Date: 7/24/2008 3:50:00 PM
From Authorid: 45630
the fact that he's not white and protestant will hurt him. I think there has only been one non protestant president in america hasn't there? That was JFK. I am astounded how it can become a issue!  |
Date: 7/24/2008 3:54:00 PM
From Authorid: 19871
ccccrrrrrraaaaaaaazzzzzzzzzyyyyyyyy  |
Date: 7/24/2008 3:55:00 PM
From Authorid: 63026
cause secretly the republicans know Obama will win. Obama is going to be the next JFK. Hes young, handsome, and offers a new promise to America.  |
Date: 7/24/2008 4:38:00 PM
From Authorid: 30093
It's became an issue because his opponents want it to be an issue. There are a lot of people in this Internet generation who will believe every forward or comment they see as long as it's juicy. It's like old 50s housewives having tupperware parties and gossiping. It's silly, and it only hurts the ones who spread the rumour, not Obama.  |
|
Date: 7/24/2008 4:39:00 PM
From Authorid: 30093
The ones who believe this nonsense never would have voted for Obama to begin with, so it's a non issue on many more levels. |
Date: 7/24/2008 5:29:00 PM
From Authorid: 64154
I don't think him being a Muslim is an issue at all.Maybe he can teach this country morals.  |
Date: 7/24/2008 5:32:00 PM
From Authorid: 62881
It has something to do with him admittedly being a muslim earlier in his life...I read asbout it somewhere...and I will try to find something about it and come back to this post.  |
|
Date: 7/24/2008 5:40:00 PM
From Authorid: 30093
And if he is? If he was Muslim or if he is? Are we only allowed white male Christians in office? Of course not. This country needs to stop being afraid of people who are different. |
|
Date: 7/24/2008 5:42:00 PM
From Authorid: 62881
After some searching I found out that his father and step-father were muslims...his father wasn't a practicing muslim when he was with Barack's mother. He left his family when Barack was 2 years old, so there was no way he could have gotten much influence from him. His mother and step father moved to Indonesia and Barack went to schools there that were Muslim AND Catholic. I guess this is the reason people think he is Muslim....and all the false emails circulating the internet don't help dispel this rumour. |
|
Date: 7/24/2008 5:44:00 PM
From Authorid: 62881
I was just stating the reasons why someone might think he was a Muslim...I never said...nor have I thought that it actually matters one way or the other what religion he is or isn't affiliated with. |
|
Date: 7/24/2008 5:59:00 PM
From Authorid: 30093
I apologize for being presumptuous. |
Date: 7/24/2008 5:59:00 PM
From Authorid: 15228
Don't you believe 9-11 was an inside job??? Why would you be surprised people might think there is some conspiracy around Obama? And no, I DON'T think Obama is a secret Muslim. But I really wish people would think twice about crazy conspirecy theories on BOTH sides.  |
|
Date: 7/24/2008 6:44:00 PM
From Authorid: 30093
Who are you talking to? |
Date: 7/24/2008 6:47:00 PM
From Authorid: 15070
I care less about Obama being a possible Muslim than his playmates being Bill Ayers, Louis Farrakhan, and Bernadine Dohrn.  |
|
Date: 7/24/2008 6:48:00 PM
From Authorid: 62881
No offense taken, Nanaki. :) |
|
Date: 7/24/2008 6:50:00 PM
From Authorid: 15070
....and Nanaki, you are WAYyyyy off base. It is not Obama's color that is an issue. I would have no problem voting for any qualified candidate. It is Obama personally, that I do not care for. Frankly, I would vote for Cynthia McKinney, who is both a Woman AND of color! |
|
Date: 7/24/2008 6:52:00 PM
From Authorid: 30093
I never accused you of considering his colour an issue, I don't know what you're getting at :S |
Date: 7/24/2008 9:03:00 PM
From Authorid: 26803
Thats nothing! About 5 in 10 think Saddam (can't say his last name...Obama might get mad) never has weapons of mass distruction! At least 2 in 10 think Bush flew the planes into the trade center! So what is the major issue in thinking a man may have the religious views of his father?  |
Date: 7/24/2008 9:24:00 PM
From Authorid: 63219
As a Republican, I'm gonna say no, I don't believe Obama is a closet Muslim fundamentalist fanatic. However, I will not throw the presumption away in any case I think his 'CHANGE' will somehow put America in harm's way, and him doing all of it ever so deliberately. John McCain to the rescue! XD  |
|
Date: 7/24/2008 9:28:00 PM
From Authorid: 63219
Put John McCain and Mitt Romney in the White House. Somehow, someway, you're gonna have one or two in a pair leading the country where at least one of these characteristics-race, age, religion, aren't in issue. Obama just seeks attention. I can say that right now. If you wanna argue that, go ahead. I will not change my opinions. Thank you. |
|
Date: 7/24/2008 9:28:00 PM
From Authorid: 63219
are* |
|
Date: 7/24/2008 9:34:00 PM
From Authorid: 63219
Being a 'wolf in sheep's clothing' will officially become an issue for America from now on if Barack Obama wins the US Presidential Election of 2008. |
|
Date: 7/24/2008 9:34:00 PM
From Authorid: 63219
Why does he think he needs to go across half the world to impress Americans and at least try on getting more support? Is he out for cover-up in world domination? |
|
Date: 7/24/2008 9:46:00 PM
From Authorid: 30093
Coenlaf: It's even funnier that 5 in 10 think he DID have WMDs. Oh the irony. |
|
Date: 7/24/2008 9:56:00 PM
From Authorid: 63219
Whether or not Obama is a general Muslim, I myself could not care less. However, I can't deny that countless Americans would be filled with suspicion (they should be anyway) and would go McCain. Why bring up 9/11 being an inside job? Countless conspiracies go on about how Bush or the Government were responsible but shouldn't it be enough proof that only terrorists were responsible when one or two callers from the planes were describing 'tan men with red bandanas aboard their flight' and the Egyptian accented man's voice heard through air traffic controls on the way to the first tower saying around 8:25 am, 'We have some planes. Just stay quiet and everything will be ok. We are now returning to the airport'...Several minutes later...'Nobody Move! If you move you shall endanger yourself and the airplane.'...Minutes later...BOOM!
