when you’re bitter, you turn to what you can count on. So people, ya know they vote about guns or they take comfort from their faith, and their family, and their community, and they get mad about illegal immigrants who are coming over to this country, or they get frustrated about how things are changing. That’s a natural response.
His voting record is another matter of research that I cannot delve into right now. I've used up ALOT of work time doing this post. I'll be happy to post some aspects of his voting record a little later.
Quote from: stephendare on May 21, 2008, 12:28:26 PM
Quotethose evil, evil money makers. i think i'm catching on to your idea here stephendare. we should all rise up and overthrow the rich and take all their belongings so the middle class and lower class can have the things they never have and so everything is fair (example: it is NOT FAIR that they own 95% of the wealth - as you purport with no fact source given - and yet only pay 68% of the taxes). we'll show them...we'll make it fair.
Driven, you explain why its fair?
ah...that's cute. he thought capitalism was chiefly predicated on "fairness".
Quote from: stephendare on May 21, 2008, 03:04:02 PM
So Charleston.
If someone is being a racist, is it automatically racist to call them out for it?
in an election year, no.
Quote from: stephendare on May 21, 2008, 12:42:25 PM
Since, unlike yourself, I have raised a couple of kids, I know exactly how seriously to take the rants of little boys. Someday, when you have a couple of your own, you will know what Im talking about.
a) you never had children yourself
b) i think my (& the rest of our readers') definition of "raising kids" would be greatly more socially acceptable than yours may be
c) none of this prevents you from now being the local authority on yet another topic - child
rearing raising.
I don't find any of those statements, Charleston just posted, as being racist. Just a different point of view. A perspective that is quite popular in Americas minority dominated communities. Our churches are culturally different, some of us are bitter with the way things have been run in this country (I'm one of those bitter people, but I don't cling to religion or guns) and many times, things one may assume as being "American" (like wearing a lapel pin), may not be as important to other American citizens. One of this country's best feature is its cultural diversity. We're so diverse and come from so many different backgrounds that the defination of each of these things will change from person to person. This is why we should stick and hold these candidate's feet to the fire on real issues like the economy, the war, instead of labeling views we don't necessarily agree with or understand as racist.
QuoteSo ape. Are we talking about Capitalism or the Government and Income Tax?
BTW, congratulations on the Economy tanking and 133 a barrel oil.
Quotea) you never had children yourself
b) i think my (& the rest of our readers') definition of "raising kids" would be greatly more socially acceptable than yours may be
c) none of this prevents you from now being the local authority on yet another topic - child rearing raising.
Umm, didn't I just ask you two
(Stephendare and Driven1) to stop tossing the personal insults at each other? Cut it out.
thank you for posting those Charleston. the more i learn about Obama, the more i hate negroes...er, i mean...i dont like him. sorry, that one was for stephendare. :)
seriously, the more i learn about him, the more i do think that he probably does harbor SOME racist tendencies, but i think i could understand how some minorities could have some racist tendencies, just as some individuals from majority races do. i understand how he could have them, but he needs to be careful because while these are not blatantly racist-sounding statements, to whites who are questioning - there are a lot of them out there - they will read between the lines and find something there even if there is not anything there to start with. but then again, that could just be their somewhat racist predisposition to start with.
the funny thing is, we are not having any kind of discussion at all about McCain's views on race relations. i do hope that the election (should Obama win the primary) will not become a massive question on whether Obama is racist or not. if that is all the opposition has against him (i think there is much, much more - like his lack of true experience and actually telling us what all this "change" is), it is still a sad state of affairs here in the US.
If those are racist tendencies, then everyone here should be labled racists. Just goes to show, although progress has been made since MLK lost his life, this country still has a long way to go.
Quote from: Driven1 on May 21, 2008, 03:33:41 PM
the funny thing is, we are not having any kind of discussion at all about McCain's views on race relations. i do hope that the election (should Obama win the primary) will not become a massive question on whether Obama is racist or not. if that is all the opposition has against him (i think there is much, much more - like his lack of true experience), it is still a sad state of affairs here in the US.
From an Independent's point of view, if this is all the GOP has to hang on Obama, he'll end up being the next President hands down. Imo, the GOP would be better served debating the issues they stand for, painting Obama as being inexperienced and proving that McCain is the best to lead this country out of Bush's mess. This isn't Jessie Jackson running for the Oval office. Scare tactics probably won't work this time.
Quote from: stephendare on May 21, 2008, 03:38:42 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on May 21, 2008, 03:34:12 PM
If those are racist tendencies, then everyone here should be labled racists. Just goes to show, although progress has been made since MLK lost his life, this country still has a long way to go.
A long way to go. But the candidacy and success of Obama's campaign proves that we have come a long way.
Its too bad that partisanship keeps people from celebrating that progress instead of trying to take it down.
agreed. i couldn't have said it better myself.
Quote from: Charleston native on May 21, 2008, 02:59:56 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on May 21, 2008, 12:00:52 PM
Can you point out a few examples of the subtle hints in his speeches and voting his record?
I thought some of those were covered earlier in this thread, but sure, I'll point out a few:
Quote from keynote address to Sojourners:QuoteFor one thing, I believed and still believe in the power of African-American religious tradition to spur social change. . . . the black church understands in an intimate way the biblical call to feed the hungry and cloth the naked and challenge the powers and principalities. . . .
Right, so what is he implying with the "white" church? Every "white" church I've ever been in has sponsored soup kitchens, shelters, domestic and international hunger/poverty missions, and community outreach such as Habitat for Humanity. As far as challenging powers and principalities...uh, last time I checked, that wasn't a Christian's main responsibility.
What was the context of this speech? Was he speaking to an AME convention, or some other black religious group? Where/when does he say that white churches did NOT do these things. He DIDN'T, YOU did. You choose to imply was racial because you want it to be racial
QuoteWhat remains for the GOP is a campaign premised more on issues of national identity, aimed largely at that portion of our population for which ‘American’ is synonymous with ‘white’ and ‘Christian,’ than any national campaign has been since the American Party (also known as the Know Nothings) based its 1856 campaign chiefly on Protestant bigotry against Irish and German Catholic immigrants.
Hmmm...notice the subtle, racism hint, there?
The modern GOP, particularly in the South, has been built on racial politics. Immigration is just the latest example. Sorry, if the truth hurts.
QuoteYou go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them…And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.
And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.
Sorry to dispell Stephen's comment about this being an "urban legend" or "political lie", but Obama did say this. If you can't read between the lines here, I can't help you. As a matter of fact, he tried to explain himself, and his true beliefs still hover around:
Quote
There is not one word of the above that is not true. There are entire regions of states (Pee Dee SC for one) that have been left out of the prosperity that the trade deals of the' 90's and 2000's brought to OTHER regions. Pointing that out is not racial or elitist. And pointing out that using 'red meat' emotional social issues to divert attention from that, isn't either.
There are a whole bunch of folks in small towns in Pennsylvania, in towns right here in Indiana, in my home town in Illinois, who are bitter. They are angry… So I said, well ya know, when you’re bitter, you turn to what you can count on. So people, ya know they vote about guns or they take comfort from their faith, and their family, and their community, and they get mad about illegal immigrants who are coming over to this country, or they get frustrated about how things are changing. That’s a natural response.
ditto my above comments
His voting record is another matter of research that I cannot delve into right now. I've used up ALOT of work time doing this post. I'll be happy to post some aspects of his voting record a little later.
Actually, it would be refreshing ( and unprecedented) if his RECORD was examined instead of twisting his words.
that is funny...when i was looking up "Populism" earlier on Wikipedia, it was broken down to how it is diplayed in various parts of the world. in the U.S., the latest entry listed Jim Webb. here it is...
QuoteSenator Jim Webb (D-Va.) was elected in 2006 over incumbent George Allen. Webb held prominent offices in the Republican party during the 1980s, but became a Democrat in part because in his opinion, as he stated in a January 2007 NPR interview, the Democratic party seemed more aligned to his populist beliefs. This illustrates that populism can and does span the American political spectrum
Lenin I think it was once said "religion is the opium of the masses".
Populism. the new drug of choice for Democrats.
an Obama/Webb ticket that won would go down in history as a very, very bad populist-experiment in U.S. history that would be the equivalent of what the "Great Leap Forward" was in Maoist China.
ps - i'm a hero member now.
Quote from: Driven1
Lenin I think it was once said "religion is the opium of the masses".
Populism. the new drug of choice for Democrats.
I think you guys really need to get your message straight. Is Obama a populist (this week) or is he an out-of-touch elitist (last week)? Which is it? It can't be both.
Populism defies political labels. Just ask Jim King.
to answer your question, Obama is a populist. as Jim Webb said in the NPR interview, "the Democratic party seemed more aligned to his populist beliefs". sounds like - at least from one VP hopeful - that the Dem party has the corner (at least in natl politics) on the populist market.
I reject your premise. I would argue John McCain's populist credentials trump Obama's. All that "maverick" nonsense bespeaks populism.
Quote from: RiversideGator on May 20, 2008, 11:34:39 AM
There is a rumor circling around the web that there is a new video, which will be released at an appropriate time, of Obama's wife attacking "whitey":
QuoteI now have it from two three four sources (three who are close to senior Republicans) that there is video dynamite–Michelle Obama railing against “whitey” at Jeremiah Wright’s church. Republicans may have a lousy record when it comes to the economy and the management of the war in Iraq, but they are hell on wheels when it comes to opposition research. Someone took the chance and started reviewing the recordings from services at Jeremiah Wright’s United Church of Christ. Holy smoke!! I am told there is a clip that is being held for the fall to drop at the appropriate time. The last thing Barack and Michelle need is a new clip that raises further questions about her judgment and temperament.
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/05/16/will-barack-throw-mama-from-the-train/
Now, I believe this blogger is a Hillary supporter but, if true, this would throw the election into disarray.
i didn't see this before. i would be quite disappointed in our dear leader's wife if this is true. we will just have to wait and see. my prediction though - for better or worse - is that if this IS true and hits the airwaves, Obama is toast.
I agree that McCain is more of a populist than Obama. Obama is more appealing to elite guilty liberals (i.e. professionals such as trial lawyers, actors or hedge fund traders), pothead radicals and the black block vote. The Republicans meanwhile have slowly been transitioning into the party of Main Street and everyman. And, with McCain as the leader of the party they will become more disconnected from the conservative movement. It is basically a center-right party at present. The worst thing is that Bush, who was a moderate, sullied the "conservative" brand with his big spending, immigration debacle and adding to entitlements.
Quote from: stephendare on May 21, 2008, 03:59:03 PM
Here is an article about Jim Webb's comments earlier today.
IMO, Webb is probably on the shortest list for potential VPs.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/21/jim-webb-speaks-out-on-ra_n_102915.html
QuoteIt's refreshing when someone makes the effort to advance the discussion of this year's election beyond debating a black/white divide. So when that someone is oft-mentioned potential Democratic running mate Jim Webb, it's worth taking note.
Webb appeared on Morning Joe today to speak about his newest book, A Time to Fight: Reclaiming a Fair and Just America, and to dodge questions about whether he would accept a spot on Barack Obama's presidential ticket. But since the Kentucky primary had just provided pundits with fodder to discuss the ever-popular "Does Obama have a working whites problem?" Webb weighed in on the election results and his Scotch-Irish heritage.
Webb suggested that race is indeed a factor in Obama's poor performance among white voters along the east of the country, saying, "we shouldn't be surprised by the way their voting now." But he bristled at what he suggested is a simplistic interpretation of the issue. "When I hear people say this is racism, my back gets up a little bit, because that's my cultural group."
Webb sought to explain what motivates Scotch-Irish Americans. First, says Webb, it's not a generic race or geographic label, but rather "a very powerful cultural group that's always underestimated, and it's not always in the Appalachian mountains." And the issue is not Obama himself, who Webb thinks is "saying a lot of good things that will appeal to this cultural group in time."
Rather, Webb -- whose previous book Born Fighting explores the effect of Scotch-Irish culture on America's formation -- argued that Scotch-Irish voters' unwillingness to support Obama is less about the candidate himself, than about a sense of injustice among the community manifested by the government assistance afforded to minorities in the post-Civil Rights Era:
This isn't Selma, 1965. This is a result of how affirmative action, which was basically a justifiable concept when it applied to African Americans, expanded to every single ethnic group in America that was not white, and these were the people who had not received benefits and were not getting anything out of it. And their basically saying let's pay attention to what has happened to this cultural group in terms of opportunities.
Webb even drew a parallel between this bloc and African Americans, suggesting that their grievances with and needs from the federal government are remarkably similar.
Black America and Scotch-Irish America are like tortured siblings. They both have long history and they both missed the boat when it came to the larger benefits that a lot of other people were able to receive. There's a saying in the Appalachian mountains that they say to one another, and it's, "if you're poor and white, you're out of sight." ...
If this cultural group could get at the same table as black America you could rechange populist American politics. Because they have so much in common in terms of what they need out of government.
A powerful coalition indeed. If only there were two politicians who understood these cultures, and had the desire and capacity to unity them for a common cause...
What exactly is the point? That Webb is obsessed with his Scotch-Irish heritage as usual? Well, I am part Scotch-Irish too but you dont hear me bringing it into every conversation. :D
Quote from: stephendare on May 21, 2008, 03:38:42 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on May 21, 2008, 03:34:12 PM
If those are racist tendencies, then everyone here should be labled racists. Just goes to show, although progress has been made since MLK lost his life, this country still has a long way to go.
A long way to go. But the candidacy and success of Obama's campaign proves that we have come a long way.
Its too bad that partisanship keeps people from celebrating that progress instead of trying to take it down.
I would vote against Obama no matter his color or family's national origins because he is a far left radical, like Kerry, Carter and McGovern before him. Race is not the issue here in opposing him. However, if he and his wife associate with known racists, this is a problem. Either racism is a wrong belief for everyone or it is wrong for no one. It is time leftists made it clear it is wrong for everyone.
Quote from: thelakelander on May 21, 2008, 03:38:33 PM
From an Independent's point of view, if this is all the GOP has to hang on Obama, he'll end up being the next President hands down. Imo, the GOP would be better served debating the issues they stand for, painting Obama as being inexperienced and proving that McCain is the best to lead this country out of Bush's mess. This isn't Jessie Jackson running for the Oval office. Scare tactics probably won't work this time.
On the contrary, he may not be Jessie Jackson incarnate, but his actions and words sure provide a mirror image.
Lake, I'm saddened that you really don't see the underlying messages in Obama's rhetoric, particularly with the "bitter people" diatribe. I'm particularly concerned about your bitterness. I'm a Christian, I believe in the right to own a gun, and I'm not bitter. Despite what I and most others know about "small-town people" and "Christians", the statements show alot about what he thinks. His explanation of his prior statements does sound more benign, but his true beliefs are echoed with what he had time and preparation to say before the criticism. I believe that Obama has pre-conceived notions about the majority of Americans, and we need to pay attention to what he says before he has the benefit of hindsight.
And I have to disagree with you about our nation's diversity as being its best feature. Diversity in races, yes that is great, but not diversity in culture. Culture, language, and tradition is what unifies a country and gives it an identity. If you take away its identity, or severely mix it up into a hodgepodge mess, you have nothing to really unify the people.
Quote from: stephendare on May 21, 2008, 03:04:02 PM
So Charleston.
If someone is being a racist, is it automatically racist to call them out for it?
This is a disingenuous question, Stephen. Describe to me how any criticism of an individual of another race is racism. Maybe racist is the wrong term to define this man. Elitist would be better. Marxist even comes to mind, at least with his policies. And considering the campaign issues list you provided earlier, Marxist looks pretty good.
Elitism demonstrates arrogance and condescension towards every aspect of many American people can be seen in his quotes. His wife has demonstrated sheer elitism in her speeches as well.
Driven you're welcome. There are more quotes, but I just don't have time with work to post them. However, it will be interesting to see what unfolds as this man gets more exposure.
Quote from: vicupstate on May 21, 2008, 04:04:23 PM
What was the context of this speech? Was he speaking to an AME convention, or some other black religious group? Where/when does he say that white churches did NOT do these things. He DIDN'T, YOU did. You choose to imply was racial because you want it to be racial
OK, vic, believe that if you want to. ::) BTW, you might want to read more closely where that speech was given. It was a keynote address delivered at a
conference for a "religious-left" magazine called
Sojourners. So this wasn't some sermon to get the congregation fired up.
QuoteThe modern GOP, particularly in the South, has been built on racial politics. Immigration is just the latest example. Sorry, if the truth hurts.
BS. Which party wanted to continue segregation? Which party wanted to continue slavery? That would be the Democratic party.
QuoteThere is not one word of the above that is not true. There are entire regions of states (Pee Dee SC for one) that have been left out of the prosperity that the trade deals of the' 90's and 2000's brought to OTHER regions. Pointing that out is not racial or elitist. And pointing out that using 'red meat' emotional social issues to divert attention from that, isn't either.
That is not what Obama was pointing out and you know it. I wish people would actually think about what this man says before blindly just soaking it in.
QuoteActually, it would be refreshing ( and unprecedented) if his RECORD was examined instead of twisting his words.
Consider that I will gladly try to so later when I'm not at work.
Quote from: Charleston native on May 21, 2008, 04:52:02 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on May 21, 2008, 03:38:33 PM
From an Independent's point of view, if this is all the GOP has to hang on Obama, he'll end up being the next President hands down. Imo, the GOP would be better served debating the issues they stand for, painting Obama as being inexperienced and proving that McCain is the best to lead this country out of Bush's mess. This isn't Jessie Jackson running for the Oval office. Scare tactics probably won't work this time.
On the contrary, he may not be Jessie Jackson incarnate, but his actions and words sure provide a mirror image.
Lake, I'm saddened that you really don't see the underlying messages in Obama's rhetoric, particularly with the "bitter people" diatribe. I'm particularly concerned about your bitterness. I'm a Christian, I believe in the right to own a gun, and I'm not bitter. Despite what I and most others know about "small-town people" and "Christians", the statements show alot about what he thinks. His explanation of his prior statements does sound more benign, but his true beliefs are echoed with what he had time and preparation to say before the criticism. I believe that Obama has pre-conceived notions about the majority of Americans, and we need to pay attention to what he says before he has the benefit of hindsight.
I'm bitter in the form of that I don't like the direction our country has taken recently and would like to see change in governmental policy, both foreign and domestic, because what we currently have is not working. However, this does not mean I'm not proud of my country.
QuoteAnd I have to disagree with you about our nation's diversity as being its best feature. Diversity in races, yes that is great, but not diversity in culture. Culture, language, and tradition is what unifies a country and gives it an identity. If you take away its identity, or severely mix it up into a hodgepodge mess, you have nothing to really unify the people.
America's cultural identity has always been diverse. I believe us being a melting pot of culture and tradition is our identity and what unifies us.
liberals do not typically believe in strong defense. they will never say that of course, they just veto the spending and move it towards other things they favor like:
-over-funding the failed public school system
-expanding social programs like welfare and medicaid
-expanding gov't in general
oh yeah - and liberals believe in increased taxes. because they know that conservatives (the ones with more money - by your own admission Stephendare) foot most of that bill. they like spending other people's $$. :D
Liberals are like the 16 year old kid who maxes out the credit card on liabilities. Conservatives are the mom and dad investing away in assets for their own future and still required to pay off the kid's credit card.
Quote from: stephendare on May 21, 2008, 05:13:18 PM
so, cajun cooking, fast food mexican, German Keilbasa's in jersey, St. Patrick's Day, Chinese Take out, Sushi and the Mafia arent American?
Oh my word...did I say that food was a part of culture and language? I need a drink...
Quote from: stephendare on May 21, 2008, 05:13:18 PM
QuoteAnd I have to disagree with you about our nation's diversity as being its best feature. Diversity in races, yes that is great, but not diversity in culture. Culture, language, and tradition is what unifies a country and gives it an identity. If you take away its identity, or severely mix it up into a hodgepodge mess, you have nothing to really unify the people.
so, cajun cooking, fast food mexican, German Keilbasa's in jersey, St. Patrick's Day, Chinese Take out, Sushi and the Mafia arent American?
are you serious? to answer you - largely, no.
cajun - yes, this is actually American
mexican - Mexico
German Keilbasa - Germany
Sush - Japanese
Mafia - Italy
any of the above could be/are in other countries...example: mexican food is in Italy too, Chinese take out is in Costa Rica,
Driven1, just wondering. Do you consider our current Administration in city hall to be liberals or conservatives?
Quote from: thelakelander on May 21, 2008, 05:09:11 PM
I'm bitter in the form of that I don't like the direction our country has taken recently and would like to see CHANGE in governmental policy, both foreign and domestic, because what we currently have is not working. However, this does not mean I'm not proud of my country.
the bold and all-caps is mine above. Lake, there is that CHANGE word again. Please, give us more substance. What will Dear Change Leader Obama actually change??? And keep in mind that the Senate requires 60 votes to pass new legislation and even the best forecasts for a pro-left vote in November doesn't have the Dems having 60 Senators. But, even if they did, what is all this "change" about??
The problem here is division, not the melting pot we would all like to be, well most of us.
One question should settle this once and for all. Base don the comments posted, switch around the intended targets, take Obama, and replace it with McCain and what would happen?
I liked Obama, and had the same overall tingly feeling <Stephen has> when I first heard him speak. Then all the little bits and pieces started coming to the forefront, the comments and background that started to destroy the picture I had of him. My excitement has drastically cooled, so much so that I am in fact left wondering why yet again I am being forced into voting Republican.
btw, Cajun's are immigrants just like all the others.....
Quote from: thelakelander on May 21, 2008, 05:16:08 PM
Driven1, just wondering. Do you consider our current Administration in city hall to be liberals or conservatives?
fiscally liberal. and you?
Quote from: Downtown Dweller on May 21, 2008, 05:18:27 PM
My excitement has drastically cooled, so much so that I am in fact left wondering why yet again I am being forced into voting Republican.
this has been my experience as well. i think the answer lies in the fact that the Democratic party has yet to offer us, the American people, anyone who is center, or even center-left, and has true leadership experience and/or potential. so we are left to vote Republican and hope that they become conservative.
Quote from: Driven1 on May 21, 2008, 05:19:24 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on May 21, 2008, 05:16:08 PM
Driven1, just wondering. Do you consider our current Administration in city hall to be liberals or conservatives?
fiscally liberal. and you?
Lost. I don't think either fits the bill.
Quote from: stephendare on May 21, 2008, 05:16:13 PM
Quote from: Driven1 on May 21, 2008, 05:13:21 PM
liberals do not typically believe in strong defense. they will never say that of course, they just veto the spending and move it towards other things they favor like:
-over-funding the failed public school system
-expanding social programs like welfare and medicaid
-expanding gov't in general
oh yeah - and liberals believe in increased taxes. because they know that conservatives (the ones with more money - by your own admission Stephendare) foot most of that bill. they like spending other people's $$. :D
Liberals are like the 16 year old kid who maxes out the credit card on liabilities. Conservatives are the mom and dad investing away in assets for their own future and still required to pay off the kid's credit card.
I thought you said that Warren Buffet was a liberal? Isnt he the richest man?
Soros is quite rich too. both he and Buffet are liberals. and yet we both agree that evil Republicans are the ones with the most wealth in general. i guess we are both smart enough to know that there are exceptions to every rule.
ps-while i strongly disagree with buffet politically, he is hard to argue with investment wise. in particular, i like his recent additional purchase of UnitedHealth. selling at a P/E of 10.
