Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
libertyworld

The Word Is Authenticity

92 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

BlindMessiah
Oh, I see. My definition of pedophilia is broader than yours, but I see your point. I didn't think the ad was suggesting that Obama was advocating sex acts either. But inappropriate talk can be just as damaging and confusing as inappropriate touching to a small child and can in some cases constitute abuse. I think the idea of any stranger talking to your small child about sex would be pretty worrisome to most parents and I think it is this perfectly understandable fear of pedophiles that this despicable ad was exploiting.

Ah ok. Then we're on the same page here. Just different personal definitions of a word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HKCavalier

I think the trouble the Republicans are gonna have with Palin in the weeks ahead is that she's a love her or hate her type of candidate--not a candidate who's gonna win over the undecideds. Either you were totally onboard with her from the get-go as your ideal culturally conservative, stick-it-to-the-arugula-eating-Dems every-woman, or she is not gonna inspire anything but more and more doubts. She's strictly a first-impressions candidate. Either you think she embodies "authenticity" or you think she's a joke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gustavo

For fun:

I think the trouble the Democrats have with Obama now is that he's a love him or hate him type of candidate--not a candidate who's gonna win over the undecideds. Either you were totally onboard with him from the get-go as your ideal extremely liberal, stick-it-to-the-Bush-administration every man, or he is not gonna inspire anything but more and more doubts. He's strictly a first-impressions candidate. Either you think he embodies "authenticity" or you think he's a joke.

Edited by Gustavo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HKCavalier
For fun:

I think the trouble the Democrats have with Obama now is that he's a love him or hate him type of candidate--not a candidate who's gonna win over the undecideds. Either you were totally onboard with him from the get-go as your ideal extremely liberal, stick-it-to-the-Bush-administration every man, or he is not gonna inspire anything but more and more doubts. He's strictly a first-impressions candidate. Either you think he embodies "authenticity" or you think he's a joke.

How'd that work for ya? Fun?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guardsman Bass
S-trav and Blind-m...

Can you give us one example from McCain or Palin's past that comes anywhere near the Obamas' associations with so many hate filled sickos in the Finals of the Character Deficit, Moral Poverty and Dishonor Competition?

How about the crazy-*** church she belonged to for years?

Of course, this is all irrelevant, because over here in Rational Observer-Land, we judge people by what they do, not by their associations. Obama may have attended that church -but has he ever echoed any of Wright's rhetoric, or tried to incorporate it into his policy?

Never mind everything the rest of us have already heard because nothing there is even in the same league.

So unless you have something just discovered today and off the scale of moral depravity then maybe you should just do the old cut and run thing...

Neither bother giving us the tired old "no guilt by association allowed" defense because associations over time go directly to ones judgment and character, like it or not, they always have and they always will.

Late Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black will be disappointed to hear that. He never got the message that belonging to the Ku Klux Klan in your youth apparently makes you an unrepentant racist for the rest of your life.

Again, I doubt you can bring up a single action or statement by Obama himself that echoes any of Wright's worst rhetoric.

Few things in this world are as repulsive as those who associate over time with they who demonstrate such unmitigated hatred for one's beloved homeland and the welcoming openness and opportunity that is America.

You make it sound as if Wright was an unrepentant America-hater, or that this was all he talked about. The guy volunteered to serve in the US Marine Corps and later the Navy for six years, from 1961-1967. Obama tried to point this kind of sophistication out in his speech on race, but I doubt you had the patience or hearing comprehension to really understand it.

Neither bother attempting a case against the fact that nowhere in the world or at any time in human history have blacks progressed further or faster than they have in the US because there just isn't one.

How about in native american societies in the 19th century? Or in certain areas under Spanish control? You dorealize that Florida was originally seized in large part because it was a haven for runaway slaves? How about in Mexico, which actually banned slavery before the US did? How about in Canada, which was the destination of many runaway black slaves?

Few things in this world are as disgusting to sane and healthy adults as the perpetual-victimhood-mongering slave-master wannabes preaching their vile "Black Liberation Theology" poison after all the racial progress this country has made.

There has never been and never will be any escape from ones record of associations over time.

They are the true measure of ones character.

Again, the late Hugo Black would be shocked. Or, for that matter, Father Bartolome de las Casas.

