[Chongo]

, and Hillary sits back and watches with glee.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

No, comparing everything under the sun that you disagree with to Nazi Germany and/or Hitler is a weak, insipid rhetorical ploy. Drawing such vague comparisons to the Holocaust is intellectually lazy and comes across as an attempt to brush off a topic without examining the actual details of the situation at hand. That's what Godwin's Law is saying: Nazis are brought up in almost every conversation because it's viewed as an easy out.

It's exactly the sort of debate tactic I'm sure Hitler would have loved. (See what I did there?)

I have to disagree with you there. Summarily rejecting every comparison made to Nazism just because it's a comparison to Nazism is an act of intellectual laziness. Moreover, it's a convenient way to mitigate the subject of Nazism itself: Some likely hope that by shouting "Godwin" they can get people to stop talking about Nazism and eventually forget about the subject. I'm not saying that about you Chuckit, but I think it is part of the Godwin ploy. Many comparisons to Nazism are indeed poorly crafted, but running reflexively to Godwin every single time is a cop-out.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I have to disagree with you there. Summarily rejecting every comparison made to Nazism just because it's a comparison to Nazism is an act of intellectual laziness. Moreover, it's a convenient way to mitigate the subject of Nazism itself: Some likely hope that by shouting "Godwin" they can get people to stop talking about Nazism and eventually forget about the subject. I'm not saying that about you Chuckit, but I think it is part of the Godwin ploy. Many comparisons to Nazism are indeed poorly crafted, but running reflexively to Godwin every single time is a cop-out.

That's true, it's entirely possible something might be most comparable to Nazi Germany. But the point is that it's usually not the most relevant comparison, and there's usually a less "loaded" alternative. In this case, personally, I don't think the situation is especially similar to Nazi Germany and the comparison carries more emotional charge than logical value.

[D. S. Troyer]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

And a Nazi would say Hitler is taken out of context, too. He was just trying to make a better Germany, right?

You lose.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by D. S. Troyer 

You lose.

Reductio ad Hitlerum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

let's go all the way and close this thread

[Dakar the Fourth]

Man, that looks photochopped to hell.

[Chuckit]

You mean Hillary's arm doesn't actually produce its own light?

[Dakar the Fourth]

Contrary to her campaign claims, no it does not.

[Sherman Homan]

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

Man, that looks photochopped to hell.

That's my guess, too. Hillary always wears pant suits....

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Have you even watched the videos of the sermons? They're pretty hateful.
The man is obsessed with Israel and the Jews as evil, and the US as a close second to that evil.

YouTube - Barack Obama's Mentor, Jeremiah Wright - Anti Israel Sermon

YouTube - Obama's Pastor: God Damn America, US To Blame for 9-11

He's also racially divisive and obsessed with race.

Democrat Taylor Marsh Broadcasts Live Talk Radio and Blogs Politics

So much for wanting to judge people on the content of their character, rather than the color of their skin. So much for MLK Jr. We've got Rev. Wright holding everyone back.

I'm not seeing what you describe in those videos. Are they just poor examples?

Hateful is not the same as oppressed. The US's actions in Israel is not the same as Israel itself, nor as the Jews in general. And saying that the US reaps what it sews is a valid criticism. Again, these clips may be out of context, but judging just by what's in them, I didn't get any impression that he was advocating anything hateful, violent or revolutionary. It's not like he was saying "down with Israel" or "down with whites" or "down with America." The worst I saw was "God damn America," but it wasn't in the context of advocating the downfall of America, it was in the context of "Shame on America." It really does seem like nothing more than a turn of phrase. A bad one, definitely, but not something more than that. I'm sure you disagree with him on many points, but I think "hateful" is too strong. At least based on these clips. Unless you mean it to say he hates the way Blacks are unfairly treated, but that's a real stretch of the word "hateful."

[Big Mac]

You are far, far gone.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

So only those personally present at given events are allowed to hold opinions that you will consider valid?

No, but all things being equal first-hand is better than second hand, information-wise. In this case, a first-hand opinion says it was out of context, and your second-hand opinion says it wasn't. You don't win that match-up. If you could provide the context to show otherwise, then you would win it.