Quote from: thelakelander on May 21, 2008, 05:22:39 PM
Quote from: Driven1 on May 21, 2008, 05:19:24 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on May 21, 2008, 05:16:08 PM
Driven1, just wondering. Do you consider our current Administration in city hall to be liberals or conservatives?
fiscally liberal. and you?
Lost. I don't think either fits the bill.
lol...good point. had the option of "Lost" been presented to me, you could've guessed what I would've selected.
Quote from: Driven1 on May 21, 2008, 05:18:03 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on May 21, 2008, 05:09:11 PM
I'm bitter in the form of that I don't like the direction our country has taken recently and would like to see CHANGE in governmental policy, both foreign and domestic, because what we currently have is not working. However, this does not mean I'm not proud of my country.
the bold and all-caps is mine above. Lake, there is that CHANGE word again. Please, give us more substance. What will Dear Change Leader Obama actually change??? And keep in mind that the Senate requires 60 votes to pass new legislation and even the best forecasts for a pro-left vote in November doesn't have the Dems having 60 Senators. But, even if they did, what is all this "change" about??
I can't speak for Obama or any other candidate running, but I'd like to see more of our tax dollars redirected back to this country and invested in our own cities to enhance our quality of lives. This means I would like to see a little more money put into our infrastructure and neighborhoods, as opposed to being spent overseas. This to me would qualify as a change.
Quote from: thelakelander on May 21, 2008, 05:26:44 PM
Quote from: Driven1 on May 21, 2008, 05:18:03 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on May 21, 2008, 05:09:11 PM
I'm bitter in the form of that I don't like the direction our country has taken recently and would like to see CHANGE in governmental policy, both foreign and domestic, because what we currently have is not working. However, this does not mean I'm not proud of my country.
the bold and all-caps is mine above. Lake, there is that CHANGE word again. Please, give us more substance. What will Dear Change Leader Obama actually change??? And keep in mind that the Senate requires 60 votes to pass new legislation and even the best forecasts for a pro-left vote in November doesn't have the Dems having 60 Senators. But, even if they did, what is all this "change" about??
I can't speak for Obama or any other candidate running, but I'd like to see more of our tax dollars redirected back to this country and invested in our own cities to enhance our quality of lives. This means I would like to see a little more money put into our infrastructure and neighborhoods, as opposed to being spent overseas. This to me would qualify as a change.
i can see easily how the govt should be responsible for putting more $$ into infrastructure, but how do you see federal tax dollars going to support individual neighborhoods??? i can't think of how this would not be pork barrel spending. i think that would be more on a local level. i would agree with you on the more is needed on the infrastructure part though.
Quote from: Downtown Dweller on May 21, 2008, 05:18:27 PMbtw, Cajun's are immigrants just like all the others.....
Except for a few big casino owners, aren't we all?
Quote from: stephendare on May 21, 2008, 05:28:09 PM
Oil just hit 134 dollars a barrel..Our kids are getting shot to death and exploded in Iraq.
We are going to be sorting through the process of restoring our constitution for another 8 years because of the damage done to it ove the past 8. The Republican Party is not the alternative to a problem like a questionable pastor (none of our business) or a centrist platform. My opinion is because of my conservative belief in the power of liberty and because of our beloved Constitution.
It is under attack and is more important than the vagaries of the day.
huh? anyone understand this?
Quote from: Driven1 on May 21, 2008, 05:29:28 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on May 21, 2008, 05:26:44 PM
Quote from: Driven1 on May 21, 2008, 05:18:03 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on May 21, 2008, 05:09:11 PM
I'm bitter in the form of that I don't like the direction our country has taken recently and would like to see CHANGE in governmental policy, both foreign and domestic, because what we currently have is not working. However, this does not mean I'm not proud of my country.
the bold and all-caps is mine above. Lake, there is that CHANGE word again. Please, give us more substance. What will Dear Change Leader Obama actually change??? And keep in mind that the Senate requires 60 votes to pass new legislation and even the best forecasts for a pro-left vote in November doesn't have the Dems having 60 Senators. But, even if they did, what is all this "change" about??
I can't speak for Obama or any other candidate running, but I'd like to see more of our tax dollars redirected back to this country and invested in our own cities to enhance our quality of lives. This means I would like to see a little more money put into our infrastructure and neighborhoods, as opposed to being spent overseas. This to me would qualify as a change.
i can see easily how the govt should be responsible for putting more $$ into infrastructure, but how do you see federal tax dollars going to support individual neighborhoods??? i can't think of how this would not be pork barrel spending. i think that would be more on a local level. i would agree with you on the more is needed on the infrastructure part though.
They already do. The Big Dig, I-95, Main Street, Charlotte's light rail, New Orleans's levees are all examples of things heavily funded with federal tax dollars that improve the quality of life in their respective regions.
Quote from: Charleston native on May 21, 2008, 05:15:04 PM
Quote from: stephendare on May 21, 2008, 05:13:18 PM
so, cajun cooking, fast food mexican, German Keilbasa's in jersey, St. Patrick's Day, Chinese Take out, Sushi and the Mafia arent American?
Oh my word...did I say that food was a part of culture and language? I need a drink...
Our ethnic and regional cuisine, as well as architecture and traditions are all forms of American Culture.
Quote from: stephendare on May 21, 2008, 05:32:44 PM
Quote from: Driven1 on May 21, 2008, 05:30:46 PM
Quote from: stephendare on May 21, 2008, 05:28:09 PM
Oil just hit 134 dollars a barrel..Our kids are getting shot to death and exploded in Iraq.
We are going to be sorting through the process of restoring our constitution for another 8 years because of the damage done to it ove the past 8. The Republican Party is not the alternative to a problem like a questionable pastor (none of our business) or a centrist platform. My opinion is because of my conservative belief in the power of liberty and because of our beloved Constitution.
It is under attack and is more important than the vagaries of the day.
huh? anyone understand this?
So why take it to the insulting level?
If you cant win your arguments on the merits, why debate at all? unless your point is simply to raise negativity?
Stephendare, is it too much to ask for you to present a coherent argument? Just simply present your argument with some logic, merits and coherency and see if you get a better response.
Quote from: thelakelander on May 21, 2008, 05:31:37 PM
Quote from: Driven1 on May 21, 2008, 05:29:28 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on May 21, 2008, 05:26:44 PM
Quote from: Driven1 on May 21, 2008, 05:18:03 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on May 21, 2008, 05:09:11 PM
I'm bitter in the form of that I don't like the direction our country has taken recently and would like to see CHANGE in governmental policy, both foreign and domestic, because what we currently have is not working. However, this does not mean I'm not proud of my country.
the bold and all-caps is mine above. Lake, there is that CHANGE word again. Please, give us more substance. What will Dear Change Leader Obama actually change??? And keep in mind that the Senate requires 60 votes to pass new legislation and even the best forecasts for a pro-left vote in November doesn't have the Dems having 60 Senators. But, even if they did, what is all this "change" about??
I can't speak for Obama or any other candidate running, but I'd like to see more of our tax dollars redirected back to this country and invested in our own cities to enhance our quality of lives. This means I would like to see a little more money put into our infrastructure and neighborhoods, as opposed to being spent overseas. This to me would qualify as a change.
i can see easily how the govt should be responsible for putting more $$ into infrastructure, but how do you see federal tax dollars going to support individual neighborhoods??? i can't think of how this would not be pork barrel spending. i think that would be more on a local level. i would agree with you on the more is needed on the infrastructure part though.
They already do. The Big Dig, I-95, Main Street, Charlotte's light rail, New Orleans's levees are all examples of things heavily funded with federal tax dollars that improve the quality of life in their respective regions.
i would agree...i see that as more infrastructure stuff though. when you are saying neighborhoods, i'm thinking about broader topics than just infrastructure stuff - like Jax being MurderCapital, USA and Duval County having a 40% high school drop-out rate. that is drilling down to the neighborhoods. the others are more regional. i personally don't think it is the business of federal gov't to get involved in neighborhood problems like the ones I've mentioned.
Quote from: Charleston native on May 21, 2008, 05:06:52 PM
Quote from: vicupstate on May 21, 2008, 04:04:23 PM
What was the context of this speech? Was he speaking to an AME convention, or some other black religious group? Where/when does he say that white churches did NOT do these things. He DIDN'T, YOU did. You choose to imply was racial because you want it to be racial
OK, vic, believe that if you want to. ::) BTW, you might want to read more closely where that speech was given. It was a keynote address delivered at a conference for a "religious-left" magazine called Sojourners. So this wasn't some sermon to get the congregation fired up.
I repeat: Where/when does he say that white churches did NOT do these things. He DIDN'T, YOU did. Stop putting YOUR interpretation on someone else's words and attributing your interpretation to them. You WANT him to be racist, so you read his words through that prism.
QuoteThe modern GOP, particularly in the South, has been built on racial politics. Immigration is just the latest example. Sorry, if the truth hurts.
BS. Which party wanted to continue segregation? GOP circa 1960's Which party wanted to continue slavery? That would be the Democratic party.Democrats circa 1860's -- let stay in the modern era shall we?
QuoteThere is not one word of the above that is not true. There are entire regions of states (Pee Dee SC for one) that have been left out of the prosperity that the trade deals of the' 90's and 2000's brought to OTHER regions. Pointing that out is not racial or elitist. And pointing out that using 'red meat' emotional social issues to divert attention from that, isn't either.
That is not what Obama was pointing out and you know it. I wish people would actually think about what this man says before blindly just soaking it in.
BS. That is EXACTLY what he was talking about. They questioner stated that they did not understand why working class voters voted GOP when they had lost their jobs to trade deals. Obama was actually DEFENDING them. Again, you WANT Obama to sound racist/elitist, so you interpret his words through a prism that colors them that way. Do you have any insight into the man's thinking ? Have you met him, talked to him? Why don't you try 'listening' to what he says
QuoteActually, it would be refreshing ( and unprecedented) if his RECORD was examined instead of twisting his words.
Consider that I will gladly try to so later when I'm not at work.
Quote from: Driven1 on May 21, 2008, 05:37:13 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on May 21, 2008, 05:31:37 PM
Quote from: Driven1 on May 21, 2008, 05:29:28 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on May 21, 2008, 05:26:44 PM
Quote from: Driven1 on May 21, 2008, 05:18:03 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on May 21, 2008, 05:09:11 PM
I'm bitter in the form of that I don't like the direction our country has taken recently and would like to see CHANGE in governmental policy, both foreign and domestic, because what we currently have is not working. However, this does not mean I'm not proud of my country.
the bold and all-caps is mine above. Lake, there is that CHANGE word again. Please, give us more substance. What will Dear Change Leader Obama actually change??? And keep in mind that the Senate requires 60 votes to pass new legislation and even the best forecasts for a pro-left vote in November doesn't have the Dems having 60 Senators. But, even if they did, what is all this "change" about??
I can't speak for Obama or any other candidate running, but I'd like to see more of our tax dollars redirected back to this country and invested in our own cities to enhance our quality of lives. This means I would like to see a little more money put into our infrastructure and neighborhoods, as opposed to being spent overseas. This to me would qualify as a change.
i can see easily how the govt should be responsible for putting more $$ into infrastructure, but how do you see federal tax dollars going to support individual neighborhoods??? i can't think of how this would not be pork barrel spending. i think that would be more on a local level. i would agree with you on the more is needed on the infrastructure part though.
They already do. The Big Dig, I-95, Main Street, Charlotte's light rail, New Orleans's levees are all examples of things heavily funded with federal tax dollars that improve the quality of life in their respective regions.
i would agree...i see that as more infrastructure stuff though. when you are saying neighborhoods, i'm thinking about broader topics than just infrastructure stuff - like Jax being MurderCapital, USA and Duval County having a 40% high school drop-out rate. that is drilling down to the neighborhoods. the others are more regional. i personally don't think it is the business of federal gov't to get involved in neighborhood problems like the ones I've mentioned.
My theory is, investing in things like infrastructure can be an in-direct way to turn the economy around and lead to the restoration of neighborhoods impacted by these elements, as well. But yes, the local government should get more involved as well.
here is your answer...from Wikipedia...
Many liberals support:
gun control
pre-birth murder (abortion)
labor unions
no death penalty
progressive tax (those who make under a certain amount pay ZERO taxes)
social "safety nets"
gay marriage
regulatory laws
Quote from: thelakelander
My theory is, investing in things like infrastructure can be an in-direct way to turn the economy around and lead to the restoration of neighborhoods impacted by these elements, as well. But yes, the local government should get more involved as well.
Absolutely. Public works projects that put people to work, send tax money into business bank accounts, and produce better roads, bridges, and other infrastructure are quite good for the economy. But only if those projects are done here in the USA rather than in, say, Sadr City.
And in the 1990's, the Administration reduced violent crime all over America by using Federal money to add over 100k new police officers to the streets, improving cities' community policing capacity. (http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/05/12/clinton.police/)
Quote from: Driven1 on May 21, 2008, 05:18:03 PM
And keep in mind that the Senate requires 60 votes to pass new legislation and even the best forecasts for a pro-left vote in November doesn't have the Dems having 60 Senators. But, even if they did, what is all this "change" about??
60 votes are needed to end a fillibuster, not pass legislation. In 2006, Democrats defeated 40% of the 15 GOP incumbent senators up for reelection, and lost none of their own. If that were to happen again this year, (40% of 23 GOP seats), the Democrats would pick up the 9 seats they need to get to 60 seats.
Looking at it seat by seat, there is one Democratic seat 'in play' out of 12. The GOP has between 12 and 14 seats currently 'in play'. At this moment there are 10 GOP-held seats were the Democrat is either leading (6) or is within single digits(4). The Dem. Senate Congressonal Commitee has $37.6 mm cash on hand and their GOP counterpart has $19.4mm.
As of today, the most likely scenario would be a Dem senate pickup of 7 or 8 seats.
Even if the Democrats reach only 58 or 59, their would still be 3-5 moderate GOP senators available to break a fillabuster.
Quote from: Driven1 on May 21, 2008, 05:49:13 PM
here is your answer...from Wikipedia...
Many liberals support:
gun control
pre-birth murder (abortion)
labor unions
no death penalty
progressive tax (those who make under a certain amount pay ZERO taxes)
social "safety nets"
gay marriage
regulatory laws
there it is. right above these words.
Most Democracts understand Obamas role.
He is our black Hitler, he will round up and build the prison camps to imprison and execute Bush - Cheney and their Republican followers.
We should also see long prison sentences for anyone who voted or supported Bush-Cheney.
Their evil must not go unpunished.
Obama will wipe out what America now knows is the problem.
The past eight years America has been controled by what has now been exposed as nothing less than a satanic cult.
Everyday I read stories about how these people murder their own child to collect insurance money, so that they continue to feed their drug habits.
The Republicans are the greatest evil to ever walk the face of the earth and will be wiped out by the Black Hitler.
VOTE OBAMA!!!!!!
LOL, need I say anymore?
Quote from: stephendare on May 21, 2008, 05:45:58 PM
Downtown Dweller,
If I were the type of person that cared about other people's religious views, I would definitely find this more disturbing than Wright's sermon, which basically boiled down to As America Judges So Shall She Be Judged, and an unrighteous nation shall be judged by their wickedness.
I grew up in fundamentalist churches, so Jeremiah Wright's sermons don't bother me at all.
However, this guy is kind of scary:
Quote
John Hagee, the controversial evangelical leader and endorser of Sen. John McCain, argued in a late 1990s sermon that the Nazis had operated on God's behalf to chase the Jews from Europe and shepherd them to Palestine. According to the Reverend, Adolph Hitler was a "hunter," sent by God, who was tasked with expediting God's will of having the Jews re-establish a state of Israel.
Are we really at the point where we believe that Adolph Hitler was an instrument of God?
How does someone endorsing a candidate compare to a candidate sitting in the pew and having a person as their pastor & mentor for 20 years? The answer is it doesn't. That was a stab at McCain by mentioning he was endorsed by him. I don't know who the guy is nor do I care. Half of the crap being discussed in this thread doesn't make a bit of difference. I am all for having a woman or man, black or white, yellow, green or purple as the next president. Unfortunately, the black man and the white woman currently running doesn't appear to be the best choice in my opinion. Please, call me a racist and sexist because of that.
I can't understand where your posts are going Stephen, I know you are an Obama supporter. I think we've all grasped that by now. Your spin and oddball questions (ie. Is the NRA liberal?, Is Warren Buffet a liberal?, Is cajun cooking American?, etc...) are just wierd and I can only assume more spin and changing of the subject. Why is it ok for you to like Obama and someone else not to? It's not a stab at you or your beliefs, but you are claiming to be conservative when Obama is not. I think that's the big question people have for you. This whole he said/she said, you suck bigot, etc.. is freakin ridiculous.
I do own a gun and I am a Christian. Neither makes me bitter. Now, the fact that both are attacked on a frequent basis, in some way does give me a bitter taste in my mouth. I don't think Obama's comment held any water. That being said, i'm not judging my opinion on Obama over one stupid comment. Experience? Junior Senator since 2005 (doesn't seem qualified to run this country, especially at a time of war). Speaking of war, he want's to pull out of Iraq immediately. Whether you believe the war is a good thing or not, pulling out as is, IMO, is beyond stupidity. He also wants to disable much of our military, you can find him stating that in his own words online if you do a quick look. All of this "CHANGE" that he is speaking of costs money. How is it that the government, which can't run a decent school system, VA health care or anything else, have a better idea of how to spend my money? It's going to eventually be big government controlling all of us and us all sharing the money between everyone.... sounds like marxism/communism (gvmt control). His health care views are socialist views. We already have free health care for children that cannot afford it by the way, so let's not say that everyone should have health care and that it will change when the next great President is in office.
Now, those are some, not all, of my opinions on Mr. Obama. I've not bashed him in any way. I think he's a great speaker and he may have great intentions, but I do feel he is a little over his head at the moment and I think maybe another decade in the political system with some foreign policy experience may help his resume and maybe he does toe the line and reach across the aisle to the conservatives. I'm not big on partisanship, I'm conservative though and even though the current administration has spent a lot of money, I don't believe that is an accurate portrayal of the Republican party.
the very best thing for the true conservative cause is for Obama to win the Presidency - and then for him to stick to his campaign promise to pull out of Iraq immediately. the ensuing chaos in that region and its affect on oil/energy prices would haunt he and his party for generations to come.
come 2012, this country would be audibly yearning for a center-right, true conservative President with real leadership experience. heck, this could even open the door for Ron Paul.
i say give him 4 years to hang himself. i think he'll do it within one (if he keeps his campaign promise). it's just unfortunate that we would have to suffer through the remaining 3 years.
Quote from: Johnny on May 21, 2008, 07:40:14 PM
I am all for having a woman or man, black or white, yellow, green or purple as the next president. Unfortunately, the black man and the white woman currently running doesn't appear to be the best choice in my opinion. Please, call me a racist and sexist because of that.
ok...as much as i strongly dislike the thought of a woman or a black man as President, that PALES IN COMPARISON to the thought of having a purple or green person as President. that is just unfathomable. call me a bigot (again...please), but that is just over the top. we would go from being the most respected nation in the world to being the laughing stock of the universe.
ps - you are racist.
Quote from: Driven1
i say give him 4 years to hang himself. i think he'll do it within one (if he keeps his campaign promise). it's just unfortunate that we would have to suffer through the remaining 3 years.
The real suffering has been the last 7 and and a half years. Ugh!
But on Obama... I think we all know the difference between campaign rhetoric and actual governing. His Presidency could turn out to be a pleasant surprise for all of you nay-sayers with such visceral buy's remorse over your current guy.
i don't have buyer's remorse. i think i did for a while. the worst i regret is Bush's incessant spending and how he did raise taxes on the wealthy to higher than they were before when Clinton left office. that was to pay for the war though. we went to war for the wrong reason, but, based on the evidence, I don't feel Bush did it purposefully. we are there now and the situation has been handled as best as possible IMO. there have been mistakes, but show me a human endeavor that has not one. and he has presided over a generally healthy economy until Oct of last year. two things though that I think a President really has very little control over - the capitalist economic cycle and spending. I've come to realize that regardless of party, they are going to keep spending more and more and more. Part of it is inflation and part of it is the nature of the beast. There may be a year or two here and there that are the exceptions to this rule, but that is just what they are.
All in all, I think 20 years from now that historians will look back at GWB's Presidency with a sense of pride. The level of current popularity definitely does not equate to the level of leadership in current government.
If nothing else, one thing is for certain. At least he did restore integrity (no cigars or dresses, etc...) to the Office.
Obama has never said he would pull out of Iraq immediately. That is Fox News spin.
At least Obama was smart enough and brave enough to say the Iraq War was a mistake from the very beginning, which it was. For anyone to say the Democrats will 'disable' the military after what W has done to it is laughable.
Nothing Obama has done has led to the needless loss of 4,000 of America's bravest and finest men and
women.
As for Health Care, will any Republican EVER admit that it is a PROBLEM that Health care costs have risen three times the rate of inflation for decades now? I'm not sure what the answer is, but the GOP shot down Clinton's plans, offered none of their own, and ain't done shit about it, except take HMO campaign contributions.
I don't see the US going to Canadian style Health care, even if Obama wins. Some sort of compromise will be worked out that is a cross betweeen their system and ours. If McCain wins, we will likely get eight more years of the same. How many more people have to get priced out of the system before something is done? I guess as long as Congress has great Health Care, the answer is never.
Can somebody please tell me why a 'group' of uninsured individuals can't form their own 'group', to get 'group' insurance rates? What do co-workers have in common other than their employer? Does the fact that they work for the same company mean they are less likely to get sick?
Lastly, YOU COULD PAY FOR EVERYTHING OBAMA IS PROMISING AND STILL SPEND LESS THAN HAS BEEN SPENT ON THE IRAQ WAR. And at least it would have been spent in THIS country, on OUR roads, OUR mass transit, OUR military and scholarships for OUR citizens. This country went from substantial surpluses to historic deficit under a GOP President and Congress. Sorry, GOPers, you lost all credibility on spending, sell that story somewhers else, cause I ain't buyin' it.
No doubt, the GOP made a nice mess and they will pay in the upcoming election. Sadly, the Dems will show that they are even LESS capable. I think (and hope) that many pissed off GOP'ers will move to the Libertarian party.
Quote from: willydenn on May 21, 2008, 10:46:30 PM
No doubt, the GOP made a nice mess and they will pay in the upcoming election. Sadly, the Dems will show that they are even LESS capable. I think (and hope) that many pissed off GOP'ers will move to the Libertarian party.
I hope so too! I wish every
one conservative who's dissatisfied with the GOP would vote for Bob Barr. Go, Bob, go!!!!!!
Quote
Viral e-mails attack Obama’s life story
By: Ben Smith and Jonathan Martin
May 22, 2008 07:27 AM EST
The main obstacle standing between Barack Obama and the White House was distilled into five words by a local television correspondent in South Charleston, W.Va., earlier this month.
Prefacing a question about the challenges of winning over white, blue-collar voters, the reporter offered this observation: “They think you are un-American,†he said.
Such questions, asked by reporters and plainly on the minds of voters in Appalachia and elsewhere, are the fruits of an unprecedented, subterranean e-mail campaign.
