Obama '08?

@djjd62,

Good points.

T
K
O

0 Replies

rev Wright said "It doesn't make a difference what temperature a room is, it's always room temperature."

1 Reply

@dyslexia,

dyslexia wrote:

rev Wright said "It doesn't make a difference what temperature a room is, it's always room temperature."

my mind is completely blown, i must follow this man immediately

0 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

OCCOM BILL wrote:

My issue with your posting has nothing to do with Okie's foolishness. My issue is your calling the "Chickens" sentiment "Mainstream", fortifying it with nothing and bobbing and weaving around every example of it NOT being mainstream.

You didn't provide any examples of it NOT being mainstream. The only example you provided was an opinion poll about Rev. Wright. This is a bad example, as I would have scored him negatively (the dude is an ass in a variety of ways) despite the fact that I agree with his position. Can you point out what other 'examples' of not being mainstream you have provided?

Quote:

Simple Question: If Obama had came out on Television and declared that he agreed with Wright on his “Chickens coming home to roost on 911”; do you think he'd be President now?

Yes, I do. Obama proved time and time again that his oratorical and political abilities far supersede analysts' projections of how things would or will affect his political fortunes. He also won the election by a landslide; plenty of room for him to lose votes and still get elected.

The funny thing about this conversation is, after you remove your silly attempt to say that his statement had anything to do at all with the victims or whether or not they deserved to die, you actually agree somewhat with his and my position.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

I have already told you. When you imply, for example by agreeing with Wright, that terrorists or killers are justified to do what they did, that is dangerous.

Did you even read what I wrote? I specifically said over and over that your hangup with justification is a mistake and aside the point. But you don't seem to be able to let it go.

I read what you wrote, but you seem to totally not get the fact that your belief that we supposedly have done all these things that you perceive as totally wrong does imply that it is a direct cause / effect relationship. You can't have it both ways, cyclops.

Quote:

Quote:
Cyclops, we did not go there and drill for oil by force, companies obtained permits and agreements with the governments to drill and develop the oil resources in those countries.

Pff, this is ridiculous. We installed and propped up 'governments' who would sell us the oil. We did so knowing that these rich families were plundering the natural resources of their countries and doing nothing for the people who live there. We are a major party to the problems they have faced as a society, and we did it knowingly, pretending that our military and isolation would shield us from any response.

Now that this turned out not to be the case, you want to pretend that we did nothing wrong at all. It's a little ridiculous.

This attitude that the US has done nothing wrong and is in no way responsible for any of the problems in the Middle East is childish and infantile, Okie. Seriously. You state:

Quote:
You could argue that much of the money ended up not with the people but with the sheiks that ran the countries. And I can rightfully point out that it was not our fault that happened, it was the corrupt political system and people that dictated that happening.

This is ridiculous; what political system? We are not talking about democracies here, but dictatorships that WE support so that the oil keeps flowing unabated. We are part of the corruption, the equivalent of the buyers of essentially stolen goods. We do business with the bad guys.

Would you claim that someone who buys stolen stereos, knowing that they are stolen, is innocent? I doubt it.

Take some responsibility. We enable many negative things to happen and to continue happening in the Middle East and our actions have consequences.

Bill, I'd like to point out, again, that Okie is forwarding exactly the argument that you said nobody would make: that the US is blameless and that our actions in the Middle East have nothing to do with actions taken against us at all.

Cycloptichorn

More nonsense. Look, I am not claiming we are perfect, however, you are esentially futhering the myth that we somehow had total power over these countries in terms of who was in power and how their politics worked, and are thus totally responsible and to blame for the corruption and flawed political systems there, which I think is total and absolute nonsense, and results from the mindset of the "blame America first crowd." I would say to you, grow up, and the same thing applies to countries, grow up, they cannot continue to blame all of their ills on America, simply by virtue of the fact that they agreed to allow us to go to some country to drill for oil there, then produce it and pay gazillions of dollars for it.