Conspiracy my foot. |
|
Date: 7/24/2008 9:58:00 PM
From Authorid: 63219
I gotta say President Bush II has used alot of this stuff to suck up glory and purposely or not make it inconvenient for some Americans a time or two. By the way, if Obama wins this November, I know it won't work, but I may request a 3rd term for President Bush himself. God Bless. |
|
Date: 7/24/2008 10:07:00 PM
From Authorid: 63219
'Cause if I can find a timeline of Mohammed Atta's time in in Europe, America, and some of the Middle East, how come the time line stops after 9/11/2001 at, umm, oh, say...8:43 a.m.? |
|
Date: 7/24/2008 10:13:00 PM
From Authorid: 63219
'United Airlines Flight 93 was shot down,'--Donald Rumsfeld. The only part of the entire attacks proving a conspiracy, perhaps. There is proof, however, that Todd Beamer and other passengers on the flight were preparing to take a stand. ...'...Let's roll.'--Todd Beamer. They probably knew if they hadn't attempted something and/or the plane wasn't shot down anyway, the terrorists really could hit the White House. |
Date: 7/25/2008 3:24:00 AM
From Authorid: 51876
Now UH wants to turn this into a 9/11 truther rant.This was about Obama.I think your opinions are so closeminded that people like you are the reason conspiracies work.Always be someone to champion "rational reality".It is part of the plan to create enough doubt to cloud the Truth.  |
Date: 7/25/2008 3:52:00 AM
From Authorid: 64514
This whole country is racist, get over it!! he'll make a good president, maybe he'll bring some morals to the people, we are surely lacking.  |
|
Date: 7/25/2008 5:27:00 AM
From Authorid: 26803
what morals would they be? |
Date: 7/25/2008 5:30:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 19613
Great comments guys, keep it coming!  |
|
Date: 7/25/2008 6:58:00 AM
From Authorid: 26803
And what race is Muslim that would make our country racist if we dont vote for someone that some think a closet Muslim? |
|
Date: 7/25/2008 7:15:00 AM
From Authorid: 30093
Bru: UH was responding to Kelly who brought up 9/11. |
|
Date: 7/25/2008 7:17:00 AM
From Authorid: 30093
Coenlaf: Some people just use the word "racism" to mean prejudice. No denying that this anti Muslim attitude is prejudice. |
Date: 7/25/2008 10:17:00 AM
From Authorid: 62506
Freedom of religion is guarenteed in our Constitution for every citizen.I am appauled at how much predjudice I am seeing here at USM.Spreading this venomous bigotry is nothing more than fear mongering.I am absolutly convinced that Senator Obama will make an outstanding President for America.  |
|
Date: 7/25/2008 10:25:00 AM
From Authorid: 63219
I'm not prejudice, I don't trust Obama at all. Write in a ballot for J.C. Watts, Alan Keyes. |
Date: 7/25/2008 10:51:00 AM
From Authorid: 11240
So, 10% of the population thinks that and 27% aren't sure, which leaves a whopping 63% that doesn't think that and the reason it has become an issue is because of the way people (like you, DP;) attempt to make these statistics mean "something" . . . God Bless.  |
|
Date: 7/25/2008 10:56:00 AM
From Authorid: 30093
Deb, that's a bit unfair don't you think? You see it all the time, especially on the Internet (USM and the like too) where people bring up how his name is Hussein, or his father's background, or how his name rhymes with Osama, or allegations that he went to a Muslim school etc etc. Regardless of if the people spreading rumours BELIEVE the rumours, they're still spreading them. |
|
Date: 7/25/2008 11:02:00 AM
From Authorid: 15228
Obama is not a secret Muslim. He is something much, much worse. He is a Harvard educated pseudo-intellectual socialist driven by an overblown ego. Yes, to run for president you have to have a mighty high opinion of yourself, but Obama believes his own hype. He cannot even admit he was wrong on the surge, something that finally the media has been forced to cover thanks to his visit. Those who throw conspiracy theories around shouldn't be so surprised when it's turned back on them. In fact, I think with the Internet this is the new way of politics that will be used and spread by both sides. That's a shame. Real issues will never be discussed because it's all about who is REALLY running things, their secret motives blah blah blah. |
|
Date: 7/25/2008 11:04:00 AM
From Authorid: 11240
What's unfair about hearing all sorts of information and STILL USING YOUR OWN MIND to form an impression of the person? If 63% of the U.S. population has heard and read and seen all of these things and STILL have the wherewithal to not believe it (and 27% MORE just haven't decided whether to believe if), I would have to say that most people are discerning and capable all on their own. Imagine THAT! God Bless. |
|
Date: 7/25/2008 11:20:00 AM
From Authorid: 30093
I agree, Deb, and as I said before only those who were already against Obama would believe the negative campaigning. I only meant it's unfair to blame DP and saying people like he and I have made this an issue simply by discussing it. |
Date: 7/25/2008 11:29:00 AM
From Authorid: 53284
I think that all this business of Obama being a closet Muslim is just made up to play on the fears of simple minds.  |
|
Date: 7/25/2008 11:32:00 AM
From Authorid: 26803
nanaki, then "some people" do not understand the term "racist." It is thrown around all to often by folks who hope the implication of American racism against African Americans will silece debate. |
|
Date: 7/25/2008 11:36:00 AM
From Authorid: 26803
Funny that I didn't hear the "racist" card being thrown around much here (or in the media) when Mitt Romney's electability was being called into question over his religion. It was just "news." and the press was free to spread it like a massive brush overgrowth inspired California wildfire. |
|
Date: 7/25/2008 11:36:00 AM
From Authorid: 30093
I know, Coenlaf, I was only clarifying what I thought she meant. But to add a comment of my own: I think anyone who DOESN'T believe race is an issue in the Obama campaign is fooling themselves. There are a lot of idiots left who think a person is different because of their skin colour. Thankfully these people are a small minority which is dying out. |
|
Date: 7/25/2008 11:43:00 AM
From Authorid: 26803
I agree Nanaki. Race is playing a huge part with Obama. Like the fact that his lack of experience will not be questioned by the press due to fear of being called racist publications. Like the number of whites that will vote for him to lesson their "white guilt." Like Obama himself using the race card over and over, in an attempt to make people feel like they are being racist if they don't vote for him. Like the fact that a media personality can state over and over the obama policies that he is against, and people will call him a racist for not agreeing with (or having the gaul to speak out against) these policies. Yes indeed, racism is playing a huge part. |
|
Date: 7/25/2008 11:48:00 AM
From Authorid: 26803
But, this 10% beleiving the big O is a Muslim is not a racist issue. It is a religious issue. And it should be no surprize that it exists (ask Romney.) The surprize should be that the number is so small given the situation in the world today. I mean, look what Romney went through...to the point of making a major speech over it. And I have yet to hear about any Mormon terrorists. |
|
Date: 7/25/2008 11:59:00 AM
From Authorid: 63219
200,000 Europeans turn up to see Obama yesterday...right after two German rock groups played music. Forget Obama. |
|
Date: 7/25/2008 12:00:00 PM
From Authorid: 63219
'Ask Mitt Anything' Mitt Romney deserves to be the GOP Front-Runner. All the sweat, blood, and tears he had to go through in a political sense. |
|
Date: 7/25/2008 12:17:00 PM
From Authorid: 30093
I don't just like Obama simply because he's black, and I certainly wouldn't vote for him just because he's black. Those foolish enough to either vote for him because he's black or vote against him because he's black are equally racist in my opinion. |
|
Date: 7/25/2008 12:58:00 PM
From Authorid: 26803
right nanaki...like I said, racism is playing a big part. Dont forget about him playing the race card. that is racism as well. |
|
Date: 7/25/2008 1:04:00 PM
From Authorid: 30093
How is he playing the race card? |
|
Date: 7/25/2008 1:39:00 PM
From Authorid: 15228
Obama told a fundraiser in Jacksonville, Florida. "We know what kind of campaign they're going to run. They're going to try to make you afraid. "They're going to try to make you afraid of me. He's young and inexperienced and he's got a funny name. And did I mention he's black?"...so he has tied in race, ethnicity (funny name) with questioning his inexperience or any other issue we may question him on...it will all come back to race.
