INTERNET RUMORS ABOUT MICHELLE OBAMA'S RACIST COMMENTS

[Pb Derigable]

What i truly wonder about that bike that Obama is riding is, is if he bought the same bike, on the same day and got it for 1/6 less than what Tony Rezko did.

[Hermit_]

Thanks for the welcome and who the fuck are you?

Hello, XRick4TI. *waves*

Are you coming to grips with the reality

that Hillary lost the primary to Obama?

..or does that make you angry?

[you know.. more angry than usual, I mean. ]

[Suz]

Hello, XRick4TI. *waves*

Are you coming to grips with the reality

that Hillary lost the primary to Obama?

..or does that make you angry?

[you know.. more angry than usual, I mean. ]

I liked what Tracy Morgan said: Bitch may be the new black, but black is the new president, bitch.

[The Bomber]

I liked what Tracy Morgan said: Bitch may be the new black, but black is the new president, bitch.

Nice.

But anyway,read the thread title and first post,it's a smear campaign!A low blow!Something Hillary Clinton would do!

JMC called the chinese "gooks" (Murdoch went apeshit keeping it hushed up) he doesn't always show how "patriotic" he is with that damn pin! (Is there some kind of dresscode for presidents?If i could acquire a similar badge i'd still be equally amazing at everything!A badge has NOTHING to do with making a country better!) He doesn't support waterboarding because he was tortured by the Viet Cong,so he must be a traitor to the Republicans!KILL THE TRAITOR!!!!

[Suz]

Nice.

But anyway,read the thread title and first post,it's a smear campaign!A low blow!Something Hillary Clinton would do!

JMC called the chinese "gooks" (Murdoch went apeshit keeping it hushed up) he doesn't always show how "patriotic" he is with that damn pin! (Is there some kind of dresscode for presidents?If i could acquire a similar badge i'd still be equally amazing at everything!A badge has NOTHING to do with making a country better!) He doesn't support waterboarding because he was tortured by the Viet Cong,so he must be a traitor to the Republicans!KILL THE TRAITOR!!!!

Tracy Morgan is a comedian on Saturday Night Live. The week before he said that on the show, one of his costars Tina Fey was bitching about Obama getting off easy with the press and Hilary getting dumped on. She said bitch is the new black (meaning bitches are "in"). So that was Tracy's response the next week. I died laughing when he said that. He is one of my favorite comedians.

I liked McCain until a few years ago. He seemed to do his own thing and wasn't a right winger. In Arizona he did the campaign finance reform thing. He also actually knows what it's like to go to war and be tortured, like you said. But when he started wooing the bible thumpers I stopped liking him. Pat Robertson is a crazy ass preacher who is popular amoung right wingers- after 9/11 he (and Jerry Fallwell, an even crazier preacher who is now dead) said that we brought the attacks on ourselves because of our immorality- you know, gays and pagans and stuff They actually fuckin said that. Idiots.

[Dzldoc]

How's this:

Obama favors civil unions, and I disagree with that position; I support gay marriage.

There ya go, Pb,.. there's an issue where I disagree with Obama. Satisfied?

No,.. you're not satisfied? You want me to site a few Obama shortcomings..

..as a way of showing of my ability to be objective about him as a candidate?

Ok, fair enough.

Obama lacks executive experience; however, in the course of the dem primaries he proved himself to be a very skilled manager of people and resources, and he proved that he can be an effective manger even under extraordinary pressure. I have no doubt whatsoever that he can be an effective executive at the highest level of politics.

I'm not sure if Obama's universal healthcare plan is better than Hillary Clinton's or not, but I know they'll be working together on it and a final plan will emerge and will be enacted into law that chart a new course for America's healthcare system.. for the better.

Obama lacks first hand military experience, but I don't think first hand military experience is a requirement to be POTUS; Obama has demonstrated that he has the intelligence and wisdom to name adequate to people to the appropriate cabinet positions who will give him all the advise he needs to be able to make sound Commander-in-Chief judgments and decisions. Exhibit A: Obama exhibited Commander-in-Chief wisdom and sound judgment when opposed the invasion of Iraq. He was absolutely right in taking that position, a position he conveyed eloquently and with impenetrably solid rationale. Obama did not get fooled by the Bush administration lies and propaganda that *misled this nation into war*, and he had the personal integrity and political courage to stand in opposition to Bush's invasion plan at a time when most other politicians bought into Bush's warmongering propaganda and went along with it. [Conversely, John McCain who has lots of first hand military experience, bought into the Bush admin warmongering propaganda, supported the invasion of Iraq, and was wrong in that judgment. And now he's rattling sabers and foolishly wants to take America to war with Iran. Obviously McCain's military experience is not translating into sound Commander-in-Chief judgments and decision making skills.]

