Advocate
 
  1  
Wed 11 Nov, 2009 07:23 pm
Okie made a lot of false statements about Obama. He said that Obama talked about change without giving details on what he meant. Had he read O's platform, he would have found many very specific details on what O would do. Okie also said that O talked about spreading the wealth. O did talk about taxing the wealthy, which is not exactly spreading the wealth. It was more like countering Bush's large tax deductions for the super-rich.
djjd62
 
  0  
Wed 11 Nov, 2009 07:25 pm
@McGentrix,
i don't believe she's read it either

0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  -1  
Wed 11 Nov, 2009 07:56 pm
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:
You failed to cite all the court cases that interpret those provisions. The constitution itself is pretty general.

We "radicals", as you label us, think the Constitution is very specific. The Supreme Court's interpretations of "those provisions" are required by the Constitution to be consistent with the logical implications of what the Constitution specifically says. The Supreme Court has not been granted by the Constitution the power to change the Constitution by re-interpretation, or any other means. When a majority of the Supreme Court does this, they are violating the Constitution, "the supreme law of the land," and are violating their oath of office "to support this Constitution."

I previously posted the fact that Article V of the Constitution specifies the exactly two ways the Constitution may be lawfully amended.

Excerpt from Article III of the Constitution (ican embolded the particularly pertinent clauses)
Quote:
Article III
Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority
...


Excerpt from Article VI of the Constitution (ican embolded the particularly pertinent clauses)
Quote:
Article VI
...
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution;
...


ican711nm
 
  0  
Wed 11 Nov, 2009 08:10 pm
@Advocate,
Advocate, Obama, before he was elected, did talk to Joe the Plumber about his advocacy of redistributing wealth. I saw and heard the video of that conversation when Obama did that. Obama has talked about that multiple times since. His most frequent statement about that calls for making the distribution of wealth more equitable by taking it from those who have more and giving it to those who have less.

In other words, Obama advocates taking wealth from those who lawfully earned it, and giving it to those who do not lawfully earn it.
okie
 
  0  
Wed 11 Nov, 2009 10:09 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
OCCOM BILL wrote:

okie wrote:

To add to what you said, to say guilt by association is a logical fallacy, that reveals a naivity that is almost beyond belief...
You might want to Google "Guilt by Association Logical fallacy" before blindly following idiots and looking like a fool. Wink


If you read my post with honesty, you would know that it is not taken literally as applied to a court of law for a specific crime. We are not talking about a court of law, we are talking about like minded people tending to associate with each other. To deny that this happens is utter and complete nonsense.
okie
 
  -1  
Wed 11 Nov, 2009 10:41 pm
This site documents a list of radicals, at least 13 of them I counted here with such bizarre ideas as outlawing hunting, animals suing humans, mandatory abortion and sterilization, promoters of homosexuality, government takeover of the media, admirers of Mao Tse Tung and Hugo Chavez, and several Marxists or communists. Thats just for starters. Need I mention again the Reverend Wright that railed against capitalism, rich whites and Jews, and praised Marxists like Castro and others, or should I mention Ayers, a former terrorist and bomber, or Jeff Jones, former co-founder of the weather underground terrorist group with its mission of overthrowing the United States. Actually if Obama had tried to get a security clearance, I wonder if he could have even come close to getting one?

But then again, as O'Bill says, I guess all of this means absolutely nothing. It probably doesn't in the minds of people that have affections for communism or marxism, and carry grudges against their own country. If anyone actually likes freedom and liberty however, I would suggest he or she get off their duffs and wake up and take a stand against this bunch of pretenders next election.

http://www.squidoo.com/obamas-radical-advisors
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Wed 11 Nov, 2009 11:30 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

okie wrote:

To add to what you said, to say guilt by association is a logical fallacy, that reveals a naivity that is almost beyond belief...
You might want to Google "Guilt by Association Logical fallacy" before blindly following idiots and looking like a fool. Wink


If you read my post with honesty, you would know that it is not taken literally as applied to a court of law for a specific crime. We are not talking about a court of law, we are talking about like minded people tending to associate with each other. To deny that this happens is utter and complete nonsense.
Okie; Google the fallacy and you'll find it isn't “court of law” specific. People think sloppily outside of court rooms too. At some point in your life, you've shared meals with thieves, tax cheats, drug dealers and wife beaters. We all have. It is simply ridiculous to think that anyone could make their way through life without inadvertently befriending a fiend or two. Holding that against anyone is just silly.
okie
 
  -1  
Wed 11 Nov, 2009 11:33 pm
I hope folks don't mind, as I have found what I think is a very good article with a bit more background on this "chickens came home to roost" proclamation by Jeremiah Wright. I was unaware of it until I read this article, but apparently there is a bit more history to the usage of that term, one by none other than Malcolm X. Malcolm X applied this to JFK when JFK was assasssinated, implying that what goes around comes around, in regard to the purported attempts by the CIA to assassinate Castro previous to JFK's assassination. The article also points out the usage of the term by Ward Churchill, the radical professor at University of Colorado, who basically said the people in the towers were guilty and therefore deserved to die as being part of the capitalistic American "global financial empire."

I had forgotten this too, but Wright also mentioned the bombs dropped on Japan to end World War II, and used that as evidence that we deserved 9/11. I find this interesting because Obama is chomping at the bit to go to Japan to mark the observance of the bombs, no doubt to apologize at great length once again for all of America's sins as he no doubt believes them to be numerous and terrible. He seems to enjoy apologizing for America. I guess he must think as Michelle does that there was absolutely nothing to be proud of until he has become president. Only he is something for the country to be proud of, I guess is what they think?