What began as a demonstrably false attempt to cast Obama as a Muslim has now metastasized into something far more threatening to the likely Democratic nominee. The spurious claims about his faith have spiraled into a broader assault that questions his patriotism and citizenship and generally portrays him as a threat to mainstream, white America.
The spread of these e-mails has forced Obama to embark on a campaign to Americanize his image and his biography. Pivoting away from his pitch to a primary election audience uninterested in flag-waving and nationalism, he’s returning to the message that first brought him to the national spotlight in 2004: the idea that his is the quintessential American story.
He’s also drawing the campaign into partisan combat, blaming Republicans for the smears even though they have not been traced back to GOP sources. “The Republicans, they’re trying to make [it] ‘this is not about you; it’s about me.’ They’re trying to say, ‘Well, Obama, we don’t know him that well, he hasn’t been around that long, he’s got a funny name; maybe he’s a Muslim,’†Obama said Monday in Montana. “They want to make people worry about me.â€
Ironically, the smear campaign represents the dark side of the Internet’s emerging dominance in American politics â€" a phenomenon that has driven Obama’s unparalleled grass-roots and financial campaigns. After harnessing the Web to great advantage, Obama is now struggling to beat back the viral threat from the same uncontrollable medium.
“In the old days, communication was more centralized,†notes veteran GOP ad man Alex Castellanos, the father of Jesse Helms’ famous affirmative action ad. “If you were attacked in one venue, you dealt with it there. A TV problem was dealt with on TV, a radio problem on radio. It was top-down and it was manageable.â€
The anti-Obama e-mails now bouncing around the Internet have multiplied and are difficult to track, though the website Snopes.com has catalogued and debunked many of them. But the themes are similar: Elements of his biography make him too exotic, or unknown, to be president.
One features a made-up quote in which Obama “explains†why he purportedly doesn’t place his hand over his heart during the national anthem.
“There are a lot of people in the world to whom the American flag is a symbol of oppression,†the e-mail quotes Obama as saying. “And the anthem itself conveys a war-like message.â€
Obama has never said such a thing.
Another makes the false claim that Obama was sworn into the Senate on the Quran.
He took the oath on the Bible.
Then there is perhaps the least subtle e-mail, “The Genealogy of Barack Hussein Obama in Pictures,†which includes numerous pictures of the candidate’s dark-complexioned relatives on his father’s side in native African garb.
The e-mailers aren’t troubled by the dissonance between two lines of attack â€" the assertion that he’s a Muslim and the claim that he belongs to a radical black Christian church â€" though one goes as far as to try to reconcile the apparent conflict by arguing that Chicago’s Trinity United Church of Christ is covertly Muslim, something that would come as a surprise to its parishioners.
Smear campaigns have a rich history in politics. Many Americans believe that President Bill Clinton had an aide murdered or that President Bush had prior knowledge of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the Twin Towers.
And this one would be a shameful but largely irrelevant mark on this historic election but for one thing: Voters widely and repeatedly cite information that has been gleaned directly or indirectly from the e-mails to explain why they won’t support Obama.
A Pew survey found that one in 10 Americans think Obama is Muslim, a misperception that crosses party lines.
A focus group conducted with 12 independent voters for NBC and The Wall Street Journal earlier this month in Charlottesville, Va., found that fully half said “no†when asked point-blank if they thought of Obama as an American. Two believed he is a Muslim and another mentioned the Quran fabrication.
“They have no sense of his roots,†explained Peter Hart, the Democratic pollster who conducted the survey. “They just are confused, uninitiated and uncertain about who he is and what his background is.â€
An eye-opening video shot by the online Real News Network earlier this month in West Virginia drove that point home.
One voter concludes that, “The United States of America should be run by somebody from the United States of America.†When reminded by the reporter capturing the footage that Obama is, in fact, American, the voter responded: “He’s Muslim.â€
Nearly every day of the primary, newspaper stories in places from the Pacific Northwest to Pennsylvania have been filled with similar anecdotes.
So, as he pivots from wooing left-of-center primary voters to winning over the broader American electorate, chief among Obama’s priorities will be dispelling the notion that he is somehow not fully American.
Obama’s campaign has built a pioneering Web-based apparatus to debunk the myths, but the candidate himself has also begun to fight back against the smear in symbolic and substantive ways, following the same model used on the original Muslim claims.
When confronted with the Muslim e-mails, Obama last year began talking more openly about his Christianity and using most campaign Sundays to attend church services. His campaign reinforced the point with a less-than-subtle mail piece showing the candidate in a pulpit, a gold cross shimmering in the background. It was mailed out in South Carolina and was revived for the Kentucky primary.
Now Obama is taking steps to incorporate a patriotism rebuttal to go with his faith pushback.
After scoffing last year at the need to wear a flag pin on his lapel â€" grounds for one of the e-mail attacks â€" Obama has begun to affix the stars and stripes to his suit coat.
And he’s begun to talk about the side of his family that more Americans can relate to.
In the Democratic primary, his unique and unlikely life story was part of what many cosmopolitan voters found compelling about him.
“Here’s a guy who could get us right with the world again†is how Al Cross, a veteran political reporter and the head of the University of Kentucky’s Institute for Rural Journalism and Community Issues, characterized the perception among some Democrats. “His entire persona is globalized, and his name lends credibility with people who we need credibility with. What better change agent could there be?â€
And in the early going, Obama embraced that distinctiveness.
Targeting Hispanic voters in Nevada, he even stressed the foreign element of his story, with a narrator of his radio advertisement describing him as “the son of a foreign father who came to this country in search of a better life.â€
But while his first book was called “Dreams From My Father,†it’s his late mother and her white family who have come to take center stage as Obama confronts not just challenges among blue-collar voters but also fundamental questions about who he is.
He’s made pilgrimages to middle America â€" to his mother’s hometown in Kansas and to an ancestral property on his maternal side in Indiana â€" and featured images of both his mother and her parents in TV ads.
And he’s increasingly laced his stump speech with references to his grandfather’s World War II service, noting recently that Stanley Dunham was buried with an American flag around his casket.
Later this year, he’ll go to the National Memorial Cemetery of the Pacific in Honolulu, where Dunham is buried, and pay homage.
He’s also hoping that allies â€" elected officials and labor unions â€" can tell his story to people who trust them.
Chuck Rocha, the political director of the United Steelworkers union, said that Obama’s Horatio Alger tale would make him an easier sell with white union members.
“Our members couldn’t relate with John Kerry because of his background, where he came from,†Rocha said. “Barack Obama comes from a lot of the same pasts that a lot of our members do â€" just growing up a regular kid.â€
Rocha, whose union endorsed Obama, said union members will “trust us more than some thing they read on the Internet or some other trumped-up lies.â€
“It’s going to be an education process,†said Mike Caputo, a United Mine Workers of America official in West Virginia, whose union endorsed Obama on Wednesday.
Obama’s challenge this summer will be to use his unprecedented political celebrity to get his story out.
“Most people don’t know much about Obama’s personal life,†said Vanderbilt University professor John G. Geer, explaining why some voters are susceptible to falsehoods. “He needs to talk about his values. Right now, people are filling in the narrative because he hasn’t filled it.â€
And Geer had a candid assessment of why people are accepting falsehoods as truths.
“It’s easier to believe because his name is Barack Obama,†he said.
© 2007 Capitol News Company, LLC
Quote from: Jimmy on May 21, 2008, 10:49:58 PM
Quote from: willydenn on May 21, 2008, 10:46:30 PM
No doubt, the GOP made a nice mess and they will pay in the upcoming election. Sadly, the Dems will show that they are even LESS capable. I think (and hope) that many pissed off GOP'ers will move to the Libertarian party.
I hope so too! I wish everyone conservative who's dissatisfied with the GOP would vote for Bob Barr. Go, Bob, go!!!!!!
Jimmy, I'm quite very dissatisfied with the GOP, and I would love to vote for Bob Barr...but the only reservation I have with him is his foreign policy. I would definitely vote for him if the race were between McCain and Clinton, since I think they are practically the same thing, but that's starting to look like an impossibility. I begrudgingly will probably vote McCain if Obama is the nominee, primarily because his policies are derivative of Marxism.
What's really scary is the "phenomenon" that Stephen refers to...the almost mindless, zombie-like following of him, and even many intelligent people here on this forum are falling for him.
Quote from: Charleston native on May 22, 2008, 08:45:41 AM
Quote from: Jimmy on May 21, 2008, 10:49:58 PM
Quote from: willydenn on May 21, 2008, 10:46:30 PM
I begrudgingly will probably vote McCain if Obama is the nominee, primarily because his policies are derivative of Marxism.
What's really scary is the "phenomenon" that Stephen refers to...the almost mindless, zombie-like following of him, and even many intelligent people here on this forum are falling for him.
Can someone please explain how Obama is considered more Marxist than Hillary? His health care plan is markedly more dissimiliar to the European model than Hillary's? The 'most liberal' tag that he was given was based on less than 20 votes out of thousands of votes a senator casts in a year. Also, he only had that ranking for one of his three years in the senate. And Hillary only voted differently from him on 2 of those selected votes.
I never thought I would see conservatives actually hate someone more than the Clinton's but I guess there is always a new 'low' to stoop to.
Please stop this nonsense about 'zombie like' following. There are just as fervert 'ZOMBIES' that believe everything that Bush or Reagan ever said, as the Obama supporters are. They were just as willing to overlooking their failings and weaknesses, and to never believe anything negative or contradictory that waas said about them. A number of them post on this forum in fact.
You are so quick to condemn Obama, have you ever been to one of his events? Was there any Kool-Aid distributed? Have you read his books? Have you gotten any information about him from any source other than Fox News?
vic...i don't hate Obama. i, like Charleston, just find it scary the zombie, sheep-like following that he has. it is really weird. many (you seem to be an exception) seem to not even know what he believes or care for that matter. we get the feeling that feeling that everyone just wants to hop on the "change train" and he is the conductor. what does that change mean? not many can tell us. and many of his followers don't seem to care about that.
"change" is the impetus for every challenger in every election. it has to be. even if you are completely fed up with the Bush administration, it would behoove those who are "sheep" for Obama to at least stand back for a moment and ask what he really believes in and how experienced is he?
he hasn't really led anything, has he??? i mean was he even a chair of any Senate committees? and how many years has he served in the Senate?
at least Bush was the head of state of one of the largest states in the union for a while before becoming President. I think this experience largely helped him succeed as President.
I have actually asked any Obama supporter to convince me to vote for him. I have outlined very specific issues I have and asked very pointed questions which have largely been ignored. Stephen posted Obama’s platform, but I had even more questions arise due to that. When I read the “zombie like following†I think about all the questions I have posted here, all the requests to convince me to vote Obama. The majority of the responses (if I even received one) have been something around “the Republicans suckâ€. I don’t care that the Republicans suck; I think both parties are not too great, and really this is not a very logical reason to vote for an unknown commodity (Obama). OK, prove there is no “zombie like following†by answering the questions posted, and convince me to vote Obama.
Vic, I think it is apparent that you've been drinking some serious Kool-Aid. I have often said that I disagree with many of Bush's policies. He is not a true conservative, and neither was his dad. Reagan was probably the truest conservative that presided in the modern era, but I disagreed with a few of his policies as well. I'm hardly a Kool-Aid drinker by any means. FYI, I haven't been watching Fox News at all lately, and I've become exhausted with that old, tired, cliched response.
I'm not going to spend my time regurgitating quotes from Obama and explaining why he really is more left than Hillary, because I really need to work. The information is out there for you to see. From what you already have read, you think that many of the criticisms against Obama are lies. Well, that in itself is a lie, but I can't help you there.
Misinformation from the media has been their SOP since Vietnam.
Driven1, maybe he's as smart as a whip?
Seriously though, I don't consider myself as being a sheep like follower of Barak. I'm annoyed that most of the forum's recent discussion has been about a guy that probably hasn't even stepped foot in Jacksonville or knows any of our local issues. The guy, like Billary and McCain, all have their issues they'll have to overcome.
However, since I would like to see Middle East tax dollars redirected back to the US, I'm totally against us being in Iraq long term, and I'd like to see the federal government begin to seriously back mass transit alternatives in urban areas. So far it looks like my choices are pretty limited. For a person in my situation, why should I vote for someone who's core principles don't align with mine?
Here is what I DO like to see:
Cutting Taxes For The Middle Class:
John McCain Will Cut Taxes For Middle Class Families. John McCain will permanently repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax(AMT) â€" a tax that will be paid nearly exclusively by 25 million middle class families. Repealing this onerous tax will save middle class families nearly $60 billion in a single year. Under McCain's plan, a middle class family with children set to pay the AMT will save an average of over $2,700 â€" a real tax cut for working families.
John McCain Will Double The Personal Exemption For Dependents. John McCain believes the tax code should be less of a burden on those, whether they are mothers and fathers or single parents, who are trying to raise a family. He proposes to raise the personal exemption for each dependent from $3,500 to $7,000.
John McCain Will Make It Harder To Raise Taxes. John McCain believes it should require a 3/5 majority vote in Congress to raise taxes.
John McCain Will Act To Lower Medicare Premiums. Seniors face a growing threat from higher Medicare premiums that tax away their Social Security and retirement savings. John McCain has proposed comprehensive, pro-market health care and Medicare reforms to reduce health care costs and control increases in premiums â€" while delivering high-quality health care.
John McCain Will Propose An Alternative New And Simpler Tax System â€" And Give America A Real Choice. When this reform is enacted, all who wish to stay under the current system could still do so, but everyone else could choose a vastly less complicated system with two tax rates and a generous standard deduction. Americans do not resent paying their rightful share of taxes â€" what they do resent is being subjected to thousands of pages of needless and often irrational rules and demands from the IRS.
John McCain Proposes A One-Year Spending Pause To Evaluate Programs. He believes that outside of essential military and veterans programs there should be a one-year pause in discretionary spending growth that should be used for a top-to-bottom review of the effectiveness of federal programs.
Eliminate Broken Government Programs. The federal government itself admits that one in five programs do not perform.
Reform Our Civil Service System To Promote Accountability And Good Performance In Our Federal Workforce.
Eliminating Earmarks, Wasteful Subsidies And Pork-Barrel Spending.
Reform Procurement Programs And Cut Wasteful Spending In Defense And Non-Defense Programs.
Strict Constructionist Philosophy
"Our freedom is curtailed no less by an act of arbitrary judicial power as it is by an act of an arbitrary executive, or legislative, or state power. For that reason, a judge's decisions must rest on more than his subjective conviction that he is right, or his eagerness to address a perceived social ill."
In my never-to-be-humble old hippie opinion...
Obama: is childlike, cute but no cigar. Same old Shit..."Don't shoot at us and we won't shoot at you...SWAK". Try that line on Hitler, or Tojo and see what it would have got us... Out of touch, while playing the touch-ch, touch-ch, Touch Me line. Shades of the Rock Opra Tommy and guess who the Deaf, DUMB and blind kid is?
Hillary: Something out of the early days of the New Testament. EVIL, if she ever REALLY went into a good church I think 20,000 pigs would run out the door and plunge over a cliff. This woman isn't done, don't count her out, down or finished...She could be the savior, but then I could be the Anti-Christ (NOT!)
McCain: This man never saw a transit or rail project he didn't want to kill. He is public enemy number one in a day when we need alternate mobility. Out of touch? Hell, he's living in 1950 and it's Henry Fords House! I couldn't even hold my nose and vote for this guy. Beyond that, he'll be another Republican that focuses all of our attention on "over-there" and not a dime a home. I'm sick of these guys. What ever happened to walk softly and carry a big stick?
In this world of clubbing eachother with our big sticks and walking very loud with chest out puffing ourselfs up like a blowfish, I long for the days when farming, apple pie, steel workers, dock workers, baseball and fine passenger trains were a way of life. When bobbie sox and short skirts were the sin of the century. Hell, I'm either going to skip this one which really turns my guts, or write in a protest vote for the little wooden puppet "Walter" (google: Jeff Dunham / Walter on Youtube). He makes more sense then these 3 fools.
Ocklawaha
So OCK are you not voting?
I agree with a lot of what you posted, but still feel I MUST vote for someone >:(
Quote from: Downtown Dweller on May 22, 2008, 11:44:08 AM
So OCK are you not voting?
I agree with a lot of what you posted, but still feel I MUST vote for someone >:(
I'm in the same boat.
You know I always vote republican. I have a two year old son and wonder what if Reagan and the Bush's had been fiscally conservative. Fiscally conservative in practice not just theory. What if they had said the cold war is important but I should only spend the money I have(not raid social security). What if they had said Saddam is a bad guy but we have interests here at home and we need to get Osama. Clinton stuck it to the American worker with NAFTA and China so the Dems aren't innocent.
I do not know if Obama will be a different kind of politician. McCain has been fiscally conservative though his career so he should join a party that reflects that. He lost me yesterday when talking about Cuba he said our policy will be the same old same old honestly I need a president who is smart enough to know you can't preach more of the same right now.
The Democrats haven't earned anything but the Republicans have gotten themselves fired. If you feel like Bush is your employee what else can we do? Spend, Spend, spend and only giant corporations benefit. I know the Dems will spend spend spend now that it is their turn but maybe they will spend it on infrastructure(ours not Iraq's), health care not just health care insurer's and so on. I am saying if there are not fiscally conservative politicians I will take the ones who spend on the people and the corporations not just the corporations.
Quote from: JeffreyS on May 22, 2008, 01:16:30 PM
You know I always vote republican. I have a two year old son and wonder what if Reagan and the Bush's had been fiscally conservative. Fiscally conservative in practice not just theory. What if they had said the cold war is important but I should only spend the money I have(not raid social security). What if they had said Saddam is a bad guy but we have interests here at home and we need to get Osama. Clinton stuck it to the American worker with NAFTA and China so the Dems aren't innocent.
I do not know if Obama will be a different kind of politician. McCain has been fiscally conservative though his career so he should join a party that reflects that. He lost me yesterday when talking about Cuba he said our policy will be the same old same old honestly I need a president who is smart enough to know you can't preach more of the same right now.
The Democrats haven't earned anything but the Republicans have gotten themselves fired. If you feel like Bush is your employee what else can we do? Spend, Spend, spend and only giant corporations benefit. I know the Dems will spend spend spend now that it is their turn but maybe they will spend it on infrastructure(ours not Iraq's), health care not just health care insurer's and so on. I am saying if there are not fiscally conservative politicians I will take the ones who spend on the people and the corporations not just the corporations.
As Downtown Dweller already noted, this is something that impresses me with McCain...
"John McCain Proposes A One-Year Spending Pause To Evaluate Programs. He believes that outside of essential military and veterans programs there should be a one-year pause in discretionary spending growth that should be used for a top-to-bottom review of the effectiveness of federal programs."
that is cool - the spending pause proposed by McCain.
This is just twisting the plan. A spending pause has nothing to do with making payments on debt. This means we don't fund any of the social and prok belly programs out there for a whole year until we determine how well they operate/work. This happens in the coporate world all the time, why throw good money after bad. If we are expected to be fiscally responsible individuals (and with all the price hikes and taxes we are being forced to be fiscally responsible) then the federal govt better be fiscally responsible too!
Who knows if we actually did this, we may find some money being totally wasted we could use to fund some of those great programs Obama listed in his platform without having to raise taxes, or at a minimum pay off our debt without killing middleclass families.
I agree it should be looked at, there is tons of waste (the human lives being at the top of the list), that being said war is not something you just say "oops this is costing too much money let's go home". I believe all the candidates are looking for a way out of Iraq; some are just being more realistic and upfront about what that means.
QuoteI agree it should be looked at, there is tons of waste (the human lives being at the top of the list), that being said war is not something you just say "oops this is costing too much money let's go home". I believe all the candidates are looking for a way out of Iraq; some are just being more realistic and upfront about what that means.
Well said, same old crap different era. In a recent reunion one of the top North Vietnam Generals and his American counterpart got into a discussion about power and the war. The American told him we so over came their forces, wiped them out in Tet and carried the war to his doorstep with one hand tied. The wise old Communist smiled and said, "Shit, it didn't mean a thing when you packed up and ran, we won!"
Those who fail to learn from history are fools... Let's see what would I do if we bugged from the mideast and I were king of some grand Moslem radical force? Nuke Israel? Gas all the Jews and their supporters? Sink a few US ships as they left the Gulf as a good bye gift? Send a tanker into Jax and blow the whole place to hell? How about New York? Charleston? Norfolk? Houston? Miami? Hey maybe even conceal jump jets (Russian Made of course) in a big cargo ship, one coming to "feed the children" then open the doors and let hell out on millions before the military could respond. Devine Wind My A--! We are dealing with the same demons that drove the Final Solution and we rank with the Jews in this one.
Obama, Hillary and McCain and the rest of you pointed headed nut cases, if we'd had your brand of "Leadership" in 1776, we'd all be singing "God Save the Queen" before the Jags. Games. Ocklawaha
Quote from: JeffreyS on May 22, 2008, 01:16:30 PM
...I know the Dems will spend spend spend now that it is their turn but maybe they will spend it on infrastructure(ours not Iraq's), health care not just health care insurer's and so on...
I'm sorry, but as someone with a masters in health administration, I find this statement very ignorant. Do you honestly believe that
more government control on health care will make it better?
Obama and Clinton have both made it clear that they want to meddle with health care, and in reality, Democrats have already done enough with HMOs. Some of you may not know this, but Ted Kennedy was the one who proposed a bill to create HMOs. You can thank him and his party for the reason why health care prices continues to escalate.
What did we win a damn thing in Vietnam? We didn't. But 1/2 blind did I use a coma or period? I said the American was answered...QuoteThe wise old Communist smiled and said, "Shit, it didn't mean a thing when you packed up and ran, we won!"
Had we "won", we would have retained a stong check on China's rampant military expansion toward "Free China", we would have stopped the lie in Washington that old "See the Dominoes didn't fall", Bull Shit! Lao's was a beautiful kingdom overrun with Communist purification...Don't forget the Killing Fields in Cambodia... Stopped cold with an American victory. Perhaps even the Moslem influences toward the Southeast would have been held in check with open mission work. Let's not forget the "silent majority" in South Vietnam that begged, swam and stole to escape the workers paradise that was marching their way. ALL OF THAT BLOOD IS ON THE HANDS OF UNCLE SAM! A lot of us Hippies didn't want a cowardly escape but just allow us the freedom to stay home or fight a damn war...not something in between!Ocklawaha
I think the point being: if we pull out and leave Iraq in the lurch the human lives lost and money already spent will be a total waste (as happened in Vietnam). That is not the legacy I want to leave the families of our soldiers, nor the American people. Do we need to get out of Iraq...well duhhhh; the real question is HOW we get out. I for one am not supportive of the tuck tail and run plan.
Recent changes in the way our military is running the war are showing HUGE improvements, especially as to stabilizing the govt there. The biggest issue (besides human live lost which is heartbreaking no matter what) with any of our recent wars is the meddling done by our politicians. War is supposed to be run by our generals, this would remove obstacles, untie the hands of the actual warriors, and ensure politicians are not making money in ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM over the loss of life. Unfortunately both sides of the aisle are profiteers, don’t be fooled!
Oh well what does this dumb Indian know about anything, we lost ALL our land and most of our lives, certainly our culture to "Americans".....