Were the Obama clan to make a complete and unconditional apology for and disavowal of their life record, then yes they would earn the right to be reconsidered as honorable adults 20-30 years from now, assuming they proved their words sincere between now and then.

Only if McCain forever and publicly renounces creationism, and then works to promote the proper teaching of science in schools.

Short of that, forget about it.

It's over.

...And the only hatred and racism that shares any significant blame for it is that so clearly demonstrated by the facts of their lives and the seething venom from their supporters, here and around the world.

Funny, we're not the supporters shouting and screaming about moral decay, about "vermin" crossing the borders and "waging a war on the middle class", or about how the other side is "murdering little innocent babies". I'd say you better do something about the cancerous hatred among your kin, first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HKCavalier
For fun:

I think the trouble the Democrats have with Obama now is that he's a love him or hate him type of candidate--not a candidate who's gonna win over the undecideds. Either you were totally onboard with him from the get-go as your ideal extremely liberal, stick-it-to-the-Bush-administration every man, or he is not gonna inspire anything but more and more doubts. He's strictly a first-impressions candidate. Either you think he embodies "authenticity" or you think he's a joke.

It really is just a game for you folks, isn't it? Just toss up any old muck and see if it sticks?

Obama, if you recall, was a long shot when he entered the race--partly because of he was largely unknown, partly because he was relatively inexperienced--he had to build tremendous support over the course of months to win his party's nomination and he continues to get more supporters every day. The day after Palin's nasty, dishonest speech at the RNC he got 10 million dollars worth of donations. So, no, a lot of folks were not on board with him from the beginning. And, sorry, he ain't "extremely liberal" at all--he's moderate, maybe slightly left of B. Clinton. As I've said, he's been around for 19 months and his support has grown. So, no, you replacing Palin's name with Obama's only produces gibberish and makes you look silly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Incorrigible1
And, sorry, he ain't "extremely liberal" at all--he's moderate, maybe slightly left of B. Clinton.

You're serious, aren't you? If Barry's "moderate," WTH would you consider liberal? It is to laugh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Startraveler

What is it that you think makes him anything other than center-left?

Edited by Startraveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gustavo
It really is just a game for you folks, isn't it? Just toss up any old muck and see if it sticks?

Obama, if you recall, was a long shot when he entered the race--partly because of he was largely unknown, partly because he was relatively inexperienced--he had to build tremendous support over the course of months to win his party's nomination and he continues to get more supporters every day. The day after Palin's nasty, dishonest speech at the RNC he got 10 million dollars worth of donations. So, no, a lot of folks were not on board with him from the beginning. And, sorry, he ain't "extremely liberal" at all--he's moderate, maybe slightly left of B. Clinton. As I've said, he's been around for 19 months and his support has grown. So, no, you replacing Palin's name with Obama's only produces gibberish and makes you look silly.

Aw, now who needs to lighten up? I was simply having fun with you. Look at it as a compliment to your writing style, cause in a way it was. Ya got to admit the paragraph could be used by anybody since it was full of generalizations... depends on your point of view. The original looked to me like an "insert name here rant", so I did. It was as I said, "For Fun" that means it was not serious. But it seems it struck a nerve anyway.

Are you serious that Obama is moderate? I think he votes in the far left category. He is running to the center at the moment but that dont make it so.

Edited by Gustavo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Incorrigible1
What is it that you think makes him anything other than center-left?

Obama: Most Liberal Senator In 2007

© National Journal Group Inc.

Thursday, Jan. 31, 2008

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was the most liberal senator in 2007, according to National Journal's 27th annual vote ratings. The insurgent presidential candidate shifted further to the left last year in the run-up to the primaries, after ranking as the 16th- and 10th-most-liberal during his first two years in the Senate.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., the other front-runner in the Democratic presidential race, also shifted to the left last year. She ranked as the 16th-most-liberal senator in the 2007 ratings, a computer-assisted analysis that used 99 key Senate votes, selected by NJ reporters and editors, to place every senator on a liberal-to-conservative scale in each of three issue categories. In 2006, Clinton was the 32nd-most-liberal senator.