|
|
Date: 7/25/2008 1:41:00 PM
From Authorid: 15228
And it is interesting that the ones who actually ran that sort of campaign were the Clinton's. |
|
Date: 7/25/2008 2:42:00 PM
From Authorid: 26803
well, the last time was about 30 seconds into his address to his german fans when he reminded them that he did not look like any of the other American politicians to come there. To remind everyone of his looks/color. Now I ask you, why make such a statement of something that is so obvious. It is a soft way of playing the race card. another very way he has played it is to have his workers claim (of course he would not do it himself...he is above that) that others are being racist with their comments. Now even when no racist remark was made, this makes people (who don't dig any deeper) beleive that they were made. This gets them angry at the other guy (or girl) who has to get deffensive over the statement...which keeps race in the public eye (media) in connection with the one who was accused of being racist. So, with a simple statement the other person islinked with racism...you have to follow things to see them. |
|
Date: 7/25/2008 5:30:00 PM
From Authorid: 30093
So by mentioning that he's black he's playing the race card? It doesn't work like that. Kelly's example could be seen as such though. He is what he is, would you rather him try to hide it? lol |
|
Date: 7/26/2008 5:39:00 AM
From Authorid: 26803
he can not hide it, but by keeping it in the public eye, reminding people of the historic nature of his run is a subtle race related tactic. Ask yourself this...sinse he can not hide it, what benefit (or reason) does he have in mentioning it? It plays to the white guilt factor for one, it reminds people that they can be part of history (ahh, how good they will feel for being a part of history.) Also, ask yourself this. If McCain went around reminding people that he was white...even though he can't hide that...he is what he is...wouldn't that be considered using race in the election? Wouldn't he have headlines in the media like, "McCain speaks in (whatever city) and reminds people that he is white! What a racist...does he think that will get him votes?" Of course he would get attention like that. He would have his head handed to him for bringing race into the election process. Now, why is it that obama doing the same thing...bringing race into the election...is not viewed the same way? It is because we are conditioned only to see racism in one direction, so it is hard to see it in the other. But, if McCain mentioning that he is white is considered bringing race into political debate (racism) then the same must be true if obama brings his race into the debate. |
|
Date: 7/26/2008 8:21:00 AM
From Authorid: 30093
But you also have to understand that this is the first time a black man has been so close to the presidency. It's a very unique situation. If McCain was the first of his kind (be it white or whatever religion he is or anything else that would make him stand out) of course it would be mentioned. Kelly's example where Obama said people would be against him for being black is playing the race card. (It's true, of course, but yeah it could be construed as playing the race card.) Simply mentioning he's black, mentioning he's different, saying he's the first of his kind? That's not. That's pride, and it's something he SHOULD be proud of. I couldn't stand Hillary, but the example will work well with her, too: she was the first of her kind to get so close, and she should also be proud. |
|
Date: 7/26/2008 9:14:00 AM
From Authorid: 63219
The Democrats treated Hillary like hell this year, IMO. My parents and sister had high hopes of her winning. I stayed smart and kept on the Republican side for Mitt Romney, John McCain, Mike Huckabee where there was more variety. Everyone should have known that as soon as they started bickering in Fall 2007, it would become just between Hill and bin Laden. |
|
Date: 7/26/2008 9:15:00 AM
From Authorid: 63219
By the time Spring 2007 came around, I made it very official at the time that I would NOT vote for/support Hillary Clinton. I wish I had done the same about Barack Obama at that time, too. |
|
Date: 7/26/2008 9:22:00 AM
From Authorid: 63219
Of course, Hillary Clinton acted a bit more realistic, more common-sense than Obama and the Democratic Party doesn't like it when it's politicians do that so much. I think 'Affirmative Action', which is racist in itself was a motivation in their plans for Obama Fall 2007-November 2008. |
|
Date: 7/26/2008 9:25:00 AM
From Authorid: 63219
Maybe it's happened before, maybe it's not, but I'm gonna treat this election like a 'Good versus Evil' kind of thing; the good side being able to tell things how they are and know what can be done to solve them and do them (McCain), the evil side telling people what they wanna hear whether it's doable or not just to get more followers (Obama). |
|
Date: 7/26/2008 9:33:00 AM
From Authorid: 11240
It was reported that a scheduled stop to visit wounded servicemen while in Germany was canceled by the Obama campaign. See, I don't have to glomb on to his race or his not being a Muslim to discern the impression that the man really tries to pose as a classy person but is absolutely, utterly, completely void of class. God Bless. |
|
Date: 7/26/2008 10:04:00 AM
From Authorid: 63219
Neither do of any of us else who have a brain, Deb. |
|
Date: 7/26/2008 10:16:00 AM
From Authorid: 63219
Whether you like one or not, you need to know about both sides regardless, that way when you find some things you like about the no-no guy, you can bash him all you want infront of the no-no guy's fans. I am appalled by how many youth in my area cherish Obama... |
|
Date: 7/26/2008 10:19:00 AM
From Authorid: 63219
*dislike about the no-no guy. Obama wants to pull out of Iraq before the best times necessary, he's a baby-killer who's done well at appealing to at least half my Catholic Youth Group, the list could go on. But right now I gotta get ready for work. Later. |
|
Date: 7/26/2008 3:00:00 PM
From Authorid: 26803
Nanaki, it does not matter that he is the firs of his kind in this possision. As you stated earlier, it is obvious. Why restate it unless there is an underlying reason? The point is, racism can go both ways. Ask yourself this: if Oboma uses his race in his campaign, can McCain use it against him? Historically everything a person uses to further his campaign can be used by the other guy. Can you imagine what would happen to McCain if he did so in this case? Don't get me wrong. I think it is a very smart move by Obama. He has much to gain by something that can not be turned against him. But non the less, it is racist. |
|
Date: 7/26/2008 3:16:00 PM
From Authorid: 30093
I still don't feel it's racist. No more than bringing up that Hillary is a woman is sexist, or mentioning that McCain is old is....is there a word for that? lol |
|
Date: 7/26/2008 3:17:00 PM
From Authorid: 30093
If he were to say he DESERVED the office because he was the first black man, or that an opponent's opinion was invalidated because he's speaking against a black man or anything like that then it would be the race card. Otherwise I just don't bite. |
|
Date: 7/27/2008 8:47:00 AM
From Authorid: 26803
I can see where you are comming from...I hope McCain reminds the voters that he is white. Maybe in West Virginia or somwhere like it. I'm sure that would not get the press's attention..."McCain reminds Rural voters that he is white!?" I guess that would not be using Race for your campaign? Or is it only using race if you use anything other that white? You really don't have to "bite" nanaki. But you should recognise the usage of race for what it is. All he has to do is mention his color to remind people that he would be the FIRST black president by the way...sinse everyone (unless they live under a rock) knows this. |
|
Date: 7/27/2008 9:28:00 AM
From Authorid: 30093
Sorry but you're just wrong in my book. Mentioning race isn't racism. If McCain were to say that he's a better candidate for being white, yeah sure. But Obama has never said he's a better candidate for being black. End of discussion for me, because it's just going to become a circular argument (agreed?). |
|
Date: 7/27/2008 10:38:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 19613
While some say the term “racism” is thrown around too much, I think the term “playing the race card” is certainly overused. As Nanaki says, simply mentioning race can hardly be equated to “playing the race card”. If Obama makes the point that he doesn’t look like pervious politicians, in my mind, what he is saying is that things have moved on to such an extent that a black man can be nominated for the most important position in the world. This is a positive message, not something cynical, and fits with Obama’s themes of change and unity. |
|
Date: 7/27/2008 10:44:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 19613
RE: Obama’s cancelled trip to visit wounded soldiers- “Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor said in a statement that the last thing Obama wanted "was to have injured soldiers get pulled into the back-and-forth of a political campaign."
"That's why we imagine Sen. McCain would be surprised that his campaign released this wildly inappropriate accusation that politicizes the issue," he added.”