Reread my expanded post, sorry hit post too fast!
Ocklawaha
QuoteI think the point being: if we pull out and leave Iraq in the lurch the human lives lost and money already spent will be a total waste (as happened in Vietnam). That is not the legacy I want to leave the families of our soldiers, nor the American people. Do we need to get out of Iraq...well duhhhh; the real question is HOW we get out. I for one am not supportive of the tuck tail and run plan.
I don't think anyone has a tuck tail and run plan on the table. I thought we declared victory in this war a few years back. What are our ultimate intentions or goals for the future of Iraq?
Quote from: thelakelanderI don't think anyone has a tuck tail and run plan on the table. I thought we declared victory in this war a few years back. What are our ultimate intentions or goals for the future of Iraq?
The only honest answer to that question is: the security of Israel and the containment of Iran.
I believe there are better ways of getting there than throwing away money and lives in Iraq...
What? Isreal???
I would think the "real goal" has always been irradicating Muslim terrorists on the streets of Iraq instead of New York (seems to be working). I know many, many think this war is all about money and/or oil, but I think it was a way to fight the terrorist in their own region (see I said REGION not country) and keep them off the streets of the USA. Is this right? Don't know, but it does appear to be working.
Just my uneducated guess ;D
I think that was the fourth or fifth reason offered, yes. After WMD. After deposing Saddam. After bringing democracy. And there might have been another one in there somewhere.
We've only succeeded in creating more terrorists. And their leader is still sending out YouTubes from his secluded lair in Pakistan.
All of our policy in the Middle East has always been about the security of Israel. See: Bush in the Knesset last week.
BUSH = FAIL.
Quote from: Downtown Dweller on May 22, 2008, 02:59:33 PM
What? Isreal???
I would think the "real goal" has always been irradicating Muslim terrorists on the streets of Iraq instead of New York (seems to be working). I know many, many think this war is all about money and/or oil, but I think it was a way to fight the terrorist in their own region (see I said REGION not country) and keep them off the streets of the USA. Is this right? Don't know, but it does appear to be working.
Just my uneducated guess ;D
That is what they wanted us to believe, but even before Bush took office, there were plans to invade Iraq and establish a permanant military presence. 9/11 merely gave them a pretense for invading.
Probably no where near Iraq.
I think Israel has a right to security and peace, as do the other countries in the area, but if I had to have one country over there on my side it would for sure be them (because of their power not their religion)... that being said I think all the statements and reasons given were just BS cover. Call me Pollyana but I think we took our war to their streets and iraq was an 'easy target". Hey it is survival of the fittest, would you rather read about bombings and shoot outs in Iraq or New York?
Vic you are right, I remeber back in the late 80's my husband, a military officer going to "War College" and planning for this. The middle east has been a "concern" (or target if you prefer) for a while.
So now you accept my premise that our Middle East policy is related to the security of Israel? A moment ago you seemed to have no idea what that could mean.
You heard her. Because we can. Survival of the fittest. Darwin gone global; gone medieval.
Quote from: Downtown Dweller on May 22, 2008, 03:14:33 PMCall me Pollyana but I think we took our war to their streets and iraq was an 'easy target". Hey it is survival of the fittest, would you rather read about bombings and shoot outs in Iraq or New York?
Except the muslim terrorist were not from or based out of Iraq.
Quote from: Charleston native on May 22, 2008, 02:29:37 PM
Quote from: JeffreyS on May 22, 2008, 01:16:30 PM
...I know the Dems will spend spend spend now that it is their turn but maybe they will spend it on infrastructure(ours not Iraq's), health care not just health care insurer's and so on...
I'm sorry, but as someone with a masters in health administration, I find this statement very ignorant. Do you honestly believe that more government control on health care will make it better?
Obama and Clinton have both made it clear that they want to meddle with health care, and in reality, Democrats have already done enough with HMOs. Some of you may not know this, but Ted Kennedy was the one who proposed a bill to create HMOs. You can thank him and his party for the reason why health care prices continues to escalate.
You may be correct and I stated int the post I don't line up with the Democrats on many things. I belive the private sector can do better. But we do not have a real open market situation here do we. We have a group that economically has said the right things to be elected and then *&^% all over us every time. They have to be held accountable or the system will not work. Obama probably will medal in health care more than he should but we can not just continue to ignore it. I would rather work with a party that is wrong maybe they can be shown the light than one that just continues to laugh at us when we buy that they will cut spending.
I personally do not care what that wise old communist thinks. If Reagan could have kept his spending in check if we had taken care of our commitment in Afghanistan first we could have reasonably had the Iraq debate.
I did not read your post correctly. I agree that is probably on the list, but not so sure I agree that is one of the top reasons. I still believe it was to keep the terrorist busy away from the USA. But again, I never claimed to be an expert, only threw my two cents in...
Iraq was an "easy target" meaning they are in the region, people knew their leader was a pig, and they might get some support from the people compared to other countries in the region...
OK, would you prefer to have all this happening here?
If you read my post I questioned whether it was right or wrong, but ultimately (I am being honest here) I prefer not to not live in a war zone.
jeesh Jimmy you act like I set it all up right here from my little laptop. If I could do that I would really just take all of America back for my peeps and kick ya'll out.. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;)
Well, that's just sad. We didn't get support from the people. I believe Rumsfeld said we'd be greeted as liberators. The Vice President tells us every few months that the insurgency is in its "last throes." Their people are the ones killing our soldiers now.
And we keep bringing boys and girls home to Dover in boxes. I'm sorry -- it's ridiculous. And you don't have to know anything about politics or foreign policy to understand that. It's no different to me "not fighting them in NY" when we're sending boys and girls from NYC, Jacksonville, and all over the US to die for this bungled policy.
And we still haven't dealt with the people who attacked us on 9/11. OBL is on YouTube. The 19 were from Saudi Arabia.
It's a farce. And an epic failure.
Let's agree to disagree....now give me my land back! :-* :-* :-*
Quote from: stephendare on May 22, 2008, 02:34:23 PM
Actually Charleston, you can thank the insurance companies for the escalating costs.
Their practice of arbitrarily shaving costs and refusal to pay legitimate claims forces doctors to charge more just to be fairly compensated for their work.
This is the sole reason why self paying customers traditionally get huge discounts at doctors offices.
I completely agree with your statement, particularly your 2nd sentence. However, keep in my that those very health insurance companies, i.e., HMOs, were created through Kennedy's bill. There's no getting around that. Compounding the cost of medicine is the practice of defensive medicine and malpractice insurance.
Jeffrey, you're right, the Repubs have done nothing but talk. But it is foolish to think that the other party can be coerced into seeing the light...they're just a hardcore version of Repubs. They will make things worse. I think several things can be done, though. First, eliminate party politics. Our founding fathers deplored political parties. Second, if we have to keep parties, we need to start infusing parties like the Constitutional and Libertarian parties. Make them more relevant and oust the old guard.
I really wish McCain wasn't the candidate, but his hands-off approach to health care is far more encouraging than the other choices.
I'm happy to leave the failure in Iraq behind for the hope offered by the actual purpose of the thread. :)
And you can have you land back when I get mine back.
IMO, McCain is the closest thing this country has seen to Reagan since he left office.
Nancy Reagan is reportedly a big supporter of McCain and McCain made a number of visits to the White House when Reagan was President.
Quote
Carl Icahn Says Obama Would Be a `Terrible' President for U.S.
May 22 (Bloomberg) -- Billionaire investor Carl Icahn said Barack Obama would be a ``terrible'' U.S. president whose election would bring higher interest rates and a loss of international confidence in the dollar.
``I don't normally get involved in politics, but this time I am,'' Icahn told an investors conference in New York last night. ``I don't think Obama really understands economics.''
The Illinois senator is the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination. Obama has 1,962 delegates, according to an Associated Press tally, putting him 64 delegates shy of the 2,026 needed to clinch the nomination.
``I personally think he would be a terrible president,'' Icahn, 72, said. Obama would probably go on a ``huge spending spree'' that ``the country can't afford right now.''
Coupled with the higher tax rates that the Illinois senator has already endorsed, ``you would have a loss of confidence in the dollar,'' leading to accelerating inflation and ``much higher interest rates,'' Icahn said. His comments, and remarks by other presenters at the conference, were embargoed by the organizers until this morning.
Even worse, Icahn said, would be a Democratic president with a veto-proof supermajority of 60 Democrats elected to the Senate.
``It would be devastating,'' he said. ``Then you couldn't stop runaway legislation.''
Earlier this year, Icahn donated the maximum $2,300 to the presidential campaign of Republican Rudy Giuliani, according to the Washington-based Center for Responsive Politics. Giuliani has dropped out of the race. He has also given to Democrats, including New Hampshire Senate candidate Jeanne Shaheen.
Quote from: stephendare on May 22, 2008, 04:50:18 PM
Quote from: RiversideGator on May 22, 2008, 03:56:00 PM
Nancy Reagan is reportedly a big supporter of McCain and McCain made a number of visits to the White House when Reagan was President.
Well that should tip the scales.
More than your endorsement will.
Succeeded only in creating more terrorists? HA! HA! ROFL... and WWII succeeded in creating more Kamakazi's, so many in fact that the Imperial Navy and Army Air Forces ran slap out of trained pilots. This led to a little shoot out where we were out-numbered and slated to be wiped off the Pacific. Today our historians call it the "Great Mariana's Turkey Shoot" as these school boys from the East were no match for their American counterparts and got blown to hell and back! Keep passing the bombs, one thing for certain, they won't be shooting us here, and every one of them that blows himself to heaven... isn't likely to repeat the act ANYWHERE!
All we have to do is create a stage and invite these Bozo's to join the party.
BTW, Downtown Dweller, I agree with you 100%! QuoteOh well what does this dumb Indian know about anything, we lost ALL our land and most of our lives, certainly our culture to "Americans".....
(http://www.theinmatelocator.com/images/oklahoma_flag.jpg)
One great grandmother was full blood... so I'm ??? But this wasn't bad management of war, or national defense, it was our imagration policy that was messed up! (SMILE)Ocklawaha
What can I say OCk, when your right your right!
Twice in one day. "Incisive" must be the word of the day on Stephen's 365 Words Calendar. :D
Nah. He googled, what the fuck to say next, and it came up with "Incisive." Trust me, try it.
Quote from: stephendare on May 22, 2008, 03:30:10 PM
This is about the most sensible damned thing youve ever said, Charleston. Glad to be back in the same neighborhood with ya.
I think I've said more sensible things than that, but hey, I'll take what I can get. ;)
Shouldn't we give Hillary equal time, after all, she's been bitching about not getting equal time for months now.
Hillary is just a "sweetie" who needs to go iron Obama's shirts. ;)
Here is the Indian's take on Hillary.... looks like Obama backed down to save some Indian votes, interesting reading..
http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096417356
I didn't even know that Al-Jazeera had an English-language bureau with American reporters.
But this is an interesting report on Obama/Clinton filed in Kentucky.
http://www.youtube.com/v/M8J9laUNgL4&hl
(I have no idea why it appears so small... here it is on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8J9laUNgL4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8J9laUNgL4) )
Yes! Folks.
JESUSVIILE has four dollar regs. read it and weep, you sorry ass right-wing tards.
When Obama gets hold of a AMERIKKKA, he is going to make the price rise to twenty a gallon and then I'm going to take all the money I made off of SPECULATIONS and buy all the RE-TARDS'S real-o-state and worth-less junk for five cents on the dollar.
Thanks tards!
Now you Tards get to see what real spending is all about.
Obama is going to tax your asses off and your going to cry like a bunch of little babies.
Go cry to your mommies when you're taxes pay for new roads, bridges, the elderly, the handicapped, the poor,
disaster relief, schools, medicade, prisons, Iran war, cancer research, woodstock memorial and last but not least, your freaking diapers.
Now go fill up your Hummers and cry.
Ha....ha.....ha!
Now this would be an interesting ticket, even though I don't think it would happen. Remember this name though...I bet we will be seeing it again!
http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/story.aspx?id=newen20080049055
Jindal has a bright future if he plays his cards right. He is off to a good start, and he has plenty of time (and an excellent opportunity in LA) to make his mark.
McCain won't pick him because to do so would eliminate the 'experience' issue against Obama. Jindal was in the House of Representatives only a couple of terms and has only been Governor a few months.
Quote from: RiversideGator on May 19, 2008, 12:02:06 PM
Quote"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama said.
"That's not leadership. That's not going to happen," he added.
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5h-wpxs1Re-8vx2Zk5xnYygW1W67w
Let's dissect this truly radical, bizarre and anti-American statement:
1) "We cant drive our SUVs": why not? As Americans we have the freedom to do whatever we want to within the law. If people can afford to drive SUVs and want them, it is fine with me.
3) "We cant keep our homes on 72 degrees all the time": Really? Is he advocating that we outlaw central heat and air now? Perhaps a return to fans only? Why cant we keep our homes comfortably heated and cooled consistent with our wishes and financial abilities? Is America now so broken down and bankrupt that under an Obama regime he will have the Feds monitoring our thermostats? This is truly disturbing and ridiculous.
It literally pains me to read such ignorant statements. It's anti-American to say that we we need to stop carelessly using energy and start actually realizing that the way we live our lives have consequences? That is pure nonsense. WE CAN"T KEEP DRIVING SUVS AND BLARING OUR A/C, and not because people who pause and actually think out these problems have anything against these things themselves (as RG's comments would suggest), but because THEY WASTE ENERGY. In turn, energy waste will lead to wars for natural resources, and the lifestyle we want our children to have will simply not be possible.
The idea that anyone could suggest that thinking responsibly about energy use is "anti-American" is exactly why people are voting for Obama: we are sick of stupid, know-nothing conservatives spouting off that this or that is "ant-american", in a desire to consistently alienate neighbors from one another, and to keep our society split. If you want to talk "anti-American", let's talk torture, or spying on American citizens, or suppressing speech and protest; to label discussion of irresponsible energy use "anti-American" is just stupid.
Quote from: Eazy E on May 24, 2008, 05:09:06 PM
Quote from: RiversideGator on May 19, 2008, 12:02:06 PM
Quote"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama said.
"That's not leadership. That's not going to happen," he added.
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5h-wpxs1Re-8vx2Zk5xnYygW1W67w
Let's dissect this truly radical, bizarre and anti-American statement:
1) "We cant drive our SUVs": why not? As Americans we have the freedom to do whatever we want to within the law. If people can afford to drive SUVs and want them, it is fine with me.
3) "We cant keep our homes on 72 degrees all the time": Really? Is he advocating that we outlaw central heat and air now? Perhaps a return to fans only? Why cant we keep our homes comfortably heated and cooled consistent with our wishes and financial abilities? Is America now so broken down and bankrupt that under an Obama regime he will have the Feds monitoring our thermostats? This is truly disturbing and ridiculous.
It literally pains me to read such ignorant statements. It's anti-American to say that we we need to stop carelessly using energy and start actually realizing that the way we live our lives have consequences? That is pure nonsense. WE CAN"T KEEP DRIVING SUVS AND BLARING OUR A/C, and not because people who pause and actually think out these problems have anything against these things themselves (as RG's comments would suggest), but because THEY WASTE ENERGY. In turn, energy waste will lead to wars for natural resources, and the lifestyle we want our children to have will simply not be possible.
The idea that anyone could suggest that thinking responsibly about energy use is "anti-American" is exactly why people are voting for Obama: we are sick of stupid, know-nothing conservatives spouting off that this or that is "ant-american", in a desire to consistently alienate neighbors from one another, and to keep our society split. If you want to talk "anti-American", let's talk torture, or spying on American citizens, or suppressing speech and protest; to label discussion of irresponsible energy use "anti-American" is just stupid.
Sir, I think that what us stupid, know-nothing conservatives are calling "un-American" is the use of Federal power to tell American citizens what cars they can or cannot drive or what temperature they can maintain in their own homes. I can't seem to find any constitutional authority for the federal government to legislate either of those. I am sure, however, that you can find the Article where that governmental power resides. Please let the rest of us know. I know that Stephen is an "admirer" of the U. S. Constitution. Perhaps he can help. We stupid conservatives are not opposed to energy conservation, but we are opposed to governments or political candidates (or anyone else, for that matter) sticking their nose into how we live our lives or spend our hard earned money.
As for "torture", you have left me wondering what acts you are referring to. Is it "waterboarding", the media favorite that has been used so few times that you only need one hand to count, requiring the highest authority? Those uses (Muhammed, Zubaydah, and al-Nashiri) led to intelligence which probably saved many lives in the West. I'm not sure of what spying on American citizens you are referring to, but again, only very few life threatening cases meet the criteria for no warrant wiretap. Can you refer me to a case where this was misused? I would also ask for what instances of suppressing speech or protest you refer to.
I love how unappealing conserving is to conservatives.
How would the dems limit usage of power? Would they...gasp "spy" on the citizens to determine at what temp they kept their air? I guess they would just outlaw SUV's limiting our individual choices and require everyone to drive a blue hybrid? Why both parties are distrubing: Hello pot, the kettle is calling.....
Actually, grid managers limit power useage by calling out to businesses and asking them to consume less power and when the power usage doesn't decline we could experience brownouts, or when brownouts fail, limits are reached vis-Ã -vis rolling blackouts, or heaven forbid blackouts, and that all of this happens irrespective of what party is in control of the White House.
Jeffry, its not that conserving is un-appealing, whats unappealing is having the government get involved to that degree in our day to day lives.
I went out and bought my wife a scion xa two years ago because I saw that gas prices were never coming down, and we couldnt afford our two gas guzzlers. on top of that, as soon as my daughter is out of school, I am going to start ridding my bike to work for the same reasons.
We make these decisions because it makes fiscal sense for my family. I would prefer to be allowed to make those decisions on my own, rather than at the point of a gun.
Quote from: Eazy E on May 24, 2008, 05:09:06 PM
It literally pains me to read such ignorant statements. It's anti-American to say that we we need to stop carelessly using energy and start actually realizing that the way we live our lives have consequences? That is pure nonsense. WE CAN"T KEEP DRIVING SUVS AND BLARING OUR A/C, and not because people who pause and actually think out these problems have anything against these things themselves (as RG's comments would suggest), but because THEY WASTE ENERGY. In turn, energy waste will lead to wars for natural resources, and the lifestyle we want our children to have will simply not be possible.
The idea that anyone could suggest that thinking responsibly about energy use is "anti-American" is exactly why people are voting for Obama: we are sick of stupid, know-nothing conservatives spouting off that this or that is "ant-american", in a desire to consistently alienate neighbors from one another, and to keep our society split. If you want to talk "anti-American", let's talk torture, or spying on American citizens, or suppressing speech and protest; to label discussion of irresponsible energy use "anti-American" is just stupid.
Talk about ignorant statements.
And foolish.
Quote from: downtownparks on May 25, 2008, 08:21:59 AM
Jeffry, its not that conserving is un-appealing, whats unappealing is having the government get involved to that degree in our day to day lives.
I went out and bought my wife a scion xa two years ago because I saw that gas prices were never coming down, and we couldnt afford our two gas guzzlers. on top of that, as soon as my daughter is out of school, I am going to start ridding my bike to work for the same reasons.
We make these decisions because it makes fiscal sense for my family. I would prefer to be allowed to make those decisions on my own, rather than at the point of a gun.
We make policy about speed limits and car specs and food safety and so on all the time many of them based on levels of use. Enforcing tougher conservation is not some radical departure into a totalitarian government. Both parties call each other Nazis or Communists ect. all the time but we vote and change leaders peacefully and regularly in this country so let's stop this constant fear mongering both sides participate in that voting for the other surely spells the end of the American way of life. Maybe one group will think this law or that one is too strict but the big brother fear the left has about Bush will soon end and all of their talk of the patriot act ending civil liberties will have been over blown and if we enact some conservation restrictions people will start screaming we are no longer free and that will be just as dumb.
Instead of the more radical ideas you quote why don't we.
Set the speed limit at 55.
Set epa standards for cars to levels already achieved in much of Europe.(average car already gets 43 mph let's shoot for 38mph)
Invest in desalinization, wind and solar.( the tech is already here we just have to use it.)
Invest in mass transit instead of roads.
Forget using food for fuel.
Simple conservation practices are enough to make us energy independent and lower costs. I guess it is just more politically advantages to focus on the ridiculous ideas that have been floated.
Quote from: Eazy E on May 24, 2008, 05:09:06 PM
It literally pains me to read such ignorant statements. It's anti-American to say that we we need to stop carelessly using energy and start actually realizing that the way we live our lives have consequences? That is pure nonsense. WE CAN"T KEEP DRIVING SUVS AND BLARING OUR A/C, and not because people who pause and actually think out these problems have anything against these things themselves (as RG's comments would suggest), but because THEY WASTE ENERGY. In turn, energy waste will lead to wars for natural resources, and the lifestyle we want our children to have will simply not be possible.
What is truly ignorant is going around calling the informed opinions of others ignorant. While that may be an "Easy E" way to debate, it is not persuasive in the real world.
And let me tell you a little something about Americans. Americans are a people who solve problems and who have great ingenuity and a tremendous work ethic. We dont have to go back to the standards of living of 1900 because you have been scared by some environmentalist shrews with ulterior motives (communism). We will simply do what we always do - we will find efficient solutions to our energy needs. And, we dont need scolds and nannies telling us what to set our thermostat on. If you want your house hot in the summer and cold in the winter, then go live in a tent in the woods and leave the rest of us alone.
Quote
The idea that anyone could suggest that thinking responsibly about energy use is "anti-American" is exactly why people are voting for Obama: we are sick of stupid, know-nothing conservatives spouting off that this or that is "ant-american", in a desire to consistently alienate neighbors from one another, and to keep our society split.
The problem here is your premise is false. Obama is not thinking responsibly about energy. He is thinking in a reflexively liberal fashion which involves great self-flagellation and self-loathing. We do not need prophets of doom. We need to unleash the powers of American innovation to move us onto the next level of power generation. This will happen as market forces demand it.
QuoteIf you want to talk "anti-American", let's talk torture, or spying on American citizens, or suppressing speech and protest; to label discussion of irresponsible energy use "anti-American" is just stupid.
No torture has occurred and certainly not of American citizens. In fact, none of the rest of this statement is true either.
Hooray for Murdoch...as he considers hitching on that PC bandwagon that is Obama. ::) Big deal. Interestingly enough, Murdoch's company, which owns several major media outlets including Fox, has increased numbers of its stock being purchased by people like Saudi Arabia's prince among other Islamist dignitaries. Just FYI.
Fox News has lost quite a bit of credibility, BTW, i.e. Sean Hannity and Geraldo Rivera.
As for putting concepts like drilling for more oil equivalent with "wasting our resources", I have to say that's pretty funny how you can twist it like that. And yet, it's sad at the same time.
QuoteI dont know if you have followed any of the other strings on here, but we are debating whether or not a property is STILL contaminated from a gassification process after 112 years.
Its contaminated. I have a copy of the 100 meg report.
Quote from: stephendare on May 29, 2008, 01:19:44 PM
the oil itself is killing us charleston.
I have always marvelled at the similarities between the Global Warming deniers and the 'smoking doesn't cause cancer' crowd.
It poisons everything it touches.
Interesting that a "conservative" would use that description for the lifeblood of most industrialized nation's economies.
