Obama '08?

@okie,

Looking for articles about this, Thomas Sowell is a good source. Here is one of his columns about this:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/05/preserving_the_liberal_vision.html

0 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

It is often too easy for politicians to shout lofty words of good intentions from the housetops...

Same goes for your beloved G.W. Bush and Compassionate Conservatism.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cyclops, another pathetic post. Using your reasoning as applied to 9/11 and now apply it to Fort Hood, the shooter murdered those people because he had reasons. For example, he did not want to go to an Islamic country, and so on and so forth.

Similarly, every criminal commits crimes for a reason, in fact if you would talk to people that are incarcerated, many or most of them would claim they were justified in doing what they did, they had reasons, or maybe they never did anything at all. Jails are full of innocent people.

Same with your reasoning, terrorists always had a good reason, and who is eaiser to blame than the rich kid on th block, the good old US of A. Blame America first crowd, you fit it to a tee, cyclops, and its pathetic. I suppose you would also have loved the rants of Jeremiah Wright, the chickens came home to roost. Maybe you would also agree with his rants about the rich white people, and the Jews too, they are the reason why the world and the U.S. is such a terrible place. Pathetic, cyclops, absolutely pathetic.

1 Reply

just checking in, have i missed any more scintillating posts from okie about pickup games of basketball with his drill sergeant, those are great

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Cyclops, another pathetic post. Using your reasoning as applied to 9/11 and now apply it to Fort Hood, the shooter murdered those people because he had reasons. For example, he did not want to go to an Islamic country, and so on and so forth.

That's incorrect, and a bad analogy. You can't apply a line of reasoning to any problem you wish, you will get bad results that way. Too simplistic, Okie, again.

Quote:

Similarly, every criminal commits crimes for a reason, in fact if you would talk to people that are incarcerated, many or most of them would claim they were justified in doing what they did, they had reasons, or maybe they never did anything at all. Jails are full of innocent people.

Same with your reasoning, terrorists always had a good reason, and who is eaiser to blame than the rich kid on th block, the good old US of A. Blame America first crowd, you fit it to a tee, cyclops, and its pathetic. I suppose you would also have loved the rants of Jeremiah Wright, the chickens came home to roost. Maybe you would also agree with his rants about the rich white people, and the Jews too, they are the reason why the world and the U.S. is such a terrible place. Pathetic, cyclops, absolutely pathetic.

Don't put words in my mouth, Okie. Besides; I thought you would like Wright much more than you apparently do, as he is no different than your Idols Limbaugh and Beck; all three of them regularly make ridiculous statements regarding the nature of our country and where we are headed, outrageous statements. It's something you approve - when you agree with the politics of the person in question.

Should I accuse you of 'hating America' because you support and share ideas with extremists on your side? Somehow I doubt you would agree with that, yet you would still insist you are right about your opposition. There is a great deal of hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance within your head, Okie; take a few steps back, self-examine a little, and you may see it.

If you can't see that - like any other country in the world - when the US takes actions, there are sometimes consequences of those actions, then you are truly blind. Are you asserting that, no matter what actions the US takes, there are never consequences?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

I find it interesting that one can easily find othersn with whom they disagree but then one encounters an okie now and then one is dealing with a simple liar and that turns the normal disagreement into a totally different universe. I's like arguing in different languages.

1 Reply

@dyslexia,

dyslexia wrote:

I find it interesting that one can easily find othersn with whom they disagree but then one encounters an okie now and then one is dealing with a simple liar and that turns the normal disagreement into a totally different universe. I's like arguing in different languages.

ou-yay eak-spay ee-thay uth-tray

0 Replies

@okie,

BACK that phrase up, cause it sounds like something YOU made up!

1 Reply

@okie,

Quote, from where?????

0 Replies

@okie,

NOW, who has a chip?

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The chickens DID come home to roost on 9/11. That is an entirely accurate statement, for US meddling in the Middle East is part of the reason 9/11 happened. This isn't even debatable.Cycloptichorn

I did not address this statement of yours very well after you made it, but I think it is appropriate for all on this forum to read this again, digest it, and I would like to comment on it again.