Sounds classy enough to me. |
|
Date: 7/27/2008 10:48:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 19613
Perhaps it should also be pointed out that those wounded soldiers would likely have benefited more from a commander-in-chief who refrained from going into Iraq in the first place, than any visit from a would-be presidential candidate. |
|
Date: 7/27/2008 1:24:00 PM
From Authorid: 11240
But their not worthy of his time or attention for them to express whatever views they hold? Don't you think they vote (i.e., get involved in the political process)? And if not would that be because they are servicemen, wounded, or in Germany right now? God Bless. |
|
Date: 7/27/2008 1:26:00 PM
From Authorid: 11240
Oops. That should read "they're" not "their". My mental lapse. God Bless. |
|
Date: 7/27/2008 2:43:00 PM
From Authorid: 26803
yes it will become a circular argument. And, I think you are just wrong. If WcCain went around reminding people that he was white, he would be using race in an attempt to manipulate voters into voting for him...using "fear tactics." And he would be rightfully said to be using racism. If Obama reminds people that he is black (as obvious as McCain's being white) to ifluance the voters he is using race just the same...yet he would not be said to be using racism. It is a double standard. Though it may seam strange that a minority could benefit from doing this, it is very possible in today's political climate. The fact that one would be considered racism and one would not is no surprize to me though. |
|
Date: 7/27/2008 3:43:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 19613
Who said anything about them not being worthy of time or attention? Obama’s campaign originally scheduled the trip, which surely indicates they thought the visit to be something worthwhile. Apparently, the pentagon voiced concerns that such a visit would be seen as a political event, and thus inappropriate. If Obama had gone I’m sure McCain would have accused him of using the soldiers for political purposes. |
|
Date: 7/27/2008 3:53:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 19613
The fact that one would be considered racism and the other would not is not a double-standard Coenlaf, it’s simply a matter of context. If Obama uses his race to send the message “look how far we have come that a black man can be considered to hold the most important office in the land” you can hardly call this a racist message. What race is he disparaging exactly? For McCain to attempt such a message would obviously make no sense. What message would he hope to send by mentioning that he is white? |
|
Date: 7/27/2008 7:20:00 PM
From Authorid: 63219
Right Deb, but as long as it's clean, say what you want about the yes or no candidate. Obama cancelled his trip to see wounded soldiers and the Germany trip, too, I think. Just saying. John McCain recently met with the Dalai Lama out in the western US. |
|
Date: 7/27/2008 7:25:00 PM
From Authorid: 63219
Oh, sorry. Didn't know if that reply was actually shifted to my comments or not. He's not the only politician out there, but as if he cares whether or not to ponder on his supporters being worthy to him or not. He's sadly got countless so he would need no worry about that anyway. He might not notice a smart few move to McCain but he sure as heck would notice several hundred thousand doing so. |
|
Date: 7/28/2008 7:23:00 AM
From Authorid: 15228
Nanaki, if you reread his words you'll see he played the race card preemptively...he put it in whoever he was talking to minds that republicans are racists. |
|
Date: 7/28/2008 7:37:00 AM
From Authorid: 26803
DP...said..." If Obama uses his race to send the message “look how far we have come that a black man can be considered to hold the most important office in the land” you can hardly call this a racist message." you are assumeing that this is his message. Bottom line is, If McCain says..."I look pretty much like other US presidents (good or bad) it would be racist right? Double standard. |
|
Date: 7/28/2008 9:25:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 19613
It’s only a double standard if all things are equal. Why would McCain make the point that he happens to be white, like all previous presidents? What possible message could it send? Would it have about as much relevance perhaps as McCain announcing that his favourite colour is red? |
|
Date: 7/28/2008 11:13:00 AM
From Authorid: 11240
Well, then, a couple of issues should come to a THINKING MIND: 1) Obama's "team" scheduled something without investigating whether proper procedures were being followed. Hmmmmmm. Evidence of an inexperienced person surrounding himself with other inexperienced people, anyone? 2) Obama's CURRRENT JOB is that of a U.S. Senator and his committee memberships certainly don't preclude him from visiting wounded soldiers. Oh, but he already has that job so why would he be concerned about performing as to that job? God Bless. |
|
Date: 7/28/2008 11:28:00 AM
From Authorid: 63219
I don't like Obama and I'm hoping people aren't implying that I am... |
|
Date: 7/28/2008 11:29:00 AM
From Authorid: 63219
there's alot of stuff I could try finding out like Deb supposedly is here, but I simply don't like him. |
|
Date: 7/28/2008 11:33:00 AM
From Authorid: 63219
This is a post about whether or not we should be afraid of Obama orchestrating suicide bombings across the US in secret basically and all we've turned it into is a discrimination/race rant. As I said earlier, if Obama is a good, mainstream, normal, etc. Muslim, I really don't care. But why raise the question knowing what kinds of concerns it might create in the hearts of this great nation? |
|
Date: 7/28/2008 11:34:00 AM
From Authorid: 63219
You want to look better at me when I bash Obama. I really don't care... |
|
Date: 7/28/2008 11:35:00 AM
From Authorid: 63219
His wife has felt disgrace for America for years up until he got into some great political spots. Why should I be more concerned about his personal life than something as wrong as that? |
|
Date: 7/28/2008 11:38:00 AM
From Authorid: 63219
I'm going to work. |
|
Date: 7/28/2008 12:17:00 PM
From Authorid: 26803
All things being kept equal...neither of them should mention race...no matter the reason (or assumed reason.) |
|
Date: 7/28/2008 1:25:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 19613
“…according to Obama spokeswoman Linda Douglass, "We told military officials explicitly that Senator Obama had absolutely no intention of bringing any members of the media or photographers in with him to visit the wounded warriors." - This is consistent with Obama’s actions in the past btw, as when Obama visited wounded troops at Walter Reed Army Medical Center without the media. I don’t see how this is evidence of Obama’s team being “inexperienced”, do you Deb? |
|
Date: 7/28/2008 1:29:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 19613
Of course, an unbiased “thinking mind” would presumably not seek to spin the events one way or another to somehow paint Obama in a negative light. First he’s not classy. Then he’s inexperienced. If he had gone, he would have been “exploiting” the troops. And so on, and so on. Obama was criticised for not having visited Iraq in years, then when he does go, he’s criticised by the McCain campaign for it. (Given that he still seems to believe Czechoslovakia is a united country, perhaps a visit to Europe would be of benefit to McCain too.) |
|
Date: 7/28/2008 1:31:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 19613
All things being equal, there would be no need for race to be mentioned. Unfortunately, that is simply not the world we have created. |
|
Date: 7/28/2008 1:34:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 19613
TUH, I do think candidates’ wives are fair game, since they reflect to a degree, the character of their husband. If you feel that Michelle Obama doesn’t fit with your preferred brand of patriotism for example, you’re perfectly entitled to infer something about her husband’s judgment based upon her attitudes. I would argue, however, that speaking one’s mind openly and honestly is far more virtuous than, say, treating your wife with such contempt that you call her one of the most vile words in front of a group of strangers. This too, surely says something about the character of the husband. |
|
Date: 7/28/2008 3:52:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 19613
Calling Ms. Priss in three...two.... |
|
Date: 7/29/2008 5:17:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 19613
One... |
Date: 7/29/2008 8:16:00 AM
From Authorid: 44960
Comment #100!! Just Couldn't Resist!! :) *Spirit*  |
|
Date: 7/29/2008 8:58:00 AM
From Authorid: 11240
ROTFLMAO. The inexperience is in the PROCEDURES. The man publicly declared his intention to visit with wounded servicemen BEFORE declaring his intent with the Pentagon. Then when the Pentagon says, as a U.S. Senator, of course you may go visit, BUT as a candidate, it can't be PAID FOR by your campaign. OH! OOPS! A LAWYER, he is! A MAN OF THE WORLD, he is! AN AGENT OF CHANGE, he is! But, smart? Worldly? Able to pull of what he SAYS he is going to do? Nope, nada, negative. Instead, he'll spin it and have his adoring fans regurgitate the spin (like right here;) and be the poseur that he is. And speaking of falsity, fakery, and downright untruths (as your biased comment addresses), what McCain was critical of was that Obama stated his policy for Iraq before ever having been there. And also for refusing to admit that the surge was working in Iraq once he got there. The man (Obama) is just another politician, not the savior of the world, for crying out loud. He is going to say whatever it is to get elected; if he does get elected, he will again say whatever is scripted for him. An actor on the world's stage is all he can ever be, not a leader of the free world. There. Now to the "no class" and "inexperienced" label, we can add "phony". Am I biased or just a good judge of character? Perhaps it would interest you to know that in studies done at North Carolina State University "older folks" were determined to be better able to discern honesty and intelligence in people. And I can state with confidence that I am older folk to Obama even if just by mere days . . . God Bless. |
|
Date: 7/29/2008 9:08:00 AM
From Authorid: 11240
Not to go completely off-topic here, but I do think that the reason for the ability to judge character has to do with the inordinate amount of time younger people spend watching acting as they are growing up vs. interacting with real live people. If one is so accustomed to people portraying something they really aren't, then the sense of "reality" is never fully attained since they grow so used to people interacting in a scripted way. So, I do give the Obama campaign props in fully knowing the extent to which people will respond to someone who is pleasing to look at, who is a good actor, and the ability to which "reality can be shaped" due to the maturity level of the minds they are targeting. God Bless. |
|
Date: 7/29/2008 9:48:00 AM
From Authorid: 63219
Sean Hannity for President. |
|
Date: 7/29/2008 9:49:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 19613
Leaving aside the trip to the wounded troops for the moment (I remain in complete disagreement with you over it) some facts would help:
“what McCain was critical of was that Obama stated his policy for Iraq before ever having been there.” Obama has been to Iraq previously in 2006. It should also Obama’s policy has basically been endorsed by the prime minister of Iraq. “And also for refusing to admit that the surge was working in Iraq once he got there.” Which definition of the surge are you talking about exactly? Bush’s or McCain’s? There appear to be two, at least according to McCain. |
|
Date: 7/29/2008 10:00:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 19613
Returning to the labels you want to stick on Obama, (No class, inexperienced, and phoney) lets be clear of the evidence you have to back these up: “No Class” - because he cancelled a visit to the troops based on the pentagon’s request. Furthermore, although he did not visit Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany, he reportedly made phone calls to wounded soldiers there. McCain’s attack ad which criticizes Obama for finding time to visit the gym on his trip, uses footage of Obama playing basketball with US troops. If not visiting troops is evidence of no class, then visiting troops is evidence of what exactly? Exploiting them? Being a “poseur”? Obama is in a catch 22 situation here with people like you Deb, who will spin any action in a negative light.