The same thing can be said of hydrochloric acid. Using your mentality, I guess we should eliminate things like drinking water production, wastewater treatment, battery production. Another "evil" chemical that "destroys" the earth. Ay caramba.
Quote from: stephendare on May 29, 2008, 03:00:34 PM
Well river has made a great point that its not the lifeblood of the French economy.
And its not the lifeblood of ours either. Energy itself may be, but it doesnt have to come from oil.
I just dont understand why you are so eager to support terrorist countries.
I'm not, hence my vehement support for drilling in ANWR, North Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, and off our shores, in addition to overwhelming support for nuclear power expansion.
We could stick it to terrorist countries if we would just get off our asses.
Quote from: stephendare on May 29, 2008, 11:16:21 AM
wow, river. Youve lost your mind.
Are you seriously red baiting?
The collectivists were unable to attain their goals through communism and socialism (to a lesser extent) and they are now focusing on the global warming hoax to advance their agenda. This is really undeniable. It is the same people for the most part with their ranks swollen by scared, credulous people who have been sold a pack of lies.
QuoteAmericans also knew better than to waste metal during the great wars when it was needed for bullets and armor. Americans also knew to pool together during the great recession and not depend on the market alone.
Americans built this country on the principles of self sufficiency, not being controlled by mammoth outside forces that could cut you off without so much as a how do you do.
So how about opening up the United States to oil drilling to allow this self sufficiency to flourish?
QuoteIt is ignorant to waste our resources. Just like it was ignorant to slaughter the buffalo and clear cut the great plains. Nice part about being an American? We arent too stupid to admit when we are clearly wrong.
The resources are clearly wasted however if they remain underground beneath thousands of layers of dirt and rock.
QuoteEasy E is right on the money electorally, and let me share something from our dear fellow wild eyed liberal (and obviously secret communist) rupert murdoch.
The owner of Fox News.
The Dems will probably do well in the Fall. Part of this is the pendulum which is electoral politics and part of this is a lack of conservative governance on the part of the Republican party. I dont see what this has to do with the price of tea in China though.
Quote from: stephendare on May 29, 2008, 01:19:44 PM
the oil itself is killing us charleston.
I have always marvelled at the similarities between the Global Warming deniers and the 'smoking doesn't cause cancer' crowd.
It poisons everything it touches.
I dont know if you have followed any of the other strings on here, but we are debating whether or not a property is STILL contaminated from a gassification process after 112 years.
Actually, oil is sustaining our economy and way of life. So, the truth is exactly the opposite of what you have claimed in your typically hyperbolic fashion.
Quote from: stephendare on May 29, 2008, 03:00:34 PM
Well river has made a great point that its not the lifeblood of the French economy.
And its not the lifeblood of ours either. Energy itself may be, but it doesnt have to come from oil.
I just dont understand why you are so eager to support terrorist countries.
1) So, are you now on board with nuclear power?
2) Canada provides the largest portion of our foreign oil. We get a small percentage of our oil from the Middle East.
3) Drilling in the US will reduce this percentage even further.
OMG, THANK YOU Stephen! I needed a good laugh today and here you provided the best with a short recap on the Cannucks biggest shared fantasy, kicking American Ass...you know they still claim they already did?
Thanks!
Now, what did you think of the Hillary supporters on the news yesterday who stated if Hillary doesn't get the nomination they will all vote for McCain?
Gezz. How many more churches can this nut leave? The latest church has done such a great job for the community. Do you think this next round of dump that church will shine some light on why Obama is not the candidate for change. Change means you do something not just leave whenever the going gets rough.
My bad, I meant Preacher. Either way, I find it hard to have faith in a guy that is constantaly bashing and aligns himself with people like Wright and the new guy, Father Michael Pfleger.
Wait until the new tape comes out with Michelle Obama speaking on a panel with either Farrakhan or Farrakhan's wife and talking in a racist way about "whitey". I am telling you that these people (the Obamas) are far left extremists. There is more to come about them too. They are not who people think that they are (i.e. moderate, reasonable people).
Let's just say if He picks Hillary as his VP, then our worst nightmare will have come true. He has NO NO NO sense of judgement in character. LOL
Quote from: stephendare on June 05, 2008, 02:04:03 PM
Quote from: gatorback on June 03, 2008, 09:42:28 AM
My bad, I meant Preacher. Either way, I find it hard to have faith in a guy that is constantaly bashing and aligns himself with people like Wright and the new guy, Father Michael Pfleger.
better not run for office then.......ever.
Been there done that albeit in the university. And I would never go there again. Let's just say, I salute anybody who can put up with all the bullshit that is public office.
But really, would "Change" include Hillary for VP?
The "Hulk Girl" is not fooled.... LOL!!!!!
Who would have thunk the pubs had it in them???
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3dy6myWxg8
According to P.U.M.A there are millions of Dems that will not be voting Democrat this election. They are angry states were excluded from the primaries so the Dem candidate could be "selected not elected", they are upset about sexist comments and actions made by Obama, they are also upset about blanket racist comments from Obama and his camp made against Dems (apparently they don't mind when it is against Republicans.) Interestingly enough they have no plans to leave the party, only to vote a republican into the office.
I posted this here as the title of this thread states "Obama is Renewing the American Sense of Identity. Unbelievable to Watch" and it is very fitting, Obama apparently is renewing the American sense of identity by taking everyone back about 50 years! And yes it is unbelievable to watch...
Quote from: stephendare on May 19, 2008, 12:44:28 AM
Seriously River.
You are looking around at the smoking ruins of what used to be the greatest hope for mankind.
Your boys masquerading as 'conservatives' brought that house down. We are demoralized, demonized, broke, and our army is at its literal breaking point. Our prisons are so crammed with our citizens that we don't know where to house them, and we have the highest illiteracy and teen pregnancy rate of the entire industrialized world.
Most of our people do not have decent health care, and the homeless are wandering the streets of every city of the united states like zombies.
Whats your answer? Cut taxes for the rich, keep the darkies out, and bomb the shit out of anybody with oil.
Please dont ever defile the rightful use of the word "Huckster' by ever letting it flow from your keyboard again.
You joked about your SUVs, while the whole of the worlds scientific community was warning that CO2 was a problem, and now you don't want to pay any of the consequences of your actions.
Its everyone else's problem as long as you get yours isnt it?
For 12 years my fellow republicans sat back claiming it was going to lift all boats, while this corrupt and stupid president cut all taxes and responsibility, oversight and regulation for the rich.
Where is the prosperous economy that your philosophy guaranteed?
Why did it turn out EXACTLY the way everyone said it would?
With a big crash of the housing market, 129 dollar barrels of oil, no credit left for the middle class, a national recession, and overnight billionaires parachuting on golden silk from the hundred year old institutions that they sucked dry.
Meanwhile your fellow 'conservatives' are building a fence to keep out the mexicans so angrily that they arent noticing that this country is about to become more third world than the darkies they are trying to keep out.
Or make sure that gay or lesbian people cant have the basic rights guaranteed by the constitution, and spend hours of your miserable time vexed that someone might get laid that didnt ask your permission or advice beforehand.
Or hysterically demanding to restore the 'morality' of the far right by cutting of contraception and watching the teenage pregnancy rate skyrocket.
How dare anyone on the right ever use the word 'morality' again, after selling their soul's to the devil and publicly 'approving' of the president using torture?
The thought literally sickens me.
You want to talk about huckster?
And that is why Obama will change this country. Because there are a hundred million people who feel exactly the same way about it.
Here are some rebuttals. While I agree the Bush presidency has turned out to be less than most conservatives wanted much of what you claim is sheer exaggeration...
Our prisons are so crammed with our citizens that we don't know where to house them, and we have the highest illiteracy and teen pregnancy rate of the entire industrialized world. I contend that teen pregnancy, illiteracy, and failed social policies of the left are the major contributors to these issues...
Where is the prosperous economy that your philosophy guaranteed? You just lived it... when Bush took office we were in the throes of a recession at the end of the Clinton administration. Like them or not... those tax cuts lifted us out of that recession and gave us prosperity for 8 years.
With a big crash of the housing market, 129 dollar barrels of oil, no credit left for the middle class, a national recessionThe crash of housing is directly proportional to the housing "bubble"... in addition the "crash" is bit exaggerated. The price of oil is directly related to the success of previously UNSUCCESSFUL countries catching up to the western world. As of yet... there is no recession by most economists definitions...
Meanwhile your fellow 'conservatives' are building a fence to keep out the mexicans so angrily Cmon... even the Dem party agrees that illegal immigration is a major problem. All conservatives want is simple enforcement of the law. Immigrants are welcome... just do it legally.
Or hysterically demanding to restore the 'morality' of the far right by cutting of contraception and watching the teenage pregnancy rate skyrocket. Cutting contraception?? Oh you must mean abortion... ya got me there. There is something wrong when my daughter can go and get an abortion without my consent while at the same time cannot go get an innoculation without a parent being present. Talk about twisted morality...
publicly 'approving' of the president using torture? The caterwalling about the so called torture is amazing. Ask Daniel Pearl about torture. Sleep deprivation? Waterboarding? Rough handling? Ooooo... This is not torture. Do they stress, intimidate, and scare the prisoner? Absofreekinglutely.
And that is why Obama will change this country. Because there are a hundred million people who feel exactly the same way about it. I wish him luck if elected. We will see about your numbers... You can expect the same tactics employed against Bush by the Dems in congress. HIS picks for federal and Supreme court judges will be left to languish in limbo rather than getting voted on. His policies will be filibustered and attached with "special interest" bills to ensure passage. I could go on but you know what I am talking about...
Obama getting the race based vote apparently:
QuoteBarack Obama buzz sweeps through the BET Awards
Jun 25, 7:36 AM (ET)
By DERRIK J. LANG
LOS ANGELES (AP) - Barack Obama didn't attend the BET Awards, but that didn't stop attendees from talking about him.
"If we all register and vote, we will have the first black president in the history of America," Sean "Diddy" Combs told the crowd Tuesday at the Shrine Auditorium before chanting "Obama or Die" - a declarative remix of his neutral "Vote or Die" motto from the 2004 presidential election, when he attempted to boost the youth vote.
Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, was just a few blocks away at the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion for a fundraiser with a Hollywood guest list that included supermodels Heidi Klum and Cindy Crawford, boxing legend Sugar Ray Leonard and movie stars Samuel L. Jackson and John Malkovich. While Obama didn't make an appearance at the BET Awards - either live or on tape - his presence was felt.
As she picked up her award for best female R&B artist, Alicia Keys told the crowd that it's time for black people to erase the word "can't" from their vocabulary.
"Together we can do anything," she said, playing on the Democrat's "Yes We Can" mantra before shouting: "Obama y'all!"
The presumptive Republican presidential nominee, John McCain, failed to merit a shoutout by any of the BET presenters or performers.
"For the first time in history, we have the opportunity for somebody who's not in the good ol' boy network to get into office," rapper David Banner told reporters backstage. "People talk about his lack of experience, but there's people with much more experience who haven't done such a good job."
Stephen Hill, executive vice president of entertainment and music programming at BET, said there was talk of having Obama attend the BET Awards but it didn't work out.
"We would've loved it if he would've stopped by," said Hill.
During his monologue, host D.L. Hughley cracked jokes about Obama. Other attendees were more flattering. Backstage, Humanitarian Award winner Quincy Jones said he wanted Obama to be elected and create a Secretary of Culture position. Actress Nia Long beamed about possible first lady Michelle Obama.
"Michelle is graceful, beautiful and not afraid to be exactly who she is," Long said backstage. "It's wonderful to see their love in the midst of all the political madness. They have something we should all be proud of. She's smart. She's educated. And she's fearless. I'd love to have tea with her one day."
One attendee used fashion to show her support for Obama. Actress-comedian Kym Whitley, who revealed she'll be appearing in a small role in the upcoming "Transformers" sequel, donned a tight purple shirt that read 'Barack Obama 08' in glittery black letters
"I don't know him, and he doesn't know me," she said. "But we're gonna make eye contact one day."
Longtime Obama supporter John Legend affirmed the importance of voting in the upcoming election: "I'll be working to make sure people get out to vote this fall."
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080625/D91H2SU00.html
lol...i'm reminded of Def Leppard's "Hysteria" album...not quite the same, but still...
Quote"Together we can do anything," she said, playing on the Democrat's "Yes We Can" mantra before shouting: "Obama y'all!"
Lol. How old is McCail? 70? Isn't 70 just to old to run? Maybe the age score is a +1 for Obama. McCain is ancient.
Quote from: stephendare on June 25, 2008, 06:28:47 PM
Wow. Obama is KILLING McCain in the polls!
It looks like there is all the possibility of a Landslide.
But Gallup shows the race a dead heat:
(http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/080625DailyUpdateGraph1_bnputed.gif)
Quote
June 25, 2008
Gallup Daily: Obama, McCain Tied at 45%
Obama had held at least a slim advantage for most of June
PRINCETON, NJ -- The latest Gallup Poll Daily tracking update on the presidential election finds John McCain and Barack Obama exactly tied at 45% among registered voters nationwide.
Voter preferences had been fairly evenly divided for the past week, with Obama generally holding a slight advantage of two or three percentage points. This is the first time since Gallup's May 31-June 4 rolling average that Obama does not have at least a slim advantage over McCain. Obama's largest lead to date has been seven points.
Since the changes from Tuesday's results are well within the margin of sampling error, it is unclear at this point if today's results represent a further tightening of the race. The last two individual nights of polling have, however, been more favorable to McCain that what Gallup has shown for most of June. -- Jeff Jones
http://www.gallup.com/poll/108376/Gallup-Daily-Obama-McCain-Tied-45.aspx
Quote from: stephendare on June 25, 2008, 06:28:47 PM
Wow. Obama is KILLING McCain in the polls!
It looks like there is all the possibility of a Landslide...
Uh, what fabricated article from an outdated scrap of paper did you dig out of the trash bin to come up with that conclusion?
It's really a fricking tie. Here's the latest:
QuoteGallup Daily: Obama, McCain Tied at 45%
Obama had held at least a slim advantage for most of June
PRINCETON, NJ -- The latest Gallup Poll Daily tracking update on the presidential election finds John McCain and Barack Obama exactly tied at 45% among registered voters nationwide.
Voter preferences had been fairly evenly divided for the past week, with Obama generally holding a slight advantage of two or three percentage points. This is the first time since Gallup's May 31-June 4 rolling average that Obama does not have at least a slim advantage over McCain. Obama's largest lead to date has been seven points. (To view the complete trend since March 7, 2008, click here.)
Since the changes from Tuesday's results are well within the margin of sampling error, it is unclear at this point if today's results represent a further tightening of the race. The last two individual nights of polling have, however, been more favorable to McCain that what Gallup has shown for most of June. -- Jeff Jones
Survey Methods
For the Gallup Poll Daily tracking survey, Gallup is interviewing no fewer than 1,000 U.S. adults nationwide each day during 2008.
The general-election results are based on combined data from June 22-24, 2008. For results based on this sample of 2,600 registered voters, the maximum margin of sampling error is ±2 percentage points.
Interviews are conducted with respondents on land-line telephones (for respondents with a land-line telephone) and cellular phones (for respondents who are cell-phone only).
In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.
To provide feedback or suggestions about how to improve Gallup.com, please e-mail feedback@gallup.com.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/108376/Gallup-Daily-Obama-McCain-Tied-45.aspx
Crap, River, you beat me to it! 8)
Do I owe you a beer now? ;)
I noticed that. It was the obvious answer. There are one or two extreme outlier polls showing big leads but they are probably not credible. In any event, it is too early to be meaningful.
Absolutely. We have a long way to go before November, and any poll is just premature prognostication.
Charleston: While that might be true, "any polls is just premature...", bla, no winner of the office of the president has ever come back to win from a % not much more then the current spread. Sorry.
Quote from: Charleston native on June 25, 2008, 11:14:06 PM
Quote from: stephendare on June 25, 2008, 06:28:47 PM
Wow. Obama is KILLING McCain in the polls!
It looks like there is all the possibility of a Landslide...
Uh, what fabricated article from an outdated scrap of paper did you dig out of the trash bin to come up with that conclusion?
It's really a fricking tie. Here's the latest:
QuoteGallup Daily: Obama, McCain Tied at 45%
Obama had held at least a slim advantage for most of June
PRINCETON, NJ -- The latest Gallup Poll Daily tracking update on the presidential election finds John McCain and Barack Obama exactly tied at 45% among registered voters nationwide.
Voter preferences had been fairly evenly divided for the past week, with Obama generally holding a slight advantage of two or three percentage points. This is the first time since Gallup's May 31-June 4 rolling average that Obama does not have at least a slim advantage over McCain. Obama's largest lead to date has been seven points. (To view the complete trend since March 7, 2008, click here.)
Since the changes from Tuesday's results are well within the margin of sampling error, it is unclear at this point if today's results represent a further tightening of the race. The last two individual nights of polling have, however, been more favorable to McCain that what Gallup has shown for most of June. -- Jeff Jones
Survey Methods
For the Gallup Poll Daily tracking survey, Gallup is interviewing no fewer than 1,000 U.S. adults nationwide each day during 2008.
The general-election results are based on combined data from June 22-24, 2008. For results based on this sample of 2,600 registered voters, the maximum margin of sampling error is ±2 percentage points.
Interviews are conducted with respondents on land-line telephones (for respondents with a land-line telephone) and cellular phones (for respondents who are cell-phone only).
In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.
To provide feedback or suggestions about how to improve Gallup.com, please e-mail feedback@gallup.com.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/108376/Gallup-Daily-Obama-McCain-Tied-45.aspx
Are there any other polls out there to back up gallup's? Most show Obama with a huge lead.
Obama 317 McCain 194 Ties 27
(http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Pres/Pngs/Jun26.png)
http://www.electoral-vote.com/
Rasmussen has Obama with just a 4 point lead:
Quote
Daily Presidential Tracking Poll
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Email a Friend Email to a Friend
Advertisement
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows Barack Obama attracting 46% of the vote while John McCain earns 41%. When "leaners" are included, Obama leads 49% to 45%. Three percent (3%) say they will vote for a third-party option while 3% remain undecided Tracking poll results are updated at 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time each day
http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
And Fox News shows Obama with a 4 point lead:
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/061908_release_web.pdf
So, the polls are all over the map. This is why some outlets look at averages, as does RealClearPolitics. Here is a link to their site: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html
Note from this chart that Kerry had a wide polling lead on Bush in July and August of 2004:
(http://www.realclearpolitics.com/news_images-on_site/3waybig.jpg)
And we should all remember that Dukakis had a 17 point lead on George HW Bush in July, 1988 but lost in an 8 point landslide the following November:
http://www.observer.com/node/57075
This is pretty funny commentary from July, 1988. Sound familiar?
QuoteIt's fairly easy to find evidence for the theory that the Democrats are headed for a victory. Just look at the polls--and not only the "horserace" polls, showing Dukakis with a healthy lead over Bush. Gallup polls taken earlier this year showed the Democrats regaining a lead, of 42 to 29 percent, over the Republicans in party affiliation. In 1985, shortly after President Reagan's re-election victory, the parties were nearly equal in strength. In October of 1987 a Time magazine poll asked people which party would handle various issues better. The Democrats were rated five points ahead on "keeping the country out of war." Two years earlier the Republicans had been five points ahead. On "keeping inflation under control" the Republican advantage had shrunk from 10 points in 1985 to an insignificant one point by 1987. The Republicans were still ahead on "keeping the country strong and prosperous," but the margin was six points in 1987, down from 18 points in 1985. And this was before the stock market crash.
The revolt against government is over. According to a CBS-New York Times poll taken in May, the American public is now evenly divided when asked whether it prefers a "bigger government providing more services" or a "smaller government providing fewer services." The Times reported, "Bigger government has not been this popular since November 1976, which is also the last time the Democrats won a presidential election." Moreover, tax resentment, a key source of public support for the Reagan revolution, has clearly diminished. From 1978 to 1986, according to polls taken by the Roper Organization, the percentage of Americans who felt that their federal income taxes were "excessively high" dropped from 41 to 26 percent.
Americans are in a mood for change. When people are asked in various ways whether they want the next President to continue Ronald Reagan's policies or change direction and follow different policies, a majority consistently opts for change.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/policamp/insider.htm
Quote from: stephendare on June 28, 2008, 07:10:47 PM
Thats right, keep reminding people of the electoral hanky panky of the last two elesctions, river. keep reminding them.
"I WUZ DISENFRANCHIZED!!!" when Clinton won in 96.
Accusations of hanky panky??? from the democrats??? You guys invented it. I think there are as many dead democrats voting as live ones for gods sake...
Well, if the Repubs would stop preventing dems from voting then maybe we wouldn't have to.
Quote from: gatorback on June 29, 2008, 12:00:59 PM
Well, if the Repubs would stop preventing dems from voting then maybe we wouldn't have to.
Who? When? So cheating is OK if you think the other side is?? ::) Seems a rather weak argument...
Repubs. 2000. West Palm Beach. Intimidation. It was on the news. It made international news as a matter of fact.
In Miami-Dade and Broward Counties, which have high concentrations of Black voters and are among the Democratic counties the campaign of Vice President Al Gore has sought vote recounts by hand, election officials said dozens of Blacks were unfairly turned away from the polls (see page 9).
Quote from: BridgeTroll on June 29, 2008, 12:23:05 PM
Quote from: gatorback on June 29, 2008, 12:00:59 PM
Well, if the Repubs would stop preventing dems from voting then maybe we wouldn't have to.
Who? When? So cheating is OK if you think the other side is?? ::) Seems a rather weak argument...
YES. Apparently the Repubs wrote the book on it right?
Congresswoman Carrie Meek, whose 17th District is in Dade County, reported her office received numerous accounts from Blacks who were turned away at polling places. Voters reported being intimidated by poll workers and being told their identification was invalid.
Quote from: gatorback on June 29, 2008, 02:15:39 PM
Congresswoman Carrie Meek, whose 17th District is in Dade County, reported her office received numerous accounts from Blacks who were turned away at polling places. Voters reported being intimidated by poll workers and being told their identification was invalid.
Perhaps it was invalid??....Hmmmmm
Quote from: gatorback on June 29, 2008, 02:13:12 PM
In Miami-Dade and Broward Counties, which have high concentrations of Black voters and are among the Democratic counties the campaign of Vice President Al Gore has sought vote recounts by hand, election officials said dozens of Blacks were unfairly turned away from the polls (see page 9).
Since you failed to post the link... Here it is...
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1355/is_25_98/ai_68147556/pg_1?tag=artBody;col1
The allegation and the article prove nothing... it is an article containing hearsay and anecdotal evidence. I do not intend to rehash the embarrassment that was the 2000 election process in South Florida. It was eight years ago... time to get over it.
Quote from: gatorback on June 29, 2008, 12:00:59 PM
Well, if the Repubs would stop preventing dems from voting then maybe we wouldn't have to.
Name one Democrat who was prevented from voting by a Republican. This is all a bunch of nonsense made up for political reasons. Gore lost Florida. Get over it.
Quote from: RiversideGator on June 30, 2008, 11:42:48 AM
Quote from: gatorback on June 29, 2008, 12:00:59 PM
Well, if the Repubs would stop preventing dems from voting then maybe we wouldn't have to.
Name one Democrat who was prevented from voting by a Republican. This is all a bunch of nonsense made up for political reasons. Gore lost Florida. Get over it.
