Why did Obama stay in Rev. Wright's church?

blueflame1 wrote:

Jesus Damns the Rich
by maconblue, Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 08:43:57 PM EST

OK, that was really funny Laughing

0 Replies

Here are our choices:

(1) Sen. Clinton She's married to a previous CNC; served more than one term in the Senate; been on Senate fact finding trips; been vocal on military matters. Promises rapid withdrawal in less than one year of taking office. She has never served in the military, but has often intimated that there are better and higher priorities than military spending.

(2) Sen. Obama Sorry, I can't think of a single thing that would lead any reasonable person to believe Obama has the least understanding about the U.S. Military, its needs, its uses or constraints. He has been outspoken about dealing with the enemy and promises a safe, phased withdrawal.

(3) Sen. McClain. Served with honor and distinction in the U.S. Navy, and comes from a family who have served this country in uniform for generations. He knows the military mindset from first hand experience, and by long associations going back to his childhood. He knows first-hand the limitations of the military, and the price that we sometimes ask of our service people. He has served many terms in the Senate from his home State of Arizona, and has had meaningful involvement with virtually every foreign policy matter to come before the Senate since his arrival.

My pick is without question, John McCain as the most best choice of this lot. He is, in my opinion the least likely to involve us un-necessarily in conflict, and the least likely to "throw in the towel" because of a reversal of fortune. Of the three, he is the one least likely to act like a bull in a china shop over military matters after election. Of the three, he is the only one who has enough background to make military judgments with minimal involvement by advisers.

Will he be a great CNC? No one can tell in advance, but everything in his background and record are assuring that he truly does understand what the military is about.

Though many of us would have preferred taking Saddam out before going to a cease fire, that was beyond the stated mission of the Administration. Bush did what he thought was right at the time. It is only in hindsight that we can now see the error in the mission statement... it was too limited and limiting. That might have been the price for getting cooperation through the UN, but that only shifts the blame to an organization already infamous for its ineffectiveness, inefficiency, and unwillingness to act decisively.

I also agree that the costs of any military campaign are far greater than those dollars that were budgeted. War is a wasteful of men, machines and treasure. Our national decision to eliminate the draft and focus on smaller professional forces highly trained and armed with the most sophisticated weaponry has unintended consequences. First, fewer people have to carry a proportionately heavier burden. Longer deployments and the need to maintain appropriate garrisons/fleets around the world requires a larger military establishment than we currently maintain. The answer is not a return to the draft, which was inefficient and even more wasteful than the current system. Given the sophistication of modern military doctrine longer and better training is necessary. We are paying the price today of yesterday's optimistic hopes that long and difficult wars would be rare. The Navy is smaller today, though much more lethal and able to survive than in the past, and that's good. What isn't so good is that we strain the system trying to cover all of the danger zones around the world.

It is fashionable, especially on the Left, to lambaste the Shrub for everything. Yes, this administration has repeatedly gone to the Congress for additional funding. War is expensive and wasteful... oh, yes, I've noted that before. The alternative of surrender would be very like the incomplete Gulf I situation.

Pull the troops out, and what is the likely outcome? We would hope that the Iraqi government would be strong enough to maintain itself, but in the opinion of those best informed today on the ground they aren't ready yet. Iran's involvement would very likely increase in hopes of installing an Islamic government along Iranian lines. Sectarian violence would likely escalate, and rebuilding would slow. Al Queda and other RIM organizations would be exhalation and brag to the world how they gained a victory over the American infidels. That in its turn would encourage other RIM insurgencies, demands and attacks both within and outside of the region. Chaos in the region could seriously disrupt the world's supply of petrochemicals and drive the prices to astronomical levels... now that is an economic nightmare we can do without. At the end of the day, the United States would have to re-introduce military force into the region. RIM elements of the Pakistani military, that has close ties with the Taliban, might turn on the U.S. With their rear covered, the Taliban might be much more difficult to counter in Afghanistan. Without bases in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Pakistan the logistics of supporting or projecting any force in the region is exceedingly difficult. Leave and going back would cost more in blood and treasure than staying put until the job is done, and done properly.