I thought you were keeping an open mind. To the contrary, you've drawn just as strong a conclusion as I have

What conclusion did I draw? That people quoted in the news aren't necessarily lying? I'd say that's not as strong a conclusion as yours, which is that they necessarily are lying.

It's called the benefit of the doubt. McCain had it a few weeks ago when people accused him of banging that lobbyist. And Obama and the fellow quoted in the article have it when they say that this preacher's inflammatory rhetoric is just rhetoric, not the actual message and the reason they respect him as a preacher.

I'm still waiting for those links from you, Big Mac. And don't try to say "you get them." "Obama eats babies, prove me wrong" is not a valid discussion tactic.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

You are far, far gone.

Let's do a test. I'll say that giving Israel carte blanche with money and weapons is too aggressive a policy for our own national security. Now tell me that I'm an anti-semite for saying so.

That's the heart of what I saw in that clip. He says the US's policies in Israel are indirectly/partly responsible for 9/11, and vmarks called that "hateful" and "Jews are evil." That link has absolutely not been established. Not by those videos at any rate. Did you even watch them?

[zerostar]

I think this may be the first time EVER I agree with some of you guys, Obama has showed SERIOUS mis-judgement and he either is unable to make a good decision, for 20 years! or totally believes what this man stands for. Either way he should be ashamed and Hillary should get the nomination.

The clips of this "Pastor" made me sick on the inside. I heard about 10 of them so-far and AFAIK there are more out there.

HILLARY '08!

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Let's do a test. I'll say that giving Israel carte blanche with money and weapons is too aggressive a policy for our own national security. Now tell me that I'm an anti-semite for saying so.

That's the heart of what I saw in that clip. He says the US's policies in Israel are indirectly/partly responsible for 9/11, and vmarks called that "hateful" and "Jews are evil." That link has absolutely not been established. Not by those videos at any rate. Did you even watch them?

I fear you may be expecting common sense to be ... uh well, you know ... common. Unfortunately, when it comes to US foreign policy in the Middle East ... especially with respect to Israel .... this is sadly not the case. Al-Qaeda ... no Osama Bin Laden himself ... can state unequivocally that the reasons for the 911 attacks was US troop presence in Saudi Arabia and US support for Israel against the Palestinians. The 911 Commission Report confirms this no less. But there are still those who believe that "they hate us for our freedoms". There are still those who can't fathom the thought that US foreign policy in the Middle East ... even when that policy results in the deaths and oppression of thousands of people over decades of time ... can actually be a contributing factor in the terrorist attacks against our nation. It's way too easy to just caricature anyone who questions said US foreign policy as an anti-Semite.

OAW

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Let's do a test. I'll say that giving Israel carte blanche with money and weapons is too aggressive a policy for our own national security. Now tell me that I'm an anti-semite for saying so.

This is the essence of "identity politics" You say something critical of Obama or you want the borders secured, you are a racist. You challenge Hillary on her "experience", you are a misogynist, the list goes on. By creating these "protected groups" the left has set themselves up for this. As the good reverend would say; "the left's chickens.... have come home to roost"

[Ghoser777]

I can't believe this election is going to come down to things Barack Obama's pastor has said instead of the issues. The funny thing is I doubt any of the actual candidates will do anything actively to use this against him - it will all be the media and "surrogates." I hate politics

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by OAW 

I fear you may be expecting common sense to be ... uh well, you know ... common. Unfortunately, when it comes to US foreign policy in the Middle East ... especially with respect to Israel .... this is sadly not the case. Al-Qaeda ... no Osama Bin Laden himself ... can state unequivocally that the reasons for the 911 attacks was US troop presence in Saudi Arabia and US support for Israel against the Palestinians. The 911 Commission Report confirms this no less. But there are still those who believe that "they hate us for our freedoms". There are still those who can't fathom the thought that US foreign policy in the Middle East ... even when that policy results in the deaths and oppression of thousands of people over decades of time ... can actually be a contributing factor in the terrorist attacks against our nation. It's way too easy to just caricature anyone who questions said US foreign policy as an anti-Semite.