In their yearlong race for the Democratic presidential nomination, Obama and Clinton have had strikingly similar voting records. Of the 267 measures on which both senators cast votes in 2007, the two differed on only 10. "The policy differences between Clinton and Obama are so slight they are almost nonexistent to the average voter," said Richard Lau, a Rutgers University political scientist.

linked-image

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Startraveler

That doesn't answer my question. What specific policy initiatives does he support that make you think he's something other than center-left?

If you think votes for things like funding embryonic stem cell research, reauthorizing SCHIP, and implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 commission are "extremely liberal," you must be a reactionary. And if you don't, the National Journal's rankings are meaningless.

So what specifically makes Obama something other than center-left?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Incorrigible1
That doesn't answer my question. What specific policy initiatives does he support that make you think he's something other than center-left?

If you think votes for things like funding embryonic stem cell research, reauthorizing SCHIP, and implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 commission are "extremely liberal," you must be a reactionary. And if you don't, the National Journal's rankings are meaningless.

So what specifically makes Obama something other than center-left?

Ah, you ask, but then preempt valid choices I might state by labeling me a reactionary if I don't take your side. Heh!

Stacking the deck, my friend? How gauche.

Specifically, his vote for SCHIP was extremely wasteful of taxpayer money. Passage of that bill would reauthorize SCHIP at $60.2 billion for five years, expanding the program by $35.2 billion and covering children in households with incomes up to three times the federal poverty line.

The war funding bill,vote 181. Ten Democrats opposed this new bill with no withdrawal deadlines, while 37 supported its passage. Congress had to act to replace war funding that would have ended May 28. Barry was among the ten.

Vote 75. The measure had directed the president to begin a phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq within 120 days of the resolution’s enactment.

That's enough from me. I don't care to jump through further hoops for you. Cheers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HKCavalier
Aw, now who needs to lighten up? I was simply having fun with you. Look at it as a compliment to your writing style, cause in a way it was. Ya got to admit the paragraph could be used by anybody since it was full of generalizations... depends on your point of view. The original looked to me like an "insert name here rant", so I did. It was as I said, "For Fun" that means it was not serious. But it seems it struck a nerve anyway.

Hey Gustavo,

It did strike a nerve. Because this thread is about authenticity and I can't see how McCain with his reversals on virtually everything he courageously stood for even 4 years ago, from torture to tax cuts, can be seen as the candidate of authenticity now--maybe back in 2000, I much preferred him to Bush back then--but not now and certainly not in this election. It struck a nerve, because the GOP has routinely taken whatever criticism directed at them and turned it on the Dems, whether it fits the facts or not. Now McCain, who has voted with the Bush White House 90% of the time is running as the ticket of "change" simply because that's what Obama has been offering and it's what Americans want. McCain's campaign has become pure salesmanship. He's taken all of Bush's ruinous policies and slapped "NEW AND IMPROVED!!!" on 'em. That so many folks are buying, doesn't make him right, or authentic. You gotta admit: there are scores of more qualified Republicans than Sarah Palin! If you were running the most powerful nation in the world, wouldn't you want the most qualified people in the nation around you? Her appointment was and is nothing but a satirical commentary on Barack Obama.

And I really gotta disagree that my original comment could be applied to anyone. Obama is not a flash in the pan in this election--we have yet to find out if Palin is. Obama has been running on his KNOWLEDGE, not on his experience. Palin, apparently, has neither. I still suspect that her ignorance and corrupt politics will become a liability in time.

Are you serious that Obama is moderate? I think he votes in the far left category. He is running to the center at the moment but that dont make it so.

This country's political landscape has skewed so far to the right in recent years, become so narrow, that anything left of Bush gets labeled socialist. Look at foreign policy: anyone so much as suggests using diplomacy and they get called a terrorist sympathizer. It's nuts.

Obama's economic policies are centrist. His foreign policy is militarism-lite. The only issues he is consistently left-wing on are the so-called social issues. And that seems to be the only area the conservatives even look at nowadays (oh well, and they lie about Obama's tax cuts for 80 to 95% of Americans). The social conservatives see him as a baby killer, a corrupter of youth, an America hating black radical, a secret Muslim, not even a citizen of the U.S. etc. But even on social issues, he is against gay marriage, so not really "far left" there, either. So why do lefties support him? 'Cause he is not connected to either political dynasty of the past two decades and he has shown shrewd judgement, personal integrity, and genuine empathy for the struggles of most Americans throughout this campaign. Oh, and I feel confident that he's not a raving lunatic when it comes to starting wars just 'cause we can.