Pointing out the tremendous costs in blood and treasure of any war is easy. The real question shouldn't be the costs of prosecuting a war, but the cost of losing it. I contend that the costs of pulling out of the region far exceed ANY savings that might temporarily be achieved.

Where does the money come from? Well, Congress has a long record of keeping the U.S. soldier on tiny rations... and that should be a national disgrace. If the costs of continuing are high, then divert money from other expenditures. No more Congressional earmarks. No more "pork" added to essential legislation. Serious bi-partisan reform of entitlement programs with an eye to making them cost efficient. Reduce the size of the Federal bureaucracy, and eliminate expenditures that return very little for the tax dollar spent. Raising taxes is far less important than increasing tax revenue by wisely spending the money already collected.

Personally, I'd have a lot less problem in paying more in taxes if I could only be assured that the money was wisely spent. I can't make that judgment because I don't sit in the Congress, but I support those who are fiscally responsible.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

fishin wrote:
Quote:
The positions of "evangelicals" has been pointed out by many people as a reason not to support Bush for the last 8+ years. How many times has our friend blatham made comments about Dobson on A2K? And how many of those have been in the context of an anti-Bush/Anti-Republican candidate or position?

The two situations are not analogous.

In America (or Canada) there are theologies or sects regarding which I would have much to say in the way of negative comment (or positive comment) if that theology or sect could be seen to have significant influence upon a ruling party and country. Dobson, Falwell, Robertson and others in the evangelical community in America have had such influence and thus become quite acceptable targets for criticism.

??? Really? Who decided they were "acceptable targets" and Wright isn't? Did I miss that memo? I was under the silly impression that each of us still had the freedom to make that determination for ourselves.

Quote:

What are the chances, fishin, that Wright and his church might ever come to wield comparable influence over or within the Democratic party?

Whether Wright will or won't wield any influence within the Democratic Party could very well depend on whether or not Obama gets elected and what his ties with Wright are.

Is it your position that no one should ever ask what that level of influence is and in what direction it leads? Are you going to apply the same criteria to all candidates for public office? Will you deteriming for the rest of us what is or isn't acceptable and fill us in later?

0 Replies

Asherman wrote:

Here are our choices:

(1) Sen. Clinton She's married to a previous CNC; served more than one term in the Senate; been on Senate fact finding trips; been vocal on military matters. Promises rapid withdrawal in less than one year of taking office. She has never served in the military, but has often intimated that there are better and higher priorities than military spending.

however you stated only a post or so back that military service was not a pre-requisite for you, correct?

true, hillary does look to a withdrawl, but one that is responsible and leaves forces in place to cover said withdrawl and to address the embassy and other security concerns.

also, she has, i believe, served on the armed forces committee since earning her senate seat. she is reported to get very favorable reviews by the military for her comprehension of how it works.

(2) Sen. Obama Sorry, I can't think of a single thing that would lead any reasonable person to believe Obama has the least understanding about the U.S. Military, its needs, its uses or constraints. He has been outspoken about dealing with the enemy and promises a safe, phased withdrawal.

once again, you have said that military experience was not all that important, citing reagan as an example. i'll give you another; nixon. and another; franklin rooosevelt. just one more? abe lincoln.

so it appears that uniformed service is not completely essential to grasp the whole war thing.

and conversely, bush junior's playtime pretend "military service" has put this country in the most unenviable position of having a particularly nasty tiger by the tail.