OAW

Brigitte Gabriel would beg to differ
Amazon Online Reader : Because They Hate: A Survivor of Islamic Terror Warns America Online Reader : Because They Hate: A Survivor of Islamic Terror Warns America[/url]

I won't bother with the link, you can go to the State Departments website and find a listing of all the terrorist attacks against the US, long before we had any presence in the middle east. all the way back to the '50's.

[Uncle Skeleton]

I can't find it

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

The left created this with "identity politics" Obama is a member of a "Protected Class" therefore above criticism.[/url]

"Protected Classes" are not exclusive to the Left. The Right also has "protected classes" which if you you say anything critical of you are a racist/homophobe/fill in the blank. (well ... maybe not "homophobe" )

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

"Protected Classes" are not exclusive to the Left. The Right also has "protected classes" where you say anything critical and you are a racist/homophobe/fill in the blank.

and they are?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Brigitte Gabriel would beg to differ
Amazon Online Reader : Because They Hate: A Survivor of Islamic Terror Warns America Online Reader : Because They Hate: A Survivor of Islamic Terror Warns America[/url]

I won't bother with the link, you can go to the State Departments website and find a listing of all the terrorist attacks against the US, long before we had any presence in the middle east. all the way back to the '50's.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I can't find it

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

and they are?

Well this whole Wright affair is an example. Say anything critical of America and you've violated right-wing political correctness. Talk about racism and you've violated right-wing political correctness. And don't even try to talk about terrorism outside of the confines of right-wing political correctness, or you're no better than a terrorist yourself.

[Warren Pease]

Barack Obama : : Change We Can Believe In | Sam Graham-Felsen's Blog: "A More Perfect Union"

Legalized discrimination - where blacks were prevented, often through violence, from owning property, or loans were not granted to African-American business owners, or black homeowners could not access FHA mortgages, or blacks were excluded from unions, or the police force, or fire departments – meant that black families could not amass any meaningful wealth to bequeath to future generations. That history helps explain the wealth and income gap between black and white, and the concentrated pockets of poverty that persists in so many of today’s urban and rural communities.

A lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one’s family, contributed to the erosion of black families – a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened. And the lack of basic services in so many urban black neighborhoods – parks for kids to play in, police walking the beat, regular garbage pick-up and building code enforcement – all helped create a cycle of violence, blight and neglect that continue to haunt us.

This is the reality in which Reverend Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up. They came of age in the late fifties and early sixties, a time when segregation was still the law of the land and opportunity was systematically constricted. What’s remarkable is not how many failed in the face of discrimination, but rather how many men and women overcame the odds; how many were able to make a way out of no way for those like me who would come after them.

But for all those who scratched and clawed their way to get a piece of the American Dream, there were many who didn’t make it – those who were ultimately defeated, in one way or another, by discrimination. That legacy of defeat was passed on to future generations – those young men and increasingly young women who we see standing on street corners or languishing in our prisons, without hope or prospects for the future. Even for those blacks who did make it, questions of race, and racism, continue to define their worldview in fundamental ways. For the men and women of Reverend Wright’s generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years. That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table. At times, that anger is exploited by politicia ns, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politician’s own failings.

And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews. The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright’s sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning. That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.

In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don’t feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience – as far as they’re concerned, no one’s handed them anything, they’ve built it from scratch. They’ve worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committ ed; when they’re told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.

Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren’t always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism.

Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze – a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns – this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding.

This is where we are right now. It’s a racial stalemate we’ve been stuck in for years. Contrary to the claims of some of my critics, black and white, I have never been so naïve as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle, or with a single candidacy – particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own.

But I have asserted a firm conviction – a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people – that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice is we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union.

For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life. But it also means binding our particular grievances – for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs - to the larger aspirations of all Americans -- the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man whose been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family. And it means taking full responsibility for own lives – by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny.

Ironically, this quintessentially American – and yes, conservative – notion of self-help found frequent expression in Reverend Wright’s sermons. But what my former pastor too often failed to understand is that embarking on a program of self-help also requires a belief that society can change.

