Obama '08?

revel, there are nutcases in all areas of the political spectrum. There were people trying to kill every president, that includes Ford, Reagan, Bush, etc., so the idea that things like this are somehow new, that is bogus.

Also, and this stems from my distrust of the left, we already know that the smashing of Demcratic office in Denver was done by a Democrat political operative. The very very few, extremely small percentage of hateful over the tope signs at tea parties, I think it is a possiblity that some have been planted by Democratic operatives, perhaps not all, but certainly the possiblity of some of that.

Violence should be condemned, no matter the source, and for the most part the violence of leftists are typically more ignored than we begin to hear now. I have seen tea party demonstrators and they are all normal looking people of all colors and types, many of which have never demonstrated before in their lives, but are getting very concerned over the direction of the country. They are not your typical "rent-a-mob" that you see at leftist demonstrations.

Personal responsibility used to be a big deal with you guys. Not so much anymore. Beck clearly stated that Obama was a Racist who hated White culture; I didn't say that Beck 'invented' anything and Beck certainly didn't say that he didn't believe white culture exists.



I told you in the other thread, that I thought Walter was exaggerating. But you should know that the kind of talk you are engaging in, is the sort of talk that makes people wonder if you aren't trying to convince people to rebel. And, considering the number of death threats Obama's been getting, and the right-wing newest trick of showing up to political events with armed assault weapons, people are a little on edge towards this sort of thing.

Don't take it personal, but instead, in the sense that it was offered - that maybe your rhetoric has become a little wild lately.



Maybe I could call up ol' Pat Robertson. There are lots of crazy religious folks, they're all the same to me.

Cycloptichorn

If this does not disturb everyone, something is wrong.

Dude, they are rehearsing for a school play. They are going over lyrics that are going to be sang.

Maybe you aren't aware, but the fact that a minority got elected is something of a huge deal to a lot of people. Now, I know that it doesn't matter to you, but to others it does, and why you would be surprised by this sort of thing is beyond me.

When I was in elementary school, we all had to write letters to Ann Richards, detailing how we would help her achieve her educational plan. I did the same thing for Gov. Bush in middle school.

I'm not sure what the complaint is?

Cycloptichorn

Encouraging people to rebel, all I am doing is encouraging people to wake up and vote these losers out of office next chance we have. Again, another over the top accusation, and I have noticed the same kind of stuff is coming out of leftists these days, and I suspicion it is a coordinated effort on the part of you guys.

You can also retract your accusations, or get lost. I love this country and do not want to see it torn asunder with any violence or anything like that. The best way to avoid that scenario is to vote decent and honest people into office next chance we get.

It is you that diminish and become apologists for the true bigots, the radicals, and the people that hate this country, people like Wright, Ayers, Saul Alinsky, and all of their friends and accomplices. I cannot tell you how disturbing the events of today are to me and tens of millions of Americans. How can you apologize for and pass off as innocence the hatred for the country I think both of us, hopefully all of us love? I think you and others that think like you are tremendously misguided. A tragedy in the making.

This stems from my distrust of anything that you state as fact: how do we know that it was done by a Democrat political operative? The facts say it was an anarchist that opposes Obama.

If that is true, that is tremendously unfortunate. To a man, every single American should condemn that to the hilt, and as much as I think Obama is bad for this country, he is still the president duly elected, and if one single person so much as lays a hand on him, we should all condemn and severely punish that person to the fullest, swift and sure. Nothing could be worse for my conservative cause than violence, that is plain as day. All of the people that I know feel exactly as I, and we would be in favor of being the first to defend the man, he is our president, plain and simple. We may have disagreements in the family, but he is part of our family.

I know Democrats do not like to be reminded, but in regard to violence, Obama's personal mentor and pastor his church said 9/11 was chickens coming home to roost, which I interpret he thinks those people deserved to die. Talk about violence, where is the condemnation, the outright indignation, the anger at at the anarchists. Where is the anger at Bill Ayers, and now Jeff Jones, the writer of the stimulus package, but a member of the weathermen that advocated violence and killings? Where is it, Democrats, where is it?

You have an odd way of interpreting. He was essentially saying that you reap what you sow. That's not at all the same thing as saying that people deserved to die. No more than when religious leaders blame hurricanes and 9/11 on gay people and abortionists.


In the past, where it belongs alongside all of these outdated groups and issues. And where is your evidence that Jeff Jones wrote the stimulus package? He's not a legislator.

I love this country as well, and think the chances of it being torn asunder by violence would be greatly lessened if the right-wing wasn't engaging in severely violent rhetoric at this time. You certainly never saw Leftists showing up at presidential events armed.

Should you be forced to apologize for the worst members of your ideological group, Okie? Should I cherry-pick hateful people, and categorize ALL conservatives that way, and demand you atone for their beliefs? This is a little ridiculous.

