INTERNET RUMORS ABOUT MICHELLE OBAMA'S RACIST COMMENTS

[3hrsoflunacy]

Rumors about an alledged racist rant by Barrack Obama's wife have been all over the internet blogs. According to the rumors a videotape exists with Michelle Obama ranting for 30 minutes at her church about how 'whitey' has been responsible for so much of African people's problems around the world.

If this turns out to be true and you were planning to vote for Barrack Obama, would you still do it?

Or should she get a pass?

At least she was asking for a handout from the government as retribution for the suffering of her ancestors. I don't pass judgment based on alleged rumors, especially for people that are not actually running for office.

[Rorer714]

True nuff, Del. 'Dixie-crats' (a-la Strom Thurmond) were good old boys indeed.

And republican racist good old boys of today are a chip off the

ol' block from their Dixie-crat racist good old boy predecessors.

Does mention of Strom Thurmond make you nostalgic for the 'good old' days?

[ ]

....or Jesse Helms?

[Hermit_]

tv news staff discuss running the "McCain called his wife a c**t" story

*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Euu_DMhsXQo*

[wanna be drummer]

The site's not biased; your interpretation of the info on the site is biased.

And the wind is blowing in the direction of you being wrong,.. again.., muh-man.

"Obama will immediately begin to remove troops from Iraq" is neither a mighty far cry from.. nor is it mutually exclusive with.. "we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were reckless getting in". Surely the US gov't can be "extremely careful" and "immediately begin to remove troops" at the same time,.. right?

Ok, now your stretching things a little far Hermit

It's very clear that "immediately pulling troops out is" not supposed to be used with "being extremely careful in removing them" and you know it

[Rorer714]

Hahahahahahahhaha!!!! Priceless

[TypeO]

The site's not biased; your interpretation of the info on the site is biased.

um, that was sarcasm.

"Obama will immediately begin to remove troops from Iraq" is neither a mighty far cry from.. nor is it mutually exclusive with.. "we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were reckless getting in". Surely the US gov't can be "extremely careful" and "immediately begin to remove troops" at the same time,.. right?

Btw.. here's the full statement from Obama's website:

"Bringing Our Troops Home

Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda."

Sounds like a reasonable position to me.

Reasonable position (to you) is fine.

Bottom line, when I said O-man will immediately pull troops despite acknowledged success with the surge, you dropped a quote that intimates his position is not so.

And the "full statement" (which is why I link'd it) is consistent with the quote I used, so it can't be claimed as "out of context".

First of all, most good ol' boys are republicans, not democrats.

Secondly, I acknowledge that a small percentage of democrats will not vote for Obama. I accept that and I consider it no big deal as their numbers will be negligible.

I was only referring to the aforementioned "dixiecrats", and they DO make up a significant/not inconsequential percentage of white southern dems.

I'd bet that for every one of those dems that won't vote for Obama.. relatively few though they are (as a percentage of the democratic party as a whole).. two independents and disaffected moderate republicans are likely to vote for Obama. Why? Because John McCain is such a stale, unappealing, transparently disingenuous (if not downright embarrassing) buffoon of a candidate who represents decrepitude and more of the same failed Bush policies while Barack Obama is such a fresh, dynamic, inspiring, and appealing candidate who represents vitality and change. Obama's appeal will reach beyond the democratic party and he's gonna win in November.

Disingenuous, thy name is Barack:

He defends the rantings of his minister Reverend Wright by comparing them to quietly uttered slurs his white grandmother infrequently used.

He seeks broad-based approval reflecting both blacks and whites, yet pandered to hard, pro-black (read:anti-white) constituents to gain a political foothold.

He rails against the oil companies, threatening windfall profits taxes and other fines while accepting campaign monies from said oil companies.

The O-train is an apt description.

Much like Amtrak, an underachieving, problematic system requiring loads of government subsidy.

[i'm glad you're feeling better from your illness. ]

mucho appreciato, muh man!

a shot of morphine in the ER did wonders for my mood! :lolo:

[cryingbluerain]

Btw.. here's the full statement from Obama's website:

"Bringing Our Troops Home

Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda."

Kinda sounds like he wants to have it both ways. He wants to withdraw troops but then he wants to be able to have targeted strikes on al Qaeda if they attempt to build a base in Iraq? Either we stay or we leave. If we leave and things really heat up over there and we have to re-invade then the situation could become much deadlier than he anticipated. If al Qaeda knows that we are going to withdraw wouldn't they just lay low until most of our troops are gone and then go on the attack?