As far as Obama's so-called "radical friends" go..

No, I do not think that will be an issue. I do not think John McCain, or his surrogates, will want to get into a guilt-by-association smear campaign with Obama since McCain himself has some friends and political associates who are pretty darn unsavory. You like to keep mentioning Bill Ayers, but the fact of the matter is that Bill Ayers was never convicted of any crimes and he went on to become a "respectable" citizen, at least enough to become a tenured professor at a prestigious Illinois university (UI-Chicago; a position he currently holds). Obama's association with Ayers took place after Ayers' radical days were long since past. Nonetheless, Obama has severed his ties with Ayers, and their relationship is now an issue that I don't think will have any traction in the general election other than among righties who would never vote for Obama anyway. As far as Tony Rezko goes; he was convicted on fraud and extortion charges, but those charges had nothing to do with Barack Obama. Nonetheless, Obama has both rejected and denounced Tony Rezko, and has apologized for any real estate dealings he had with him that gave so much as the appearance of impropriety. Trying to smear Obama by association with Rezko has, rightfully, gotten no traction in the dem primaries and will only have traction in the general election among righties who would never vote for Obama anyway and among those pathetically ignorant voters who are susceptible to smear tactic politics. So ultimately, no I don't think Obama's so-called "radical friends" will be issues of any import during the general election. Not that that will stop republican 527 smear machines from doing their best to make issues out of those associations, of course.

Fwiw, I think McCain's relationships with people like convicted lobbyist Jack Abramof; current lobbyist and McCain campaign adviser Charlie Black; and UBS lobbyist (think 'Housing Market collapse') and McCain "economic adviser" Phil Gramm are going to be campaign issues that resonate more with voters in the general election than any of Obama's so-called "radical friends". And of course McCain's involvement in The Keating Five could rear its ugly head again.. especially in an election when lobbying is such a hot issue and The Keating Five scandal was about Washington-insider influence peddling.

Personally, I'd like to see a campaign free of smear. I'd like to see a campaign focused on the issues. I'm confident that a campaign focused on the issues will result in Obama being elected POTUS. I think right wing republicans know that too, and as such the 527 smear machines will be out in full force. But I think Obama will rise above the 527s and will emerge victorious.. in part because the American public is sick and tired of the politics of smear; in part because he's so darn charismatic and inspirational; and mostly because he's right [ie, correct] on the issues.

There. How's that?

Oops,.. I forgot to agree with McCain on something.

Uhh..

Hmmm..

Do I agree with McCain's position on..

Invasion of Iraq? Nope.

100 year war in Iraq? Nope.

Permanent Bush tax cuts? Nope.

Trickle Down economics? Nope

Domestic spying? Nope.

Waterboarding/torture? Nope.

War with Iran? Nope.

Conservative SC Justices? Nope.

Stem cell research? Nope.

School vouchers? Nope.

Lobbyists setting public policy? Nope.

Gay Marriage? Nope.

Ah! I remember something I agree with McCain on! -->

""The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should."

~John McCain

I agree with McCain that he certainly doesn't understand economics.

Ok.. seriously though,.. I can think of two issues on which I think McCain differs from

Bush a bit and in which I would probably be able to find common ground with him on:

1. "Path to citizenship for illegal immigrants" [what right wing repubs call "amnesty"].

I agree that there ought to be a path to citizenship for illegals who are already here.

2. McCain acknowledges Global Warming/Climate Change whereas Bush is a hardcore Global Warming denialist. I think McCain has, unfortunately, moved to the right on his environmental positions though. I respected his environmental positions more in the past, but he's since sold out those positions as he's been pandering to the right for support from the republican base. He still acknowledges Global Warming, but the steps he'd take to deal with the issue are wholly inadequate.

There was a time (pre-2001) when McCain deserved the 'maverick in the republican party' and 'straight talker' reputation that he had. I respected him back then. He has since sold out his principles and changed his positions on so many issues so that he's now almost completely aligned with the republican agenda that he once bucked. 'John McCain the maverick' is now nothing more than legend of old. [Pardon the pun there. I mean 'legend of days past', of course. *wink-chuckle*]. Although the 'maverick' and 'straight talker' lables no longer apply to McCain, he's milking the old reputation [erm.. the reputation from before] for all the votes he can get out of it. But if you're as "objective" as you claim to be, surely you'll acknowledge that he's not really a 'maverick'.. or even a 'straight talker'.. anymore. If you're objective you'll acknowledge that he's become a shameless, principle-less panderer.., won't you?