Cycloptichorn

Carrying guns to town meetings is a conservative thing; they can't see how they are destroying common sense and legal assembly by the public.

BTW, here's the background on your 'scary video'



Cycloptichorn

In a book by Chris Andersen, it is claimed that Bill Ayers, friend of Obama and domestic terrorist, helped write Obama's book, Dreams From My Father.

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/ayers_obama_book_andersen/2009/09/24/264299.html

"Ayers was a co-founder of the Weather Underground, a radical anti-war group that claimed responsibility for a series of bombings, including explosions at the Pentagon and U.S. Capitol that didn't kill anyone."

Andersen's claim: Ayers wrote a book; Obama wrote a book; Ayers and Obama "knew" each other; both Ayers and Obama used similar literary devices (e.g., commas, descriptions), thus Ayers helped Obama write his book.

Andersen's use of logical fallacies does not support his claim.

Someone could cherry pick a sentence from one of my posts, compare it to another sentence cherry picked from one of your posts, note the similarities in sentence structure, and then claim that I helped you to write your post. However, that person would be wrong. Don't you agree?

Why is Tom Bolton still the UN Ambassador?

The old one was John Bolton

Cycloptichorn

That's who I meant.

He isn't anymore, unless you're being sarcastic... the current UN ambassador is Susan Rice.

Cycloptichorn

Bayefsky's U.N. Update   [Robert Costa]Frequent NRO contributor Anne Bayefsky, a senior fellow with the Hudson Institute and executive director of Human Rights Voices, gave us a call from the United Nations to relay her take on President Obama’s speech. “The president played to his audience, which was largely an undemocratic one,” says Bayefsky. “In that way, he succeeded.”Bayefsky notes that the president received a big round of applause for suggesting that Israel should return to 1967 borders, “without the slightest concern that Israel cannot return to indefensible borders " at least if there is to be any hope of real peace.” Obama, she says, also made “a unilateral policy statement about what is supposed to be subject to bilateral negotiations, as if Israel were his vassal state. That made a terrific impression with the folks at the U.N., but it has nothing to do with a global agenda that advances international peace and security.”“President Obama also engaged in another round of moral equivalency,” says Bayefsky, “which he made infamous in his Cairo speech. He compared those who live in terror in Israel with those who are still waiting for clean water and a state of their own in ’Palestine,’ a statement which ignores history and the facts on the ground. The Palestinian people in Gaza, who elected a government sworn to Israel’s destruction, do not have a country of their own because their elected representatives in Gaza have declared their permanent opposition to living side-by-side with any Jewish state. The President’s continuing failure to recognize the difference between the victims of terror and the perpetrators bodes ill for any prospect for peace in the Middle East.”  Bayefsky adds that one interesting feature of Obama’s speech was the number of times that he apologized for America. “He essentially said to the world that ‘I’m embarrassed at America's record’ and that their hostility toward America prior to his ascendance to the country's highest office was correct.”  “He also got a big round of applause when he pledged to stop torturing people,” says Bayefsky. “The president set up a straw man " a false statement disputing this country's constant denunciation of torture " to make himself attractive to the outside world. Such words should diminish his credibility as commander-in-chief, a job which demands him to defend our highest principles unapologetically.”“President Obama had the audacity to speak at length about his commitment to standing with the oppressed. While he spoke inside the U.N., hundreds of protesters from Iran were outside refuting his words,“ says Bayefsky. “President Obama has offered an outstretched hand to the man who is responsible for the terrible fate of Iranian dissidents. Every Iranian demonstrator in New York today said loud and clear that they believe President Obama’s policy on Iran to be an outrageous abandonment of democratic values.”  President Obama, Bayefsky says, also said that he will no longer tolerate those on the wrong side of history. “It is becoming very plain that the president himself is on the wrong side of history. He stood before a crowd of largely undemocratic leaders and said he was on their side. Instead of leading, the president sounded confused and relativistic, claiming that there is no one form of democracy and that everybody quite reasonably has their own take on what democracy means. Everyone there knew that those words are exactly how the Cubans and Chinese speak in U.N. circles. The president’s deliberate ambiguity on the nature of democracy was well-received at the U.N., but it did nothing to enhance America’s moral stature and leadership capacity in the world today.”  On a final note, Bayefsky says that on Iran, the president said that “if”  the country chooses to ignore nuclear standards, then it would have a problem. “If? We already know exactly what Iran has been doing,” she says. “Using the word ‘if’ suggests that President Obama is simply refusing to come to terms with the reality of Iran’s nuclear program and that he has an extraordinary blind spot that isn’t going away any time soon.”“This speech ought to send shockwaves through the United States and our European allies,” concludes Bayefsky. “We have the weakest president in modern times ensconced in Washington, a man who will run away from saying what has to be said, if it doesn’t appeal to an audience rife with demagogues.”http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTVmMTNhYTczZDc3OWJiNjk5NGEwZTBlNTVmNjZhNGI=