[Hermit_]

Ok, now your stretching things a little far Hermit

It's very clear that "immediately pulling troops out is" not supposed to be used with "being extremely careful in removing them" and you know it

It's no stretch at all, wanna be bro.

Not for a second would I think Obama would be anything but "extremely

careful" in how he goes about "immediately removing troops" from Iraq.

I expect him to him extremely thoughtful and methodical.. ie, "careful"..

about it. That's what I'd expect of any good Commander-in-Chief, bud.

[wanna be drummer]

Ok, now your stretching things a little far Hermit

It's very clear that "immediately pulling troops out is" not supposed to be used with "being extremely careful in removing them" and you know it

It's no stretch at all, wanna be bro.

Not for a second would I think Obama would be anything but "extremely

careful" in how he goes about "immediately removing troops" from Iraq.

I expect him to him extremely thoughtful and methodical.. ie, "careful"..

about it. That's what I'd expect of any good Commander-in-Chief, bud.

But that's out of context. "Extremely careful" tells the American public that he will pull out but over time. Sure you could do a play on words and pretend he meant that he would carefully pull out immediately but I serioudly don't think that that is what he meant.

Anywho, you seriously think he'll be a good Commander-in-Chief?

based on...?

[Hermit_]

But that's out of context. "Extremely careful" tells the American public that he will pull out but over time. Sure you could do a play on words and pretend he meant that he would carefully pull out immediately but I serioudly don't think that that is what he meant.

It seems to me.. as I think it would seem to any reasonable person.. that "immediately" refers to "immediately beginning the process of.." bringing the troops home from Iraq; a process that Obama has consistently said would be gradual and would take some time; hence the term "phased withdrawal" that he's been using for months and months now.

Throughout the primary campaign Obama consistently said "We have to be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were reckless getting in" [sometimes he substitutes "careless" for "reckless", but the meaning of his message is the same]. I think that pretty well indicates that the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq under Obama's leadership as Commander-in-Chief will be done thoughtfully and prudently.. as any reasonable-minded US citizen would expect it to be done,.. right?

Tell me, wanna be,.. would you expect.. or want.. the withdrawal of US troops to be done recklessly? [i'm gonna assume your answer is 'no, of course not']. Well neither would I, nor would any other reasonable-minded person. So what makes you think Obama would be saying to the American public "I'm going to be as reckless as possible in removing US troops from Iraq. I'm bringing them home immediately.. on day one of my presidency.. all of them.. each and every one.. on day one". That might be a caricature of what you seem to think his position is, but it does highlight the idiocy of that position; and even you have to admit that nothing about Obama suggests he's an idiot. So why not give him his due credit for being an intelligent and thoughtful person, and consider the phrase "I will immediately begin withdrawing our troops" in the context of his being an intelligent and thoughtful person, eh?

Anywho, you seriously think he'll be a good Commander-in-Chief?

based on...?

Yes I do think he'll be a good Commander-in-Chief.. based on the fact that he demonstrated solid judgment, keen insight, and personal (and political) courage in opposing the invasion of Iraq; based on the fact that he is clearly a extremely intelligent and thoughtful person; based on the fact that he's wise enough to surround himself with expert advisers, and he's humble enough to be willing to listen to those advisers and consider their input in formulating his foreign affairs policies and in making decisions; based on the fact that he seems well versed in the history of the middle east conflict and in other conflicts/hotspots around the globe; based on the fact that he's clearly an intellectually curious person who always wants to know more; based on the fact that in organizing and running his campaign he has demonstrated that he is clearly an extraordinarily effective manager of resources and people; based on the fact that while he has clearly indicated his willingness to use military force, he is not a saber rattler and he places a high value on diplomacy; based on the fact that he believes in the superiority of democracy and the rule of law and he holds sacrosanct the US Constitution and the values and principles espoused therein; based on the fact that he can strengthen our alliances with other nations and can repair the damage done to our national reputation abroad by GW Bush; based on the fact that he has proven himself to be a strong supporter of our troops, of military families, and of the military in general; and based on the fact that he will maintain a robust military and he will utilize its force and influence wisely and prudently.

If you have doubts about his leadership skills, wanna be, consider that fact that in defeating the Clinton political army (ok,..machine) he has proven himself capable of overcoming extraordinary odds against him by utilizing his personal skills, talking to advisors, forming and implementing an effective strategy, organizing his troops locally and nationally, and marshaling his resources in order to successfully vanquish a foe who, in the beginning, no one thought he could possibly defeat. And yet he did defeat that foe.