As for Obama’s supposed inexperience, experience is no substitute for poor judgment as demonstrated by McCain in the past, when he voted to go to war in Iraq, a war Obama had the foresight to oppose. Obama’s overseas trip was intended to offer a glimpse of what an Obama presidency might be like, and he demonstrated he suitability for the world stage, by any reasonable standard.
As for the final label, that of “phoney” I submit that you have zero evidence at all for this whatsoever. “He is going to say whatever it is to get elected”. You know this how exactly? As far as being able to discern honesty and intelligence in people, I’ll accept you as a good judge of said characteristics when you tell me whether or not you voted for George W. Bush…twice. ;)
|
|
Date: 7/29/2008 10:34:00 AM
From Authorid: 63219
Oh my gosh...we've brought President Bush into the frey. Who cares? He's not my favorite president but it is a start to say I prefer him over Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Barack Obama...the list could go on. Many conservatives aren't and haven't been so happy with him. Leave him out of this argument. I happen to still have a bit of respect for him. Sadly I didn't support him in 2000, 2004, and sometimes I feel unAmerican for that. I will say that under the Obama Administration and its policies, 43rd President George W. Bush will be well-remembered. |
|
Date: 7/29/2008 10:37:00 AM
From Authorid: 63219
Though I know the name will appear alarming to many ignorant citizens, I really think Jeb Bush (Dubya's younger brother, former Florida Governor, rhyme, lol) would make an outstanding president/vice president. DP, for some reason, you seem one to shun from any politician under the mere name 'Bush'. |
|
Date: 7/29/2008 10:43:00 AM
From Authorid: 63219
That's exactly how the liberals would approach it. Or at least general Obama supporters, give or take. They target President Bush and his policies 80 percent of the time just because what they as 'revolting' he has done. Since they also see him as such a comical character, they also ignore many other prominent Republican politicians. If they got any more ignorant, cocky, they would have ignored John McCain and what he has to bring to the table. God Bless McCain. Troubled times with a 'CHANGE! CHANGE! CHANGE!' Fanatic flying around and the protagonist standing up against him is a man of reason, things worth being compromised upon, and to top it off, well with common-sense. But if the liberals ever targetted a Jeb or Marvin Bush on the ballot, rest assured they'd accuse him of the same things President George Bush II 'has done' just because they're related and with the same last, to their views 'infamous name', no less. Nah, forget looking into their technical policies. Forget the fact that they champion conservatives/Republicans who want to heal things up that Bush is supposedly 'responsible' for. Forget the wasteful big government. |
|
Date: 7/29/2008 10:44:00 AM
From Authorid: 63219
They accuse us of radicalism sometimes, but they're the ones who want to change nearly everything preserved in our American Constitutions, Amendments, laws. Seems like a couple out there may even want to overthrow democracy... |
|
Date: 7/29/2008 10:59:00 AM
From Authorid: 63219
The only reason it would be political suicide to have Jeb Bush on the ballot is over his last name and his relations. That's sad, isn't it? Can't say I blame a few for twitching at Obama's middle name and his last name rhyme. But I don't care about that, anymore. I joked when I attacked it on this site earlier, too. |
|
Date: 7/29/2008 11:00:00 AM
From Authorid: 11240
No, DP, I did not vote for George Bush once or twice or three or four times according to which George Bush you want to refer to. I am on record at this site for stating that I have no problem voting for someone other than a major party candidate (e.g., a Libertarian candidate) and not thinking that I had "wasted" my vote. The "no class" designation was determined by the way a person would make a promise (i.e., schedule a visit) and then break that promise (i.e., cancel scheduled visit), thus getting up the hopes of a group of people and then dashing same. In my book, that is a called not having any class. That his and his people lacked the experience to have arranged for this trip without the snafus is not "poor judgment" in your book? A telephone call to "some" is hardly equal to a personal appearance to "ALL". That Obama CAN PLAY BASKETBALL and that he was playing with ABLE BODIED SOLDIERS hardly equates to acknowledging WOUNDED servicemen who were wounded protecting Obama's presence in this world. Your "judgment" of the war in Iran implies you KNOW what would have occurred in this world had there been no war -- can you explain where such "ALL-KNOWING" information came to be bestowed on you or anyone else for that matter, DP? And that "knowledge" you exhibit -- does it emanate from the same source that somehow tells you that the prime-minister of Iraq has a vote in the American presidential elections and that American voters should have any allegiance to what he thinks? The American public has already voted for a "timetable" to get out of Iraq in the last round of Congressional elections and clearly can see that these politicians have no ability to follow through on such a situation that is fraught with various unforeseen dependencies. A phony is a person who acts out a scene rather than reacts to real life. If Obama is not a phony, is not someone who needs everything he says scripted for him, then why doesn't he accept McCain's proposal to join him in town hall meetings where real people are asking non-scripted questions? That "he demonstrated for the world stage" that he can ACT was not favorably seen in the local polls as the trip was viewed -- 62% to 38% -- as not helpful to his U.S. campaign . . . you know, to the people who have the RIGHT to vote for him. God Bless. |
|
Date: 7/29/2008 11:13:00 AM
From Authorid: 63219
If people are gonna complain about dead soldiers, they should have started with the very first one killed in Afghanistan on 11/25/2001. Johnny 'Mike' Spann. Yes it really sucks that our casualties are now in the thousands but I don't think Bush ever promised the entire war would be a walk in the park. These brave men and women have died and are fighting honorably. God Bless THEM. |
|
Date: 7/29/2008 11:31:00 AM
From Authorid: 63219
Those who want out of Iraq at the wrong times so much never presume what will happen next. |
|
Date: 7/29/2008 2:05:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 19613
Perhaps there is some hope for you after all Deb ;) Being forced to cancel a scheduled visit because of the pentagon being unreasonable and kicking up a fuss may somehow equate to Obama not having “class” in your book, but not in mine. Given that the whole nonsense was caused by the pentagon as opposed to Obama’s staff, I don’t see it as fair to blame them either. Obama has in the past visited wounded soldiers without the media in tow. In any case, those troops will benefit more from legislation Obama supports more than they will from a simple visit by the senator. Obama has been consistent in both word and action in his support for wounded veterans. It is not claiming omniscience to reason that the world would have been a safer place without the war in Iraq in the same way that it is not claiming omniscience to claim that the world would probably have been better off without Hitler. As for the prime minister of Iraq, I am not suggesting that he has a vote in your election, nor that American voters should be beholden to his endorsement of Obama’s plan. What I *am* suggesting is that the prime minister of Iraq probably knows a lot more about the state of security in his country than the average American voter, and that any voter who considers himself reasonable and informed, ought to take heed of the prime minister’s judgment. As for McCain’s town hall meetings, as far as I am aware Obama has agreed to participate in some of these with McCain, just not as many as McCain wanted, so there goes that argument. |
|
Date: 7/29/2008 2:10:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 19613