R. Leigh Gillette
Quote from: RiversideGator on June 30, 2008, 11:42:48 AM
Quote from: gatorback on June 29, 2008, 12:00:59 PM
Well, if the Repubs would stop preventing dems from voting then maybe we wouldn't have to.
Name one Democrat who was prevented from voting by a Republican. This is all a bunch of nonsense made up for political reasons
I'm sorry you feel that way about 15th Amendment to the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Were you there? Do you know this 1st. hand?
Quote from: gatorback on June 30, 2008, 09:54:20 PM
Quote from: RiversideGator on June 30, 2008, 11:42:48 AM
Quote from: gatorback on June 29, 2008, 12:00:59 PM
Well, if the Repubs would stop preventing dems from voting then maybe we wouldn't have to.
Name one Democrat who was prevented from voting by a Republican. This is all a bunch of nonsense made up for political reasons. Gore lost Florida. Get over it.
R. Leigh Gillette
Source? Who is this?
Quote from: gatorback on June 30, 2008, 10:01:59 PM
Quote from: RiversideGator on June 30, 2008, 11:42:48 AM
Quote from: gatorback on June 29, 2008, 12:00:59 PM
Well, if the Repubs would stop preventing dems from voting then maybe we wouldn't have to.
Name one Democrat who was prevented from voting by a Republican. This is all a bunch of nonsense made up for political reasons
I'm sorry you feel that way about 15th Amendment to the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Were you there? Do you know this 1st. hand?
Actually, those were Democrats trying to prevent people from voting. :)
R. Leigh Gillette showed up at a Prince William County, Virginia polling place on November 6 about 30 minutes before the polls closed. Because he was on his way to a recreation facility and his wife was driving, Gillette was not carrying an ID. When a poll worker told him he could not vote without ID, Gillette asked to speak to the person in charge who also told him he could not vote. Gillette was never offered an Affirmation of Identity form as required by Virginia law.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Alexandria Division
R. LEIGH GILLETTE,
Plaintiff,
v.
BETTY E. WEIMER, in her individual and official capacity as General Registrar, Prince William County, Virginia; PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY ELECTORAL BOARD; HELEN K. CRAM, GUY ANTHONY GUIFFRÉ, and KEITH A. SCARBOROUGH, in their individual capacities and official capacities as members of the Prince William County Electoral Board; and JANE DOE NO. 1 and JANE DOE NO. 2,
Defendants.
)))))))))))))))))))
Quote from: gatorback on June 30, 2008, 11:59:54 PM
R. Leigh Gillette showed up at a Prince William County, Virginia polling place on November 6 about 30 minutes before the polls closed. Because he was on his way to a recreation facility and his wife was driving, Gillette was not carrying an ID. When a poll worker told him he could not vote without ID, Gillette asked to speak to the person in charge who also told him he could not vote. Gillette was never offered an Affirmation of Identity form as required by Virginia law.
Looks to me like a lack of forethought and personal responsibility on the part of the voter. No ID?? No voter registration card?? These seem like common things to bring when voting. In addition you seem to claim that the poll worker was a republican deliberately preventing this confused person from voting. Perhaps the poll worker erred in not offering a form but that is a far cry from "republicans keeping democrats from voting"...
Yes. We'll see. I've got a round of beers if the poll worker isn't a Repub. (You know most of them are the controlling bastards!) This will all come out in the trial I'm sure.
Quote from: gatorback on June 30, 2008, 11:59:54 PM
R. Leigh Gillette showed up at a Prince William County, Virginia polling place on November 6 about 30 minutes before the polls closed. Because he was on his way to a recreation facility and his wife was driving, Gillette was not carrying an ID. When a poll worker told him he could not vote without ID, Gillette asked to speak to the person in charge who also told him he could not vote. Gillette was never offered an Affirmation of Identity form as required by Virginia law.
I have never gone to vote without my ID but if the poll workers failed to follow the law, they should be reprimanded. This doesnt exactly prove a vast vote suppression conspiracy by the Reps as you alluded earlier.
Ha. Fair enough. Since you disallowed the Congresswoman Meek argument, I had to find some totally unrelated point for smoke. Just for the record, I didn't vote that election but in 2004, I did vote for your boy. Dad is so proud. :D
Quote from: gatorback on July 01, 2008, 01:46:42 PM
Ha. Fair enough. Since you disallowed the Congresswoman Meek argument, I had to find some totally unrelated point for smoke. Just for the record, I didn't vote that election but in 2004, I did vote for your boy. Dad is so proud. :D
Nah... the argument wasnt disallowed. It just wasnt a good argument... :D
I find this hilarious after reading the Wikileaks documents. As it turns out, all of that and more was in fact going on.
Some of these conservatives really need to take off the blinders...
It certainly is a blast from the past! The hopes and dreams of some... the fears and angst of others. Today we have left wing democrats actually cursing the name Obama... along with right wing republicans. The rest of us muddle along as we always have. Disliking some policies, liking others, understanding that politics and realities undo the best laid plans...
What will the future bring? :)
Quote from: stephendare on December 14, 2010, 12:42:27 PM
Quote from: NotNow on May 24, 2008, 09:45:37 PM
Quote from: Eazy E on May 24, 2008, 05:09:06 PM
Quote from: RiversideGator on May 19, 2008, 12:02:06 PM
Quote"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama said.
"That's not leadership. That's not going to happen," he added.
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5h-wpxs1Re-8vx2Zk5xnYygW1W67w
Let's dissect this truly radical, bizarre and anti-American statement:
1) "We cant drive our SUVs": why not? As Americans we have the freedom to do whatever we want to within the law. If people can afford to drive SUVs and want them, it is fine with me.
3) "We cant keep our homes on 72 degrees all the time": Really? Is he advocating that we outlaw central heat and air now? Perhaps a return to fans only? Why cant we keep our homes comfortably heated and cooled consistent with our wishes and financial abilities? Is America now so broken down and bankrupt that under an Obama regime he will have the Feds monitoring our thermostats? This is truly disturbing and ridiculous.
It literally pains me to read such ignorant statements. It's anti-American to say that we we need to stop carelessly using energy and start actually realizing that the way we live our lives have consequences? That is pure nonsense. WE CAN"T KEEP DRIVING SUVS AND BLARING OUR A/C, and not because people who pause and actually think out these problems have anything against these things themselves (as RG's comments would suggest), but because THEY WASTE ENERGY. In turn, energy waste will lead to wars for natural resources, and the lifestyle we want our children to have will simply not be possible.
The idea that anyone could suggest that thinking responsibly about energy use is "anti-American" is exactly why people are voting for Obama: we are sick of stupid, know-nothing conservatives spouting off that this or that is "ant-american", in a desire to consistently alienate neighbors from one another, and to keep our society split. If you want to talk "anti-American", let's talk torture, or spying on American citizens, or suppressing speech and protest; to label discussion of irresponsible energy use "anti-American" is just stupid.
Sir, I think that what us stupid, know-nothing conservatives are calling "un-American" is the use of Federal power to tell American citizens what cars they can or cannot drive or what temperature they can maintain in their own homes. I can't seem to find any constitutional authority for the federal government to legislate either of those. I am sure, however, that you can find the Article where that governmental power resides. Please let the rest of us know. I know that Stephen is an "admirer" of the U. S. Constitution. Perhaps he can help. We stupid conservatives are not opposed to energy conservation, but we are opposed to governments or political candidates (or anyone else, for that matter) sticking their nose into how we live our lives or spend our hard earned money.
As for "torture", you have left me wondering what acts you are referring to. Is it "waterboarding", the media favorite that has been used so few times that you only need one hand to count, requiring the highest authority? Those uses (Muhammed, Zubaydah, and al-Nashiri) led to intelligence which probably saved many lives in the West. I'm not sure of what spying on American citizens you are referring to, but again, only very few life threatening cases meet the criteria for no warrant wiretap. Can you refer me to a case where this was misused? I would also ask for what instances of suppressing speech or protest you refer to.
I stand by my statements. Thanks!
WOW! You are deleting so much so fast it is hard to keep up with the thread StephenDare!....Does it read the way you want yet?
You are correct. My mistake, and my apologies.
Quote from: NotNow on December 14, 2010, 01:36:52 PM
Quote from: stephendare on December 14, 2010, 12:42:27 PM
Quote from: NotNow on May 24, 2008, 09:45:37 PM
Quote from: Eazy E on May 24, 2008, 05:09:06 PM
Quote from: RiversideGator on May 19, 2008, 12:02:06 PM
Quote"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama said.
"That's not leadership. That's not going to happen," he added.
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5h-wpxs1Re-8vx2Zk5xnYygW1W67w
Let's dissect this truly radical, bizarre and anti-American statement:
1) "We cant drive our SUVs": why not? As Americans we have the freedom to do whatever we want to within the law. If people can afford to drive SUVs and want them, it is fine with me.
3) "We cant keep our homes on 72 degrees all the time": Really? Is he advocating that we outlaw central heat and air now? Perhaps a return to fans only? Why cant we keep our homes comfortably heated and cooled consistent with our wishes and financial abilities? Is America now so broken down and bankrupt that under an Obama regime he will have the Feds monitoring our thermostats? This is truly disturbing and ridiculous.
It literally pains me to read such ignorant statements. It's anti-American to say that we we need to stop carelessly using energy and start actually realizing that the way we live our lives have consequences? That is pure nonsense. WE CAN"T KEEP DRIVING SUVS AND BLARING OUR A/C, and not because people who pause and actually think out these problems have anything against these things themselves (as RG's comments would suggest), but because THEY WASTE ENERGY. In turn, energy waste will lead to wars for natural resources, and the lifestyle we want our children to have will simply not be possible.
The idea that anyone could suggest that thinking responsibly about energy use is "anti-American" is exactly why people are voting for Obama: we are sick of stupid, know-nothing conservatives spouting off that this or that is "ant-american", in a desire to consistently alienate neighbors from one another, and to keep our society split. If you want to talk "anti-American", let's talk torture, or spying on American citizens, or suppressing speech and protest; to label discussion of irresponsible energy use "anti-American" is just stupid.
Sir, I think that what us stupid, know-nothing conservatives are calling "un-American" is the use of Federal power to tell American citizens what cars they can or cannot drive or what temperature they can maintain in their own homes. I can't seem to find any constitutional authority for the federal government to legislate either of those. I am sure, however, that you can find the Article where that governmental power resides. Please let the rest of us know. I know that Stephen is an "admirer" of the U. S. Constitution. Perhaps he can help. We stupid conservatives are not opposed to energy conservation, but we are opposed to governments or political candidates (or anyone else, for that matter) sticking their nose into how we live our lives or spend our hard earned money.
As for "torture", you have left me wondering what acts you are referring to. Is it "waterboarding", the media favorite that has been used so few times that you only need one hand to count, requiring the highest authority? Those uses (Muhammed, Zubaydah, and al-Nashiri) led to intelligence which probably saved many lives in the West. I'm not sure of what spying on American citizens you are referring to, but again, only very few life threatening cases meet the criteria for no warrant wiretap. Can you refer me to a case where this was misused? I would also ask for what instances of suppressing speech or protest you refer to.
I stand by my statements. Thanks!
So after seeing all the documents and pictures and that video of the guy in the helicopter getting their jollies off by strafing and killing an AP journalist and everything else on wikileaks, after all the disclosures by our own government of the secret torture prisons we opened in other countries specifically to avoid our interrogation techniques falling within US legal jurisdictions, you're still sticking by your statements that there was no such thing as torture going on? Really?
Forgive my ignorance. I have not seen documentation that the operator of that gun KNEW of any AP "journalist" in the area, or that that operator disobeyed orders in any way. I have not heard of any "jollies" being gotten off in the case either. If you would provide that I would appreciate it. I am afraid that I also missed any real "disclosures by our own government of the secret torture prisons we opened in other countries", could you provide that as well?
Really.
QuoteGeorge Bush admitted...that Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the self-proclaimed mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, was waterboarded by the US, and said he would do it again...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/03/george-bush-us-waterboarded-terror-mastermind
Quote from: NotNow on December 14, 2010, 03:08:14 PM
Forgive my ignorance. I have not seen documentation that the operator of that gun KNEW of any AP "journalist" in the area, or that that operator disobeyed orders in any way. I have not heard of any "jollies" being gotten off in the case either. If you would provide that I would appreciate it. I am afraid that I also missed any real "disclosures by our own government of the secret torture prisons we opened in other countries", could you provide that as well?
Really.
Have you been hiding under a rock?
http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/12668/us-admits-to-torture-at-secret-jail-inside-thailand
http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/news/lithuania-admits-existence-secret-prison-20091222
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article630672.ece
And regarding the air crew getting their jollies off, have you even watched the video?
http://www.boingboing.net/2010/04/05/wikileaks-video-of-u.html
So I've now provided proof of everything you just denied. Care to admit you were wrong yet?
The Obama administration certainly seems to have followed the footsteps of President Bush. Gitmo operates as efficiantly as ever... "Secret " prisons have certainly continued under Obamas orders. He has learned to leave the interrogations up to Afghan, Iraqi, and Pakistani nationals. He has found the remote control bombings of Pakistan very useful and continues to fight the good fight in Afghanistan.
As to the video... just what do you consider "jollies"?
I suppose I made the same mistake as many... I took him at his word.
Dont watch Fox... and as you are well aware... While I may listen politely to those that seem delusional... I seldom take their advice. :)
You guys? ::) Your generalizations and stereotypes are beneath you. I am no more a "you guys" than you are "one of them libs".
Talk about "getting it wrong"... there seems to a VERY large disillusioned segment of the electorate lately don't you think?
Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 15, 2010, 09:00:51 AM
Talk about "getting it wrong"... there seems to a VERY large disillusioned segment of the electorate lately don't you think?
Yeah, people like me who actually voted for him.
He's behaving in ways that should thrill you and NotAgain since you both tirelessly defended the stuff you complain about Obama doing when Bush did it. Stephen is pointing out how funny the contradiction is. What possible reason would you have to be disillusioned? Not like you voted for him. He's turned out to be a solid moderate or a moderate conservative rather than the Karl Marx you made him out to be. You should be happy. But naturally, you're not.
Like a remake of The Manchurian Candidate without the plot, talent, or decent camerawork. Produced by FoxNews. Lol
Well I did not vote for the but I did, not so secretly hope (LOL) that when he got into office he would be everything I wanted him to be. Sadly he is not... Although brilliant, which I can appreciate, he is not what I want.
:D :D Thanks Stephen... as always... you bring a smile to my face... :D :D
Moderate conservative??? Put the pipe DOWN, Chris! Obama has performed well in only one area, prosecution of the war in disputed areas. Reality struck him as he took office and he had to renege on his promises of closing Gitmo and "ending the war". His domestic efforts remain squarely in the realm of "left", "liberal", "socialist", or whatever you (or Fox News in your world) want to call it. I'm not sure I understand how you guys think, and I have no idea how you are coming up with the analysis of a "conservative" President Obama, but it is funny to watch.
Chris, I don't see "jollies" in the Wikileaks edited and "unencrypted" version of the video that you posted and I would advise you that the language used by men in combat is often misunderstood by the public. The behaviors effected by men in combat is often a coping tool and should not be judged in the same terms as common polite society. As for the operators target definition skills, I would first state that we don't know the tactical situation on the ground (are US troops in the area, is there active combat, what activity has occurred at that location), we should recognize that the operators don't have the luxury of sitting in a safe room with all of the analytical tools and replays that Wikileaks and the rest of us have at our disposal, and I am unaware of the status of the investigation into this incident. That said, I'll give you a "your right, I'm wrong" on the video because the tragic result is unacceptable in any case. All of the factors that I quote only alleviate any criminal wrongdoing, and do not mitigate the horrible results in any case.
As for the "secret prison" postings...pretty vague, pretty unsubstantiated. It is no secret that we waterboarded three individuals. President Bush has even stated that he would do it again under the same circumstances. Secret prisons? It is also well known that individuals were flown to differrent countries and questioned along with cooperating non US intelligence agencies. I don't know of and haven't heard of any "prisons" being built. Some security modifications yes, but that is a long way from the claims.
The next two years of this administration will be fun to watch.
NotNow, normal people don't laugh or kid around after wrongfully killing a journalist. How is that just military jargon? It also doesn't take any military expert to recognize that the air crew was aware of its actions, since as soon as they were contacted by base they started making up a story about the unarmed civilians having fired Rocket-Propelled Grenades and AK-47's at them, which the video conclusively shows was an obvious lie designed to cover up their actions. It was clearly just unarmed civilians standing around talking to each other, and they opened fire for no apparent reason and then made up a bunch of B.S. about them having fired RPG's and AK-47's at them. Gimme a break!
And it doesn't seem like we need a lot of interpretations for their conversations about 6 minutes into the video either;
Gunner:
"look at those dead bastards"
Pilot:
"Nice!"
And regarding Obama, what has he actually done domestically that backs up your ludicrous assertions that he's a liberal socialist? He has ordered the justice department to defend Don't ask Don't Tell, he just agreed to extend the tax cuts to your precious top 2% of earners, together with the rest of the Bush tax cuts, seriously WTF are you talking about here?
You supported Bush in these same decisions you're criticizing Obama for! Other than healthcare reform, which was/is sorely needed (and even then he agreed to ditch the public option so it's hardly "socialist"), what is your possible claim to him being a leftwing liberal or a socialist? Specifically?
And regarding the secret prisons, something like 6 foreign governments have admitted they existed within their countries, I just posted you a bunch of links. I'm sure as between you and the governments of Thailand and Germany, you're the more reliable source? LMFAO! Not to mention of course Bush admitted the same thing, which you also denied and to which I also gave you a link. Or is amnesty international lying too? I'm sure again NotNow is more credible as a source than sovereign governments who had these on their territory and amnesty international?
I normally congratulate someone when they do their job well, don't you?
Soldiering is a job. They weren't out to kill journalists. They witnessed a group of people in a hostile environment and made a mistake. Or maybe they didn't, there was a reason they were patrolling that area to begin with, so if it looks like a duck (middle eastern journalist) and walks like a duck (in a pack with other middle easterners that were being surveilled), then why shouldn't you suspect that those were RPGs slung over their shoulders instead of cameras with long lenses? You don't. You expect it to quack like a duck.
The comments they made to each other are the same comments that me, you or anyone else would make to someone else doing a good job.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on December 15, 2010, 02:08:10 PM
I normally congratulate someone when they do their job well, don't you?
Soldiering is a job. They weren't out to kill journalists. They witnessed a group of people in a hostile environment and made a mistake. Or maybe they didn't, there was a reason they were patrolling that area to begin with, so if it looks like a duck (middle eastern journalist) and walks like a duck (in a pack with other middle easterners that were being surveilled), then why shouldn't you suspect that those were RPGs slung over their shoulders instead of cameras with long lenses? You don't. You expect it to quack like a duck.
The comments they made to each other are the same comments that me, you or anyone else would make to someone else doing a good job.
Since when does opening fire on a few unarmed civilians who were standard around talking, and then making up a lie about them having fired nonexistent AK-47s and RPG's at you to cover up your actions qualify as "just doing your job"? Seriously? You can tell from the video they were unarmed and were minding their own business, the air crew has access to infared and other tech, plus their own eyes that have a lot more definition than the video.
And of course, the real clincher here is that most people don't make up a lie to cover up something they did, when they don't think they did anything wrong. Do you find that explanation you just posited to actually make sense?
They weren't all unarmed. There were assault rifles in the group, but the journalists were not carrying RPGs.
I saw the same thing that you saw, and it appeared that it was just a bunch of people milling around until the heli fired into them, but it looked like every drug bust surveillance video that I've seen (a few dozen). It appears from the video that nothing is going on, so why did the pilot say shots were fired? Why were they patrolling that area to begin with?
I don't think (obviously, you think otherwise) that this was an accident. These people were apparantly targeted for a lot more than just being a bunch of casual civilians milling around, and the journalists got caught in the line of fire.
So just to get this straight, how do you possibly mistake one of these as a camera? LMAO
(http://media.monstersandcritics.com/galleries/1252529/0138560650085.jpg)
Gimme a break. They made up a lie to cover their actions. It's as clear as day. Regarding whether it was accidental or not, who knows. It's certainly possible that this group of people was misidentified as another, but that doesn't change the fact that this situation was wrongful, or that you don't shoot until you've properly identified what you're shooting. So even then this still wasn't "just doing their job." If they weren't certain of the target then they shouldn't have fired.
And I still come back to that people don't make up lies to cover up actions they don't know are wrong...
The two helicopters were being tasked by ground forces who had been fired upon earlier. Based on the transcripts the crews CLEARLY thought they were shooting at combatants... The reporters were in the middle of a large scale operation and american forces had been fired on all day. There WERE RPGs and AKs...
Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 15, 2010, 02:34:36 PM
The two helicopters were being tasked by ground forces who had been fired upon earlier. Based on the transcripts the crews CLEARLY thought they were shooting at combatants... The reporters were in the middle of a large scale operation and american forces had been fired on all day. There WERE RPGs and AKs...
Yes, BT, I'm sure there were RPG's somewhere in Iraq, just not unfortunately on the people that they actually killed. Again, if you haven't fully identified the target, you don't open fire. Much less claim that they had opened fire on you first, when the truth is clearly the opposite.
Regarding why a group of reporters would decide to be out and about in the middle of a large scale military operation, that certainly does seem rather risky, I can't argue with you there. But that doesn't change the fact that this air crew shot the wrong people and then lied to cover it up. The left the "mistake" territory when they concocted the story about having RPG's fired at them to justify opening fire, when that plainly was not the case.
I read the FULL transcript of the event and saw UNEDITED video... they clearly saw RPGs and they were subsequently found by the ground forces that directed them to fire. The targets were identified... by the ground forces directing the fire. The only mistake made was the reporters being in a combat zone surrounded by insurgents. I still do not see any lies to cover anything up.
go to 3:41-3:47 and you can see the RPG in the hands of the guy in the white shirt (second from the top) as he turns around. Also, notice the lag from the time you hear the shots fired to when they actually hit the group.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 15, 2010, 02:53:01 PM
I read the FULL transcript of the event and saw UNEDITED video... they clearly saw RPGs and they were subsequently found by the ground forces that directed them to fire. The targets were identified... by the ground forces directing the fire. The only mistake made was the reporters being in a combat zone surrounded by insurgents. I still do not see any lies to cover anything up.
By "unedited" I'm assuming you mean that the parts were cut out where the helo crew was killing actual insurgents and not just the portion of the video hosted on the website I linked to? I'm sure there is probably a lot more video, but I'm not sure I'd call that "edited" as much as they just decided to post the relevant part of what was probably a real long tape, they didn't change what happened on the tape. I mean, I'm sure WikiLeaks probably has a lot of video of US forces killing people, but unless all those other people happened to be unarmed AP reporters then that's kind of irrelevant as it relates to this debate.
I don't care if that crew had been killing people all day, including 5 minutes before this video clip and 5 minutes after, or every single one of their other kills was a legitimate ID on an insurgent armed with the whole soviet arsenal, it still doesn't excuse what happened in this portion of the video. That's like saying you can't be convicted of drunk driving because you drove sober the day before and the day after you were arrested. Unless you're arguing that what they did was OK because of their frame of mind or something?