(3) Sen. McClain. Served with honor and distinction in the U.S. Navy, and comes from a family who have served this country in uniform for generations. He knows the military mindset from first hand experience, and by long associations going back to his childhood. He knows first-hand the limitations of the military, and the price that we sometimes ask of our service people. He has served many terms in the Senate from his home State of Arizona, and has had meaningful involvement with virtually every foreign policy matter to come before the Senate since his arrival.

but that service is not absolutely a pre-requisite to be a good cic, per your earlier post. i hate to keep pointing that out, but hey, you said it.

and in the same vein, you pointed out that jimmy carter, who did serve, was in your estimation a poor cic.

so, as we go along here, i'll point (once again) to gwb, and his alledged service and give my estimation that he has been, is and will continue to be an absolute failure as commander in chief.

My pick is without question, John McCain as the most best choice of this lot. He is, in my opinion the least likely to involve us un-necessarily in conflict, and the least likely to "throw in the towel" because of a reversal of fortune. Of the three, he is the one least likely to act like a bull in a china shop over military matters after election. Of the three, he is the only one who has enough background to make military judgments with minimal involvement by advisers.

again, i disagree. his constant nattering about iran is a quite visable sign that he is not only likely to involve the u.s. in un-necessary conflict, but is seemingly chomping at the bit to do so.

Will he be a great CNC? No one can tell in advance, but everything in his background and record are assuring that he truly does understand what the military is about.

a slight bone here... he may understand what the military was about.

Though many of us would have preferred taking Saddam out before going to a cease fire, that was beyond the stated mission of the Administration. Bush did what he thought was right at the time. It is only in hindsight that we can now see the error in the mission statement... it was too limited and limiting. That might have been the price for getting cooperation through the UN, but that only shifts the blame to an organization already infamous for its ineffectiveness, inefficiency, and unwillingness to act decisively.

while there is some merit to this view, at the time of 9/11, saddam was contained, as was declared by both powell and rice previously.

he was hemmed in and wasn't going to be able to do much but grow old and, not a minute too soon, croak. his rotten kids would never have been able to keep control,. but that part is just a considered opinion.

I also agree that the costs of any military campaign are far greater than those dollars that were budgeted. The Navy is smaller today, though much more lethal and able to survive than in the past, and that's good. What isn't so good is that we strain the system trying to cover all of the danger zones around the world.

precisely. and as a libertarian, i have no interest in the u.s. playing the role of the world's policeman.

and i don't think we would have to do so if we displayed better leadership within the framework of the u.n. instead of constantly carping about it.

an organization is only as strong/effective as its members.

It is fashionable, especially on the Left, to lambaste the Shrub for everything. Yes, this administration has repeatedly gone to the Congress for additional funding. ...

nope. i won't let you get away with dragging the "left does this and that" into this.

bush has been completely, mmm. let me find the right words... frakkin' wrong about nearly everything in relation to iraq and afghanistan.

that's not lambasting. that is called holding him to accounts. which is what a responsible president should expect and what a responsible citizenry should do.

Pull the troops out, and what is the likely outcome?

civil war. or a power struggle if you prefer. and that is going to happen whether the u.s. pulls out in 2009 or 2029.

i mean, do you not understand that the sunnis and the shia are fighting for control not because a.q. is urging them to. they are at each other over a religious quarrel. i.e., whether it was mohammad's son or another relative who was the rightful heir to the mohammadan legacy.

no christian power is ever going to be able to sort that out for them.

and i believe it is very likely that there is going to be the middle eastern version of wwII between all of 'em.

if so, it is not in our best interest to have an invasion size force stuck on the island of iraq in the middle of it.

Pointing out the tremendous costs in blood and treasure of any war is easy.

not particularly.

Where does the money come from?

china...because there is a large block of americans that quite vocally support the continuation of the war, but are aghast at being told they should pay for it..

so, lay aside the usual complaint about pork and wasteful spending. it's a total copout.

mccain is quick to point and giggle about a museum celebrating woodstock because, "well gee it calls for a 1 million dollar check from the government".

yet not a single peep from him over the idiotic yearly 500 milion dollar check from the government to promote marriage???

geez, i could swear that people have been getting married with out governmental urging for, i don't know, a really, really long time.

i mean, gosh, have we all been doing it wrong up till 2001 ?? :wink:

0 Replies

Right on, DTOM.