And please, Obama's actual policy proposals have not changed much at all in 19 months--that's a fiction created by the right-wing spin doctors in the media--only his rhetorical emphasis has shifted.

Thank you for your civil reply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sho_Sho
:clap: :clap: :clap:

If his voting present doesn't show you what kind of man he is, nothing will.

Source: http://www.adl.org/special_reports/farrakh...n_own_words.asp

“For nearly 30 years, Louis Farrakhan has marked himself a notable figure on the extremist scene by making hateful statements targeting Jews, whites and homosexuals.Farrakhan’s bigoted and anti-Semitic rhetoric has included statements calling whites “blue eyed devils” and Jews “bloodsuckers” that controlled the slave trade, the government, the media and various Black individuals and organizations. In 2006, he blamed Jews and Israel for the war in Iraq, for controlling Hollywood and for promoting what he considers immorality during his February Saviours’ Day address in Chicago.In a 2007 interview with Arabic-language television news network Al Jazeera, Farrakhan accused Jews of anti-Semitism, charging that “The real anti-Semites are those who came out of Europe and settled in Palestine, and now they call themselves the true Jews, when in fact, they converted to Judaism.”

White people are potential humans…they haven’t evolved yet.” Philadelphia Inquirer, 3/18/00 According to a journalist’s account, “Farrakhan called ‘the white man’ the ‘anti-Christ’ to rousing applause.” Jackson, MS, 9/19/97, Clarion-Ledger, 9/21/97

Source:

http://volokh.com/posts/1200396783.shtml By David Bernstein, January 15, 2008 at 6:33am Cohen on Obama’s Church and Farrakhan:

"The issue is quickly hitting the mainstream, as the Washington Post’s Richard Cohen has a column today that starts: Barack Obama is a member of Chicago’s Trinity United Church of Christ. Its minister, and Obama’s spiritual adviser, is the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. In 1982, the church launched Trumpet Newsmagazine; Wright’s daughters serve as publisher and executive editor. Every year, the magazine makes awards in various categories. Last year, it gave the Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter Award to a man it said “truly epitomized greatness.” That man is Louis Farrakhan….Rev. Wright’s praise for Farrakhan is precisely based on Farrakhan’s racist demagoguery, what Rev. Wright calls Farrakhan’s “astounding and eyeopening” analysis of the “racial ills of this nation,” a “perspective” that is “helpful and honest.” Such as “White people are potential humans - they haven’t evolved yet”? Or “they [the Jews] are the greatest controllers of black minds, black intelligence.”

UPDATE: An interesting angle that I noticed perusing some related commentary. Rev. Wright is obviously a smart, savvy individual. He knows that many of his views are controversial, and told the NY Times last year that he understood he could cause some problems for Obama. So why have his magazine honor Farrakhan, and why be quoted praising Farrakhan, in the middle of Obama’s campaign for president? Odd."

Mr Obama keeps this type of company?

Birds of a feather, Flock Together

Edited by Sho_Sho

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vampwitchenstein
I don't know about third party. But everyone in office needs to go.

Yes! Away with them all! Bring back the Ruling Monarchy! I nominate Myself as the First and do declare that I have been directed by God to claim my Royal Blood and begin my reign!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guardsman Bass
Ah, you ask, but then preempt valid choices I might state by labeling me a reactionary if I don't take your side. Heh!

Stacking the deck, my friend? How gauche.

Specifically, his vote for SCHIP was extremely wasteful of taxpayer money. Passage of that bill would reauthorize SCHIP at $60.2 billion for five years, expanding the program by $35.2 billion and covering children in households with incomes up to three times the federal poverty line.

So? The whole point of SCHIP was not that it covered "children in poverty"; it covers children who are too wealth off to qualify for Medicaid. In some states, that income range is higher in some states than in others.

The war funding bill,vote 181. Ten Democrats opposed this new bill with no withdrawal deadlines, while 37 supported its passage. Congress had to act to replace war funding that would have ended May 28. Barry was among the ten.