Im arguing that CONTEXT is relevant when trying to determine what happened on a battlefield. I wonder how many american bomber crews in WWII accidentally killed civilians while dropping bombs from 20k feet? Our Helo guys IDed the targets in a reasonable fashion and unfortunately civilians were mixed amongst them. The ground troops were involved in counter insurgency ops and were in pursuit of hit and run insurgents. The Helos were providing air support.
A copy of the entire transcript is in the link below... Please read all the way to the end...
http://collateralmurder.com/en/transcript.html
How did I know this post was going to go down hill real fast. Im to the point I am scik to stomach about politics. Why cant we just want whats best for the country! Bump Democrats, Replucians, liberal, conservative, all that dumb s#@t!! Let's do whats right for America. I think this country has been brainwashed with titles and drowning in politics for too long.
This is an old argument on this site. It is just impossible to explain all of the variables and what a shooting war is like to some who have not experienced it. No offense meant Chris, but you can't sit in your living room and look at edited video and then judge the operators who were there. (The unedited video is about 40 minutes long). I am not trying to justify the killing of non-combatants, but I am pointing out that you do not know what the tactical situation was on the ground at the time. And yes, in these situations you kill those who are trying to kill you as quickly and from as far away as you can. I know you don't understand that, but it is true. And you might make some disparaging comments to make the people you are killing seem less human as well. For most Americans that helps to cope with combat and killing. I know you don't understand that as well. Real armed conflict isn't like television dramas. Things happen fast and you don't get to rewind. Those of us who are out there make snap judgements and train constantly. I've never been in ANY conflict that I didn't lay in bed that night and critique my own actions. Even when you do everything perfectly, someone dies, someone gets injured, lives are ruined and families are devastated.
You have a lot to learn if you want to criticize those that step forward, sacrifice and train, and put their lives on the line for a higher purpose.
So since you're lecturing me, then perhaps you'd care to enlighten me as to whether you've served in Iraq or Afghanistan? I didn't realize JSO was sent overseas and fighting the Taliban? How many tours did you serve? Maybe you'd care to enlighten us on your qualifications, since you've stated they are so vastly superior to mine, and apparently also to everyone else who's seen that video and objects to its contents?
Also, taking the relevant few minutes out of a nearly hourlong video doesn't change the meaning of the video, and doesn't change what it depicts. You are very selectively using the word "edited" to imply that the events or meaning was somehow changed, when all that really happened is that the website hosting the initial clip saw no need to force people to watch through 40 minutes' worth of unrelated footage to get to the 6 minutes that are relevant. I fail to see how that has any bearing on the debate.
Earlier in the thread, I already told Chris that I acknowledged that he was right, and that I was wrong on the July 2007 incident. All of my arguments above are NOT to justify the incident, but merely to try to convey the difficulty of acting in war vs. the comfort of a living room in Florida. If Chris was an experienced lawyer, he would be familiar with the concepts of acting as a "reasonable person" and acting with good intent with the knowledge gained at the time of the incident. I am trying to convey that NO life and death fighting is done without some loss of humanity. You do the best you can. The insurgents in Iraq are not wearing uniforms. They hide among (a sometimes willing) population. There is no justification for killing non-combatants or children. It is a horrible thing and it is a horrible thing to have to live with. But some men have to. Keep in mind that these men are fighting for their lives and the lives of their countrymen. It is hard for you to understand but it is the truth just the same.
Chris, there are many JSO Officers fighting right now in Afghanistan and Iraq. They are Armed Forces Reservist. I have done the same. I have served in Iraq, but not Afghanistan. I have been in life and death fights. I have been in many confrontations and have suffered several injuries. I have lost some friends along the way. Qualifications? I don't claim any. But I have been in these guys shoes. Scared to death and promising God anything if he just lets me live through it. The feeling in the pit of my stomach when I see a friend killed, and the awkwardness of trying to say something, anything to a widow to make it any better. I've also felt the anger and burning hatred for those that want to kill me. I have called them names and laughed at their bodies as well. I hope you never have to do anything like it. But the greatest people I have ever met were doing and are doing just these things and much, much more. It has been my honor to serve with the military and JSO, and I would do it all again.
Quote from: NotNow on December 15, 2010, 05:46:37 PM
Earlier in the thread, I already told Chris that I acknowledged that he was right, and that I was wrong on the July 2007 incident. All of my arguments above are NOT to justify the incident, but merely to try to convey the difficulty of acting in war vs. the comfort of a living room in Florida. If Chris was an experienced lawyer, he would be familiar with the concepts of acting as a "reasonable person" and acting with good intent with the knowledge gained at the time of the incident. I am trying to convey that NO life and death fighting is done without some loss of humanity. You do the best you can. The insurgents in Iraq are not wearing uniforms. They hide among (a sometimes willing) population. There is no justification for killing non-combatants or children. It is a horrible thing and it is a horrible thing to have to live with. But some men have to. Keep in mind that these men are fighting for their lives and the lives of their countrymen. It is hard for you to understand but it is the truth just the same.
Chris, there are many JSO Officers fighting right now in Afghanistan and Iraq. They are Armed Forces Reservist. I have done the same. I have served in Iraq, but not Afghanistan. I have been in life and death fights. I have been in many confrontations and have suffered several injuries. I have lost some friends along the way. Qualifications? I don't claim any. But I have been in these guys shoes. Scared to death and promising God anything if he just lets me live through it. The feeling in the pit of my stomach when I see a friend killed, and the awkwardness of trying to say something, anything to a widow to make it any better. I've also felt the anger and burning hatred for those that want to kill me. I have called them names and laughed at their bodies as well. I hope you never have to do anything like it. But the greatest people I have ever met were doing and are doing just these things and much, much more. It has been my honor to serve with the military and JSO, and I would do it all again.
So it seems that you sure spent a lot of time not answering the question, which for the record, was your own combat experience under the circumstances that this air crew faced at the time they opened fire on civilians. After all, you were lecturing me for not having the requisite capability to watch a video tape and understand what I'm seeing because, according to you, watching a video of someone killing people and then lying about it would somehow require me to be in their shoes in order to understand that what I'm seeing. So naturally, it was only fair that you address your own time spent in their shoes, which from your two paragraphs of equivocation without answering the question I would understand is probably none. And I would certainly hope that is the case, because I'd like to think you would rely on your training rather than blasting away at anything that moves.
So now that that is all dispensed with, I would say that I certainly appreciate the military service of any JSO officers who are serving for our country, and I appreciate the service the rest of JSO provides here at home, and that is meant to include you. However, I'm still not sure what qualification that would give you, or for that matter what qualification I or anyone else would be lacking, to be able to watch a video of someone killing people and then lying about it and then understand that what I just saw was someone killing people and lying about it?
The footage really seems rather clear cut. BridgeTroll already trotted out the "they mistook a camera for a RPG" and "the reporters were in the middle of a combat exercise" and "there were insurgents around" excuses, and that's all fine and dandy, but certainly doesn't make it right. If person A shoots at you on the street, that certainly doesn't entitle you to come and shoot person B, and then lie about it and say person B shot at you when that is clearly not the case. They weren't speaking about RPG's and whatnot in some general sense, the transcript clearly reflects this air crew claiming that this particular group of people had in fact fired on them, and the video just clearly shows that to be a lie, as not only do they plainly not have the weapons the air crew alleged they had, but they were minding their own business up until the point they were wrongfully fired upon. This is really a hard one to defend, the footage just speaks for itself.
I am all for anyone who wants to argue against the wars in Afghanistan or Iraq or anywhere else for that matter. I have my own arguments as well. Each of us has an equal say. Chris has every right to say what he wants (and to continue to say it, no matter what I say). I'm just conveying my ideas. I don't think that you or he are "stupid" or "crazy" for your opinions. We all have different background, education and experiences. I do try to stand up for those who have their character attacked for insufficient or unworthy reasons. My comments over the last few pages were meant to educate, not to offend or defame.
And StephenDare!, no one is being sent to "die". They are being sent to enforce the will of the United States. And I expect every one home, and all of us to do what we can to ensure that they have the tools they need to enforce that will and to come home to a welcoming society. If you don't like what the USG is doing, vote them out.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on December 15, 2010, 06:15:48 PM
Quote from: NotNow on December 15, 2010, 05:46:37 PM
Earlier in the thread, I already told Chris that I acknowledged that he was right, and that I was wrong on the July 2007 incident. All of my arguments above are NOT to justify the incident, but merely to try to convey the difficulty of acting in war vs. the comfort of a living room in Florida. If Chris was an experienced lawyer, he would be familiar with the concepts of acting as a "reasonable person" and acting with good intent with the knowledge gained at the time of the incident. I am trying to convey that NO life and death fighting is done without some loss of humanity. You do the best you can. The insurgents in Iraq are not wearing uniforms. They hide among (a sometimes willing) population. There is no justification for killing non-combatants or children. It is a horrible thing and it is a horrible thing to have to live with. But some men have to. Keep in mind that these men are fighting for their lives and the lives of their countrymen. It is hard for you to understand but it is the truth just the same.
Chris, there are many JSO Officers fighting right now in Afghanistan and Iraq. They are Armed Forces Reservist. I have done the same. I have served in Iraq, but not Afghanistan. I have been in life and death fights. I have been in many confrontations and have suffered several injuries. I have lost some friends along the way. Qualifications? I don't claim any. But I have been in these guys shoes. Scared to death and promising God anything if he just lets me live through it. The feeling in the pit of my stomach when I see a friend killed, and the awkwardness of trying to say something, anything to a widow to make it any better. I've also felt the anger and burning hatred for those that want to kill me. I have called them names and laughed at their bodies as well. I hope you never have to do anything like it. But the greatest people I have ever met were doing and are doing just these things and much, much more. It has been my honor to serve with the military and JSO, and I would do it all again.
So it seems that you sure spent a lot of time not answering the question, which for the record, was your own combat experience under the circumstances that this air crew faced at the time they opened fire on civilians. After all, you were lecturing me for not having the requisite capability to watch a video tape and understand what I'm seeing because, according to you, watching a video of someone killing people and then lying about it would somehow require me to be in their shoes in order to understand that what I'm seeing. So naturally, it was only fair that you address your own time spent in their shoes, which from your two paragraphs of equivocation without answering the question I would understand is probably none. And I would certainly hope that is the case, because I'd like to think you would rely on your training rather than blasting away at anything that moves.
So now that that is all dispensed with, I would say that I certainly appreciate the military service of any JSO officers who are serving for our country, and I appreciate the service the rest of JSO provides here at home, and that is meant to include you. However, I'm still not sure what qualification that would give you, or for that matter what qualification I or anyone else would be lacking, to be able to watch a video of someone killing people and then lying about it and then understand that what I just saw was someone killing people and lying about it?
The footage really seems rather clear cut. BridgeTroll already trotted out the "they mistook a camera for a RPG" and "the reporters were in the middle of a combat exercise" and "there were insurgents around" excuses, and that's all fine and dandy, but certainly doesn't make it right. If person A shoots at you on the street, that certainly doesn't entitle you to come and shoot person B, and then lie about it and say person B shot at you when that is clearly not the case. They weren't speaking about RPG's and whatnot in some general sense, the transcript clearly reflects this air crew claiming that this particular group of people had in fact fired on them, and the video just clearly shows that to be a lie, as not only do they plainly not have the weapons the air crew alleged they had, but they were minding their own business up until the point they were wrongfully fired upon. This is really a hard one to defend, the footage just speaks for itself.
It is clear to me that you are set in your view of this incident. Your take on it is clear. Your lack of experience is glaring to some of us here, but there is no use in continuing.
Quote from: stephendare on December 15, 2010, 07:40:31 PM
Quote from: NotNow on December 15, 2010, 06:59:34 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on December 15, 2010, 06:15:48 PM
Quote from: NotNow on December 15, 2010, 05:46:37 PM
Earlier in the thread, I already told Chris that I acknowledged that he was right, and that I was wrong on the July 2007 incident. All of my arguments above are NOT to justify the incident, but merely to try to convey the difficulty of acting in war vs. the comfort of a living room in Florida. If Chris was an experienced lawyer, he would be familiar with the concepts of acting as a "reasonable person" and acting with good intent with the knowledge gained at the time of the incident. I am trying to convey that NO life and death fighting is done without some loss of humanity. You do the best you can. The insurgents in Iraq are not wearing uniforms. They hide among (a sometimes willing) population. There is no justification for killing non-combatants or children. It is a horrible thing and it is a horrible thing to have to live with. But some men have to. Keep in mind that these men are fighting for their lives and the lives of their countrymen. It is hard for you to understand but it is the truth just the same.
Chris, there are many JSO Officers fighting right now in Afghanistan and Iraq. They are Armed Forces Reservist. I have done the same. I have served in Iraq, but not Afghanistan. I have been in life and death fights. I have been in many confrontations and have suffered several injuries. I have lost some friends along the way. Qualifications? I don't claim any. But I have been in these guys shoes. Scared to death and promising God anything if he just lets me live through it. The feeling in the pit of my stomach when I see a friend killed, and the awkwardness of trying to say something, anything to a widow to make it any better. I've also felt the anger and burning hatred for those that want to kill me. I have called them names and laughed at their bodies as well. I hope you never have to do anything like it. But the greatest people I have ever met were doing and are doing just these things and much, much more. It has been my honor to serve with the military and JSO, and I would do it all again.
So it seems that you sure spent a lot of time not answering the question, which for the record, was your own combat experience under the circumstances that this air crew faced at the time they opened fire on civilians. After all, you were lecturing me for not having the requisite capability to watch a video tape and understand what I'm seeing because, according to you, watching a video of someone killing people and then lying about it would somehow require me to be in their shoes in order to understand that what I'm seeing. So naturally, it was only fair that you address your own time spent in their shoes, which from your two paragraphs of equivocation without answering the question I would understand is probably none. And I would certainly hope that is the case, because I'd like to think you would rely on your training rather than blasting away at anything that moves.
So now that that is all dispensed with, I would say that I certainly appreciate the military service of any JSO officers who are serving for our country, and I appreciate the service the rest of JSO provides here at home, and that is meant to include you. However, I'm still not sure what qualification that would give you, or for that matter what qualification I or anyone else would be lacking, to be able to watch a video of someone killing people and then lying about it and then understand that what I just saw was someone killing people and lying about it?
The footage really seems rather clear cut. BridgeTroll already trotted out the "they mistook a camera for a RPG" and "the reporters were in the middle of a combat exercise" and "there were insurgents around" excuses, and that's all fine and dandy, but certainly doesn't make it right. If person A shoots at you on the street, that certainly doesn't entitle you to come and shoot person B, and then lie about it and say person B shot at you when that is clearly not the case. They weren't speaking about RPG's and whatnot in some general sense, the transcript clearly reflects this air crew claiming that this particular group of people had in fact fired on them, and the video just clearly shows that to be a lie, as not only do they plainly not have the weapons the air crew alleged they had, but they were minding their own business up until the point they were wrongfully fired upon. This is really a hard one to defend, the footage just speaks for itself.
It is clear to me that you are set in your view of this incident. Your take on it is clear. Your lack of experience is glaring to some of us here, but there is no use in continuing.
Well the military agrees with Chris.
Don't let the facts get in the way Stephen...
Apparently even the military lacks NotNow's extensive qualifications as an intelligence analyst and thus can't be trusted to interpret its own video either. NotNow's years-long pattern of declaring that anyone with an opposing political view is unqualified to form an opinion on the subject is just too well established and too entertaining to interfere with at this late date. Lol...
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on December 15, 2010, 07:52:06 PM
Quote from: stephendare on December 15, 2010, 07:40:31 PM
Quote from: NotNow on December 15, 2010, 06:59:34 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on December 15, 2010, 06:15:48 PM
Quote from: NotNow on December 15, 2010, 05:46:37 PM
Earlier in the thread, I already told Chris that I acknowledged that he was right, and that I was wrong on the July 2007 incident. All of my arguments above are NOT to justify the incident, but merely to try to convey the difficulty of acting in war vs. the comfort of a living room in Florida. If Chris was an experienced lawyer, he would be familiar with the concepts of acting as a "reasonable person" and acting with good intent with the knowledge gained at the time of the incident. I am trying to convey that NO life and death fighting is done without some loss of humanity. You do the best you can. The insurgents in Iraq are not wearing uniforms. They hide among (a sometimes willing) population. There is no justification for killing non-combatants or children. It is a horrible thing and it is a horrible thing to have to live with. But some men have to. Keep in mind that these men are fighting for their lives and the lives of their countrymen. It is hard for you to understand but it is the truth just the same.
Chris, there are many JSO Officers fighting right now in Afghanistan and Iraq. They are Armed Forces Reservist. I have done the same. I have served in Iraq, but not Afghanistan. I have been in life and death fights. I have been in many confrontations and have suffered several injuries. I have lost some friends along the way. Qualifications? I don't claim any. But I have been in these guys shoes. Scared to death and promising God anything if he just lets me live through it. The feeling in the pit of my stomach when I see a friend killed, and the awkwardness of trying to say something, anything to a widow to make it any better. I've also felt the anger and burning hatred for those that want to kill me. I have called them names and laughed at their bodies as well. I hope you never have to do anything like it. But the greatest people I have ever met were doing and are doing just these things and much, much more. It has been my honor to serve with the military and JSO, and I would do it all again.
So it seems that you sure spent a lot of time not answering the question, which for the record, was your own combat experience under the circumstances that this air crew faced at the time they opened fire on civilians. After all, you were lecturing me for not having the requisite capability to watch a video tape and understand what I'm seeing because, according to you, watching a video of someone killing people and then lying about it would somehow require me to be in their shoes in order to understand that what I'm seeing. So naturally, it was only fair that you address your own time spent in their shoes, which from your two paragraphs of equivocation without answering the question I would understand is probably none. And I would certainly hope that is the case, because I'd like to think you would rely on your training rather than blasting away at anything that moves.
So now that that is all dispensed with, I would say that I certainly appreciate the military service of any JSO officers who are serving for our country, and I appreciate the service the rest of JSO provides here at home, and that is meant to include you. However, I'm still not sure what qualification that would give you, or for that matter what qualification I or anyone else would be lacking, to be able to watch a video of someone killing people and then lying about it and then understand that what I just saw was someone killing people and lying about it?
The footage really seems rather clear cut. BridgeTroll already trotted out the "they mistook a camera for a RPG" and "the reporters were in the middle of a combat exercise" and "there were insurgents around" excuses, and that's all fine and dandy, but certainly doesn't make it right. If person A shoots at you on the street, that certainly doesn't entitle you to come and shoot person B, and then lie about it and say person B shot at you when that is clearly not the case. They weren't speaking about RPG's and whatnot in some general sense, the transcript clearly reflects this air crew claiming that this particular group of people had in fact fired on them, and the video just clearly shows that to be a lie, as not only do they plainly not have the weapons the air crew alleged they had, but they were minding their own business up until the point they were wrongfully fired upon. This is really a hard one to defend, the footage just speaks for itself.
It is clear to me that you are set in your view of this incident. Your take on it is clear. Your lack of experience is glaring to some of us here, but there is no use in continuing.
Well the military agrees with Chris.
Don't let the facts get in the way Stephen...
Apparently even the military lacks NotNow's extensive qualifications as an intelligence analyst and thus can't be trusted to interpret its own video either. NotNow's years-long pattern of declaring that anyone with an opposing political view is unqualified to form an opinion on the subject is just too well established and too entertaining to interfere with at this late date. Lol...
Chris, you apparently don't read very well. Or you just like to hear yourself talk. I'm not sure what StephenDare!'s statement of "The military agrees with Chris" means, but I have clearly stated over and over that nothing justifies the killing of non-combatants and children. I have also stated that I am not aware of the stance of any military investigation into the matter. Over the last few posts I have simply tried to explain that thinking in real time under fire is quite different than sitting in front of your computer in your living room. Your need to resort to personal insults in every argument says much more about you than the whimsical accusations against me.
If you are always right, then you are just here to tell the rest of us about it, huh?
QuoteBridgeTroll already trotted out the "they mistook a camera for a RPG"
No... I didnt. There were RPGs and AKs found. In fact... an RPG was found under one of the bodies. Read the transcript.
Quote01:33 Hotel Two-Six this is Crazy Horse One-Eight [communication between chopper 1 and chopper 2]. Have individuals with weapons.
01:41 Yup. He's got a weapon too.
01:43 Hotel Two-Six; Crazy Horse One-Eight. Have five to six individuals with AK47s [automatic rifles]. Request permission to engage [shoot].
01:51 Roger that. Uh, we have no personnel east of our position. So, uh, you are free to engage. Over.
Quote02:09 Um, hey Bushmaster element...
02:10 He's got an RPG [Rocket Propelled Grenade]?
02:11 All right, we got a guy with an RPG.
02:13 I'm gonna fire.
Quote02:19 Hotel Two-Six; have eyes on individual with RPG. Getting ready to fire. We won't...
02:23 Yeah, we had a guy shoot---and now he's behind the building.
02:26 God damn it.
Quote04:01 Crazyhorse One-Eight; this is Hotel Two-Six. Over.
04:03 Roger. Currently engaging [fighting/shooting at] approximately eight individuals, uh KIA [Killed In Action], uh RPGs, and AK-47s.
04:12 Hotel Two-Six, you need to move to that location once Crazyhorse is done and get pictures. Over.
Quote15:07 They uh had AK-47s and were to our east, so, where we were taking small arms fire. Over.
15:20 Hotel Crazyhorse One-Eight.
15:26 Crazyhorse One-Eight; this is Hotel Two-Six.
15:28 Yeah Two-Six. One-Eight I just also wanted to make sure you knew that we had a guy with an RPG cropping round the corner getting ready to fire on your location.
Quote18:44 Bushmaster Six; Hotel Two-Six over.
18:56 Six; this is Four. I got one individual looks like he's got an RPG round laying underneath him. Break.
From Stephens Ethan McCord interview... AKs, RPGs, units taking fire... sounds like a war zone firefight to me. Even Ethan does not accuse anyone of lying or covering anything up. Why do you Chris?
QuoteWe were getting ready to wrap up at about one o’clock in the afternoon. We started to funnel into an alleyway and started to take small arms fire from rooftops from AK-47s. We didn’t know what was happening with the Apache helicopters. They were attached to us from another unit to watch over us for this mission, which was called “Ranger Dominance.â€
We could hear them open fire, but those of us who were on the ground, outside of the vehicles, had no idea what was taking place. We couldn’t hear the radio chatter and we were pretty caught up in our own situation.
When that situation was neutralized, we were told to walk up onto the scene. I was one of about six soldiers who were dismounted to first arrive on the scene.
What did you see when you got there?
It was pretty much absolute carnage. I had never seen anybody shot by a 30-millimeter round before, and frankly don’t ever want to see that again. It almost seemed unreal, like something out of a bad B-horror movie. When these rounds hit you they kind of explodeâ€"people with their heads half-off, their insides hanging out of their bodies, limbs missing. I did see two RPGs on the scene as well as a few AK-47s.
None of what they posted amounts to anything more than what I already sarcastically summarized...
Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 16, 2010, 07:07:59 AM
From Stephens Ethan McCord interview... AKs, RPGs, units taking fire... sounds like a war zone firefight to me. Even Ethan does not accuse anyone of lying or covering anything up. Why do you Chris?
