Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Tue 26 Dec, 2006 11:26 pm
okie wrote:
If you don't believe it, wait and see. This is not rocket science after all.


I just re-read The Crucible, ya know the Salem Witch Trials. These "terrorists" are the 2006 version of the Salem witches of 1692.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Tue 26 Dec, 2006 11:37 pm
cicerone, you're right, nobody knows for sure what a president elect would do until he or she takes office. However, his record indicates support of a leftist view of the world, which indicates an unrealistic, naive and easy to hoodwink mindset made to order for terrorists and enemies of the U.S. and a free world.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Wed 27 Dec, 2006 12:04 am
okie wrote:
cicerone, you're right, nobody knows for sure what a president elect would do until he or she takes office. However, his record indicates support of a leftist view of the world, which indicates an unrealistic, naive and easy to hoodwink mindset made to order for terrorists and enemies of the U.S. and a free world.


That's what they want you to believe, fear of witches worked in 1692 for the exact same purpose. Power to the sheeple. Fear terrorists and people marrying who they want to. Well, luckily there aren't enough idiots left to get anyone elected president by selling that fear. It is surpising that there are any lucid humans who will buy that bullshit at all.
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Wed 27 Dec, 2006 12:15 am
okie wrote:
However, his [Obama's] record indicates support of a leftist view of the world, which indicates an unrealistic, naive and easy to hoodwink mindset made to order for terrorists and enemies of the U.S. and a free world.


As opposed to a rightist mindset which decides to send most of the troops where the terrorists weren't, (Iraq), and keep minimal troops where the terrorists were, (Afghanstan). And ends up in danger of losing on both fronts.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Wed 27 Dec, 2006 12:18 am
Kerry had it right. (one thing anyway) The UK proved it. You foil terrorism with police work not military action. You can't wage a military action against a concept.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Wed 27 Dec, 2006 12:40 am
snood wrote:
I want to say something personal about Obama, and him being president.

If Obama were actually elected president of this country, it would deeply and permanently validate me in a way that would be hard to describe.

It would decisively and authoritatively cash that "check" that MLK referred to, when he talked about the promise of this country, always coming back marked "insufficient funds".

It would settle in my mind and heart, once and for all, one question that has been buried in the psyche of persons of color for ages. The question is "Are we truly equal?"

Race is an elusive and treacherous issue. I see polls today that reflect a deep ambivalence and widespread dissonance. People, black and white, believe race to be still a telling factor in daily life in America - but - people all believe the problem to be coming from someone else. It is never they themselves who are harboring the destructive attitudes, it is always their neighbor, or some other people, elsewhere.

If Obama were elected president, I would finally know that all the talk I hear about progress and colorblindness and the land of opportunity, etc, etc, etc, had real substance.

If Obama were elected president, I could go to my grave with an age old anxiety stilled.
I would actually be able to say to a little black boy "If you study and work hard and play by the rules, there is no limit to what you can accomplish in America." People of color still say that to their children, but if Obama were elected president, I could by God actually mean it without the lingering doubts. We see Morgan Freeman (in Deep Impact) or Dennis Haysbert (on '24') play the role, but I submit that that is something we cannot really say with conviction until we've seen it happen.

Now, I know this is a terribly narrow and self-centered way of looking at something with a myriad of other issues involved. I know I'm talking about the office of the most powerful man on this planet as if it were some kind of popularity contest at the local Kiwanis, or something.

But I just wanted to say, on this thread here about the possibility of electing that man - that black man - as President of the United States of America, that dammit, it would mean so very much...

...to me.


Very moving Snood, and certainly understandable.

I trust you can understand, though, why for someone such as myself this is not necessarily a sufficient reason to vote for Obama for president. We are, after all, talking about not only the office of the most powerful man on this planet but the chief executive of our government.

I'm pretty sure you appreciate that simply because someone might not be inclined to vote for Obama does not mean that he or she would not want that little black boy to believe as much as the little white girl, or the little yellow boy or the little red boy that if they study and work hard and play by the rules, there is no limit to what they can accomplish in America.