Cyclops, we are powerful enough and strong enough, if we had really wanted to, we could have simply gone to some countries and conquered them and taken all of the oil for nothing, but that did not happen, the countries had free will and entered into voluntariy agreements. Plus the people in those countries were not and are not totally helpless. To suggest that we had power to install our chosen guys there in an arbitrary fashion is nonsense, and it is evident in some countries that they have done whatever they please with their own governments, which sadly may be worse than what our chosen recommended path would have been for them. For example, freedom and capitalism is far preferable to the tyrannies of some of the dictators that have risen to power, such as in Iran. Are you going to argue that the mess in Iran is a result of our wishes? I am not so sure that the Shah would not be far better than what the people have there now? But anyway, they had their way, they have apparently what they want, but now do they want it, are they happy, I don't think it is all peachy there these days.

I happen to think that typically a leader or government generally ends up reflecting what the people are and want, eventually. If the people want a king and dictator, that is what they will get eventually. If the people want freedom and liberty, and are willing to bear the responsibility of it, they will probably eventually have it. That is what bothers me about this country, I think too many people want some almighty king to take care of them, they are getting lazy and apathetic, and that usually leads to tyranny and bondage.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Hatred is judged from your actions okie.. Your willingness to lie about liberals shows hatred. You can claim all you want that you don't hate, just as terrorists are free to claim they don't hate. All you are doing is trying to justify your actions to yourself and others.

Absolute nonsense, and it merely portrays your paranoia and narcissism that nobody could dare disagree with you, you are always right, so you interpret disagreement as hatred, which is total and absolute nonsense.

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Okie: You are paranoid and delusional. Surviving the next 3 or 7 years presents no more challenge than surviving the last 3 or 7. As for associations: I've went back in forth with Deist on what I consider his fundamental lack of understanding on the dangers of communism. He seems sympathetic to that ideology, but that in no way would deter me from befriending him. Does that make me tainted too? (That's just silly.)

Hey, I go back and forth with alot of people here too that have Marxist sympathies, but they are not my religious mentor and advisor, Bill, there is a huge difference. I associate with alot of people which have various ideas about politics and so forth, but I will say this, I do not associate personally with known former terrorists or bombers, or Marxists. Plus another consideration, I am not a politician and have never run for office, but if I did, I hopefully did not or am not considering extremists and radicals among my best of friends, because if I did, I think I should be called into question in regard to just where I stood about what I believed. To suggest it doesn't matter, it is of no consequence, I think it shows a naivity, Bill. Perhaps you want to continue to believe the image of Obama that was sold by the media, but I do not.

0 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

Are you going to argue that the mess in Iran is a result of our wishes? I am not so sure that the Shah would not be far better than what the people have there now?

This is one of the dumbest things I've ever seen. You cannot have written this in seriousness.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_de'tat

The CIA overthrew the Iranian Democracy when they started making noises about profiting off of their oil, instead of seeing the profits flow to the British. It was a colossal blunder on our part and one that we are still feeling the negative effects from.

I suggest that you study up on your history of the Middle East and America's involvement in it, because as it is, you are displaying a profound ignorance.

On to another couple of gems from your post -

Quote:

Cyclops, we are powerful enough and strong enough, if we had really wanted to, we could have simply gone to some countries and conquered them and taken all of the oil for nothing,

Are you honestly that dense? Has the Iraq occupation taught you nothing about how difficult it is to hold foreign territory? The idea that we could have conquered and occupied countries in the Middle East is a joke. You don't seem to have even put the most basic thought into what it would have taken for us to do this and what the effects would have been.

This, however is the worst part of your post:

Quote:

More nonsense. Look, I am not claiming we are perfect, however, you are esentially futhering the myth that we somehow had total power over these countries in terms of who was in power and how their politics worked, and are thus totally responsible and to blame for the corruption and flawed political systems there, which I think is total and absolute nonsense, and results from the mindset of the "blame America first crowd."

Sigh.

We didn't cause corruption in the ME, but we further corruption by propping dictators to sell us oil. You must admit this is true; we supply their governments with gigantic piles of cash, which is where they get their ability to hold the populace down.