QuoteWe were getting ready to wrap up at about one o’clock in the afternoon. We started to funnel into an alleyway and started to take small arms fire from rooftops from AK-47s. We didn’t know what was happening with the Apache helicopters. They were attached to us from another unit to watch over us for this mission, which was called “Ranger Dominance.â€
We could hear them open fire, but those of us who were on the ground, outside of the vehicles, had no idea what was taking place. We couldn’t hear the radio chatter and we were pretty caught up in our own situation.
When that situation was neutralized, we were told to walk up onto the scene. I was one of about six soldiers who were dismounted to first arrive on the scene.
What did you see when you got there?
It was pretty much absolute carnage. I had never seen anybody shot by a 30-millimeter round before, and frankly don’t ever want to see that again. It almost seemed unreal, like something out of a bad B-horror movie. When these rounds hit you they kind of explodeâ€"people with their heads half-off, their insides hanging out of their bodies, limbs missing. I did see two RPGs on the scene as well as a few AK-47s.
Yeah he doesn't say they were on the bodies of the people the helo gunned down, nor in that exact location. The video clearly shows that these civilians were minding their own business and the helo wrongfully opened fire on them. I couldn't care less that someone else had an RPG, or they found one near that location. That's irrelevant. The video clearly demonstrates that nobody in that group had RPG's, and that nobody in that group fired on that chopper.
Unreal... ::)
Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 16, 2010, 08:11:26 AM
Unreal... ::)
I find it unreal that nobody on the video had an RPG, but mysteriously they found one under a body. Of course we know the military never lies to save their own ass, right? Sorry, the video speaks for itself.
Again... unreal... ::)
QuoteI did see two RPGs on the scene as well as a few AK-47s.
Quote02:09 Um, hey Bushmaster element...
02:10 He's got an RPG [Rocket Propelled Grenade]?
02:11 All right, we got a guy with an RPG.
02:13 I'm gonna fire.
Quote15:07 They uh had AK-47s and were to our east, so, where we were taking small arms fire. Over.
15:20 Hotel Crazyhorse One-Eight.
15:26 Crazyhorse One-Eight; this is Hotel Two-Six.
15:28 Yeah Two-Six. One-Eight I just also wanted to make sure you knew that we had a guy with an RPG cropping round the corner getting ready to fire on your location
Quote18:44 Bushmaster Six; Hotel Two-Six over.
18:56 Six; this is Four. I got one individual looks like he's got an RPG round laying underneath him. Break.
Quote from: NotNow on December 15, 2010, 08:29:37 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on December 15, 2010, 07:52:06 PM
Quote from: stephendare on December 15, 2010, 07:40:31 PM
Quote from: NotNow on December 15, 2010, 06:59:34 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on December 15, 2010, 06:15:48 PM
Quote from: NotNow on December 15, 2010, 05:46:37 PM
Earlier in the thread, I already told Chris that I acknowledged that he was right, and that I was wrong on the July 2007 incident. All of my arguments above are NOT to justify the incident, but merely to try to convey the difficulty of acting in war vs. the comfort of a living room in Florida. If Chris was an experienced lawyer, he would be familiar with the concepts of acting as a "reasonable person" and acting with good intent with the knowledge gained at the time of the incident. I am trying to convey that NO life and death fighting is done without some loss of humanity. You do the best you can. The insurgents in Iraq are not wearing uniforms. They hide among (a sometimes willing) population. There is no justification for killing non-combatants or children. It is a horrible thing and it is a horrible thing to have to live with. But some men have to. Keep in mind that these men are fighting for their lives and the lives of their countrymen. It is hard for you to understand but it is the truth just the same.
Chris, there are many JSO Officers fighting right now in Afghanistan and Iraq. They are Armed Forces Reservist. I have done the same. I have served in Iraq, but not Afghanistan. I have been in life and death fights. I have been in many confrontations and have suffered several injuries. I have lost some friends along the way. Qualifications? I don't claim any. But I have been in these guys shoes. Scared to death and promising God anything if he just lets me live through it. The feeling in the pit of my stomach when I see a friend killed, and the awkwardness of trying to say something, anything to a widow to make it any better. I've also felt the anger and burning hatred for those that want to kill me. I have called them names and laughed at their bodies as well. I hope you never have to do anything like it. But the greatest people I have ever met were doing and are doing just these things and much, much more. It has been my honor to serve with the military and JSO, and I would do it all again.
So it seems that you sure spent a lot of time not answering the question, which for the record, was your own combat experience under the circumstances that this air crew faced at the time they opened fire on civilians. After all, you were lecturing me for not having the requisite capability to watch a video tape and understand what I'm seeing because, according to you, watching a video of someone killing people and then lying about it would somehow require me to be in their shoes in order to understand that what I'm seeing. So naturally, it was only fair that you address your own time spent in their shoes, which from your two paragraphs of equivocation without answering the question I would understand is probably none. And I would certainly hope that is the case, because I'd like to think you would rely on your training rather than blasting away at anything that moves.
So now that that is all dispensed with, I would say that I certainly appreciate the military service of any JSO officers who are serving for our country, and I appreciate the service the rest of JSO provides here at home, and that is meant to include you. However, I'm still not sure what qualification that would give you, or for that matter what qualification I or anyone else would be lacking, to be able to watch a video of someone killing people and then lying about it and then understand that what I just saw was someone killing people and lying about it?
The footage really seems rather clear cut. BridgeTroll already trotted out the "they mistook a camera for a RPG" and "the reporters were in the middle of a combat exercise" and "there were insurgents around" excuses, and that's all fine and dandy, but certainly doesn't make it right. If person A shoots at you on the street, that certainly doesn't entitle you to come and shoot person B, and then lie about it and say person B shot at you when that is clearly not the case. They weren't speaking about RPG's and whatnot in some general sense, the transcript clearly reflects this air crew claiming that this particular group of people had in fact fired on them, and the video just clearly shows that to be a lie, as not only do they plainly not have the weapons the air crew alleged they had, but they were minding their own business up until the point they were wrongfully fired upon. This is really a hard one to defend, the footage just speaks for itself.
It is clear to me that you are set in your view of this incident. Your take on it is clear. Your lack of experience is glaring to some of us here, but there is no use in continuing.
Well the military agrees with Chris.
Don't let the facts get in the way Stephen...
Apparently even the military lacks NotNow's extensive qualifications as an intelligence analyst and thus can't be trusted to interpret its own video either. NotNow's years-long pattern of declaring that anyone with an opposing political view is unqualified to form an opinion on the subject is just too well established and too entertaining to interfere with at this late date. Lol...
Chris, you apparently don't read very well. Or you just like to hear yourself talk. I'm not sure what StephenDare!'s statement of "The military agrees with Chris" means, but I have clearly stated over and over that nothing justifies the killing of non-combatants and children. I have also stated that I am not aware of the stance of any military investigation into the matter. Over the last few posts I have simply tried to explain that thinking in real time under fire is quite different than sitting in front of your computer in your living room. Your need to resort to personal insults in every argument says much more about you than the whimsical accusations against me.
If you are always right, then you are just here to tell the rest of us about it, huh?
LMFAO I have still not insulted you personally, you're the one that always takes it there not me. In fact, you pointed out that I'm unqualified to challenge your interpretation of the video because I lack time in these guys' shoes, except...so do you. Simply pointing out your fallacious and hypocritical tactic isn't a personal attack, especially when you brought it there to begin with.
Regarding liking to hear myself talk, back that projector up! If you agreed I'm right (as you just claimed in your post to Stephen) then wtf are you still arguing about? Or like an infantile 5 year old, do you just want the last word? And yet according to you it's ME who likes to hear myself talk? LMAO
Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 16, 2010, 08:17:04 AM
Again... unreal... ::)
QuoteI did see two RPGs on the scene as well as a few AK-47s.
Quote02:09 Um, hey Bushmaster element...
02:10 He's got an RPG [Rocket Propelled Grenade]?
02:11 All right, we got a guy with an RPG.
02:13 I'm gonna fire.
Quote15:07 They uh had AK-47s and were to our east, so, where we were taking small arms fire. Over.
15:20 Hotel Crazyhorse One-Eight.
15:26 Crazyhorse One-Eight; this is Hotel Two-Six.
15:28 Yeah Two-Six. One-Eight I just also wanted to make sure you knew that we had a guy with an RPG cropping round the corner getting ready to fire on your location
Quote18:44 Bushmaster Six; Hotel Two-Six over.
18:56 Six; this is Four. I got one individual looks like he's got an RPG round laying underneath him. Break.
The unarmed people were killed by 6:00 into the video I posted, BridgeTroll. I couldn't care less that they killed some other unrelated people who had an RPG, that's completely irrelevant. The portion of the video I posted is the relevant part, showing that they gunned down a group of unarmed people who were minding their own business and never fired on them as claimed. You're back to your silly "I drove sober on Monday and sober on Wednesday so I shouldn't be arrested for driving drunk on Tuesday." I don't care if the video was 100 hours long and every other kill on it was legitimate, that in no way excuses gunning down a group of civilians and reporters who were minding their own business. Nothing excuses that
QuoteI couldn't care less that they killed some other unrelated people who had an RPG
I know... unreal! ::)
So just watched the video again. What BridgeTroll is apparently arguing is that the group gunned down earlier in the video, which wound up being civilians and an AP reporter, and which the video shows were minding their own business, had no RPG's, and never fired on the helicopter, is somehow excuseble and that the air crew wasn't lying when they said that group fired on them, because 10 minutes later different people in another location that they encountered and killed actually did have an RPG?
I didn't realize that helicopters could successfully time travel, that's really some feat! Amazing...
So if I kill someone who was not threatening me and was unarmed now, and tomorrow a different person shoots at me, I can claim self defense? Sweet. What's this, BeidgeTroll's patented time travel defense? Like the twinkie defense?
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on December 16, 2010, 08:18:19 AM
Quote from: NotNow on December 15, 2010, 08:29:37 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on December 15, 2010, 07:52:06 PM
Quote from: stephendare on December 15, 2010, 07:40:31 PM
Quote from: NotNow on December 15, 2010, 06:59:34 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on December 15, 2010, 06:15:48 PM
Quote from: NotNow on December 15, 2010, 05:46:37 PM
Earlier in the thread, I already told Chris that I acknowledged that he was right, and that I was wrong on the July 2007 incident. All of my arguments above are NOT to justify the incident, but merely to try to convey the difficulty of acting in war vs. the comfort of a living room in Florida. If Chris was an experienced lawyer, he would be familiar with the concepts of acting as a "reasonable person" and acting with good intent with the knowledge gained at the time of the incident. I am trying to convey that NO life and death fighting is done without some loss of humanity. You do the best you can. The insurgents in Iraq are not wearing uniforms. They hide among (a sometimes willing) population. There is no justification for killing non-combatants or children. It is a horrible thing and it is a horrible thing to have to live with. But some men have to. Keep in mind that these men are fighting for their lives and the lives of their countrymen. It is hard for you to understand but it is the truth just the same.
Chris, there are many JSO Officers fighting right now in Afghanistan and Iraq. They are Armed Forces Reservist. I have done the same. I have served in Iraq, but not Afghanistan. I have been in life and death fights. I have been in many confrontations and have suffered several injuries. I have lost some friends along the way. Qualifications? I don't claim any. But I have been in these guys shoes. Scared to death and promising God anything if he just lets me live through it. The feeling in the pit of my stomach when I see a friend killed, and the awkwardness of trying to say something, anything to a widow to make it any better. I've also felt the anger and burning hatred for those that want to kill me. I have called them names and laughed at their bodies as well. I hope you never have to do anything like it. But the greatest people I have ever met were doing and are doing just these things and much, much more. It has been my honor to serve with the military and JSO, and I would do it all again.
So it seems that you sure spent a lot of time not answering the question, which for the record, was your own combat experience under the circumstances that this air crew faced at the time they opened fire on civilians. After all, you were lecturing me for not having the requisite capability to watch a video tape and understand what I'm seeing because, according to you, watching a video of someone killing people and then lying about it would somehow require me to be in their shoes in order to understand that what I'm seeing. So naturally, it was only fair that you address your own time spent in their shoes, which from your two paragraphs of equivocation without answering the question I would understand is probably none. And I would certainly hope that is the case, because I'd like to think you would rely on your training rather than blasting away at anything that moves.
So now that that is all dispensed with, I would say that I certainly appreciate the military service of any JSO officers who are serving for our country, and I appreciate the service the rest of JSO provides here at home, and that is meant to include you. However, I'm still not sure what qualification that would give you, or for that matter what qualification I or anyone else would be lacking, to be able to watch a video of someone killing people and then lying about it and then understand that what I just saw was someone killing people and lying about it?
The footage really seems rather clear cut. BridgeTroll already trotted out the "they mistook a camera for a RPG" and "the reporters were in the middle of a combat exercise" and "there were insurgents around" excuses, and that's all fine and dandy, but certainly doesn't make it right. If person A shoots at you on the street, that certainly doesn't entitle you to come and shoot person B, and then lie about it and say person B shot at you when that is clearly not the case. They weren't speaking about RPG's and whatnot in some general sense, the transcript clearly reflects this air crew claiming that this particular group of people had in fact fired on them, and the video just clearly shows that to be a lie, as not only do they plainly not have the weapons the air crew alleged they had, but they were minding their own business up until the point they were wrongfully fired upon. This is really a hard one to defend, the footage just speaks for itself.
It is clear to me that you are set in your view of this incident. Your take on it is clear. Your lack of experience is glaring to some of us here, but there is no use in continuing.
Well the military agrees with Chris.
Don't let the facts get in the way Stephen...
Apparently even the military lacks NotNow's extensive qualifications as an intelligence analyst and thus can't be trusted to interpret its own video either. NotNow's years-long pattern of declaring that anyone with an opposing political view is unqualified to form an opinion on the subject is just too well established and too entertaining to interfere with at this late date. Lol...
Chris, you apparently don't read very well. Or you just like to hear yourself talk. I'm not sure what StephenDare!'s statement of "The military agrees with Chris" means, but I have clearly stated over and over that nothing justifies the killing of non-combatants and children. I have also stated that I am not aware of the stance of any military investigation into the matter. Over the last few posts I have simply tried to explain that thinking in real time under fire is quite different than sitting in front of your computer in your living room. Your need to resort to personal insults in every argument says much more about you than the whimsical accusations against me.
If you are always right, then you are just here to tell the rest of us about it, huh?
LMFAO I have still not insulted you personally, you're the one that always takes it there not me. In fact, you pointed out that I'm unqualified to challenge your interpretation of the video because I lack time in these guys' shoes, except...so do you. Simply pointing out your fallacious and hypocritical tactic isn't a personal attack, especially when you brought it there to begin with.
Regarding liking to hear myself talk, back that projector up! If you agreed I'm right (as you just claimed in your post to Stephen) then wtf are you still arguing about? Or like an infantile 5 year old, do you just want the last word? And yet according to you it's ME who likes to hear myself talk? LMAO
This is the perfect forum for you. ;)
Quote from: stephendare on December 16, 2010, 09:03:47 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 16, 2010, 08:32:21 AM
QuoteI couldn't care less that they killed some other unrelated people who had an RPG
I know... unreal! ::)
Just as a comment. Digging in heels is generally where you guys make your most after quotable remarks. Just sayin.... ;)
I think this boils down to a basic disconnect. You seem to think that your unwillingness to criticise another soldier because of the variables and ambiguity that you personally experienced is a substitute for objective judgement.
Its laudable that you pause to criticize. But that is the very reason why we do not let people sit on juries who are too close to the elements of the case.
Many of these disussions are really rooted in your and notnow's reminders not to judge the soldier too harshly. Well thats well and good, but at the end of the day we have to be capable of judgement when these things are being done in all our names collectively. That is the burden of this democracy. Bridge Troll, what are you trying to convey?
That the guys might have made a mistake?
ok.
The recordings of their reactions tell the story.
Which your next step is to say that that is a coping mechanism.
well ok...
How many layers of reasoning does it take to get to what went wrong?
One of the soldiers on the scene spoke out, and he apparently disagrees with you.
Is everyone who doesnt believe in conscienceless killing of civilians with their children wrong?
Or am I not understanding the point you are trying to make?
StephenDare!, would you provide a link to that website where you obtained the soldiers statement?
From one of the soldiers on the scene that day;
QuoteYes. Our rules of engagement were changing on an almost daily basis. But we had a pretty gung-ho commander, who decided that because we were getting hit by IEDs a lot, there would be a new battalion SOP [standard operating procedure].
He goes, “If someone in your line gets hit with an IED, 360 rotational fire. You kill every motherfucker on the street.†Myself and Josh and a lot of other soldiers were just sitting there looking at each other like, “Are you kidding me? You want us to kill women and children on the street?â€
And you couldn’t just disobey orders to shoot, because they could just make your life hell in Iraq. So like with myself, I would shoot up into the roof of a building instead of down on the ground toward civilians. But I’ve seen it many times, where people are just walking down the street and an IED goes off and the troops open fire and kill them.
That really about sums it up I think.
So BT and NotNow, sure you want to keep arguing this one? Unlike you, this guy was there...
Quote from: NotNow on December 16, 2010, 09:13:00 AM
Quote from: stephendare on December 16, 2010, 09:03:47 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 16, 2010, 08:32:21 AM
QuoteI couldn't care less that they killed some other unrelated people who had an RPG
I know... unreal! ::)
Just as a comment. Digging in heels is generally where you guys make your most after quotable remarks. Just sayin.... ;)
I think this boils down to a basic disconnect. You seem to think that your unwillingness to criticise another soldier because of the variables and ambiguity that you personally experienced is a substitute for objective judgement.
Its laudable that you pause to criticize. But that is the very reason why we do not let people sit on juries who are too close to the elements of the case.
Many of these disussions are really rooted in your and notnow's reminders not to judge the soldier too harshly. Well thats well and good, but at the end of the day we have to be capable of judgement when these things are being done in all our names collectively. That is the burden of this democracy. Bridge Troll, what are you trying to convey?
That the guys might have made a mistake?
ok.
The recordings of their reactions tell the story.
Which your next step is to say that that is a coping mechanism.
well ok...
How many layers of reasoning does it take to get to what went wrong?
One of the soldiers on the scene spoke out, and he apparently disagrees with you.
Is everyone who doesnt believe in conscienceless killing of civilians with their children wrong?
Or am I not understanding the point you are trying to make?
StephenDare!, would you provide a link to that website where you obtained the soldiers statement?
He directly interviewed with multiple news outlets, and the multiple interviews were re-published in multiple news outlets, so take your pick;
Wired.com
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/04/2007-iraq-apache-attack-as-seen-from-the-ground/
Cindy Sheehan;
http://peaceoftheaction.org/2010/08/16/cindy-sheehan-interviews-ethan-mccord-and-jud-newborn-transcript/
Word press;
http://chinarose.wordpress.com/2010/04/28/interview-with-wikileaks-soldier-ethan-mccord/
Current.com
http://current.com/entertainment/comedy/92651656_ethan-mccord-wikileaks-veterans-for-peace-25th-annual-convention.htm
The Examiner also ran the story, and noted that Mccord gave the same talk to the general public at the National Peace Conference this year;
http://www.examiner.com/us-headlines-in-national/wikileaks-posts-video-of-soldier-ethan-mccord-s-eyewitness-account-of-collateral-murder-video
Where were you going with this? Let me guess, you used your impressive military intelligence qualifications (a/k/a Google) and saw that one of the several dozen media outlets that participated in conducting and publishing these interviews was WSWS, so you were going to falsely seize on that to try and call Stephen Dare a socialist like usual?
Too predictable...
QuoteBridge Troll, what are you trying to convey?
That the guys might have made a mistake?
They performed as they were trained. The reporters understood the risk being where they were... which was in the middle of a running gun battle between an american patrol and insurgents who were attacking them. They were directed... by the commander on the ground to fire after having seeing members of this group armed with AKs and RPGs. The men in the Helos had no way of knowing there were children in the vehicle nor could they know that two of the people on the ground were reporters.
Accidental deaths occured during a gun battle in a war zone. It sucks... they did not intend to kill innocents. On their behalf I would ask you and Chris to understand this not condemn them for this incident.
QuoteThe recordings of their reactions tell the story.
Clearly you have reached conclusions based on those recordings that I do not.
QuoteOne of the soldiers on the scene spoke out, and he apparently disagrees with you.
In what way? He expressed remorse for what happened. I do too... so does NotNow... along with most humans. He DID disagree with Chris who earlier claimed there were no RPGs or AKs amongst those killed... Ethan clearly said there were.
QuoteIs everyone who doesnt believe in conscienceless killing of civilians with their children wrong?
Your the one using the term conscienceless. Why would you think that?
For their sakes I hope no one but the military knows...
Now they are murderers... ::) Really Stephen? really?
Oh no doubt... and no offense taken! Since it is clear I CAN tell the difference, the military, the government, and most reasonable people can tell the difference and you cannot is revealing... Enjoy your outrage!
Since you are calling these two aircrews murderers... please keep going by calling the British and American aircrews bombing Germany in WWII murderers also... or the bomber crews flying over Japan.
Murderers Stephen? Really?
Still awaiting your condemnation of those thousands of bomber crews Stephen... Cmon... Call em murderers.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 16, 2010, 11:01:23 AM
Since you are calling these two aircrews murderers... please keep going by calling the British and American aircrews bombing Germany in WWII murderers also... or the bomber crews flying over Japan.
Murderers Stephen? Really?
There's a big difference, don't you think?
A bomber crew is ordered to fly at 30000 feet to a particular position and drop X amount of ordinance then return to another position. They're not sitting 15 feet away with a clear line of sight to a group of civilians who they can plainly see is minding their own business standing around talking, but then they decide to open fire and then kill them all anyway. That takes a special kind of person...
They were not 15 feet away. The bomber crews were well aware that they were dropping ordanance on civilian on civilian targets. Murderers Stephen? Really?
Who in the government has called them murderers Stephen? Obama? Hillary? Reid? Pelosi? Who?
Ah... so there IS a difference. Your the one who cannot discern the difference (well at least acknowledge it). The fact that I can understand that regrettable civilian casualties occur in a war zone during firefights is the difference from you calling them murderers. Hopefully your Grandparents were fortunate enough to not be accused of murdering civilians as plenty of them died during both those conflicts.
All can see your the one doing the "defiling". I see in addition to calling these crews murderers you are now calling me a racist. Nice.
Sounds good.
Would you promise to never discusss it with me again as well? :)
Oh but you guys need a little light of reality shined into your world sometimes!
Quote from: stephendare on December 16, 2010, 12:00:16 PM
Quote from: NotNow on December 16, 2010, 11:48:43 AM
Would you promise to never discusss it with me again as well?
Please. I don't discuss with ghosts anyways. Technically I havent spoken to you since to quit for the last time, the last time.
Nah, apparently NotNow is well-prepared for the afterlife...
(http://www.geekologie.com/2010/12/13/computer-grave.jpg)
I think preparing for the "afterlife" (resurrection in my case) is a good practice Chris. You should try it.
Quote from: NotNow on December 16, 2010, 12:30:57 PM
I think preparing for the "afterlife" (resurrection in my case) is a good practice Chris. You should try it.
Well I would, but I found it's a lot easier to just not quit the forums and then come back a week later all the time...lol
I prefer having a life, and a job, thanks. (It's a grown up thing.)