Cyclops, first of all, do you realize how extreme and what company this places you in terms of your opinion, if you actually believe what you wrote?

It is not extreme at all, but instead, mainstream. It is a realization of cause and effect.

Mainstream? You must be joking. Had the terrorists restricted their targets to government buildings like the Pentagon, you'd have a point. In that instance, you could reasonably define the passenger victims as collateral damage. But that's not what they did. They deliberately targetted civilians who had done nothing to them. Defining that as the "The chickens DID come home to roost on 9/11" is obsence.

1 Reply

@teenyboone,

teenyboone wrote:

NOW, who has a chip?

Of course that would be Okie. He has a chip installed in his brain that filters out all facts and leaves him with nothing but the informational equivalent of raw sewage to use for all his reasoning. That's why he sounds like such an idiot all the time. You should know this when you argue with him, so that if he ever agrees with you, you can at that point correct your thinking and come up with different conclusions.

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

Quote:

Mainstream? You must be joking. Had the terrorists restricted their targets to government buildings like the Pentagon, you'd have a point. In that instance, you could reasonably define the passenger victims as collateral damage. But that's not what they did. They deliberately targetted civilians who had done nothing to them. Defining that as the "The chickens DID come home to roost on 9/11" is obsence.

Do you think the World Trade Center was chosen at random? I don't know why you and others persist in seeing a meaningful distinction between our military arm and our economic arm; it is a meaningless distinction. We've effected as much change to their society through our economic support of their repressive dictators (for their sweet, sweet oil) as through our military; far more, even. The civilians in the WTC had done nothing more or less to them than the military in the Pentagon.

For too long we've pretended that, because we follow certain conventions of warfare, others should - or will. Our counter-terrorism analysts had been predicting for years that an event like 9/11 would happen, and change our understanding of what power is and what warfare is, and their predictions came true.

I do not seek to excuse the terrorists actions, for they were brutal and inhuman. They were not justified by anything that we did, in any way. But they did not spring up out of some nebulous 'hate' for America, unconnected to our actions, militarily and economically; quite the opposite. I don't expect Okie to understand such a point, but you're usually far advanced from him in this respect; why are you missing the obvious?

The truth is that we've been meddling in their society and their region of power for a long, long time. We've been doing so for our own economic gain and our doing so has directly lead to many societal problems they experience. Our culture is co-opting their kids at a tremendous rate. It is foolish in the extreme not to realize these facts or take them into account when making a judgment about a situation.

An analogy would be: for you to continually advocate and vote on policy positions which keep an area poor, attack the people who live in that area, support corrupt police who run the area, and then complain when gangs spring up and cause trouble - as of were not completely predictable. Terrorism is not a problem, but a symptom of a problem.

For too long we have pretended that our geographic isolation and military might will shield us from any repercussions from our actions. Recent events have proven this to be untrue. We would never allow meddling within our hemisphere to the extent which we meddle in others' affairs; now we have to deal with the realization that the things we thought would protect us, will not protect us. Their response is a wake-up call for the US, and it is hardly obscene to point that out, Bill. If we had utilized better judgment in our dealings with the Middle East, we would not be worrying about the response from that area the way we do today.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@teenyboone,

teenyboone wrote:

BACK that phrase up, cause it sounds like something YOU made up!

He provided a link in his post.

0 Replies

@teenyboone,

teenyboone wrote:

NOW, who has a chip?

teeny, to answer 3 of your posts, first of all, the quote of LBJ is not made up. It is a well known quote, and to suggest I made it up really shows some lack of knowledge and naivity here. As has been pointed out, I provided you a link, and the quote can be found from more than the link that I cited. I do not think it is bogus. I realize all kinds of quotes can be placed on the internet and cited from sources, and unless you are personally there you cannot prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt. I was not there, but I have heard this quote multiple times, and I think you can find it documented or repeated in numerous places.