TUH, I don’t know enough about Jeb Bush to voice an opinion, though if he’s anything like his brother I’m sure you can imagine where I would stand. When it comes down to it, from my perspective George W. Bush has blood on his hands and (if there were any justice in the world) would be tried as a war criminal. (I know we’re never going to see eye to eye on that one obviously) |
|
Date: 7/29/2008 2:25:00 PM
From Authorid: 26803
you are right, we created the world in which it is okay to mention you are one race but not the other ...I agree..;) |
|
Date: 7/29/2008 2:53:00 PM
From Authorid: 30093
You're putting words into our mouths, Coenlaf. Nobody is going to cause a ruckus if John McCain says "I'm a white man.", but what would McCain hope to accomplish by saying so? As I started before, Obama is simply pointing out how far we've come and that he's the first of his kind to get as far as he has. Not one time have I ever heard Obama place himself higher or lower than any other man simply because he is black. |
|
Date: 7/29/2008 2:54:00 PM
From Authorid: 30093
I had to add that simply because I don't want people getting the wrong idea about what I've said by reading your last comment. |
|
Date: 7/29/2008 7:11:00 PM
From Authorid: 11240
Oh, dear God, DP. The Pentagon and it's rules and procedures have been around longer than you and longer than I, and, therefore, longer than Obama. That his campaign didn't have the foresight to clear the visit with the Pentagon BEFORE announcing such a schedule hardly (once again) equates to "being unreasonable and kicking up a fuss". The way you spin this stuff is what is unreasonable. Why can't you just stick to reality instead of putting up these facades? Oh, yeah, that's right, you've bought Obama's acting job hook, line, and sinker, and thus are fond of facades. Just like pretending you have any idea whatsoever what would have happened had this war not occurred, or had Hitler not existed. What if someone he ordered into a gas chamber would have, had he not been gassed, turned out to be an even more ruthless dictator and/or exterminator? The TRUTH is you simply don't know and you don't know the premise you're working on now, and you don't have the wherewithal to just say that instead of going on about it the way you do. (Geez, do you not see why Wiley gets so frustrated with you? I just have to break it to you, hon, it isn't cute.) As my husband is fond of saying about all these "what ifs": If my aunt had testicles she'd be my uncle. Speaking of "uncles", so we should all listen to the prime minister of Iraq who wouldn't be in such a position without this war (or would he, All Omniscient One;) vs. a seasoned military man like McCain? Who, BTW, agrees that 16 months is a reasonable time-table, depending on what the ground circumstances indicate at that time rather than an absolute, must be out of there, dictate by that same prime minister who, again, wouldn't even be in that position without this war (or would he, ALL KNOWING one?). And as far as I'm aware, Obama has not agreed to any town hall meetings, but has stuck with the "same ole, same ole," debate format with the fawning media as the questioners. I am still trying to figure out why Obama went to France; I mean one would think he might have wanted to see how they handle their energy needs with nuclear power plants, but no, that didn't happen, because Obama is against nuclear power but has decided that he would fund $150 Billion in research of renewable energy sources. Hmmm, you say, "He would fund? Like out of his own pocket?" No, folks, he means the American taxpayer would fund, but he can't just say that now can he. He can't just open his eyes and see that there is plenty that can be done right now, he wants to spend our money to R-E-S-E-A-R-C-H, which may take, who knows how long, especially given that the researchers would be on the government dole which usually means a lot of wasted money and time, but, hey!, we'd have Obama as our leader so that would make all of that o.k. Anyway, as you have so succinctly demonstrated, DP, it matters not what anyone says about Obama (including the subject of this post, i.e., that a whopping 10% of the American people think he is a "secret Muslim"), since even the TRUTH about him and his ideals will not sway hard-core people like you. God Bless. |
|
Date: 7/30/2008 5:12:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 19613
Obama’s trip is unprecedented for a presidential nominee, so this is partially uncharted territory for both he campaign and the Pentagon. Additionally, while the rules and regulations may have been around for some time, it falls to the particular pentagon staff to interpret those rules. Given the facts, it does not seem unreasonable for the Obama campaign to have assumed the trip would have been given the green light by the pentagon. |
|
Date: 7/30/2008 5:16:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 19613
Your point about “what if” the Iraq war hadn’t happened is depressingly bizarre. Based on the fact that the future cannot be predicted with 100% accuracy, you would prohibit any form of speculation as to the probable consequences of actions or omissions. It’s frankly stunning that you cannot see the inane consequences of such logic. If a man murders another man in cold blood, how far do you think his lawyer would get with the defence that, had the man not murdered the victim, he might have produced a son who grew up to be the next Hitler? |
|
Date: 7/30/2008 5:25:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 19613
So you want me to believe that a US senator knows more about the situation on the ground in Iraq, than the man in charge of running the country? As you point out, McCain is shifting his position to more closely resemble the plan Obama has been advocating (I wonder how you would have interpreted that if the positions had been reversed). McCain has had some stunning flip-flops on energy, and his proposals will hardly provide relief from high gas prices in the short term. Obama rightly recognises that research (yes, that stuff that costs money in the short term and saves money in the long term) renewable energy must be pursued (unlike, you know, the FINITE resources we’re burning through at the moment). |
|
Date: 7/30/2008 5:33:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 19613
I must make another comment on this whole “what if” thing though, you’ve brought it up before at it would be nice if you could be disabused of the notion. Saying “America would have been better off without going into Iraq” is no more a claim at omniscience as saying “If I’d taken an umbrella today, I wouldn’t have gotten wet in the rain.” Perhaps, for example, if I took an umbrella I would have fallen in a puddle instead and still gotten wet. This doesn’t make it unreasonable for me to have made the original statement in the first scenario. In the case of the war in Iraq, the statement is based upon empirical observations of the consequences of the war in Iraq. It is reasonable for us to assume that a substantially different approach would have yielded substantially different consequences. Is this a certainty? Not at all, but you still take an umbrella with you to avoid getting wet, knowing that under a set of improbable, yet possible circumstances, you might end up wet regardless. Those who justify the war in Iraq by pointing to the fact that a brutal dictator was removed from power, are not rebuked with the fact that, for all they know, if the US had not invaded, Saddam might have had a heart attack and been removed from power that way.
In short, the demands you place on such statements make no sense, by any reasonable standard. If we cannot make judgments based upon such probabilities, then we must extend that logic to the extent that we discover we are not entitled to make judgments about the consequences of any past or future actions. |
|
Date: 7/30/2008 9:02:00 AM
From Authorid: 26803
Nanaki, you are fooling yourself if you think nothing would be said if McCain mentioned his race. It would be front page news! McCain “Reminds us that he is white! Must be insinuating that we should vote for a White person!!” The headline possibilities are endless. But, Oboma reminding us that he is black (as if we didn’t know) to say “hey, look how far we have come,”(again, as if we didn’t know) gets only positive headlines.