Yes indeed, muh-man,.. Barack Obama is a leader; he's a fighter; he's a winner.

So for all those reasons and more ("intangibles" about the man), I have no doubt whatsoever that he can be an effective executive at the highest level of politics, and I have no doubt whatsoever that he'll be an effective Commander-in-Chief. Will Obama be 'the best Commander-in-Chief ever"? Probably not. Will he be "the worst ever"? Certainly not (GW Bush has that title locked up). Will he serve our nation and our military well in the role of Commander-in-Chief? Absolutely.

So then..

what makes you think he won't be.. or can't be.. an effective Commander-in-Chief?

[wanna be drummer]

It seems to me.. as I think it would seem to any reasonable person.. that "immediately" refers to "immediately beginning the process of.." bringing the troops home from Iraq; a process that Obama has consistently said would be gradual and would take some time; hence the term "phased withdrawal" that he's been using for months and months now.

Throughout the primary campaign Obama consistently said "We have to be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were reckless getting in" [sometimes he substitutes "careless" for "reckless", but the meaning of his message is the same]. I think that pretty well indicates that the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq under Obama's leadership as Commander-in-Chief will be done thoughtfully and prudently.. as any reasonable-minded US citizen would expect it to be done,.. right?

Tell me, wanna be,.. would you expect.. or want.. the withdrawal of US troops to be done recklessly? [i'm gonna assume your answer is 'no, of course not']. Well neither would I, nor would any other reasonable-minded person. So what makes you think Obama would be saying to the American public "I'm going to be as reckless as possible in removing US troops from Iraq. I'm bringing them home immediately.. on day one of my presidency.. all of them.. each and every one.. on day one". That might be a caricature of what you seem to think his position is, but it does highlight the idiocy of that position; and even you have to admit that nothing about Obama suggests he's an idiot. So why not give him his due credit for being an intelligent and thoughtful person, and consider the phrase "I will immediately begin withdrawing our troops" in the context of his being an intelligent and thoughtful person, eh?

Point is Hermit, immediately means quickly, not over a period of a few months or years

Yes I do think he'll be a good Commander-in-Chief.. based on the fact that he demonstrated solid judgment, keen insight, and personal (and political) courage in opposing the invasion of Iraq; based on the fact that he is clearly a extremely intelligent and thoughtful person; based on the fact that he's wise enough to surround himself with expert advisers, and he's humble enough to be willing to listen to those advisers and consider their input in formulating his foreign affairs policies and in making decisions; based on the fact that he seems well versed in the history of the middle east conflict and in other conflicts/hotspots around the globe; based on the fact that he's clearly an intellectually curious person who always wants to know more; based on the fact that in organizing and running his campaign he has demonstrated that he is clearly an extraordinarily effective manager of resources and people; based on the fact that while he has clearly indicated his willingness to use military force, he is not a saber rattler and he places a high value on diplomacy; based on the fact that he believes in the superiority of democracy and the rule of law and he holds sacrosanct the US Constitution and the values and principles espoused therein; based on the fact that he can strengthen our alliances with other nations and can repair the damage done to our national reputation abroad by GW Bush; based on the fact that he has proven himself to be a strong supporter of our troops, of military families, and of the military in general; and based on the fact that he will maintain a robust military and he will utilize its force and influence wisely and prudently.

If you have doubts about his leadership skills, wanna be, consider that fact that in defeating the Clinton political army (ok,..machine) he has proven himself capable of overcoming extraordinary odds against him by utilizing his personal skills, talking to advisors, forming and implementing an effective strategy, organizing his troops locally and nationally, and marshaling his resources in order to successfully vanquish a foe who, in the beginning, no one thought he could possibly defeat. And yet he did defeat that foe.

Yes indeed, muh-man,.. Barack Obama is a leader; he's a fighter; he's a winner.

So for all those reasons and more ("intangibles" about the man), I have no doubt whatsoever that he can be an effective executive at the highest level of politics, and I have no doubt whatsoever that he'll be an effective Commander-in-Chief. Will Obama be 'the best Commander-in-Chief ever"? Probably not. Will he be "the worst ever"? Certainly not (GW Bush has that title locked up). Will he serve our nation and our military well in the role of Commander-in-Chief? Absolutely.