The profound mistake of Reverend Wright’s sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It’s that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country – a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black; Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old -- is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past. But what we know -- what we have seen – is that America can change. That is true genius of this nation. What we have already achieved gives us hope – the audacity to hope – for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.

In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination - and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past - are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds – by investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations. It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper.

The speech is really good (still about half way through), but here is a portion of it. It's worth a read (or a listen).

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

[IG]http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51BTV5DP-PL._SS500_.jpg[/IMG]

No, I can't find any historical list of terrorist attacks against the US

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by Warren Pease 

The speech is really good (still about half way through), but here is a portion of it. It's worth a read (or a listen).

We now know that Obama harbors racist resentment. Combined with his choice of church and large donations to the Rev. Wright's organizations, it's pretty clear that Obama chooses to market and foster such resentment as well.

Obama blames the deplorable conditions of the ghetto on racism? You've got to be kidding me. What garbage. Hey Obama, it's the people the ghettos elect to office time and again that are failing those neighborhood. But of course you're not going to point that out, for it exposes the Democratic party as the group most responsible for these conditions.

Look at New Orleans, pre-Katrina. 60+ years of liberal Democratic rule. It should have been a liberal Utopia. Instead, it largely consisted of an expanding base of dependents who continuously voted Democrat because they feared being cut off.

Instead of trying to help his community understand the real world, Obama chooses to foster resentment, because when harnessed, that resentment propels Obama's personal ambitions.

[Mithras]

Obama is toast:


And no, Obama is not and will not be framed as the "angry black man" of people's nightmares.

[spacefreak]

Does anyone think that if Obama loses, that he won't blame racism?

How about this autobiographical gem from Obama:

"On p. 94-95 he describes an effective tactic to deal with White people:

'It was usually an effective tactic, another one of those tricks I had learned: People were satisfied so long as you were courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves. They were more than satisfied; they were relieved - such a pleasant surprise to find a well-mannered young black man who didn't seem angry all the time.' "

Hey Obama, people of all races prefer their company to be nice, courteous, smiling, and not making any sudden move, regardless of that company's skin color (or religion, gender, political affiliation, etc.)

The telling part of that quote by Obama is that when examined, it infers that Obama is an angry man who regularly conceals his true character.

[tie]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

How about this autobiographical gem from Obama:
...
Hey Obama, people of all races prefer their company to be nice, courteous, smiling, and not making any sudden move, regardless of that company's skin color (or religion, gender, political affiliation, etc.)

The telling part of that quote by Obama is that when examined, it infers that Obama is an angry man who takes pride who routinely conceals his true character.

But that isn't what he said at all. He wrote, "They were more than satisfied; they were relieved - such a pleasant surprise..." The quote does not infer anything like what you claim. Is this also how you interpreted your "sources" when you were making up stories about WMDs found in Iraq and posting them in this forum?

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

Instead of trying to help his community understand the real world, Obama chooses to foster resentment, because when harnessed, that resentment propels Obama's personal ambitions.

Resentment? That's what you hear? Must be listening to a different speech than me...

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

No, I can't find any historical list of terrorist attacks against the US

Significant Terrorist Incidents 1961-2003: A Brief Chronology

[Doofy]

Didn't I mention about a year back that Obama's church was a bunch of racists? Pretty sure I did. You can go search for it if you want to.

Hitlery will win the Dem nomination. And McCain will be the prez. And the Rothschilds will run the place, as usual. And lefties will still be stupid.

[tie]

That's interesting, Doofy. Obama's speech was actually a good speech. It wasn't good for soundbites, though. I don't know if this is good or bad for his campaign.

Meanwhile, McCain made another foreign policy gaffe today. I guess this kind of thing is inevitable, but it certainly doesn't help one sleep better knowing that fools have the keys to our nuclear weapons, does it?

[Doofy]

Well tie, I haven't heard any of the speeches (what with being a few thousand miles away and not having a TV anyway). But I'm pretty sure that the US ain't ready for Obama or Hitlery. Obama is way too controversial (refusal to follow anthem protocol, etc.) and Hitlery is way too familiar. The peeps need fresh but safe, so they'll go McCain.