All based on the assumption that this is why he is saying it. Personally I think the man (and his word smiths) are smarter than that. They are reminding us of His race to reduce the impact on our minds on voting day (that is okay with me,) they are also saying, “think of how far we could go…if we take the next step and vote a black man into office!” They are also playing on the white population that subscribes to white guilt. “vote for me and be guilt free!” Point being, he is using this for more than you know. And when race is used for gain in a political campaign it is not right.
|
|
Date: 7/30/2008 9:16:00 AM
From Authorid: 30093
It's apples and oranges, dude, and you know that. The only reason people would get upset if McCain mentioned race is that he probably wouldn't have a REASON to. At least it's easy for a logical person to discern a reason that Obama is mentioning race. When Obama says I should vote for him because he's black, well come back to me and I'll change my mind. But right now you're throwing a fit over nothing. |
|
Date: 7/30/2008 9:27:00 AM
From Authorid: 11240
Uuuh, DP, you are the one that keeps bringing Obama's "foresight to oppose" going to Iraq in the first place. If you do not want to discuss what "MAY" have happened or "MAY NOT" have happened, then just stick to ACTUALITY AND REALITY in what we have in the here and now. There, that ought to take care of two of your comments since we do not know whether Obama's "foresight (hmmmm, how's that for putting a omniscient glow around the guy's head?) would have produced any one of a number of different scenerios. So let's just deal with R-E-A-L-I-T-Y. The reality is that you are listening to the spin by the Obama campaign (as is so obvious by your first comment in this latest block of comments) without using one bit of your own critical analysis skills I thought you just graduating learning. Here's some real critical philosophy you need to understand to get through your life: It is all right to change your mind. Here's the CAVEAT: Just BE HONEST about why you did change your mind. And if you don't admit that you are changing your mind, and your motives for changing your mind look to be quite self-serving, then you may be labeled a "flip-flopper" (e.g., Obama's flip-flopping on public campaign funds and the telecommunications flap). It is all right for McCain to say he is fine with getting ground troops out of Iraq when the situation on the ground warrants same without putting a timetable on when that might be. It is not flip-flopping (i.e., saying one thing one day and another quite different thing the next) to be of a military background and know that there will be a military presence in Iraq for 50 - 100 years (just like in Germany and Korea), and to also acknowledge that ground troops can start leaving once the situation on the ground stabilizes and that that could be in 16 months. It is not flip-flopping to acknowledge the reality that the energy needs of this country need addressing NOW, not when a team of "well-fed" government researchers finally get around to discovering a viable energy option after having spent $150 billion tax dollars only to have to have to then spend more money putting all that research to ACTUALITY. What else do you have, DP? God Bless. |
|
Date: 7/30/2008 9:29:00 AM
From Authorid: 26803
Not really throwing a fit. Just saying that his reason goes deeper than you are prepared to accept, dudet. And mccain would have an underlyiong reason to mention his race. To get racist whites to vote for him. |
|
Date: 7/30/2008 9:33:00 AM
From Authorid: 26803
Just to be clear, I do not think that anyone should vote based on race...only policy. But neither do I beleive that race should be used in a campaign...for any reason. |
|
Date: 7/30/2008 9:37:00 AM
From Authorid: 26803
Also, it is not apples or oranges. It is race period. Or perhaps red apples and golden delicious apples...LOL. |
|
Date: 7/30/2008 11:01:00 AM
From Authorid: 30093
Well now I'm just hungry. AT least we agree race shouldn't play a part in deciding who you vote for, but I hope ANY sane person would agree on that. |
|
Date: 7/30/2008 11:02:00 AM
From Authorid: 30093
I'm a dude, dude. |
|
Date: 7/30/2008 1:34:00 PM
From Authorid: 26803
LOL...sorry Dude! |
|
Date: 7/30/2008 1:35:00 PM
From Authorid: 26803
I don't think that being a racist makes you insane...just misguided. |
|
Date: 7/30/2008 1:46:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 19613
…Um, Deb. Did you actually read those comments of mine? My whole point was that it’s perfectly valid to discuss what PROBABLY would and would not have happened. We do this all the time *in reality*, like all those Jews who would rather that their loved ones weren’t murdered, even though it might have the remote possibility of having prevented some future dictator. In any case, I looked up the text of a 2002 speech given by Obama so we could see exactly why he opposed the war in Iraq, and whether his reasons for doing so seem to have been justified by subsequent events. Some quotes then: “What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne….the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income – to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.” “Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.” “I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.” The speech itself is quite short and well-written in my humble opinion: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech |
|
Date: 7/30/2008 2:06:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 19613
As for the flip-flopping issue, I am generally dismissive of such notions - I would have thought people wanted a leader who changes his mind based on the situation at hand. In this sense, I would not be critical of McCain’s stance, in the same way that I felt John Kerry was unfairly labelled a flip-flopper four years ago. *However*, since there are those who do feel that flip-flopping is some great failing, it’s only fair to hold McCain to the same standards that John Kerry was held to, and that Obama is being held to. So with that in mind, here are some supposed examples of flip-flopping on the part of McCain, as per request courtesy of Keith Olbermann: http://youtube.com/watch?v=tkf8XwHs668 In case you don’t have time to watch it, I’ll give a somewhat haphazard summary: it covers Political Reform where McCain now opposes something called the McCain Feingold bill which had previously supported (obviously). Last October he said that he would vote against the development relief and education for alien minors act that he co-sponsored, and then he said he would vote against an immigration bill that he introduced. In 2006 he said on a TV program“I think gay marriage should be allowed” before adding after the commercial (wow, record time!) I do not believe that gay marriages should be legal. On abortion, 1999 publicly supporting Roe V Wade while privately opposing it in a letter to the national right to life committee. From the 2000 debates - he would change the GOP platform to permit exceptions for rape, incest, life of the mother --- May 2008 no he won’t. Storing nuclear waste in Yucca mountain, military action against rogue states, negotiating with Kim Jong Il not acceptable (“until President Bush did it last week”), with Fidel Castro (acceptable in 2000 but not 2008) with terrorists (appropriate when Colin Powell went to Syria and in 2006 when McCain said “sooner or later we’ll talk to Hamas”) unilateral action against suspected terrorists in Pakistan was “confused leadership” when Obama suggested it, but not when Bush did it. Warrentless wiretaps - six months ago “presidents [had] to obey the law” but not anymore, torture detainees, holding indefinitely wrong in 2003, right in 2008, tax cuts for the rich- In 2001 he could not “in good conscience” support it, but now he can. Estate tax supported in 2006, now “most unfair”. “Not for privatising social security, never has been” today, but in 2004 “didn’t see how benefits will last without it”. Balancing the budget, windfall profit tax, offshore drilling, Jerry Falwell, teaching alternatives to evolution in school etc. etc.