0 Replies

Military service isn't an absolute qualifier, but it certainly is one element that we have to consider in weighing one candidate against another. FDR's physical handicap precluded his service in uniform, but he was an exceptionally effective Secretary of the Navy. Richard Nixon also served in the Navy, and was renowned for his ability at poker. Even Lincoln served for a brief period during the Black hawk War, so all of your examples are incorrect. Off the top of my head the Presidents who never served directly or as Secretary of War were: John & Quincy Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Martin Van Buren, Tyler, Polk, Fillmore, Buchanan, A.Johnson, Arthur, Cleveland, Benjamin Harrison, Taft, Wilson, Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, LBJ, and RR. Twenty in all, and with the exceptions of LBJ and Reagan, every President since the beginning of WWII served in some military capacity.

Of the three current candidates only one served in uniform. Of the two Democratic candidates only Sen. Clinton served on the Armed Forces Committee, and that does make her a tad more believable than Obama.

Citing the Shrub's or Clinton's meager experience should, if anything be a cautionary tale about entrusting the nations military to amateurs. Wait a minute, did Bill serve at all? If not that makes 21 Presidents with no military experience upon assuming office. Having military service isn't a litmus test, but it is one important element in evaluation candidates especially in these times. I could give pages of examples of Presidents with military experience who weren't very good Executives, but the number of excellent CNCs without some military background is very poor... Reagan being an exception. Wilson got us into WWI and the next three Presidents were during times of peace. Jefferson was ultimately responsible for the War of 1812, though Madison got the blame. Between the War of 1812 and the Mexican War the nation was expanding westward and the military challenge was fighting "insurgents" who made life difficult for the "occupiers". The military under Jefferson onward was reduced to little more than a palace guard. R.E. Lee was an old man before he made Captain, even thought his service was remarkable. During that period seven of the Presidents of the 12 had no experience, and Harrison died almost upon being sworn into office.

You asked what I though qualified my personal judgment that McCain is the best prepared candidate to be CNC. I've given my answer, and tried to clarify it.

Iran is a dangerous State, and threatens to become more so during the next four years. If Iran believes that the President of the United States is another Jimmy Carter, we're in for trouble. If, on the other hand, their perception of the President is more closely related to Reagan, they are less likely to make risky moves and threats believing that we will do anything to avoid war. THAT is the danger of electing someone like Clinton or Obama who are constantly sending signals of being an easy mark for aggression.

It has indeed been awhile since McCain wore the uniform, but he has been intimately involved through his long service in the Senate. The weapons of war, the scope and swiftness of modern combat have changed greatly even in the last decade. What hasn't changed in the last few thousands of years is the combat experience. Today's wars are almost antiseptic compared to the visceral carnage of prior wars.

The region was already destabilized before the U.S. led coalition finally wrote finis to Saddam. He was blatant in his threats, support of international terrorism, and that had to change if the effort to destroy Radical Islamic terrorism was to be taken to their homeland sanctuaries. Don't cry for Saddam, and it would have been unrealistic to wait around for ten or twenty years while Saddam continued to foster regional instability.

The UN is notoriously ineffective, inefficient and slow to move no matter how desperate the situation. It is at the mercy of a zillion little nation Third World states. The UN is a pretty example of how not to govern anything, much less trying to keep peace in the world. Nice idea, lousy execution. If the world relied on the UN instead of the United States the Soviet Union would have won the Cold War. China would have invaded Taiwan almost fifty years ago. Countless thousands would have starved to death in backward Third World countries. Iraq wasn't afraid of the UN, Saddam didn't even respect it. Neither does Iran nor the Radical Islamic Movement who see the UN as an example of Western degeneracy.