Next, I don't know what you are talking about in regard to "the chip," you seem to be turning around my suggestion that some carry a chip on their shoulder, and apparently suggesting I have one simply by virtue of citing the many racists quotes and policies coming from the Democatic Party and many of its notable members in history. Teeny, I am simply citing facts and history, it has nothing to do with any chip on my shoulder whatsoever. I do freely confess that I do have a problem with the Democratic Party in regard to its history and proclaimed innocence in regard to the subject of race. I have told you many times, and I firmly believe that your party has used you for its own political gain in regard to race, and I also think that historically the Republicans have a better overall record on race. Let me be clear, I would rather see us all move beyone the subject of race, but it is your party that continues to try to buy votes by using it. When your party or candidates get into trouble or run behind, they commonly pull the race card out and play it, so I am simply pointing out the hypocrisy and true history of your party, thats all.

Sometimes the truth is hard to swallow when it punctures your long held beliefs and prejudices, teeny, and it takes courage to approach this subject in a more historically accurate context. I would challenge you to try it.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cyclops, what you have done is essentially place yourself in the same camp as the Reverend Wright when he ranted about the chickens coming home to roost. You have really painted yourself into a corner, or you have accidentally revealed how sinister some of your thoughts actually are, I don't know which. I do not think you are that dumb or that hateful, so can you be that naive about all of this?

Even Obama realized during the campaign that some of the things Wright said, such as the chickens coming home to roost, were over the top as far as main stream America was concerned, and so he had to distance himself from Wright and his comments. We did actually learn during the campaign that Wright and Obama understood that they may need to distance themselves from each other for political purposes at some point, and indeed that is what happened. The key point however is whether either one of them actually changed any of their affections and biases in regard to America, etc. By the statements of Wright from time to time, it is evident that the guy is still harboring the same stuff, the same hatreds, etc. In regard to Obama, determining what he really thinks is more problematic, because he is slick enough to gloss things over and talk his way around every question or issue. It is no secret however that I am one to believe Obama also still carries around alot of baggage in terms of his true politics and where his true affections really are. For people that can be truly honest and face the truth with the dots that are given us, and connect them, the liklihoods do not look pretty. We clearly have a president that we really don't know very well, what he is about, and I am one to not be very enthusiastic over the possibilities and probabilities.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

Cyclops, what you have done is essentially place yourself in the same camp as the Reverend Wright when he ranted about the chickens coming home to roost. You have really painted yourself into a corner, or you have accidentally revealed how sinister some of your thoughts actually are, I don't know which. I do not think you are that dumb or that hateful, so can you be that naive about all of this?

The answer is that I am not naive, but you are, sir. You believe that the US can take whatever actions we want, without any consequence; and then when things happen, we shouldn't question what lead up to it. This is a childs' view of the world, not an adult one. You are like a child on this issue.

There is nothing sinister, dumb or hateful about my thoughts on this matter. At all. And you cannot explain what is sinister, dumb or hateful about it. You can only assert that it is so, because it contradicts your view of the US as the 'good guys.'

Quote:

Even Obama realized during the campaign that some of the things Wright said, such as the chickens coming home to roost, were over the top as far as main stream America was concerned, and so he had to distance himself from Wright and his comments. We did actually learn during the campaign that Wright and Obama understood that they may need to distance themselves from each other for political purposes at some point, and indeed that is what happened. The key point however is whether either one of them actually changed any of their affections and biases in regard to America, etc. By the statements of Wright from time to time, it is evident that the guy is still harboring the same stuff, the same hatreds, etc. In regard to Obama, determining what he really thinks is more problematic, because he is slick enough to gloss things over and talk his way around every question or issue.

This paragraph is useless and there's nothing meriting a response within it.

Quote:

It is no secret however that I am one to believe Obama also still carries around alot of baggage in terms of his true politics and where his true affections really are. For people that can be truly honest and face the truth with the dots that are given us, and connect them, the liklihoods do not look pretty. We clearly have a president that we really don't know very well, what he is about, and I am one to not be very enthusiastic over the possibilities and probabilities.

If you don't know him well, it's because you have chosen not to; he's been open about his past and his thoughts on pretty much every issue.