So then..

what makes you think he won't be.. or can't be.. an effective Commander-in-Chief?

Just because he disagreed with Iraq doesn't make him a good commander-in-chief. Hell, my History teacher disagreed with the invasion, should he be CIC?

And when talking of adversaries, the Clinton "machine" hardly qualifies as a wartime enemy dude

[Hermit_]

Point is Hermit, immediately means quickly, not over a period of a few months or years

Removing 150,000 troops over the course of 16 months is "quickly.. and carefully".

And that process will be begun "immediately".. upon Obama taking over as POTUS.

[since no one wants "quickly and recklessly" what's your problem here, bud? ]

Just because he disagreed with Iraq doesn't make him a good commander-in-chief. Hell, my History teacher disagreed with the invasion, should he be CIC?

His opposition to the invasion of Iraq speaks to his judgment, his wisdom, and his personal (and political) courage. Qualities, I think you might agree, that one would have to have to be an effective Commander-in-Chief. Yeah?

And btw.. in saying "just because".. it seems you're (conveniently) ignoring all the other factors I listed upon which I base my belief that Obama will be an effective Commander-in-Chief. What's up with that, muh-man?

And when talking of adversaries, the Clinton "machine" hardly qualifies as a wartime enemy dude

I'd think that goes without saying, bud (which makes me think you're making a straw man argument there. ). The personal qualities and skills that Obama displayed during his campaign to defeat the Clinton machine.. against all odds.. are the same qualities that will.. in addition to all the other factors I pointed out.. make him an effective executive at the highest level of politics and will make him an effective Commander-in-Chief. That's the point I made rather clearly,.. I thought.

Btw.. I'm still waiting for you to say why it is that you think

he can't be.. or won't be.. an effective Commander-in-Chief.

[wanna be drummer]

Removing 150,000 troops over the course of 16 months is "quickly.. and carefully".

And that process will be begun "immediately".. upon Obama taking over as POTUS.

[since no one wants "quickly and recklessly" what's your problem here, bud? ]

If you say so Hermy, if you say so

His opposition to the invasion of Iraq speaks to his judgment, his wisdom, and his personal (and political) courage. Qualities, I think you might agree, that one would have to have to be an effective Commander-in-Chief. Yeah?

And btw.. in saying "just because".. it seems you're (conveniently) ignoring all the other factors I listed upon which I base my belief that Obama will be an effective Commander-in-Chief. What's up with that, muh-man?

I pointed out that single part because:

A:I hate writing long, winded responses, you should know that by now

and B: (this is the bigger one) because you've said that about Obama a couple of times. That he showed courage, intelligence, blah blah blah in opposing the Invasion of Iraq. I'm just saying, that doesn't really impress me. You would say that he ahd the insight to go against the war. That's great. Doesn't mean he's omniscient on the subject of war matters or foreign policy.

I'd think that goes without saying, bud (which makes me think you're making a straw man argument there. ). The personal qualities and skills that Obama displayed during his campaign to defeat the Clinton machine.. against all odds.. are the same qualities that will.. in addition to all the other factors I pointed out.. make him an effective executive at the highest level of politics and will make him an effective Commander-in-Chief. That's the point I made rather clearly,.. I thought.

Hermit, you give him too much credit, methinks. Yeah, it was a heck of a feat for him to beat out Bill, but (playing Devil's Advocate here) was it not just as crazy that mcCain took the nomination away from the likes of Giuliani or Romney? I mean he was incredibly low in the polls and came out of nowhere.

To me (and unlike you apparently), winning a party nomination hardly displays talent relevant to solving the country's problems on foreign oil, social security, health care, education, unexmployment, foreclosures, etc. (referring to the presidency here, as opposed to just CIC)

Cheers

Btw.. I'm still waiting for you to say why it is that you think

he can't be.. or won't be.. an effective Commander-in-Chief.

I'm not saying that it's not possible, Hermit. But you're undying loyalty and trust in a comeplete newcomer...intrigues me? Yeah, he could be a good CIC, but I don't think it'll happen. Does he have the experience? No, of course not. Even you can't deny that. Does that neccessarily matter? I'm not sure. We'll have to see.

I'm sure he'd listen to his generals in the beginning, like a good CIC should do (Bush blows in this category), but in the end, I think he'd do what most politicians do, and simply try and let his politics run the show, rather than the Army commanders. This could be said of any politician, though, so who knows.