Ok. There's.. how's that for being objective about both candidates?

Goddamn! you must be bored to fucking death

[eternal light]

Thanks for the welcome and who the fuck are you?

Welcome anyway, but the the Meet and Greet forum is usually where the welcomes take place. On this type of thread you can run into practically anything. Here is the link.

[TypeO]

I could not give less of a shit about lapel pins.

But here's what I do care about - an inexperienced borderline Socialist who puts his party affiliation ahead of the country. It's been a while since I've seen a politician so carefully follow the dem/lib playbook. At least McCain has his own opinions, some of which are quite counter to his political party. Not so with Obama.

He's simply an opportunistic, feel-good counter-hero, the Anti-Bush, and he's saying whatever sounds good at the time because as the Clintons proved in the 90s, you can pretty much say anything you want when the media loves you and will help make sure the average person forgets what was said 6 months later anyway.

Considering he's been campaigning for President for well over the last year or more, and he just started serving as a senator in '05, we're talking about a guy who has under 3 years total experience on a national level - basically he's 3 years removed from being a city councilman - what makes anyone think he has adequate experience to successfully run the country?

He claims he'll lower gas prices, but the President has no control or authority over gas prices - how's he gonna make that happen?

He'll sit down and "negotitate" with unapologetic terrorist-supporting leaders without any qualifications or pre-conditions? There's a recipe for success. Give them the legitamacy they're seeking? He clearly demonstrates his lack of understanding (again, due to inexperience) of the gravity of the office he aspires to. Not surprising since he (and all his supporters) can't understand why all the anti-American and racist rantings of the pastor of the church he attended for 20 years should be considered against him. He simply doesn't get that his continued attendance for 20 years was tacit approval, as he was even then a public figure. Could it be that being only half black, he needed to establish his "blackness" with the hard pro-black constituency of the Chicago area he served in? Again, he's revealed as more a scheming opportunist rather than the New World Man he attempts to portray himself as.

He's gonna pull the troops immediately, yet even left-wing media sources such as the Washington Post concede that we are succeeding in Iraq, so we're going to immediately stop "succeeding" and pull out (effectively surrender)?

And I work on an Army base.

You don't hear them saying this war is a waste, unnecessary, or anything like that.

They see first-hand the reason we're there and the progress we're making.

For all those making the childishly simplistic claims that Iraq didn't attack us, please - just stop. If you really believe fighting terrorism is that simple, you're painfully unaware. And it's quite necessary to fight terrorism, or else get ready to live like Israel, wondering if every bus you get on is gonna explode, or the mall you walk into, or the grocery store, or the popular nightclub. It'll happen if an inexperienced clown like Obama wins.

Oh, and please don't ask what has experience got to do with being President.

The answer is everything.

Perfect example of party philosophies:

To ease gas prices -

McCain wants to temporarily suspend the federal gas tax (reduce taxes)

Obama wants to (you'll never guess) RAISE taxes on the oil companies, as well as penalize them.

How clever.

Again, he demonstrates his lack of experience in economics.

If you tax and penalize a company, you simply force them to raise their prices because you have increased their expenses.

The O-man shoulda taken less courses on Marxism and more on economics.

I remember when I was a teenager, and had radical thoughts and ideas, full of idealism.

But I'm an adult now.

And mature.

All the liberal shrieking sounds so childish now, I've often wondered how a mature adult who works and pays taxes can cling to such immature philosophies.

And by immature, I mean philosophies that are not realistic and applicable.

My only guess is it's a way of holding onto youth.

Good luck with this whole Obama infatuation.

I just have a hard time forgetting how remarkably similar it is to the Kerry infatuation, the Nader infatuation, the Gore infatuation.

It all sounds so familiar, this talk of "change".

[Hermit_]

I could not give less of a shit about lapel pins.

But here's what I do care about - an inexperienced borderline Socialist who puts his party affiliation ahead of the country. It's been a while since I've seen a politician so carefully follow the dem/lib playbook. At least McCain has his own opinions, some of which are quite counter to his political party. Not so with Obama.

He's simply an opportunistic, feel-good counter-hero, the Anti-Bush, and he's saying whatever sounds good at the time because as the Clintons proved in the 90s, you can pretty much say anything you want when the media loves you and will help make sure the average person forgets what was said 6 months later anyway.