If Obama were a conservative I would, without doubt, look more favorably on his candidacy, but his lack of qualifications, despite his considerable charisma would cause me to look elsewhere for my favored choice.

I understand your wanting to see the actual delivery of the promise, but I do think the time is here, but perhaps not in the way some would have it.

What I am convinced we will not see, is the election of a person whose public identity is obviously focused on being black, i.e. Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, or any of the black politicians who have come to power and renown on the basis of their involvement in the Civil Rights movement. Which, I believe, is as it should be. One can chalk it up to whites being afraid to lose their advantages or simply that few groups are going to elect someone who they do not believe represents what they consider to be their group.

Obama, like Colin Powell before him is a viable candidate for president because his public identity is American, not African-American. I hope you will agree that this is a good thing. The things they say do not readily accommodate the creation of narrow groups with which to identify one's self.

We have come to a time when it is actually possible for a very large segment of the population to see a black man as first an American and secondly black. Even if we accept the silly notion that there is some massive conspiracy to associate Obama with Islamists, that would be something of a national step up from trying to associate him with all sorts of homegrown vile and racist bogeymen.

Undoubtedly there are people in America who will not vote for Obama because of the color of his skin or the strangeness of his name. There are also, undoubtedly, people who will not vote for Mitt Romney because of his religion. Both are positions of ignorance, but I truly don't believe they represent majority or even sizeable minority positions. In the end, either position could make the difference in a close election, but to say such a difference is indicative of a national trend or mood would be wrong.

Personally my problems with Obama are (in order)

1) He is a liberal Democrat
2) He is too young and inexperienced
3) His charisma is too strong

Given his parentage, and his upbringing, he is as white as he is black, but I agree that if he were to be elected president it would be a very good sign of where our country has come. However if Hilary Clinton were to beat him in the Democratic primaries or John McCain were to beat him in the national election, it would hardly be a sign that America has not changed.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Wed 27 Dec, 2006 12:47 am
Godfather of scroll indeed. I actually invested in a mouse for my laptop for situations like this.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Wed 27 Dec, 2006 12:57 am
blatham wrote:
In memory of J Brown, and in recognition of Finn's last series of posts here (the series which goes back about a year), let us henceforth refer to Finn as "the godfather of scroll".

Actually, I don't scroll his posts but the joke was just sitting there.

finn, old boy, I give you a big wet New York raspberry. And I do it with pleasure given how you've been writing for a while. The new conservative movement is flying apart and Republican electoral prospects now are dim indeed. It couldn't have happened to a more deserving crowd. I watch Fox fairly often these days, and I read Coulter and peek in at newsmax etc. I do this for the sheer fun of watching despicable people slowly realizing that they are marginalized and losers. You've done it to yourselves all by yourselves.


That was a clever quip - although it almost injured Roxxxie.

Blatham old son, I respond with a stiff New York Bird (surely you've lived there long enough to realize New Yorkers don't give raspberries to anyone. In fact they haven't since the Dodgers and Giants played in New York and dames though guys were just swell).

A friendly smile accompanies the bird by the way.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Wed 27 Dec, 2006 03:31 am
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
I'm afraid I am unable to accept your current argument that you have only been arguing about his electability rather than his leadership. Are you denying that you have expressed a positive attitude towards his candidancy?
You haven't logged on often enough, apparently, to realize that my favorite thing about a solid Obama candidacy is that I believe it will force the right to field a McCain or Giuliani candidate... instead of another hardliner. Obama probably gets my vote over another one of those. I consider Hillary easy enough to beat that the right can field virtually anyone... so yes... a significant portion of my support is precisely about electability.

Your arguments against it will go a whole lot further if you get over the charisma thing. Berating me or anyone for being naive enough to be taken in by that alone is roughly about as foolish as the Left accusing the faithful of idiocy. You won't sway votes that way. Take away a terribly unpopular war; and the Left would still be wondering how those religious idiots beat them again, while continuing to deride them.

A better argument is your Jimmy Carter example. That hits much closer to home. I believed then and believe now that he was and is an honest man doing what he thinks is best for the country. Outside of building homes for the poor, I think he's a disaster in public service... but I do respect his intentions. That, is a valid argument that will require some consideration.