[Hermit_]

I pointed out that single part because:

A:I hate writing long, winded responses, you should know that by now

Translation: I'd rather make assertions without having to back them up.

[there is no"'long winded" requirement for writing a thoughtful response, bro. ]

and B: (this is the bigger one) because you've said that about Obama a couple of times. That he showed courage, intelligence, [and personal (and political) courage] in opposing the Invasion of Iraq. I'm just saying, that doesn't really impress me. You would say that he ahd the insight to go against the war. That's great. Doesn't mean he's omniscient on the subject of war matters or foreign policy.

You think "omniscience on the subject of of war matters and foreign

policy" is a requirement for being an effective Commander-in-Chief?

If not, then what's the point of your "omniscience" comment?

Your point can't be to discount anything I said, because I've

never said I think Obama "is omniscient.. blah, blah, blah".

Anyway.. so you're not impressed by his opposition to the invasion of Iraq, eh? I sure am. I'm impressed by his courageous opposition to the invasion at a time when taking such a position meant risking being smeared as being "unpatriotic", and I'm impressed by his thoughtful and informed rationale for opposing the invasion... rationale that has proven to be spot on correct [see quote below from Oct 2002]. His display of wisdom, courage, and sound judgment has earned him my confidence that he'll do just fine as Commander-in-Chief.

Hermit, you give him too much credit, methinks. Yeah, it was a heck of a feat for him to beat out Bill, but (playing Devil's Advocate here) was it not just as crazy that mcCain took the nomination away from the likes of Giuliani or Romney? I mean he was incredibly low in the polls and came out of nowhere.

First off, McCain didn't take anything from Giuliani or Romney; they flopped and McCain was, through no doing of his own, the last man standing. McCain won the repub nomination almost by default. The repub field of candidates was incredibly weak and unappealing.. across the board. Apparently McCain was, from the republican pov, the least weak of the weak.

Secondly, are you suggesting Giuliani and Romney had political machines

that could be compared to the Clinton political machine? Dude,.. get real.

Finally,.. apparently you've already forgotten that Hillary Clinton was considered the heir apparent going into the dem primaries. She had the name recognition, the money, the political machine, and the connections.. all in place. She was expected to have the nomination wrapped up on Super Tuesday.. February 5th. She even said "It'll be over by Super Tuesday". The fact that Obama put together a campaign that defeated the Clinton machine is considered a feat of epic political proportions. Your failure to recognize that fact speaks to your political naivete, my friend. Methinks you give Obama (way) too little credit, wanna be bro.

To me (and unlike you apparently), winning a party nomination hardly displays talent relevant to solving the country's problems on foreign oil, social security, health care, education, unexmployment, foreclosures, etc. (referring to the presidency here, as opposed to just CIC)

Winning this particular nomination in the particular fashion that Obama won it against the field of candidates he won it against does say a lot about him, bud. You can deny it all you want, but he exhibited extraordinary skillfulness of marshaling and managing resources, of forming, implementing, and executing a successful strategy; at bringing people from disparate demographics together to support him; and of the personal and political courage/fortitude to not be intimidated by a political mega-powerhouse such as the Clinton machine. Every challenge that came up during the primaries he faced and handled with grace, skill, humility, confidence, and determination. And he prevailed.

Those are skills and personal qualities that WILL translate into Obama being an effective executive at the highest levels of politics. If you disagree, then please do tell me what skills you think he is lacking? What are the "talent(s) relevant to solving the country's problems on foreign oil, social security, health care, education" that you think are required for that task.. talents that Obama lacks?

I'm not saying that it's not possible, Hermit. But you're undying loyalty and trust in a comeplete newcomer...intrigues me? Yeah, he could be a good CIC, but I don't think it'll happen. Does he have the experience? No, of course not. Even you can't deny that. Does that neccessarily matter? I'm not sure. We'll have to see.

What kind of "experience" he would need to be effective,.. exactly?

Cheney, Rumsfeld and Powell had a collective boatload of experience. Did that

result in them making sound foreign affairs/military decisions on Bush's behalf?

Fwiw.. I'd prefer a Commander-in-Chief with intelligence, thoughtfulness, wisdom, integrity, personal and political courage, and no military experience (a-la Barack "diplomacy first" Obama) rather than a Commander-in-Chief with a military resume who's a war-mongering, principle-less, shameless-panderer, torture-advocating, saber-rattling, clueless, blathering buffoon (a-la John "bomb, bomb, bomb" "Iran is arming al-Qaeda in Iraq" McCain). Any day.