Considering he's been campaigning for President for well over the last year or more, and he just started serving as a senator in '05, we're talking about a guy who has under 3 years total experience on a national level - basically he's 3 years removed from being a city councilman - what makes anyone think he has adequate experience to successfully run the country?

He claims he'll lower gas prices, but the President has no control or authority over gas prices - how's he gonna make that happen?

He'll sit down and "negotitate" with unapologetic terrorist-supporting leaders without any qualifications or pre-conditions? There's a recipe for success. Give them the legitamacy they're seeking? He clearly demonstrates his lack of understanding (again, due to inexperience) of the gravity of the office he aspires to. Not surprising since he (and all his supporters) can't understand why all the anti-American and racist rantings of the pastor of the church he attended for 20 years should be considered against him. He simply doesn't get that his continued attendance for 20 years was tacit approval, as he was even then a public figure. Could it be that being only half black, he needed to establish his "blackness" with the hard pro-black constituency of the Chicago area he served in? Again, he's revealed as more a scheming opportunist rather than the New World Man he attempts to portray himself as.

He's gonna pull the troops immediately, yet even left-wing media sources such as the Washington Post concede that we are succeeding in Iraq, so we're going to immediately stop "succeeding" and pull out (effectively surrender)?

And I work on an Army base.

You don't hear them saying this war is a waste, unnecessary, or anything like that.

They see first-hand the reason we're there and the progress we're making.

For all those making the childishly simplistic claims that Iraq didn't attack us, please - just stop. If you really believe fighting terrorism is that simple, you're painfully unaware. And it's quite necessary to fight terrorism, or else get ready to live like Israel, wondering if every bus you get on is gonna explode, or the mall you walk into, or the grocery store, or the popular nightclub. It'll happen if an inexperienced clown like Obama wins.

Oh, and please don't ask what has experience got to do with being President.

The answer is everything.

Perfect example of party philosophies:

To ease gas prices -

McCain wants to temporarily suspend the federal gas tax (reduce taxes)

Obama wants to (you'll never guess) RAISE taxes on the oil companies, as well as penalize them.

How clever.

Again, he demonstrates his lack of experience in economics.

If you tax and penalize a company, you simply force them to raise their prices because you have increased their expenses.

The O-man shoulda taken less courses on Marxism and more on economics.

I remember when I was a teenager, and had radical thoughts and ideas, full of idealism.

But I'm an adult now.

And mature.

All the liberal shrieking sounds so childish now, I've often wondered how a mature adult who works and pays taxes can cling to such immature philosophies.

And by immature, I mean philosophies that are not realistic and applicable.

My only guess is it's a way of holding onto youth.

Good luck with this whole Obama infatuation.

I just have a hard time forgetting how remarkably similar it is to the Kerry infatuation, the Nader infatuation, the Gore infatuation.

It all sounds so familiar, this talk of "change".

Tell me,..

All the combined Washington "experience" of Cheney/Rumsfeld/Powell/(Bush)

led to what sound/successful decisions and policies?.. foreign and/or domestic?

Right. None.

Obama: "We must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in".

That's a mighty far cry from "He's gonna pull the troops immediately", doncha think?

"[Obama will] sit down and "negotiate" with unapologetic terrorist-supporting

leaders without any qualifications or pre-conditions?".. you ask, incredulously.

How unthinkable!

Hmmm.. Or is it?...

..Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton And George H.W. Bush all successfully negotiated with America's adversaries and enemies, sometimes even those who had tens of thousands of nuclear missiles pointed at America's heartland and who were arming guerrilla armies (today we would call them terrorists) who were killing American troops.

If Bush and McCain want to assert that an American president negotiating with America's adversaries and enemies is appeasement, then virtually every American president--both Republican and Democratic--since the Second World War is an appeaser.

• The US allied itself with the communist Soviet Union and its notorious leader Josef Stalin during the World War II and American presidents Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Harry Truman, along with British Prime Minister Winston Churchill met personally with Stalin three times during the War. In 1933, realizing that isolation had not stopped communism from taking hold in the Soviet Union and US interests required Soviet cooperation, FDR invited Stalin's Foreign Minister to Washington for negotiations, which ended in an official agreement establishing formal diplomatic relations. In 1941, two days after Nazi Germany invaded the communist Soviet Union, President Roosevelt promised assistance and unfroze Soviet assets. American diplomat Averell Harriman and Churchill's minister Lord Beaverbrook led a special mission to Moscow and soon a confidential protocol was signed in which the US and Britain agreed to send military supplies to the Soviet Union. In December 1941, after Pearl Harbor, the United States and the Soviet Union became wartime allies. President Roosevelt, Prime Minister Churchill and General Secretary Stalin personally met for negotiations twice during the war to plot common strategy against German and Japan, at the Tehran Conference in 1943 and the Yalta Conference in early 1945, followed by a third summit with Stalin and the new American President Harry Truman and the new British Prime Minister Clement Atlee at the Potsdam Conference in the summer of 1945. The result of Roosevelt's, Truman's and Churchhill's willingness to negotiate with communist adversaries--victory over the Germans and Japanese in World War II.