|
|
Date: 7/30/2008 2:21:00 PM
From Authorid: 63219
Deb is right, Coenleaf is pretty reasonable as well. Right now I could almost Thank God that DP is not a U.S. Citizen... |
|
Date: 7/30/2008 2:24:00 PM
From Authorid: 30093
Yeah how dare he represent an alternative viewpoint. Grrrr, this democracy thing makes me angry! Grow up. |
|
Date: 7/30/2008 2:45:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 19613
TUH, as happy as you are that I’m not a US citizen, I’m happy that you’re happy. If you know what I mean. ;) |
|
Date: 7/30/2008 2:46:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 19613
With the looming recession in my country and a lack of top-quality universities specialising in philosophy I may emigrate just to spite you though ;) |
|
Date: 7/30/2008 3:14:00 PM
From Authorid: 11240
Uuuh. DP. Yes, I read your comments. That is why I answered them . . . These last two comments are what? 1) Obama's own speech says that a war with Iraq would be of "undetermined length", yet now he want to put a determined length to it? Is that what you want me to see in what you are giving me there? That he was "right" then but, not now? 2) Generally you want people to be able to change their minds according to the circumstances and situations at hand -- o.k. That's just what I said, so you agree with me. The CAVEAT though you have overlooked: Does a person give an honest reason as to why they have changed their mind, or not give any reason whatsoever and the mind change results in a self-serving situation? Keith Olbermann's diatribe hardly gives any background into the circumstances and situation changes he describes, nor gives any of McCain's reasons for doing same. (BTW, McCain's stance on homosexual marriages is exactly the same as mine: Certainly, the government shouldn't be acting in prohibiting any ceremonial marriages of gays; however, the legal status should be "Civil Unions".) If you understood "democracy" you would understand that McCain works for the people who elected him to the Senate. Therefore, when he sponsors a bill that his constituents then let him know they are majority-wise against it, I actually find that a good employee (of the people -- you know, such as a president) follows the will of his employers. Is that (gasp!) wrong? God Bless. |
|
Date: 7/30/2008 3:28:00 PM
From Authorid: 30093
Yet when, as DP pointed out, John Kerry did the same thing, he was labeled a "waffler" or "flip-flopper" and declared unfit for the presidency. Personally I think anyone who DOESN'T change their opinion from time to time when presented new information is only fooling themselves, so I don't hold it against Kerry or McCain that they've changed over time. I just find it funny that the same people against Kerry are the ones for McCain now. Go figure. |
|
Date: 7/30/2008 3:36:00 PM
From Authorid: 63219
Yeah, DP, you're a pretty good guy who likes his freedom of opinions and speech but if you lived in my town I could easily picture you holding an Obama rally of your own down my street...kinda scary. |
|
Date: 7/30/2008 3:39:00 PM
From Authorid: 63219
Nanaki, what good is a 'flip-flopper' leading the country if they were only to look back and forth on possibly major decisions and do them over, do them not all their years in the presidency? Could someone please explain that to me? I wasn't trying to be mean DP, but Deb, Coenleaf are right in about every way. So am I, most of the time. I vote against gay marriage but I'm considered a homophobe for it...maybe there's a reason why I condemn against people who discriminate homosexuals... |
|
Date: 7/30/2008 3:41:00 PM
From Authorid: 63219
Maybe my conservative, religious points of view make me a hateful extreme right-wing nazi who has no respect for people of differences and mankind. God Bless. |
|
Date: 7/30/2008 3:42:00 PM
From Authorid: 63219
The only way for this country to even function properly is if it's morals behind its policies. Bill Clinton did about the exact opposite and we're talking about a moderate Democrat here. Barack Obama IS a LIBERAL Democrat who is probably two or three times as worse. |
|
Date: 7/30/2008 3:49:00 PM
From Authorid: 63219
John McCain may represent some policies on both sides, but at least he's got it figured out, something John Kerry hadn't done and probably now couldn't do. |
|
Date: 7/30/2008 3:56:00 PM
From Authorid: 63219
Let's give a pretty hypothetical and pretty unrealistic example of 'flip-flopping'...Let's say President Bush, Jr. has invaded Iraq in February/March 2003 and for some unknown, random reason he decides to pull out a month later. I can for some reason, despite the millions of global beatniks protesting the war carrying out, see many here in the U.S. booing him pulling out. Right now, look how much of our country feels about us wanting out...look how much of these also either don't realize or don't care about the consequences of pulling out now, too. |
|
Date: 7/30/2008 3:58:00 PM
From Authorid: 63219
I guarantee if 'flip-flopping' things like this would have happened with wars, perhaps even Vietnam, the presidents leading us with the issues would be hated even more than they are now for sticking to their guns. |
|
Date: 7/30/2008 4:19:00 PM
From Authorid: 30093
TUH you have a bad habit of putting down people who disagree with you. A lot of things we're discussing here (not all) are OPINION, so nobody is "right" in a true sense. You come across as very egotistical when you say you're always right. I'm enjoying debating with Deb and Coenlaf along side DP because all three of them have remained calm and rational instead of making it personal, which I respect regardless of whether or not I agree with them. |
|
Date: 7/30/2008 4:38:00 PM
From Authorid: 63219
I had an online debate with a friend from here on MSN/Windows Live Messenger about a week ago...I was called homophobic because I didn't believe in gay marriage. Don't ever say I'm irrational and then call that rational at the same time. |
|
Date: 7/30/2008 4:41:00 PM
From Authorid: 63219
I'm not trying to put anyone down, Nanaki. All I did for you, Nanaki, was tell you what's pretty wrong and probably dangerous about someone in the White House changing their minds over and over on something that's perhaps already being carried out. As for DP, I don't know why, but he seems like he believes everything he'd hear from Obama...how do you say 'gullible?' Obama has for numerous times talked about 'CHANGE! CHANGE! CHANGE!' but he never specifies...why would it be wrong for to be...'uncomfortable' with that? |
|
Date: 7/30/2008 4:46:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 19613
I thought you might jump on the phrase “undetermined length”. In the context of the speech, however, Obama is by no means endorsing staying in Iraq indefinitely. He is simply reflecting the fact that for the invasion to be successful, it would be necessary to occupy Iraq for a length of time which could not be estimated at the time he was giving the speech. As things stand, the reality of the situation is that US troops could be gone in 16 months. There’s no contradiction here. “Does a person give an honest reason as to why they have changed their mind, or not give any reason whatsoever and the mind change results in a self-serving situation?” This is a good point, and I agree with you. It’s a pity more people weren’t following this logic four years ago (as Nanaki said). I also agree that Olbermann’s piece does not give sufficient background on McCain’s alleged flip flops. (It should be noted, however, that for some of these issues, it is difficult to imagine what might have changed ((say the matter of abortion rights, for example))) . In any case, if we’re being honest here, it doesn’t take a genius to realise that both candidates are adopting certain policies in order to appeal to certain groups so that they can get elected. In Obama’s case, he has been moving towards the centre in recent months, having wrapped up the nomination. It’s common knowledge that McCain has image problems with the more religious, social conservative base of the Republican party, and his “changes in opinion” can be seen to reflect that. I don’t mean to suggest for a moment that Obama is perfect and immune from similar behaviour. |
|
Date: 7/30/2008 4:49:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 19613
I would be very interested to see what the situation would be like, after four years of an Obama presidency. He has raised expectations quite high, it will certainly be interesting to see whether or not he justifies this, if he is elected. |
|
Date: 7/30/2008 4:55:00 PM
From Authorid: 63219
If Obama wins...maybe it will be a blessing for the Republican Party. Maybe this country will learn a 4 year lesson containing multiple lessons, perhaps maybe a couple of which may somehow be irreversible. As much as it fills me with dread and disappointment, I'll be glad by January 2013 when this country feels it will learn extremely valuable lessons. |
|
Date: 7/30/2008 4:57:00 PM
From Authorid: 63219
DP, Barack Obama is about as liberal as an average American Democrat could come. The reason why John McCain is a 'Moderate Republican is because of his independent stances and even a couple policies supporting rhetoric from the left. |
|
Date: 7/30/2008 4:59:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 19613
TUH, you have a tendency to bring in lots of different topics when you comment, which is good in the sense that it shows you understand that there are lots of different issues which are interconnected, but you’ll forgive me if I don’t respond to a lot of it on this post, as many of the issues (gay marriage, morality in politics, bill Clinton’s legacy etc.) probably deserve posts in their own right. I understand that it might seem I’m swallowing the Obama talking points without using my head to examine what is actually going on with his campaign. From my perspective, I am simply giving him the benefit of the doubt. He has issued concrete policies on a range of issues, you can find them on his website I’m sure, so I don’t think it’s fair to accuse him of being all style and no substance.
I agree that the change Obama promises may lead to nothing, but you must also understand that in a choice between a Republican and a Democrat, the Democrat will always be the more attractive option to me, given that the Democratic party supports socially liberal policies and human rights in general, (in my opinion) to a much greater extent than their opponents. I look forward to the day when I won’t have to base my vote or my support for a candidate on whether or not they will afford me or those like me equal protection and recognition under the law. It’s happened in some countries already, such as the UK, so I remain optimistic. |
|
Date: 7/30/2008 5:00:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 19613
TUH, you should also be thankful you don’t live in a Western European country, where Obama would probably be considered centre-right by our standards. How scary is that?! ;) |
|
Date: 7/30/2008 5:00:00 PM
From Authorid: 63219
Calling Barack Obama 'ind |