Reality check for McClueless:

Iran is Shiite; Al Qaeda are Sunni.

The sectarian conflict in Iraq is Shiite vs Sunni.

So uhh.. why would Iran be arming Iraqi Sunnis?

I'm sure he'd listen to his generals in the beginning, like a good CIC should do (Bush blows in this category), but in the end, I think he'd do what most politicians do, and simply try and let his politics run the show, rather than the Army commanders. This could be said of any politician, though, so who knows.

At least I've backed up my pov with specific rationale, bro. You've merely

told us what you think,.. but not the rationale behind why you think it.

That's an interesting.. and perhaps rather telling.. omission.

aw well.. *shrugs*

Cheers, buddy.

I don't oppose all wars

"I don't oppose all wars. After September 11, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again.

Opposed to Dumb, Rash Wars

I don't oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income, to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

On Saddam Hussein

Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power.... The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors...and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.

I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars. So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president.

You Want a Fight, President Bush?

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure that...we vigorously enforce a nonproliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair."

[Del Zeppnile]

True nuff, Del. 'Dixie-crats' (a-la Strom Thurmond) were good old boys indeed.

And republican racist good old boys of today are a chip off the

ol' block from their Dixie-crat racist good old boy predecessors.

Does mention of Strom Thurmond make you nostalgic for the 'good old' days?

[ ]

No, but it does make me nostalgic for Richard Nixon. The President who signed more civil rights legislation into law than any other President. Even over the objections of your Democrat congressmen.

Oh, and did I mention that Nixon was a Republican.

And let's not forget that it was Republican Dwight Eisnenhower who signed the 1957 Civil Rights act... while Democrat John F. Kennedy voted against it.

No wonder Martin Luther King was a Republican.

[Hermit_]

No, but it does make me nostalgic for Richard Nixon. The President who signed more civil rights legislation into law than any other President. Even over the objections of your Democrat congressmen.

Oh, and did I mention that Nixon was a Republican.

And let's not forget that it was Republican Dwight Eisnenhower who signed the 1957 Civil Rights act... while Democrat John F. Kennedy voted against it.

No wonder Martin Luther King was a Republican.

You're right about the 1954 Civil Rights Act and JFK. However..

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was prompted in 1963.. by President Kennedy; and

an amended version of that bill was signed into law by President Johnson in '64:

"An Act To enforce the constitutional right to vote, to confer jurisdiction upon the district courts of the United States to provide relief against discrimination in public accommodations, to authorize the Attorney General to institute suits to protect constitutional rights in public facilities and public education, to extend the Commission on Civil Rights, to prevent discrimination in federally assisted programs, to establish a Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity, and for other purposes".

Your point is valid though. Southern dems opposed the civil rights legislation.

Make no mistake about it though,.. at this point in American history (today), the democratic party is clearly the pro-civil rights party and the republican party is clearly the "good ol boy" party of intolerance.. and greed.

Heck,.. Abraham Lincoln was a republican in his day,.. but

if he was here today there's no doubt he'd be a democrat.

Do you think you'd recognize him if he walked among us today, Del?

[Bong-Man]

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artic...0366/1409/METRO

Call me nuts....You can tell me to put the bong down, but I think this entire episode was orchestrated by the Obama camp in order to help distance himself from any rumored affiliation with Muslms or Islam. The target audience ?.....Mainstream America. FOX news and other Republican talking heads didn't touch this story because it served them no purpose whatsoever. They have no interest in dispelling those rumors....but Democrats do. This story ran front page on every Democratic newspaper, and was buried in every Gannett newspaper.

[wanna be drummer]

Translation: I'd rather make assertions without having to back them up.

[there is no"'long winded" requirement for writing a thoughtful response, bro. ]

Perhaps, but I've many that were

You think "omniscience on the subject of of war matters and foreign

policy" is a requirement for being an effective Commander-in-Chief?

If not, then what's the point of your "omniscience" comment?

Your point can't be to discount anything I said, because I've

never said I think Obama "is omniscient.. blah, blah, blah".

Omniscient was an overstatement Hermit, come on. I'm just saying that he's hardly genius in the field of military matters.

Anyway.. so you're not impressed by his opposition to the invasion of Iraq, eh? I sure am. I'm impressed by his courageous opposition to the invasion at a time when taking such a position meant risking being smeared as being "unpatriotic", and I'm impressed by his thoughtful and informed rationale for opposing the invasion... rationale that has proven to be spot on correct [see quote below from Oct 2002]. His display of wisdom, courage, and sound judgment has earned him my confidence that he'll do just fine as Commander-in-Chief.