• Throughout the Cold War with the Soviet Union, which followed World War II, American presidents held "Summit Meetings" numerous times with their Soviet adversaries when they believed it was in America's interest.

• In 1952, Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower defeated the Democrats for president, in part by promising "I shall go to Korea" to resolve the Korean War. Within weeks following his election, Eisenhower made a secret trip to Korea to meet with Communist leaders. His meetings with our adversary led to an Armistice that ended the Korean War.

• Despite the intensifying Cold War and the growing arms nuclear race between the US and the Soviet Union, President Eisenhower believed it was better to have in person negotiations with Stalin's successor, Nikita Khrushchev, to ease Cold War tensions, even as Khrushchev famously proclaimed, "We will bury you." In 1955, President Eisenhower, British Prime Minister Anthony Eden and French Prime Minister Edgar Faure met with Khrushchev at the Geneva Summit. Despite the arms race, Khrushchev eventually advocated a policy of "peaceful coexistence" and in 1959, at Eisenhower's invitation, he spent 10 days touring the United States and meeting with the President at Camp David, leading to a significant thaw in US-Soviet relations.

• During the Cuban Missile Crisis, the US and the Soviet Union came as close to nuclear war as at anytime in Cold War history. But while staring down Khrushchev, Kennedy also held off his generals who were prepared for war, and negotiated with Khrushchev to remove Soviet nuclear missiles from Cuba in exchange for the US agreeing not to overthrow Fidel Castro, along with a secret accord to remove certain American missiles from Turkey nine months later. Kennedy's hard-nosed diplomacy averted a worldwide nuclear catastrophe. Ironically, it also started to build a certain trust between Kennedy and Khrushchev that led to the signing of a nuclear Test Ban Treaty in 1963.

• While the US and Russia managed to avoid a hot war, throughout the Cold War they fought numerous proxy wars in various parts of the world, most notably in Vietnam where Russian and Communist Chinese arms were supplied to the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong (whom today we would call terrorists) which were used to kill American soldiers. This didn't stop Richard Nixon, perhaps the most anti-communist of all American presidents, from pursuing negotiations with Russia and China and eventually negotiate an end to American involvement in the Vietnam War. Despite China's military support of the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong, in 1972 Nixon became the first American President to visit Communist China, eventually leading to the normalization of relations. Simultaneously, Nixon pursued a policy of détente with the Soviet Union, leading to the signing of the SALT I (Strategic Arms Limitation Talks) treaty during Nixon's visit to Moscow in May, 1972. In 1973 he signed a peace treaty with North Vietnam, ending America's involvement in the Vietnam War. Today, America carries on peaceful trade with communist Vietnam.

• Although President Reagan termed the Soviet Union "the evil empire" and in Berlin famously called on Soviet leader Gorbachev to "tear down this wall," as much as anything, it may have been Reagan's personal diplomacy with Gorbachev that led to the end of the Soviet Empire. Beginning with the Reykjavik summit in 1968, Reagan met annually with Gorbachev. Gorbachev returned to Moscow convinced that Reagan was not, as he earlier thought, a "caveman" and did not intend to attack Russia militarily. This gave him the political opening to continue his policy of perestroika which involved economic liberalization, democratic reforms and drastic military cuts. President George H.W. Bush continued Reagan's negotiations with Gorbachev until the collapse of the Soviet Union. If there was ever a lesson in the potential benefits of talking with our adversaries, it was in the extended negotiations between Gorbachev and President Reagan and the first President Bush which ended the Cold War.

*source

oh, and btw..

"*Brent Scowcroft*, the national security adviser to Presidents Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush [and former Air Force general who is widely considered to be one of the preeminent foreign policy minds in the United States], said on Monday that he agrees with the position, stated mainly by Sen. Barack Obama, that the U.S. would benefit from having direct talks with the leaders of its most distrusted adversaries." *source*

oh yeah, and..