Ah, so pressing for a funding bill to come with strings attached relating to a withdrawal deadline is apparently extremely liberal, even though the Bush Administration is preparing to do . . . just that, with the 2011 withdrawal deadline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Startraveler
Ah, you ask, but then preempt valid choices I might state by labeling me a reactionary if I don't take your side. Heh!

Embryonic stem cell research is supported by 70+% of the American public.

Reauthorizing and expanding SCHIP was similarly supported by a large majority.

A timetable for withdrawal from Iraq is favored by 60% of Americans.

These are not "extreme liberal" positions and, yes, if you honestly think that then your brand of conservativism--or whatever you call it--is probably about as extreme as it gets.

Specifically, his vote for SCHIP was extremely wasteful of taxpayer money. Passage of that bill would reauthorize SCHIP at $60.2 billion for five years, expanding the program by $35.2 billion and covering children in households with incomes up to three times the federal poverty line.

H.R. 976 passed the Senate 68-31. It enjoyed bipartisan support and, as noted, wide public support. In 2006, 8.7 million children lacked health insurance (11.7 percent of all kids). Your wasteful spending would have cut that number in half. Insuring our children is not an issue that splinters along ideological lines.

The war funding bill,vote 181. Ten Democrats opposed this new bill with no withdrawal deadlines, while 37 supported its passage. Congress had to act to replace war funding that would have ended May 28. Barry was among the ten.

You're against wasteful spending, you're for unaccountable, wasteful, no-strings-attached spending. Which is it? Burning money in Iraq without holding anyone accountable isn't a conservative position, nor is a libertarian position. I think you've found an issue on which Obama is more conservative than you apparently are.

Vote 75. The measure had directed the president to begin a phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq within 120 days of the resolution’s enactment.

As noted, 3 out of 5 Americans say that staying in Iraq is "not worth it" and support redeployment. Doesn't sound like an extremely liberal position to me.

C'mon do you actually have anything or not? Obama is and always has been center-left at best.

Edited by Startraveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
InHuman
So for 20 years, twice a month, Obama sat in to listen to Wright and you are saying he is telling the truth with respect to not knowing Wright was a racist, America hater? Wow, now that is a stretch. Does that mean he didn’t have a clue about who Ayers was also? I believe he knew exactly who and what Wright is. Remember he is so smart. You can’t have it both ways, He is either a dolt who couldn’t even identify hate and racism or he is brilliant. I take his association with Wright as very serious. Just as I take his wife’s word that she has not been proud of her country until her husband ran for office. Her statement fits right in with 20 years of listening to Wright. Personally, one of the important qualifications to be president should be patriotism. Ayers is an America hater and so is Wright. Those who support such men are suspect as to their true allegiance.

You are basing 20 years on 20 seconds. Seriously.

Nobody could attend about 500 seething rants disguised as sermons from such a hate mongering slave-master wacko as Wright and not know very clearly where said nutcase stood.

Again, were you there for all 500 "seething rants"?

And you can't be judging Obama on this when Mccain flipflopped (again) and started getting friendly with the "agents of intolerence"...

Ever time I read one of your threads/posts I feel bad, you dont make points, you make accusations, you don't criticise, you smear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BlindMessiah
This country's political landscape has skewed so far to the right in recent years, become so narrow, that anything left of Bush gets labeled socialist. Look at foreign policy: anyone so much as suggests using diplomacy and they get called a terrorist sympathizer. It's nuts.

I don't think we've shifted to the right. We've shifted to some form of quazi conservatism that believes in running up national debt and sending our troops throughout the world in aggressive preemptive strikes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
InHuman
Birds of a feather, Flock Together

I've know mabey thousands of people so far in my life. I'm sure quite a few of them were or are fat racist douchebags.

And just because at some points I might have had to work with them (school/work) dosn't mean I agree with them..

Seriously, attacking his ASSOCIATIONS is just grapsing for straws... find things to disagree with him on (policies/judgement/views)...