Ron Paul was also against the invasion when it started Hermit. Does that impress me? No, not really. It does, however, tell me that he cares more about his beliefs than public opinion, which I respect. But, I expect all politicians to do that so it doesn't impress me. It simply disappoints me when someone sells their soul for a few votes (look at McCains stances from when he started off in politics to today, he's topsy-turvy).

Sorry dude, doesn't impress me.

First off, McCain didn't take anything from Giuliani or Romney; they flopped and McCain was, through no doing of his own, the last man standing. McCain won the repub nomination almost by default. The repub field of candidates was incredibly weak and unappealing.. across the board. Apparently McCain was, from the republican pov, the least weak of the weak.

Secondly, are you suggesting Giuliani and Romney had political machines

that could be compared to the Clinton political machine? Dude,.. get real.

Finally,.. apparently you've already forgotten that Hillary Clinton was considered the heir apparent going into the dem primaries. She had the name recognition, the money, the political machine, and the connections.. all in place. She was expected to have the nomination wrapped up on Super Tuesday.. February 5th. She even said "It'll be over by Super Tuesday". The fact that Obama put together a campaign that defeated the Clinton machine is considered a feat of epic political proportions. Your failure to recognize that fact speaks to your political naivete, my friend. Methinks you give Obama (way) too little credit, wanna be bro.

First, could it not be said that Hillary flopped Hermit? It should've been over before it started and she fell off the deep end trying to win an election and faltered. I'm not saying that Barack didn't have his moments, but did Hillary not "flop" as well?

Secondly, I'm not saying that Romney was as well-powered or prepared as Hillary. But, the Democrats had two clear choices for the nomination: Hillary, and Barack. It could be argued that Edwards was up there but I think we all knew he wasn't going to pull it off. Barack had a single enemy, maybe two, to defeat. On the Republican side, it was up for grabs. You had Romney, Giuliani, McCain, Huckabee, Fred Thompson, Ron Paul (ok maybe not him..) and for a while, not one looked the clear winner. With Huckabee winning the first day, it threw everybody off-guard. It was up for grabs, so you had like 5 or 6 guys all with somewhat of a chance of pulling it off.

Finally, I still don't think that means he's suited for the presidency Hermit. I mean, JFK beat out Nixon, and look what hapened (oh wait...you like him...). Charisma helped him through the nomination, but is that enough to solve this country's problems?

Winning this particular nomination in the particular fashion that Obama won it against the field of candidates he won it against does say a lot about him, bud. You can deny it all you want, but he exhibited extraordinary skillfulness of marshaling and managing resources, of forming, implementing, and executing a successful strategy; at bringing people from disparate demographics together to support him; and of the personal and political courage/fortitude to not be intimidated by a political mega-powerhouse such as the Clinton machine. Every challenge that came up during the primaries he faced and handled with grace, skill, humility, confidence, and determination. And he prevailed.

Those are skills and personal qualities that WILL translate into Obama being an effective executive at the highest levels of politics. If you disagree, then please do tell me what skills you think he is lacking? What are the "talent(s) relevant to solving the country's problems on foreign oil, social security, health care, education" that you think are required for that task.. talents that Obama lacks?

It's not his skills that I worry about Hermit. Those abstract skills can get you through a nomination and can get you elected. It's a different field when it comes down to concrete plans.

I don't think his health plan will work, nor any form of universal health care. He's going to just keep taking and taking to keep the health budget afloat and it's going to lead to more socialization in the country. Then theres the whole "pro-Affirmative Action" thing, which really pisses me off, not to mention his pro-Abortion stance. Also, he's quite gun control, and I'm pretty pro-guns. Go figure.

I do however, praise him for his family values. He seems like a pretty good guy, someone a child could look up to.

Not trying to make him look like the Devil here Hermit, just questioning your devotion to him.

What kind of "experience" he would need to be effective,.. exactly?

Cheney, Rumsfeld and Powell had a collective boatload of experience. Did that

result in them making sound foreign affairs/military decisions on Bush's behalf?