Quote:

I would say to you, grow up, and the same thing applies to countries, grow up, they cannot continue to blame all of their ills on America, simply by virtue of the fact that they agreed to allow us to go to some country to drill for oil there, then produce it and pay gazillions of dollars for it.

Don't you understand that 99% of the people in the countries in question did NOT AGREE to sell us their oil, and see no money coming from it?

You don't seem to think we have any responsibility to make sure that the people we do business with are good people, whatsoever. Is this truly your position? Would you buy stolen stereos, Okie, and then laugh at the people who had them stolen? This is exactly what we do with oil, and you claim that it is moral, and that those of us who point that out are 'blaming America first.'

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I'd really like to respond to a couple of okie's screwed posts.

But since I'm in his opinion a "known former terrorist or bomber or Marxist" or similar devilish person, I'm just watching. (But not wondering.)

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

I'd really like to respond to a couple of okie's screwed posts.

But since I'm in his opinion a "known former terrorist or bomber or Marxist" or similar devilish person, I'm just watching. (But not wondering.)

It's worse than that, Walter. You are a Westphalian nit picker ! Wink

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

It's worse than that, Walter. You are a Westphalian nit picker !

And Catholic.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

parados wrote:

Hatred is judged from your actions okie.. Your willingness to lie about liberals shows hatred. You can claim all you want that you don't hate, just as terrorists are free to claim they don't hate. All you are doing is trying to justify your actions to yourself and others.

Absolute nonsense, and it merely portrays your paranoia and narcissism that nobody could dare disagree with you, you are always right, so you interpret disagreement as hatred, which is total and absolute nonsense.

I find it funny how you think it is paranoid when someone else acts like you do.

My point has been made. Too bad you won't see it.

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:

It's worse than that, Walter. You are a Westphalian nit picker !

And Catholic.

Perhaps so. However, that's not the same as Irish Catholic !!!

St Dominic's parish where I grew up was populated almost entirely with Germans. Even the sermons there were in German. A story was often told of two Irishmen who went there for mass. On observing the congregation progressively nodding their heads and then periodically snapping them up together - Pat asked Mike, "What the hell are they doing?"

"Waiting for the verb" said Mike.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Perhaps so. However, that's not the same as Irish Catholic !!!

Well, my ancestors are Saxons - and were Catholic at least from 1289 onwards.
And I have to admit: not by Irish (and Scottish) missionaries but via the Frisian Saint Ludger. (He was baptised by English St. Boniface.)

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

St Dominic's parish where I grew up was populated almost entirely with Germans. Even the sermons there were in German.

I've some letters from a great-great-...-uncle, a priest who was send by the bishop of Münster to help the true Catholic Westphalian settlers in the heathen America avoiding going to hell (i.e. adopting capitalism).
He founded three parishes, built a couple of churches and became an auxiliary bishop. In Kansas. Not in .. some wild onion place.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

My issue with your posting has nothing to do with Okie's foolishness. My issue is your calling the "Chickens" sentiment "Mainstream", fortifying it with nothing and bobbing and weaving around every example of it NOT being mainstream.

You didn't provide any examples of it NOT being mainstream. The only example you provided was an opinion poll about Rev. Wright. This is a bad example, as I would have scored him negatively (the dude is an ass in a variety of ways) despite the fact that I agree with his position. Can you point out what other 'examples' of not being mainstream you have provided?

Where is your evidence that this idiotic sentiment is mainstream? Outside of your petulant denials; what have YOU provided? I am content that the opinion poll, coupled with the probability that most of the respondent's mostly knew of Wright because of his idiotic "Chickens" statement is demonstrative that the sentiment is not mainstream, your intellectual dishonesty notwithstanding. By your own admission, Obama's numbers did take a hit simply from being associated with the idiot who made the idiotic remark.
In every instance where disgruntled psychopaths choose to murder innocent strangers, describing the dirty deed as "the chickens came home to roost" is offensive. Very few acts of murder are random acts. The vast majority of perpetrators of atrocity felt like they were justified at the time of the act by something or other, but this matters not at all. Most sane people do not generally consider the deliberate targeting of random innocents as a legitimate response to any provocation. Sentiments like “Reap what you sew” “Chickens came home to roost” imply otherwise.