Roxxxanne wrote:
I just re-read The Crucible, ya know the Salem Witch Trials. These "terrorists" are the 2006 version of the Salem witches of 1692.
This might be the dumbest comparison I've heard all year. There are thousands of families in mourning this Holiday season thanks to what you consider an imaginary foe. Rolling Eyes

And that has what to do with Obama?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Wed 27 Dec, 2006 04:40 am
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
blatham wrote:
In memory of J Brown, and in recognition of Finn's last series of posts here (the series which goes back about a year), let us henceforth refer to Finn as "the godfather of scroll".

Actually, I don't scroll his posts but the joke was just sitting there.

finn, old boy, I give you a big wet New York raspberry. And I do it with pleasure given how you've been writing for a while. The new conservative movement is flying apart and Republican electoral prospects now are dim indeed. It couldn't have happened to a more deserving crowd. I watch Fox fairly often these days, and I read Coulter and peek in at newsmax etc. I do this for the sheer fun of watching despicable people slowly realizing that they are marginalized and losers. You've done it to yourselves all by yourselves.


That was a clever quip - although it almost injured Roxxxie.

Blatham old son, I respond with a stiff New York Bird (surely you've lived there long enough to realize New Yorkers don't give raspberries to anyone. In fact they haven't since the Dodgers and Giants played in New York and dames though guys were just swell).

A friendly smile accompanies the bird by the way.


Actually, have seen neither bird nor berry since arriving. The car horn appears to have taken over...but it's a lazy age. Found out last week that the block where our shop sits is the block Cagney grew up on. Am adjusting my swagger accordingly.

Your last post was, by the way, acceptable to me in most respects.

Ta to rox.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Wed 27 Dec, 2006 02:05 pm
Interesting theory by Mark Belling sitting in for Limbaugh today. It is approximately as follows:

Democrats usually don't end up nominating the early frontrunner, while Republicans do. He cited examples from recent history. So as the theory goes, after the field of candidates gathered steam, a rising star, Howard Dean got all the play, then flamed out, while Kerry plodded along in the background until winning in Iowa and going on to win from there. This time, Hillary is the presumed front runner, only to be supplanted by the rising star, Obama, with a fast rise similar to Dean, until at such time he flames out due to a scandal or some stupid remark, or just the fact that closer examination makes him lose appeal in places he has to win. Plodding in the background is John Edwards laying the groundwork of a base of support, including support in the south, to move to the forefront to win in places like Iowa and ultimately take the nomination.

Not many people agree, and it probably won't happen because Edwards strikes me as another "also ran," but so was Kerry, so I like the theory as one possible scenario to consider.

One side point that I very much agree with Belling on is that if Hillary was as strong a candidate as she would like everybody to believe, the possibility of another rising star like Obama would be muted.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Wed 27 Dec, 2006 07:15 pm
Well, Edwards just made it official, for what its worth...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061227/ap_on_el_pr/edwards2008
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Thu 28 Dec, 2006 07:41 am
Just received this email from Obama's election website:

Quote:
As the New Year approaches, we are told that the President is considering the deployment of tens of thousands of additional troops to Iraq in the desperate hope of subduing the burgeoning civil war there.

This is a chilling prospect that threatens to compound the tragic mistakes he has already made over the last four years.

In 2002, I strongly opposed the invasion of Iraq because I felt it was an ill-conceived venture which I warned would "require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undermined cost, with undetermined consequences." I said then that an invasion without strong international support could drain our military, distract us from the war with al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and further destabilize the Middle East.

Sadly, all of those concerns have been borne out.

Today, nearly three thousand brave young Americans are dead, and tens of thousands more have been wounded. Rather than welcomed "liberators," our troops have become targets of the exploding sectarian violence in Iraq. Our military has been strained to the limits. The cost to American taxpayers is approaching $400 billion.

Now we are faced with a quagmire to which there are no good answers. But the one that makes very little sense is to put tens of thousands more young Americans in harm's way without changing a strategy that has failed by almost every imaginable account.