In your opinion this Administration has been wrong about everything, but your idea of what responsible judgments and policies are is no better than my opinions which happen to be quite different. This isn't Bush's War anymore than the War of 1812 was Madison's War, or the Civil War was Lincoln's War. Congress, because of international treaties, is pretty much constrained from ever formally declaring War, but make no mistake about it the Congress and majority of American citizens approved our effort in Iraq and Afghanistan. What Congress and many citizens object to today is that the war is taking soooo long, it costs soooo much, and sooo many people are ground up in it. Sorry Charley, that's why the responsiblity is vested in the President, The Commander in Chief. For all of the Shrubs failings, and he has many, he has not bowed to fashion nor altered his course on the basis of popular political polls. He was elected to be CNC, and he has fulfilled that duty whether anyone likes it or not. Personally, I think history will be far kinder to the Shrub than contemporaries.

So your solution to Iraq is to leave them to civil war with the strong potential of it becoming "the Middle Eastern equivalent of WWII". Chamberlain would be proud o'ye lad. Anything approaching a WWII scale of conflict in the region would unavoidably draw into it all of Europe and the United States. Such a conflict where several of the contending parties hold nuclear weapons, and have prepared themselves mentally and emotionally for Armageddon is the very sort of nightmare that we are trying to avoid.

Well, at least someone... McCain has take the unpopular stand that pork and wasteful spending has to be curbed. Neither of the Democratic candidates want to change spending priorities except to increase them.

0 Replies

Asherman wrote:

Military service isn't an absolute qualifier, but it certainly is one element that we have to consider in weighing one candidate against another. FDR's physical handicap precluded his service in uniform, but he was an exceptionally effective Secretary of the Navy.

handicapped or not, he did not serve. he did however become what you called an exceptionally effective sec of navy.

he also was cic of the military that beat the germans, italians and was the overseer of the manhattan project (or president over/during whatever...) which was used to defeat japan.

arguably, he was the last president to preside over a u.s. involved war that was actually won.

Richard Nixon also served in the Navy, and was renowned for his ability at poker.

so you're saying that poker is the essential pre-req ??

my mistake on nixon... as far as putting on a uniform goes. howebber;

[quote] Richard Nixon joined the U.S. Navy at the age of 29. ...In January 1942, Nixon became an attorney for the Office of Emergency Management in Washington, D.C. where he worked until he accepted an appointment as lieutenant junior grade in the United States Naval Reserve on 15 June 1942.
Following his appointment, Nixon began aviation indoctrination training at the Naval Training School, Naval Air Station in Quonset Point, Rhode Island. After completing the course in October 1942, he went to the Naval Reserve Aviation Base in Ottumwa, Iowa, where he served as Aide to the Executive Officer until May 1943. Looking for more excitement, Nixon volunteered for sea duty and reported to Commander Air Force, U.S. Pacific Fleet where he was assigned as Officer in Charge of the South Pacific Combat Air Transport Command at Guadalcanal in the Solomons and later at Green Island. His unit prepared manifests and flight plans for C-47 operations and supervised the loading and unloading of the cargo aircraft. For this service he received a Letter of Commendation from the Commander South Pacific Area and South Pacific Force for "meritorious and efficient performance of duty as Officer in Charge of the South Pacific Combat Air Transport Command... " On 1 October 1943, Nixon was promoted to lieutenant.

From August through December of 1944, Nixon was assigned to Fleet Air Wing EIGHT. From December through March 1945, he served at the Bureau of Aeronautics, Navy Department, Washington, D.C. In March, his next assignment was as the Bureau of Aeronautics Contracting Officer for Terminations in the Office of the Bureau of Aeronautics General Representative, Eastern District, headquartered in New York City. In that capacity he had temporary additional duty at various places, including Washington D.C., Philadelphia, Buffalo, New York City, and East Hartford, Connecticut. When he was released from active duty on 10 March 1946. He was promoted to Commander in the Naval Reserve on 1 June 1953.