Again, all I see is the right is SCARED... and will do anything to scare the american public into not voting for Obama...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gustavo
Hey Gustavo,

It did strike a nerve. Because this thread is about authenticity and I can't see how McCain with his reversals on virtually everything he courageously stood for even 4 years ago, from torture to tax cuts, can be seen as the candidate of authenticity now--maybe back in 2000, I much preferred him to Bush back then--but not now and certainly not in this election. It struck a nerve, because the GOP has routinely taken whatever criticism directed at them and turned it on the Dems, whether it fits the facts or not. Now McCain, who has voted with the Bush White House 90% of the time is running as the ticket of "change" simply because that's what Obama has been offering and it's what Americans want. McCain's campaign has become pure salesmanship. He's taken all of Bush's ruinous policies and slapped "NEW AND IMPROVED!!!" on 'em. That so many folks are buying, doesn't make him right, or authentic. You gotta admit: there are scores of more qualified Republicans than Sarah Palin! If you were running the most powerful nation in the world, wouldn't you want the most qualified people in the nation around you? Her appointment was and is nothing but a satirical commentary on Barack Obama.

And I really gotta disagree that my original comment could be applied to anyone. Obama is not a flash in the pan in this election--we have yet to find out if Palin is. Obama has been running on his KNOWLEDGE, not on his experience. Palin, apparently, has neither. I still suspect that her ignorance and corrupt politics will become a liability in time.

This country's political landscape has skewed so far to the right in recent years, become so narrow, that anything left of Bush gets labeled socialist. Look at foreign policy: anyone so much as suggests using diplomacy and they get called a terrorist sympathizer. It's nuts.

Obama's economic policies are centrist. His foreign policy is militarism-lite. The only issues he is consistently left-wing on are the so-called social issues. And that seems to be the only area the conservatives even look at nowadays (oh well, and they lie about Obama's tax cuts for 80 to 95% of Americans). The social conservatives see him as a baby killer, a corrupter of youth, an America hating black radical, a secret Muslim, not even a citizen of the U.S. etc. But even on social issues, he is against gay marriage, so not really "far left" there, either. So why do lefties support him? 'Cause he is not connected to either political dynasty of the past two decades and he has shown shrewd judgement, personal integrity, and genuine empathy for the struggles of most Americans throughout this campaign. Oh, and I feel confident that he's not a raving lunatic when it comes to starting wars just 'cause we can.

And please, Obama's actual policy proposals have not changed much at all in 19 months--that's a fiction created by the right-wing spin doctors in the media--only his rhetorical emphasis has shifted.

Thank you for your civil reply.

Thank You! I guess its no surprise I see this differently than you. I’m going to be brief so I can cover it all without writing a book.

On taxes, Obamas plan would hurt the country. You can’t raise tax in a financial downturn; we have learned this as a country. I don’t need to misrepresent or lie about his plan because it’s bad all by itself. He has been pretty outspoken about his plan to raise tax on folks over 250k and extend the Bush cuts (a recent changed position by the way) We do need to extend the Bush tax cuts as well as cut spending.

On the surge, Obama is too arrogant to admit he was wrong. In his stubbornness he has insulted the citizenry and more importantly the soldier to whom he would like to be Commander In Chief. (He was wrong, the surge worked)

On the war in Iraq, he has said from the start that the first thing he would do is end the war. Emotionally we want the war ended but we need to win not lose and he is satisfied with loss, I’m not so I cant vote for him. (HE was wrong we CAN and will win)

On this election and Obamas VP. You talk down about Sarah Palin but Obama picked a guy who most folks (that I know) just don’t like. One example is Biden was so vile toward the judges he has interrogated in confirmation hearings that he is forever famous now as an attack dog persona. And for what, just to be an a##ho$$? No one needs to be that mean and rude. He is an accomplished foreign policy expert however. Why would Obama pick him? Because he needed that experience on the ticket. Someone who was like McCain. It was a calculated move. (sound familiar?) Never mind the majority of his party wanted Hilary. McCain on the other hand chose Palin for the fact that she is like him a reformer, but more importantly she is a woman and Obama left a lot of votes on the table by dis-ing Hilary. Smart move McCain. I want a president who makes smart moves.