In escalating this war with a so-called "surge" of troops, the President would be overriding the expressed concerns of Generals on the ground, Secretary Powell, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group and the American people. Colin Powell has said that placing more troops in the crossfire of a civil war simply will not work. General John Abizaid, our top commander in the Middle East, said just last month that, "I believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own future." Even the Joint Chiefs of Staff have expressed concern, saying that a surge in troop levels "could lead to more attacks by al-Qaeda" and "provide more targets for Sunni insurgents." Once again, the President is defying good counsel and common sense.

As I said more than a month ago, while some have proposed escalating this war by adding thousands of more troops, there is little reason to believe that this will achieve these results either. It's not clear that these troop levels are sustainable for a significant period of time, and according to our commanders on the ground, adding American forces will only relieve the Iraqis from doing more on their own. Moreover, without a coherent strategy or better cooperation from the Iraqis, we would only be putting more of our soldiers in the crossfire of a civil war.

There is no military solution to this war. Our troops can help suppress the violence, but they cannot solve its root causes. And all the troops in the world won't be able to force Shia, Sunni, and Kurd to sit down at a table, resolve their differences, and forge a lasting peace. In fact, adding more troops will only push this political settlement further and further into the future, as it tells the Iraqis that no matter how much of a mess they make, the American military will always be there to clean it up.

That is why I believe we must begin a phased redeployment of American troops to signal to the government and people of Iraq, and others who have a stake in stabilizing the country - that ours is not an open-ended commitment. They must step up. The status quo cannot hold.

In November, the American people sent a resounding message of change to the President. But apparently that message wasn't clear enough.

I urge all Americans who share my grave concerns over this looming decision to call, write or email the President, and make your voices heard. I urge you to tell them that our soldiers are not numbers to add just because someone couldn't think of a better idea, they are our sons and daughters, our brothers and sisters, our neighbors and friends who are willing to wave goodbye to everything they've ever known just for the chance to serve their country. Our men and women in uniform are doing a terrific job under extremely difficult conditions. But our government has failed them so many times over the last few years, and we simply cannot afford to do it again. We must not multiply the mistakes of yesterday, we must end them today.

May this New Year bring a turn in our policy away from the stubborn repetition of our mistakes, so we can begin to chart a conclusion to this painful chapter in our history and bring our troops home.

Sincerely,

U.S. Senator Barack Obama
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Thu 28 Dec, 2006 11:42 am
Unfortunately, Bush ignores other peoples "grave concern" about the chaos he created in Iraq. The American People has spoken in November to change course, but Bush thinks he knows better than the citizens of this country.

How can future historians ever assume his legacy will improve after he is gone?
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Thu 28 Dec, 2006 02:33 pm
"election website"? Obama has an "election website"?
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Thu 28 Dec, 2006 03:20 pm
snood wrote:
"election website"? Obama has an "election website"?


you can sign up for emails here
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Thu 28 Dec, 2006 03:33 pm
Fine, but is Obama calling this an "election website", or is that just what you are calling it? Since he hasn't announced candidacy yet, an "election website" just sounded a little presumptuous to me, is all.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Thu 28 Dec, 2006 03:53 pm
The "Contribute" button on his website brings you to a page that is paid for and sponsored by Obama 2010, Inc. He will be up for reelection to the Senate on Nov 2, 2010.
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Thu 28 Dec, 2006 03:53 pm
It is the site he has used for his past elections and what he will be using for this election if he runs.

When you sign up for emails you immediately get an automated response asking for donations. The email says:

Quote:
Greetings,

Thank you for signing up with Barack Obama.

Stay tuned for the latest news, upcoming events, and information
from the campaign on how you can help.

If you'd like to help right away, you can make a secure
contribution by visiting:

http://www.barackobama.com/contribute
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Thu 28 Dec, 2006 04:43 pm
JPB wrote:
The "Contribute" button on his website brings you to a page that is paid for and sponsored by Obama 2010, Inc. He will be up for reelection to the Senate on Nov 2, 2010.


Oh, well that's different - if we're talking "re-elect Obama to the senate".

You can understand my confusion, since this is a thread about the prospect of an Obama presidential candidacy.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 130
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.21 seconds on 07/13/2025 at 11:14:05