Iraqi woman wears sexy clothes, and some Muslim Fundamentalist A-hole murders her for it. She knew her actions might draw that type of response... so I guess it’s just the chickens coming home to roost.

At V-Tech and Columbine, mean spirited bullies picked on other kids... and they were indeed in the wrong for doing so… so I guess the corresponding massacres were just "the chickens coming home to roost."

Pick any other example of atrocity, other than 9-11, where random innocent people were slaughtered and try to apply the idiotic sentiment about “Chickens coming home to roost” to it and it will probably sound just as absurd to you as the above examples. Why not that one? What’s different?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
Simple Question: If Obama had came out on Television and declared that he agreed with Wright on his “Chickens coming home to roost on 911”; do you think he'd be President now?

Yes, I do. Obama proved time and time again that his oratorical and political abilities far supersede analysts' projections of how things would or will affect his political fortunes. He also won the election by a landslide; plenty of room for him to lose votes and still get elected.

Pity you lack the integrity to answer the question in recognition of why it was asked. I'll give you one last shot to demonstrate some intellectual honesty: If Obama had stated agreement with the "Chickens" sentiment, in your honest opinion, do you think that would have hurt or helped his campaign?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The funny thing about this conversation is, after you remove your silly attempt to say that his statement had anything to do at all with the victims or whether or not they deserved to die, you actually agree somewhat with his and my position.

“Reap what you sew” is part of your own definition for “chickens coming home to roost”. What did the victims sew? They were random strangers and only an asshole would attribute any level of culpability to them the way that sentiment implies.

You continue to demonstrate a lack of integrity. At no point did I ever suggest that the moves of the United States didn't/don't influence the mindset of our enemies. Only ignorance or stupidity could result in someone believing otherwise.

Conceding rational points is a matter of course; you should try it sometime. It is only your childishness that prevents your from admitting these fanatics will happily kill pretty much anyone who supports an ideology other than their own... almost regardless of what the United States does or doesn't do. Their culture, their end-goal if you will, is diametrically opposed to most everything the United States purportedly stands for and we would remain a target if we built a wall around the country and stayed in it. Only the naïve, the ignorant, or a petulant child too afraid to admit his error would dispute this simple truth.

Okie may be a clumsy fool in argument, and I obviously agree he places a degree of importance on Wright that defies reason, but you make the perfect opposite bookend by pretending America wouldn’t be a target at all if not for our own acts of aggression, whether it be funding OBL in our war by proxy against the former Soviet Union, our ongoing support of Israel, or our troops stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Take it all back Cyclo, and we would remain a ripe target based on nothing but our most heartfelt fundamental beliefs.

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

Quote:

“Reap what you sew” is part of your own definition for “chickens coming home to roost”. What did the victims sew? They were random strangers and only an asshole would attribute any level of culpability to them the way that sentiment implies.

Wright - and myself - specifically stated that America reaped what it sowed, not that the victims of the towers themselves did. You ought to:

1, admit the truth of this, as I provided you a quote of his, and

2, not engage in such intellectual laziness. It's rather sad.

YOU are the one who is defining your entire argument around what you think my statement 'implies.' You are continually substituting your own judgment of what the statement meant, instead of listening to my explanations to you of what the statement meant. You are also ignoring the actual context the statement was said in. None of this is building a strong argument for you at all.

Quote:

Conceding rational points is a matter of course; you should try it sometime. It is only your childishness that prevents your from admitting these fanatics will happily kill pretty much anyone who supports an ideology other than their own... almost regardless of what the United States does or doesn't do. Their culture, their end-goal if you will, is diametrically opposed to most everything the United States purportedly stands for and we would remain a target if we built a wall around the country and stayed in it. Only the naïve, the ignorant, or a petulant child too afraid to admit his error would dispute this simple truth.