Even Lincoln served for a brief period during the Black hawk War, so all of your examples are incorrect.

not so fast, ash...

from what i can tell, lincoln was not u.s. army (or u.s. anything) or even definitively uniformed.

he was in a thrown together militia in illinois; below, especially the dates, please...

[quote] His first enlistment was as elected captain of a company in the 4th Regiment of Mounted Volunteers, of Gen. Samuel Whiteside's Brigade. Lincoln enrolled on April 21, 1832, and mustered out with his company at Fort Johnson (Ottawa) on May 27, 1832. The company served at Beardstown, and reportedly Lincoln's company helped bury the dead of "Stillman's Run"Lincoln re-enlisted on the same day he mustered out of his old company, and was mustered in on May 29 as a private in Captain Elijah Ises' Company, Twenty-Day Interim Regiment. He actively served with the company when General Henry Atkinson detached Captain Iles' command to ride north from Ottawa along the Kellogg Trail and reopen communications with Galena-- which had been out of touch with the rest of the world since the Felix St. Vrain Massacre. As part of this movement, Iles' company (including Lincoln) spent an overnight at Apple River Fort... about a week before Black Hawk's attack against that strongpoint later in June. Once this ride was completed, the service of Iles' company was essentially at an end. On June 16, Lincoln was mustered out.

Lincoln's third enlistment was as a private in Captain Jacob M. Early's "Spy Company." This unit mustered in approximately June 20, 1832, and served as part of General Atkinson's army as it moved north through present-day Beloit, Janesvilles, the Storr's Lake encampment (west of present-day Milton, Rock County, Wisconsin) and on to the "Trembling Lands" east of present-day Fort Atkinson, Jefferson County, Wisconsin. Atkinson's food supply dwindled, and his solution was to muster out most of his militia. Accordingly, Early's company (along with Lincoln) was mustered out and discharged on July 10, 1832

so let me some up what i'm getting in your response...

lincoln spent roughly 90 days digging graves, replacing mailboxes (snarky i know. but it sounds kinda funny) and camping out at a small fort before the fighting started...

nixon played poker when he wasn't signing forms as a glorified quartermaster... (being a quaker, i cannot fault him for his c.o. beliefs. but poker??? geez, that's sinful. ain't it ?

and roosevelt, the one that never signed up for the military won a multiple front war against multiple nations.

Of the three current candidates only one served in uniform...

which you said earlier is not a pre-requisite for you.

but, you keep coming back to it as if it is the most important pre-requisite.

so, dude... wuzzup withdat?

Citing the Shrub's ...meager experience should, if anything be a cautionary tale about entrusting the nations military to amateurs.

well, there you go again...

Wait a minute, did Bill serve at all?

nope. he also did not get the u.s. into unilateral war with a soverign country who had not attacked the u.s.

he also did not send troops into a hostile and volitile somalia. that was bush senior after he lost the '92 election. i guess he wanted to give bill a house warming gift.

You asked what I though qualified my personal judgment that McCain is the best prepared candidate to be CNC. I've given my answer, and tried to clarify it.

Iran is a dangerous State.

why? because they want nuclear energy ? possibly weapons ? because they are ruled by religious hardasses ?

if that is the criteria i suggest you take a look at israel.

who has been, is and continues to be under u.n. sanctions for the possession of nuclear weaponry.

don't hear mccain or others calling for the military option with israel though, do ya ?