[k2director]

Here's a link to Trinity Church's web site... Trinity United Church of Christ

Check out the second paragraph, where it says:

The vision statement of Trinity United Church of Christ is based upon the systematized liberation theology that started in 1969 with the publication of Dr. James Cone’s book, Black Power and Black Theology.

Now check out the esteemed James Cone in his own words:

Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community. . . . Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love

And this is the church, of all the churches in Chicago, that Obama chose to associate himself with for 20 years? After this episode, I seriously doubt Obama will be able to transcend race in America, as he's implied he will do.

I also noticed that, in the past, Obama has sworn off some conventional symbols of patriotism (lapel pins of the American flag, putting his hand over his heart for the pledge), but he sure had a lot of American flags behind him during today's statement on race in America.

I guess a little overt patriotism is suddenly a good thing...

[BRussell]

Since that was two posts in a row repeating lies about Obama and patriotism, I had to post this to make sure it wasn't three.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by Warren Pease 

Resentment? That's what you hear? Must be listening to a different speech than me...

Thanks for the reply...

In the speech, Obama clearly describes the anger and resentment he perceives in the black community, and more specifically his church. I suggest you reread the speech if you did not comprehend this as a theme.

He fosters it by donating gobs of money to Rev. Wright's organizations. Surely you've been exposed to some of the preachings and mantras of Rev. Wright. Interpretations of Wright's literature and speech point to that of a philiosophy that promotes resentment and anger towards white America.

So yeah, that's what I got from both Obama's speech, and his 20-year history supporting and funding Rev. Wright's operations.

On another note, did a bell ring in anyone else's head after Obama (in his speech) said he was likely present during Wright's offensive sermons, especially after Obama spent the last few days spreading through the media that he was absolutely not present during any of these sermons?

Which answer should I believe? Was he or was he not in the cheering crowd as Rev. Wright bashed all things white and American?

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by k2director 

I guess a little overt patriotism is suddenly a good thing...

I just know that if Obama loses, it's going to be blamed on racism. What sucks about that is that there is nothing further from the truth. People are just deciding they don't like or trust him.

The only reason that race is an issue is because Obama has (for 20 years) chosen to study and practice race resentment as a guiding philosophy.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Well tie, I haven't heard any of the speeches (what with being a few thousand miles away and not having a TV anyway). But I'm pretty sure that the US ain't ready for Obama or Hitlery. Obama is way too controversial (refusal to follow anthem protocol, etc.) and Hitlery is way too familiar. The peeps need fresh but safe, so they'll go McCain.

Doofy, the speech is on all the news websites. Check it out.

Obama is way too controversial (refusal to follow anthem protocol, etc.)

I really think you need to reevaluate where you get your news. Maybe buy a TV? Or start visiting some other websites? This thing about the anthem was a lie. You should be pretty embarrassed that you fell for it, and are still repeating the lie several months later. You seem like a reasonable person. So I'm just pointing this out for your own sake---it simply doesn't make one look good to be that gullible, believing anonymous email smear campaigns.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by tie 

Doofy, the speech is on all the news websites. Check it out.

Dude, I have like 10 KBps spare. Can't really do online video.

Originally Posted by tie 

I really think you need to reevaluate where you get your news.

I get it from all over, so ?

Originally Posted by tie 

Maybe buy a TV?

Screw that. I can find better uses for $300.

Originally Posted by tie 

Or start visiting some other websites? This thing about the anthem was a lie. You should be pretty embarrassed that you fell for it, and are still repeating the lie several months later. You seem like a reasonable person. So I'm just pointing this out for your own sake---it simply doesn't make one look good to be that gullible, believing anonymous email smear campaigns.

I didn't see it in any email smear campaign - I saw the photo posted here.


I don't really give one jot about patriotism either. To me, a country is just somewhere to lay one's hat whilst looking for the next lowest tax destination.

But if I know the American people like I think I do, get ready for 4 more years of GOP.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Let's do a test. I'll say that giving Israel carte blanche with money and weapons is too aggressive a policy for our own national security. Now tell me that I'm an anti-semite for saying so.

Do you really think it's accurate to say America gives Israel carte blanche with money and weapons? Really?