"We need to figure out a way to develop some leverage . . . and then sit down and talk with them [iran]. If there is going to be a discussion, then they need something, too. We can't go to a discussion and be completely the demander, with them not feeling that they need anything from us." ~GW Bush's Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, May 2008 *source*

Maybe you oughta be asking yourself:

Am I better off now than I was 8 years ago?

Is America better off now that she was 8 years ago?

Am I'm gonna cast my vote in approval of the party and policies

that got us here,.. or am I gonna vote these bums out of office?

And maybe you oughta be saying to yourself:

Fool me once ('00),.. shame on me.

Fool me twice ('04),.. ok so maybe I'm not so bright.

Fool me three times ('08),.. yeah I'm your willing bitch.

..as the Clintons proved in the 90s, you can pretty much say anything you want when the media loves you and will help make sure the average person forgets what was said 6 months later anyway.

Isn't it John McCain the former maverick straight talker and currently principle-less pandering flip-flopper (and yet whom the media still fawns over and refers to as a maverick straight talker) the one who's proving that?

For all those making the childishly simplistic claims that Iraq didn't attack us, please - just stop. If you really believe fighting terrorism is that simple, you're painfully unaware.

Your line of reasoning is a wee bit.. well.. crooked there, bud.

Acknowledging the FACT (which you ignorantly refer to as a "childishly simplistic claim") that "Iraq did not attack us", does not mean that one therefore thinks "fighting terrorism is simple". How you got from point A to point B on that one is.. well.. frankly.. painfully asinine.

But hey.. you're the one who's "mature now" (not that your logic reflects maturity, if you don't mind my saying so), and me?.. well, its not like I've given any thought to any of this socio-political stuff; I'm merely.. what was it you said?... oh, yeah.. "infatuated".. with Barack Obama.

Go Obama!!

Edited June 11, 2008 by Hermit_

[Hermit_]

Goddamn! you must be bored to fucking death

Not at all, muh-man.

Other than monthly staff meetings at work, and watching John McCain's speech

last Tuesday evening,..I can't remember the last time I experienced "boredom".

“Boredom is the feeling that everything is a waste of time; serenity, that nothing is.”

~ Thomas S. Szasz

"When people are bored, it is primarily with their own selves that they are bored."

~ Eric Hoffer

"Boredom comes from a boring mind."

~ Metallica

Edited June 11, 2008 by Hermit_

[TheZeppyWanderer]

" I'd rather be Lieutenant of the lively, than Chairman of the bored "

TZW, 2009

EDIT : 2008 , I don't even know what kin year it is

Edited June 11, 2008 by TheZeppyWanderer

[Del Zeppnile]

What i truly wonder about that bike that Obama is riding is, is if he bought the same bike, on the same day and got it for 1/6 less than what Tony Rezko did.

But isn't that the way the market works for everyone else?

Isn't funny how Obama makes even G.W. Bush look great.

[TypeO]

Tell me,..

All the combined Washington "experience" of Cheney/Rumsfeld/Powell/(Bush)

led to what sound/successful decisions and policies?.. foreign and/or domestic?

Right. None.

That's asinine.

Because YOU don't agree with them does not make all their decisions/policies unsound.

And nothing will convince you otherwise, the koolaid stains on your lips are undeniable and obviously permanent.

Obama: "We must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in".

That's a mighty far cry from "He's gonna pull the troops immediately", doncha think?

Oh, you found one of his "finger to the wind" quotes where he felt it wasn't prudent to sound like he was as urgent on the subject as most other times.

But there are plenty of quotes of him screaming just the opposite.

I'm heading to work, so I don't have time to point by point now, but I'll find some of those quotes at work.

[allthekingshorses]

That's asinine.

Because YOU don't agree with them does not make all their decisions/policies unsound.

And nothing will convince you otherwise, the koolaid stains on your lips are undeniable and obviously permanent.

And because You agree with them doesn't make their decisions right either. just sayin'

no one has had more experience than those folks... and everything is great right now... we're at war, the cost of everything is up(OH WAIT, except the housing market!) and wages are flatlined.. Hurray! WTG Bush Admin!

At least they wear their flag pins, thank God.

Oh, you found one of his "finger to the wind" quotes where he felt it wasn't prudent to sound like he was as urgent on the subject as most other times.

But there are plenty of quotes of him screaming just the opposite.

I'm heading to work, so I don't have time to point by point now, but I'll find some of those quotes at work.

Edited June 11, 2008 by allthekingshorses

[Hermit_]

That's asinine.

Because YOU don't agree with them does not make all their decisions/policies unsound.

And nothing will convince you otherwise, the koolaid stains on your lips are undeniable and obviously permanent.