Okie may be a clumsy fool in argument, and I obviously agree he places a degree of importance on Wright that defies reason, but you make the perfect opposite bookend by pretending America wouldn’t be a target at all if not for our own acts of aggression, whether it be funding OBL in our war by proxy against the former Soviet Union, our ongoing support of Israel, or our troops stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Take it all back Cyclo, and we would remain a ripe target based on nothing but our most heartfelt fundamental beliefs.

Bill, this is laughably ignorant.

There will always be people who hate other societies and wish to attack them for their own sake. It's a part of human nature. But you should ask yourself why AQ enjoys such wide-spread support in the Middle East, and if you come to any other conclusion than 'because the people there have been quite negatively affected by US actions,' then you are kidding yourself. OBL and his ideas would have gone nowhere at all without wide-spread support from the populace that they come from. You are trying to adopt a weak version of Okie's argument, and failing.

I have received MANY pm's of support from people during this conversation; I'm actually surprised by it. I believe your position is not as strong as you seem to believe it to be, and what more, your argumentation in support of that position has been sloppy and rather boorish. It would be wiser for you to quit the field than to persist in this nonsensical insistence that you are have the right to define 'chickens coming home to roost' so narrowly as to only apply to the victims of 9/11 and not the country America itself.

There is no evidence whatsoever that we would have been targeted by this massive terrorist movement based purely on our beliefs, and none that this movement would have been supported by the populace of the region based on our beliefs. However, there is a great deal of evidence which shows that our ACTIONS have lead to both the terrorism and the societal response to it. And you ought to take a step back from your argument for a minute and consider the truth of this.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

I see you passed on a final request to answer a simple question and thereby show some intellectual honesty. Your declarations that you're right mean zero to me. You've provided not one single shred of evidence for your idiotic contention that Wright's idiotic statement is mainstream (while all the while whining about the caliber of evidence presented against it. Go ahead and continue assessing blame to the victims of atrocity, and I'll go on considering you an asshole for it. Good day.

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

OCCOM BILL wrote:

I see you passed on a final request to answer a simple question and thereby show some intellectual honesty. Your declarations that you're right mean zero to me. You've provided not one single shred of evidence for your idiotic contention that Wright's idiotic statement is mainstream (while all the while whining about the caliber of evidence presented against it. Go ahead and continue assessing blame to the victims of atrocity, and I'll go on considering you an asshole for it. Good day.

What a weak retreat from the field.

You asked,

Quote:

Simple Question: If Obama had came out on Television and declared that he agreed with Wright on his “Chickens coming home to roost on 911”; do you think he'd be President now?

I answered: Yes, I believe he would be.

And for this you accuse me of intellectual dishonesty? If you aren't satisfied when people give answers to your questions that you don't like, you ought to learn to ask better questions; for I did answer the question you asked, completely truthfully and fully.

Now you are using it as an excuse to run away from a loser position, but that's fine with me, as this has been exceedingly boring - you are basically having an argument with yourself, as you refuse to have the intellectual honesty to describe my position accurately, and instead substitute a position you would LIKE to argue against. It's something I have come to expect out of Ican, but not you...

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Perhaps you should read what you respond to rather than just using it a platform to blather on about your imagined superiority in argument. You utterly failed to provide one shred of evidence to support your initial contention and this entire boring exchange is the result of your lack of integrity in argument.

And this was the final question I alluded to. You didn’t answer it.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
Simple Question: If Obama had came out on Television and declared that he agreed with Wright on his “Chickens coming home to roost on 911”; do you think he'd be President now?

Yes, I do. Obama proved time and time again that his oratorical and political abilities far supersede analysts' projections of how things would or will affect his political fortunes. He also won the election by a landslide; plenty of room for him to lose votes and still get elected.
Pity you lack the integrity to answer the question in recognition of why it was asked. I'll give you one last shot to demonstrate some intellectual honesty: If Obama had stated agreement with the "Chickens" sentiment, in your honest opinion, do you think that would have hurt or helped his campaign?

2 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know