I do not look to you as someone who can 'connect the dots' with any real accuracy, Okie. You certainly don't seem to be able to do so in this case.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

okie wrote:

We do not know all the details, but I suspect there may be parallels. For example, I think we may find the guy may be connected with terrorist connections, also he opposed the wars because America was an aggressor against the peoples of the Middle East and against Islam, perhaps, I am guessing here but I think I might be close. And it is entirely possible and maybe probable that they guy did it for Allah and he did it because of the perceived past wrongs of the United States, which are in fact the similar reasons given for the actions of the guys that flew the airplanes on 9/11.

If I turn out to be totally wrong, I will acknowledge it, but only somebody in denial would fail to see the possible parallels right now, cyclops. Of course we will need to find out more, but my guesses are pretty good ones I think. You can say the guy just went nuts, thats all, but I can also point out the guys on 9/11 just went nuts too, but that misses the larger point about what might be going on here, including the possible and probably parallels involved.

But, the guys on 9/11 didn't go nuts. They planned it way in advance, we know the planning took years. There's no indication of that here.

I would stay away from guesses like this, if I were you. You have no data to back any of your guesses up, so what it really reflects is your prejudices. That's not flattering.

Cycloptichorn

I hate to rub it in, cyclops, but most of my predictions are being confirmed, at least initially. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure it out. What you call prejudice is simply common sense and connecting dots. You need to figure out what true prejudice really is.

Now, we now have evidence that there was plenty of evidence this guy was potentially dangerous, and it may very well be that it was political correctness that may have led to the deaths of innocent people. Is it possible this guy was not demoted and drummed out of the military because of your very attitude being practiced in the military, the fear of being quote unquote "prejudiced?" We coninue to learn more, but now we are finding out the guy apparently tried to communicate with Al Qaida, and we knew it. If we should have done something and did not because of being politically correct or quote unquote "prejudiced," I think somebody needs to answer some serious questions. We now have a president that doesn't even want to recognize the validity of the word "terrorism."

Cyclops, you need to ask yourself some serious questions.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Their response is a wake-up call for the US, and it is hardly obscene to point that out, Bill. If we had utilized better judgment in our dealings with the Middle East, we would not be worrying about the response from that area the way we do today.

Wrong. You imply a cause and effect relationship that can neither be substantiated nor justified.

Kids picked on Seung-Hui Cho of the V-Tech massacre prior to him opening fire on a multitude of innocents. In Cho's mind, he may have thought he was justly retaliating against those mean kids when he indiscriminately murdered dozens of random students. Should this too be described as "the Chicken's came home to roost?" Of course not.

You claimed this viewpoint was mainstream... which is absurd. The Right still won't let it go, and President Obama's numbers took a hit just from being associated with the idiot who forwarded this opinion, due in no small part to this idiotic opinion being replayed repeatedly. Mainstream, it is not.

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Their response is a wake-up call for the US, and it is hardly obscene to point that out, Bill. If we had utilized better judgment in our dealings with the Middle East, we would not be worrying about the response from that area the way we do today.
Wrong. You imply a cause and effect relationship that can neither be substantiated nor justified.

Kids picked on Seung-Hui Cho of the V-Tech massacre prior to him opening fire on a multitude of innocents. In Cho's mind, he may have thought he was justly retaliating against those mean kids when he indiscriminately murdered dozens of random students. Should this too be described as "the Chicken's came home to roost?" Of course not.

Bad example. You put the US in the place of 'innocent students,' when we are anything but - as you know. Why pretend any differently? We were not randomly targeted.

Quote:

You claimed this viewpoint was mainstream... which is absurd. The Right still won't let it go, and President Obama's numbers took a hit just from being associated with the idiot who forwarded this opinion, due in no small part to this idiotic opinion being replayed repeatedly. Mainstream, it is not.

Obama's numbers took a hit? I suggest you go to Pollster.com and review this claim. He went down 2-3 points on average, for a month. There was no serious disdain amongst the populace that was put towards him whatsoever. The whole thing was a manufactured outrage on the part of the media.

I think it is a mainstream view to believe that part of the reason 9/11 happened was the history of US meddling in the Middle East, yes. I certainly haven't seen any evidence that this is not a mainstream view.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know