It's not my disagreement with them that makes their decisions/judgments unsound,

it's the results/outcomes of those decisions/judgments that makes them unsound.

Ask yourself a few questions, muh-man:

Have the Bush admin economic policies made the economy stronger or weaker?

Have the Bush admin foreign policies made America safer, strengthened our relationships with our allies, and brought us new allies or have they made our enemies stronger, strained our relationships with our allies, and alienated us from most of the rest of the world?

Is the insurgency in Iraq (still) in its last throes?

Are we being greeted as liberators?

Are Iraq oil revenues paying for the war?

Did our troops get the equipment they needed?

Has the war in Iraq stabilized.. or de-stabilized.. the region?

Has the war in Iraq benefitted.. or hurt.. Iran?

Is the war costing $60 million.. as projected by the Bush administration?

Has the price of gas down.. or up?

Have the health care and education systems in America improved during GWB's admin?

Has national; infrastructure improved under GWB's admin?

Was the response of the GWB admin to hurricane Katrina a success.. or a failure?

Is the national budget balanced, in surplus, or at all-time record deficit?

Has Osama bin Laden been "smoked out of his cave" yet?

All in all.. has the GWB administration ben a success.. or a failure?

But hey.. at least Bush et al wear lapel pins.

[]

[Pb Derigable]

But isn't that the way the market works for everyone else?

I guess, if giving 320,00 thousand to a politician looks bad, but if you make a deal with the owner of two properties and give him 300,000 to sell the parcel of land for 300,000 less to your favorite politician. I mean, if i was looking to get a politician in my pockets, i may send some state senator to Africa to hunt, all paid by me. (which i cannot confirm or denied that practice being done by my union.)

but yes thats how you buy things and sell houses. I mean, how many drug dealers live in a brand new house owned by thier mothers. who hasn't work since carter. How many whips, are owned by their uncle, that they drive for themselves.

I would admit, Mr.Obama did nothing wrong. like how the leaders of a gang never commits a crime, but everyone below him does.

[zepyep]

Hi all,

Hermit,one question to you last posting,....where the heck was Congress in all this?I am speaking of both parties.If this was detremintal to the American people why didn't Congress stop,or better yet do something about it?

KB

[Hermit_]

Hi all,

Hermit,one question to you last posting,....where the heck was Congress in all this?I am speaking of both parties.If this was detremintal to the American people why didn't Congress stop,or better yet do something about it?

KB

Presidential veto power.

Even with the democratic gains in 2004, there aren't enough dems in Congress to prevent Bush from vetoing dem-generated legislation, and not enough repubs have had the political courage to break with Bush and join the dems. The result: gridlock on key issues. To be fair though, the dem leadership in Congress has shown spinelessness in caving in to Bush on several issues too. In short, Congress.. dems and repubs alike.. have let us, The People, down.

But the fundamental reality is that even if dem leadership showed spine on every key issue, and even if every single dem in both the House and Senate were 100% united on those issues, the dems still wouldn't have had the numbers to prevent Bush vetoes. The dems needed repub crossover votes but not enough repubs have been willing to buck the party line and break with Bush.

However.. it seems to me that congressional gridlock is likely to "change" when Obama is elected president and he has a democratic majority in the House and in the Senate to work with. Obama will set the agenda and the House and Senate will send him legislation that he'll be ready to sign into law.

[wanna be drummer]

Hermit, part of me wants Obama to win and have him to turn out as bad as Bush, then I can come here and laugh at you boys

[Hermit_]

Hermit, part of me wants Obama to win and have him to turn out as bad as Bush, then I can come here and laugh at you boys

Rationalize it to yourself however you want, but you've just taken a big first

step by giving voice to that which you've previously been unwilling to admit:

"part of me wants Obama win"

Good going, wanna be!

You're not alone, my friend; there's a lot of other disaffected moderate republicans

(and independents) who are also coming to that same realization about themselves.

[wanna be drummer]

A lot of people wanted Bush to win too, look how that turned out

[Strider]

I am going to ignore most of the dross that has flooded this thread and address

to Del's original question.

So, okay Del, let's say the whole "whitey" thing turns out to be true...will that

be something that makes me not vote for Obama?

Let's see if I can be clear on this...

HELL NO!

Really, so what if she said "whitey"? It's still not as bad as "nigger" or the

countless other slurs said against blacks and other minorities every day

by whites...and I am not just talking about what is said in private.

Lost in the whole Rev. Wright hooey, was the fact that you can drive thru

the South and on radio shows hear all manner of slurs against blacks, liberals,

women, gays...exhortations to KILL, gloating over any misfortune that happens

to a member of a minority, etc.