Originally Posted by OAW 

Al-Qaeda ... no Osama Bin Laden himself ... can state unequivocally that the reasons for the 911 attacks was US troop presence in Saudi Arabia and US support for Israel against the Palestinians. The 911 Commission Report confirms this no less.

Al Qaeda attacks America and the West because the western world represents an affront to Islam and its quest for global domination - the imposition of Sharia throughout the world. Yes, Osama's original stated grievance was with our military bases, and later he adopted the banner of the so-called "Palestinians." But you're a fool if you think that but for the existence of Israel and military bases in Saudi Arabia there would have been no 9/11. But let's assume that's your position. Okay, to what end? Dismantle our bases regardless of their strategic importance and value? Abandon Israel? Do those things on the urging of a wanton mass murder, thereby increasing his stature by an order of magnitude?

It's way too easy to just caricature anyone who questions said US foreign policy as an anti-Semite.

Rev. Wright's oratory makes him a caricature - he does that all by himself. One can question US foreign policy. Obama's cherished "uncle" goes far beyond that. He hates the United States and Israel. He hates those with white skin - even Obama admitted that. If you can't then you simply don't want to see it, or you don't wish to admit it.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Dude, I have like 10 KBps spare. Can't really do online video.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/18/us...pagewanted=all

I didn't see it in any email smear campaign - I saw the photo posted here.

Well, everyone knows that the MacNN lounge is the best source of news around. That is odd.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by tie 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/18/us...pagewanted=all

Seems reasonable.

I hope he wins. It'll be fun watching all the GOP folks snipe at him for four years like the Dems have been sniping at Bush.

But I don't think he will. My bet's still on McCain.

(Actually, truth be told I don't really care either way beyond being a bemused spectator. Decided some time back that the US, with its ridiculously high taxes and lack of freedom, wasn't the place for me. Whoever you vote for, the government will win.)

Originally Posted by tie 

Well, everyone knows that the MacNN lounge is the best source of news around. That is odd.

Didn't look like it'd been chopped.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

On another note, did a bell ring in anyone else's head after Obama (in his speech) said he was likely present during Wright's offensive sermons, especially after Obama spent the last few days spreading through the media that he was absolutely not present during any of these sermons?

I just read this comment on a news site (or blog-type site)...

"... it fits his pattern ( NAFTA, Rezko, this and the "Obama is lying about withdrawing from Iraq" thing that will be an issue next week):

1. Claim it didn't happen
   
2. Admit something happened, but it wasn't what they said it was
   
3. Get caught lying again, admit it is what they said it was, but it really isn't the way it looks
   
4. Read speech about hope, people who oppose obama hate unity and are probably racist
   
5. Get BJ from press
   
6. Repeat next week with corruption issues or problems with senior advisors admitting that he is bullshitting the public

"

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by tie 

But that isn't what he said at all. He wrote, "They were more than satisfied; they were relieved - such a pleasant surprise..." The quote does not infer anything like what you claim.

He himself referred to it as a "tactic" and a "trick". Not my words.

Originally Posted by tie 

Is this also how you interpreted your "sources" when you were making up stories about WMDs found in Iraq and posting them in this forum?

You continue to use this smear to deflect attention away from your weak and dying arguments, yet you never take me up on my numerous challenges to show me these posts where you claim I said WMDs had been found.

Regarding Iraq, nothing was made up, and of the items that I communicated were found (buried aircraft, plutonium, buried centrifuge - all since documented), the one repeated highlight was always the boat load of documents found. Sh-t loads of them... like this post in August, 2003. Heaven forbid I share a little chatter from folks who were working the war.

Perhaps you should read up on the ongoing analysis of those documents, which I now believe exceed 600,000 of them that have been translated. Here's a link...

Throughout the early and mid-1990s, Saddam Hussein actively supported an influential terrorist group headed by the man who is now al Qaeda's second-in-command, according to an exhaustive study issued last week by the Pentagon. "Saddam supported groups that either associated directly with al Qaeda (such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, led at one time by bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri) or that generally shared al Qaeda's stated goals and objectives." According to the Pentagon study, Egyptian Islamic Jihad was one of many jihadist groups that Iraq's former dictator funded, trained, equipped, and armed.