"oh, but israel is our friend" ? are they ? or are they at the root of 25 years of american foreign policy?

i have a friend who has a friend (???), who has been associated with a government alphabet agency.

he apparently has a saying which i like;

"the middle east has nothing but oil, camels and camel ****. if we don't need their oil, they got nothing but camels.. and camel ****""

i bring that up, in the absence of the u.s. dependency on middle eastern oil, i doubt very much that our government would invest thousands of lives, tens of thousands of permantly disabled soldiers and a trillion dollars on either camels or their camelly poop.

now, back to israel, who we apparently are willing to support right, wrong or indifferent.

i have to wonder why ? i mean, what have they done for us other than get us bound up in their beef with the arabs in general and the palis in particular.

i mean beside bid for our exported high tech jobs and manufacturing.

with friends like that, who needs enemies.

don't get me wrong. on the question of israel's right to exist and defend itself, i am firmly pro israel.

and considering that they are a nuclear power, with one of the best trained and motivated militaries, well equipped etc., i have no doubt that they can do so with america outsourcing it's foreign policy to tel aviv.

...The weapons of war, the scope and swiftness of modern combat have changed greatly even in the last decade. What hasn't changed in the last few thousands of years is the combat experience. Today's wars are almost antiseptic compared to the visceral carnage of prior wars.

i agree with you on this. which is why i wonder why you are so hot on mccain, and his willingness to leave a huge force in iraq in perpetuity when there are much better, safer and less expensive ways to keep an eye on things there.

The region was already destabilized before the U.S. led coalition finally wrote finis to Saddam.

not in small part thanks to reagan's involving the u.s. in lebanon's business.

backing saddam in the iraq-iran war falls under the same column.

and last but not least, the fountainhead from which much of this shite first saw light of day, the cia backed installation of the shah in the late '50s.

in this one small part of the wright tirade, he was correct. america's chikens are continuing to come home to roost.

He was blatant in his threats,
stix and stones. he was goin' n-o-w-h-e-r-e.

support of international terrorism,
there is no proof of this that i'm aware of. to the best of my knowledge, his big deal was offering $$ to any idiot that would do a suicide run against... israel.

now international terrorism, that would be the saudis doing telethons etc. but hey, they got a lot of oil.

hmm. we were there, but made us leave, after we protected them from saddam, because, well, our guys were drinkin' beer and lookin' at girly mags.

Don't cry for Saddam,

surely you jest, ash. if not, seriously, that is beneath you and you know better about me.

The UN is notoriously ineffective, inefficient and slow to move no matter how desperate the situation.

as i said, the u.s. should provide stronger and better leadership there instead of griping about it.

one more time. "an organization is only as strong as its members".

So your solution to Iraq is to leave them to civil war with the strong potential of it becoming "the Middle Eastern equivalent of WWII".
...Armageddon is the very sort of nightmare that we are trying to avoid.

good luck. if you can settle the mohammadan issue of who is the rightful heir to the highest islamic role of authority, good for you.

a clue here, though. you can't. and most certainly not by invading them.

nope, america would be better served by using our military strength in afghanistan. right there next to pakistan, who unlike saddam or iran, already has nukes and is falling pray to that guy bin laden.

Well, at least someone... McCain has take the unpopular stand that pork and wasteful spending has to be curbed.

oh please... you totally ignored my comment about the 500 million to promote marriage. how about those faith based initiatives ? jesus, like the churches aren't already raking it in. tax free. it's a frakkin' double whammy.

Neither of the Democratic candidates want to change spending priorities except to increase them.

this a bizarre assertion, ash. considering that clinton left a huge surplus and bush and his republican controlled congress racked up the largest deficit in history even before the 2006 elections.

not to mention the trade deficit.

i know ya mean well, but at some point we all need to get over the right - left b.s. and really look hard at what the hell is happening to our country.

it ain't good, bro.

and to be honest, whether it's hillary or barak (i'm pretty damn sure it won't be mccain), i'm not sure that a dem president will be an automatic answer.

i just know that the party that's been runnin' the show has loused it up, but good.

i'll give the other guys a chance and we'll see how she goes..
[/quote]

i'm beat man, i gotta go to bed... :wink:

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

The difference though Dtom is that ALL politicians go after the votes where the votes are and, if a chunk of your voting base consists of evangelical Christians, you ask Jerry Falwell and other leaders of mega churches for their support. Had Obama solicited support from Jeremiah Wright as pastor of a large black mega church, I doubt anything at all would have been said about that any more than has anything been said about any of the other churches Obama has visited or solicited support from church leaders. That was a routine thing for Bill Clinton when he was campaigning and I haven't checked, but I bet Hillary has done some of it too.