These are white christian shows and yet I didn't hear anyone calling for Bush

or McCain to repudiate them.

Let's say you were a part of a minority that was first enslaved, treated worse than

animals, stripped of your language, culture, dignity...then, after slavery was

abolished, still went thru the Jim Crow era, went to fight a war in segregated

armies where you were treated better in Europe than you were in your own country;

then saw the government do all they could to stifle, if not outright kill any of your

community leaders...not to mention the horror of the Tuskegee experiment...and

that is just scratching the surface...there's still redlining, and more.

I'm guessing that after all that, you would have a stronger word than "whitey"

on your mind...so yes, I am willing to cut Michelle some slack and don't really

care if the rumor turns out to be true or not.

It's a non-issue and just something the right will try to use to distract voters

away from the dismal Republican record of the past 8 years.

[Del Zeppnile]

I am going to ignore most of the dross that has flooded this thread and address

to Del's original question.

So, okay Del, let's say the whole "whitey" thing turns out to be true...will that

be something that makes me not vote for Obama?

Let's see if I can be clear on this...

HELL NO!

Really, so what if she said "whitey"? It's still not as bad as "nigger" or the

countless other slurs said against blacks and other minorities every day

by whites...and I am not just talking about what is said in private.

Lost in the whole Rev. Wright hooey, was the fact that you can drive thru

the South and on radio shows hear all manner of slurs against blacks, liberals,

women, gays...exhortations to KILL, gloating over any misfortune that happens

to a member of a minority, etc.

These are white christian shows and yet I didn't hear anyone calling for Bush

or McCain to repudiate them.

Let's say you were a part of a minority that was first enslaved, treated worse than

animals, stripped of your language, culture, dignity...then, after slavery was

abolished, still went thru the Jim Crow era, went to fight a war in segregated

armies where you were treated better in Europe than you were in your own country;

then saw the government do all they could to stifle, if not outright kill any of your

community leaders...not to mention the horror of the Tuskegee experiment...and

that is just scratching the surface...there's still redlining, and more.

I'm guessing that after all that, you would have a stronger word than "whitey"

on your mind...so yes, I am willing to cut Michelle some slack and don't really

care if the rumor turns out to be true or not.

It's a non-issue and just something the right will try to use to distract voters

away from the dismal Republican record of the past 8 years.

Okay so fine. In your mind she (and her husband because he is with a woman who feels that way) gets a pass. At least you are being honest. But I wonder if Cindy McCain and John McCain would get a pass if they too hypothetically harbored similar racist viewpoints. What if McCain used the work "Gook" or "Slope" in reference to Asian people. It wouldn't be like he might not have some justification for his predudices, especially after being imprisoned and tortured by some Asians for 6 years. Would that be a rational and fair point of view too? Is that what we as Americans should also expect from an African American because of the past history, Jim Crow laws and all?

Obviously Michelle Obama IS AN ANGRY BLACK WOMAN. And not because of what is being said about these aledged "whitey" comments.... we don't even know if they are true. But Michelle Obama has made enough other negative comments for us to pretty much have a good idea where her head (and her husbands) is at. I mean hell, she and her husband sat in that church for 20 years and listened to the hate filled speech of Rev. Wright saying "Godamn America" and the government created aids to destroy African people. So we all know exactly how this woman thinks, what her predudices are and the negative hateful perspective she has about this country -- And the kind of hatred and bigotry that she and her husband were willing to subject their own children to for many years.

It doesn't matter to me one bit -- she is entirely entitled to her perspective and point of view. Whether the point of view is justified or not also does not matter to me. But my point all along has been that MANY, MANY Americans WILL NOT vote for Obama because of this angry underlying resentment towards white Americans. This VICTIM mentality that seeks to punish America and Americans for the past history. The same pandering victim mentality that has been at the heart of politics in South Chicago for 30 years.

Well, Obama ain't running for president in just South Chicago people. He needs votes from white Americans in every different kind of state and city across this country. And as far as I see it, his angry pissed off wife is not going to be a plus for him come November any more that his ex-Reverend White or many other people he has associated himself with. If I know anything about this country it is that our Presidents are by and large elected based on the decisions of so many rural blue collar WHITE people (mainly democrats) in places that are still pretty much offended by the kind of angry finger pointing politics that the Obama's have based their political careers on.

Obama in 08 ain't gonna happen my friends.

[eternal light]

No one has really established that she made any racist comments.

[Suz]

I'm a working class white democrat voting for Obama.