Fwiw.. I'd prefer a Commander-in-Chief with intelligence, thoughtfulness, wisdom, integrity, personal and political courage, and no military experience (a-la Barack "diplomacy first" Obama) rather than a Commander-in-Chief with a military resume who's a war-mongering, principle-less, shameless-panderer, torture-advocating, saber-rattling, clueless, blathering buffoon (a-la John "bomb, bomb, bomb" "Iran is arming al-Qaeda in Iraq" McCain). Any day.

I like how tough McCain is, but I cant stand his (essentially) pro-torture stance. However, if I absolutely had to pick one of the two on foreign policy, I would say McCain. I don't think Obama would be strong enough to lead us through the shit thats going down in the Middle East (i.e. his pull out quickly plan), but I don't want us in Iran, nor do I want us in Iraq for 10 more years. So it's a lesser of two evils, I guess. I'd take McCain there and pray to God that he doesn't invade Iran.

Reality check for McClueless:

Iran is Shiite; Al Qaeda are Sunni.

The sectarian conflict in Iraq is Shiite vs Sunni.

So uhh.. why would Iran be arming Iraqi Sunnis?

I got a kick out of that too

At least I've backed up my pov with specific rationale, bro. You've merely

told us what you think,.. but not the rationale behind why you think it.

That's an interesting.. and perhaps rather telling.. omission.

Specific rationale being...? Oh, you mean naming his "skills" such as, "grace, skill, humility, confidence, and determination"?

You're the better talker Hermit, I'll give ya that. Hell, you're even more...shall I say...knowledgeable in the sense that you've got probably 30 years of reading and developing POVs on me?

You should just be happy that some of the youth out there are as concerned as me

Cheers, buddy.

Indeed,

[wanna be drummer]

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artic...0366/1409/METRO

Call me nuts....You can tell me to put the bong down, but I think this entire episode was orchestrated by the Obama camp in order to help distance himself from any rumored affiliation with Muslms or Islam. The target audience ?.....Mainstream America. FOX news and other Republican talking heads didn't touch this story because it served them no purpose whatsoever. They have no interest in dispelling those rumors....but Democrats do. This story ran front page on every Democratic newspaper, and was buried in every Gannett newspaper.

Beat me to it. I had my site all ready to post too

Yeah, this story made me laugh.

[TypeO]

Reality check for McClueless:

Iran is Shiite; Al Qaeda are Sunni.

The sectarian conflict in Iraq is Shiite vs Sunni.

So uhh.. why would Iran be arming Iraqi Sunnis?

uhh... ever heard the maxim "My enemy's enemy is my friend"?

[wanna be drummer]

uhh... ever heard the maxim "My enemy's enemy is my friend"?

Fact is, Iran would support the Shiites, not the Sunnis..

[Del Zeppnile]

You're right about the 1954 Civil Rights Act and JFK. However..

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was prompted in 1963.. by President Kennedy; and

an amended version of that bill was signed into law by President Johnson in '64:

JFK had to be convinced to get on board with civil rights, mostly by his brother.

Your point is valid though. Southern dems opposed the civil rights legislation.

You bet they did. Democrats were behind the KKK and all the Jim Crow laws.

Make no mistake about it though,.. at this point in American history (today), the democratic party is clearly the pro-civil rights party and the republican party is clearly the "good ol boy" party of intolerance.. and greed.

Is that why when they are in power the highest cabinet rank they offer blacks are housing and urban development or secretary of transportation?

G.W. Bush has had two black secretery of states for pete sakes.

Heck,.. Abraham Lincoln was a republican in his day,.. but

if he was here today there's no doubt he'd be a democrat.

Nothing wrong with being a Democrat, Ronald Reagan was even one at one time. It's about being the right kind of democrat.

[TypeO]

Fact is, Iran would support the Shiites, not the Sunnis..

Not necessarily.

It's the sunni (Al-Queada) who are most actively involved in the insurgency (against the U.S.), the civil strife between Shia and Sunni is a secondary result that makes stabilization of the region more difficult, which works to Iran's favor.

No, they most likely wouldn't OPENLY support Sunnis, but secretly arming/providing them weaponry serves their larger purpose of keeping the region destabilized.

The desired result being "stabilization in the region can only occur with the HELP of Iran and the removal of U.S."

Without interference from Iran, U.S. CAN stabilize the region, and allow an indepencent Iraq to emerge, as opposed to an Iraq dependent upon/allied to Iran.

This shit's chess, it ain't checkers

[wanna be drummer]

Agree to disagree

[TypeO]

Agree to disagree

yeah, I think we're basically on the same page politically, just differ on minor views.