The study was commissioned by the Joint Forces Command in Norfolk, Virginia... the study is based on a review of some 600,000 documents captured in postwar Iraq. Those "documents" include letters, memos, computer files, audiotapes, and videotapes produced by Saddam Hussein's regime, especially his intelligence services. The analysis section of the study covers 59 pages. The appendices, which include copies of some of the captured documents and translations, put the entire study at approximately 1,600 pages.

Now, back to our regular Obama programming....

[Chuckit]

Wow, Obama may have been slightly inconsistent about an extremely minor issue? I guess that means he's…oh yeah, still better than either of our last two presidents.

Seriously, I don't understand why this is worth discussing unless you're just predisposed to hate Obama. As somebody who still doesn't know what he wants to do in November, this doesn't really sway my opinion in any direction.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

He himself referred to it as a "tactic" and a "trick". Not my words.

Yes, but it is your twist on them. You're taking his phrasing much more literally than it sounds like it meant it. It's like when I tell writers that getting their stories in on time is a nice little trick for not getting yelled at. I don't mean they're actually deceiving me.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Yes, but it is your twist on them. You're taking his phrasing much more literally than it sounds like it meant it.

The man is an eloquent, educated, best-selling author. Why wouldn't I take his autobiographical words literally?

"It was usually an effective tactic, another one of those tricks I had learned: People were satisfied so long as you were courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves. They were more than satisfied; they were relieved - such a pleasant surprise to find a well-mannered young black man who didn't seem angry all the time."

Ultimately, he's operating with the predisposition that those with whom he's utilizing his tactic (white people) wouldn't like him as himself because he's black. Or is it because he's angry, or both? Either way, it gives yet another peek into the mind of Obama, and it's got racism, or more specifically his perceived racism, written all over it.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Wow, Obama may have been slightly inconsistent about an extremely minor issue?

It's not minor if a whole heck of a lot of people care about it. I doubt Obama would have given that speech today if he deemed this "minor". Upper echelons of his campaign staff are working their tails off trying to stem the bleeding. Does this sound like an "extremely minor issue" to you?

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I guess that means he's…oh yeah, still better than either of our last two presidents.

How can you possibly say that? Before Obama can be compared in the same breath, he has to spend some time working in the Oval Office. Before that, he has to win the job.

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I don't understand why this is worth discussing unless you're just predisposed to hate Obama.

Maybe I simply dislike the racist vitriol of his pastor and spiritual mentor - the guy who Obama funds to operate and expand operations - Rev. J. Wright.

To classify this issue as "extremely minor", and to then accuse those who take issue with it as having a "predisposition to hate Obama"... it's pretty obvious where you lean. Why don't you come clean and simply say you are an Obama supporter instead of unsuccessfully portraying yourself as being objective?

Me - I'm a fan of conservatism, and I'm proud to say so.

[k2director]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

I just know that if Obama loses, it's going to be blamed on racism. What sucks about that is that there is nothing further from the truth. People are just deciding they don't like or trust him.

The only reason that race is an issue is because Obama has (for 20 years) chosen to study and practice race resentment as a guiding philosophy.

I agree. A ton of people will say that Obama lost because of racism, just as Wesley Snipes was prosecuted for tax evasion because he's black. Of course, Obama's loss could have nothing to do with....

a) His far-left ideology
b) His extreme anti-business bias (see his speech from today)
c) His unattractive instincts to paint so much of America as a victim of one thing or another
d) His wife saying that she was never really proud of America until her husband started winning
e) his long-time "spiritual advisor" turning out to be a blatant racist and America-hater...not to mention being the ultimate posterchild for dysfunction in the black community ("it's all rich whitey's fault!")
f) His repeated insistence that the Iraq war was all a terrible mistake from day one
g) and oh yes, his government experience includes virtually no time in the U.S. Senate, and a very undistinguished record in Illinois' state assembly.

For some, any vote against Obama can't possibly be due to this long list of faults, but just yet another demonstration that America is a racist country. I look forward to the chorus of whiners already.