There is just no way Obama stacks up well on authenticity compared with McCain. McCain has proved he is the real deal. From his valiant stance based on honor, to not take the early release from a POW camp where he was tortured, to his staunch refusal to be silent in the face of his own party's negativity about his less than Bush friendly stance on the war and how it was being fought. More importantly, he knew when to stand against the tide and he did it with vigor and eventually got the surge off the table and into Iraq. His steadfastness nearly single-handedly drove the surge so he in effect single handedly put us in a position to win that war. Obama wanted to run. Yeah he’s authentic all right, an authentic Jr Senator who doesn’t understand the stakes or the issues as far as I can see since he is often wrong, IMO. Id rather take a chance on someone I know is tuned in with the world than a person who makes bad decisions in his votes, his friends, and has policies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
InHuman
On the surge, Obama is too arrogant to admit he was wrong. In his stubbornness he has insulted the citizenry and more importantly the soldier to whom he would like to be Commander In Chief. (He was wrong, the surge worked)

Just to carify, it never say that the surge DIDN'T bring down violence, he just disagreed with the way it was handled (it didn't put more responsiblilty on the Iraqi's themselves)..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
libertyworld
How about the crazy-*** church she belonged to for years?

Of course, this is all irrelevant, because over here in Rational Observer-Land, we judge people by what they do, not by their associations. Obama may have attended that church -but

You make it sound as if Wright was an unrepentant America-hater, or that this was all he talked about. The guy volunteered to serve in the US Marine Corps and later the Navy for six years, from 1961-1967. Obama tried to point this kind of sophistication out in his speech on race, but I doubt you had the patience or hearing comprehension to really understand it.

How about in native american societies in the 19th century?

A disturbing response.

Rational observer-land? Is that like "reality based community"?

Easily among the more limp and loopy posts from you.

You judge people on what they do and not on who they associate with?

That is what they do.

Amazing, (and disturbing) how the left can be in denial of such moral poverty staring them in the face, as if lacking any compass at all, at best.

Please continue.

The more you try and defend the left the worse it looks.

Edited by libertyworld

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HKCavalier

Again. All the clips of Rev. Wright you've seen are from 4 sermons--all of which came out of the national rage and grief immediately following 9/11.

Beyond that and whether you like it or not, black people in this country have been betrayed by our government time and time again. That a black man of Wright's generation (a generation that lived through segregation and the assassinations of Dr. King and Malcolm X) would be disgusted with our government's conduct is something anyone who wants to understand American history and Black culture must accept. Our government's complicity in Dr. King's fall is not conjecture or conspiracy theory, but fact, acknowledged now by the FBI.

In spite of the brutal injustices perpetrated against blacks by the U.S. government, and the criminal harassment of the black community's greatest leaders, Wright should never question or doubt, should he? If he loves his country, he should just smile, wave a flag and sell Pudding Pops. As he stated in his sermon of Sept. 16th, 2001, the U.S. government has betrayed black people and betrayed the American Indian, betrayed Asian Americans in WWII. These are three of the most shameful legacies we as a people must come to terms with (or not, as you so choose). And as a black man raised almost exclusively by whites, Obama's desire to know this history, to know the rage and shame of blacks in this country is understandable and, to me, admirable.

But I don't imagine you care about any of that. I imagine you have no regard for Malcolm X either. And what, Dr. King was a communist? And to you, being a patriot means white-washing our government's misdeeds at every turn?

The notion that a radical is one who hates his country is naïve and usually idiotic. He is, more likely, one who likes his country more than the rest of us, and is thus more disturbed than the rest of us when he sees it debauched. He is not a bad citizen turning to crime; he is a good citizen driven to despair. --H.L. Mencken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
libertyworld
Again. All the clips of Rev. Wright you've seen are from 4 sermons--all of which came out of the national rage and grief immediately following 9/11.

Beyond that and whether you like it or not, black people in this country have been betrayed by our government time and time again.

Stunning blindness.

Healthy Americans don't care if it was only 4 sermons and know better than to assume they were the only times he has expressed and bred such a diseased mentality.

Whether you like it or not, black people have progressed and benefited here like nowhere else in the world and at no time in human history.

Move on already. The problem is not whitey or the government.

The problem is a mentality of perpetual victimhood bred by the slavemaster wannabes of "Black Liberation Theology" and other Marxist, racist, classist opportunists.

They are the ones keeping them down. Everyone is learning that now. Get on board and tell them to get lost. They are the poison here, not whitey and not the government.

Spare us the terminal victimhood chip bred by the slavemasters of today. They are diseased and blacks deserve better. Or maybe you don't think they do...

My friends and I would vote for a healthy, strong black leader in a heartbeat.

That ain't the obamas and their fellow travelers, that's for darn sure.

Edited by libertyworld

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.