But Bill & Hillary nor have Bush, McCain or any other prominent folks on the right been members of Falwell's church (or Hagee's church or whomever the religious pariah of the week might be), they haven't cited them as their spiritual mentors for 20 years, they haven't said what a powerful influence association with the church has had on their lives. They haven't said that they didn't think these foks or their churches were particularly controversial and then have to back down from that. And they haven't put them on as campaign staff.

Since Obama has done all that, it is reasonable to wonder how much of Jeremiah's philosophy and point of view he actually shares. It is not an improper or unfair question to ask.

Could you tell us the last time Bill, Hillary, Bush or McCain had to defend their candidacy against massive email slime campaigns accusing them of being fanatical Islamists out to destroy America?

If Obama shouldn't highlight his religious ties to Christianity in defense of those slurs against him, what do you recommend he counter those slurs with, Foxfyre?

0 Replies

Butrflynet wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

The difference though Dtom is that ALL politicians go after the votes where the votes are and, if a chunk of your voting base consists of evangelical Christians, you ask Jerry Falwell and other leaders of mega churches for their support. Had Obama solicited support from Jeremiah Wright as pastor of a large black mega church, I doubt anything at all would have been said about that any more than has anything been said about any of the other churches Obama has visited or solicited support from church leaders. That was a routine thing for Bill Clinton when he was campaigning and I haven't checked, but I bet Hillary has done some of it too.

But Bill & Hillary nor have Bush, McCain or any other prominent folks on the right been members of Falwell's church (or Hagee's church or whomever the religious pariah of the week might be), they haven't cited them as their spiritual mentors for 20 years, they haven't said what a powerful influence association with the church has had on their lives. They haven't said that they didn't think these foks or their churches were particularly controversial and then have to back down from that. And they haven't put them on as campaign staff.

Since Obama has done all that, it is reasonable to wonder how much of Jeremiah's philosophy and point of view he actually shares. It is not an improper or unfair question to ask.

Could you tell us the last time Bill, Hillary, Bush or McCain had to defend their candidacy against massive email slime campaigns accusing them of being fanatical Islamists out to destroy America?

If Obama shouldn't highlight his religious ties to Christianity in defense of those slurs against him, what do you recommend he counter those slurs with, Foxfyre?

As far as e-mail 'slime' campaigns yes, we have all endured the e-mail campaigns claiming that Dick Cheney intentionally blew up the levee to allow flood water into New Orleans, that 9/11 was an inside job, that Bush planned to invade Iraq even before he took office, that the Swift boaters made up the stories about Kerry, that Bush was a drug addict, that Bush was a draft dodger, that Bush went AWOL yadda yadda.

However I haven't seen anybody on the forum accuse Obama of Islamic ties. I certainly have not done so.

Nor has Obama's religious faith been an issue. A 20-year association close association with a anti-American racist church and pastor, one cited as having deep influence on him, one cited as being a spiritual mentor who brought him to Christ, married him to his wife, baptised his children, and who he put on his campaign is fair game for scrutiny however. And there is legitimate room to wonder how much Obama did in fact agree with or condone the angry, bitter rhetoric preached in that church and how that might influence how he might govern.

And you can't tell me that McCain or anybody else would not be under the same kind of scrutiny if he had a similar 20-year association with a Jerry Falwell or John Hagee or James Dobson or Pat Robertson or any other controversial religious figures. Anti-McCain folks have already tried to make any contact whatsoever with such figures a major issue sufficient to damn him.