Toward the end of the article, it points out Obama's choice as to whether he wants to be "authentic" or "American?" We have to guess at what this means, but based upon what teeny has told us about "oreos," I suspect the meaning might be along those lines, will Obama become an "oreo" or will he be "authentic." Interestingly, there have been some noises already from extreme leftists in the black community that Obama may not be authentic or completely black.

Here is the article in full: I think the whole thing is worth posting here. I think it provides a window into the mindset of radicals like Churchill, Wright, Malcolm X, and probably Obama.


When Ward Churchill wrote Some People Push Back: Of the Justice of Roosting Chickens about the attacks of September 11, 2001, a lot of people felt that he was original in his hateful thinking. As was the case with his “authentic” American Indian Art, nothing about Ward Churchill came even remotely close to being original.

In Churchill’s “opus magnum”, he wrote the following breathtakingly callous and hateful concluding paragraph.

As for those in the World Trade Center... Well, really, let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire - the "mighty engine of profit" to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved - and they did so both willingly and knowingly. Recourse to "ignorance" - a derivative, after all, of the word "ignore" - counts as less than an excuse among this relatively well-educated elite. To the extent that any of them were unaware of the costs and consequences to others of what they were involved in - and in many cases excelling at - it was because of their absolute refusal to see. More likely, it was because they were too busy braying, incessantly and self-importantly, into their cell phones, arranging power lunches and stock transactions, each of which translated, conveniently out of sight, mind and smelling distance, into the starved and rotting flesh of infants. If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it.[1] N.B. The original link to Churchill’s article no longer functions.

Ward Churchill was paying his homage to a speech given by Malcolm X on 4 December 1963. In this speech, Malcolm X predicted the downfall of the United States because our country had at one time employed African Americans as slaves.

He was asked after the speech what he thought of the assassination of John F. Kennedy. He describes this grisly event as an example of chickens coming home to roost. The speech went on to be known as Malcolm X’s “Roosting Chickens Speech”, and a new meme was born in the circles that hate America First.

While Ward Churchill’s hatred of his country ultimately shocked the masses, Churchill was not the only American public figure to celebrate the events of 9/11 or even to appropriate the words of Malcolm X. Reverend Jeremiah Wright took to the pulpit on 16 September 2001. He offered the following thoughts on the terrorist attacks.

"We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye," Rev. Wright said in a sermon on Sept. 16, 2001.

"We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost," he told his congregation.

At the time, a bright, young and up-and-coming politician from Chicago named Barack Obama may or may not have been in the church to hear Reverend Wright’s words of wisdom. Obama attended the church frequently for a period of twenty years. He married his wife, Michelle, with Reverend Wright officiating and the Reverend baptized the Future Senator’s children.

In 2004, in perhaps the most triumphant moment of Barack Obama’s life, he took to a stage in Chicago to give a victory speech in his race to become a US Senator. Yes, three years after Reverend Wright described 9-11 as “chickens coming home to roost” and barely a year after Reverend Wright preached to his congregation “G__ D___ the USA!”, Senator Elect Obama said the following.

Let me thank my pastor Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. of Trinity United church of Christ. Barack Obama, Election Night 2004.

These words of praise and thanks have stopped coming from Barack Obama’s lips. The remarks of Reverend Wright have become common knowledge, and Senator Obama now denies he was in attendance when the preacher spoke them. He now seeks to use his absence from church to shield him from the content of the prayers uttered therein.

In his early political career, before Barack Obama had roots in the community, Reverend Wright was Barack’s ticket to authenticity. Reverend Wright gave Barack Obama street credibility, when he previously had none with Chicago electorate of his district. Now that Barack has set his sights on bigger game than the Illinois State Legislature, the definition of street credibility has changed.

Barack Obama is now attempting to distance himself from the Reverend. Reverend Wright no longer adds his divine benediction to the Obama2008 website. He no longer has even a ceremonial position with the campaign. Authentic has become too edgy.

Barack’s efforts to dispense with Reverend Wright may or may not succeed. He has lost 5 points of favorability since the Reverend’s deep thoughts entered the domain of public political discourse. In a sense, Barack Obama has been forced to make a cruel choice.

Senator Obama cannot appease both the Black Nationalist Movement and the nation as a whole. Too many ambitious black Americans, like Senator Obama have been made to choose between being authentic and being American. In that sense, Malcolm X, Louis Farrakhan, and those who follow their lead, have driven a stake through the heart of Martin Luther King’s famous dream. When Barack Obama has to make the choice of his minister and his beliefs or his country, the chickens of Malcolm X have indeed come home to roost in 2008


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1987140/posts
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Wed 11 Nov, 2009 11:42 pm
@okie,
"the chickens have come home to roost" is a very well worn phrase (idiom?) I heard it often as a kid in the corn belt, with my mom's family side of the family almost exclusively poor farmers in Michigan.
okie
 
  0  
Wed 11 Nov, 2009 11:47 pm
@hawkeye10,
I heard it often too, hawkeye, from the time I was a small kid, but I had not realized or had forgotten that the phrase had gained notoriety in the political world by Malcolm X and Ward Churchill, and I wonder if Wright perhaps copied Malcolm X when he used the phrase? Anyway, I found it interesting.

I also found it interesting that when Malcolm X and Ward Churchill used the phrase, they implied much greater guilt than what cyclops on this forum has tried to argue that Wright was implying. However, if one reviews what Wright said about the bombs on Japan, I believe he also implies much greater guilt, and implies that 9/11 was virtually justified, what goes around comes around, and this is not quite what cyclops was arguing at all. So I think it makes it all the more fascinating to see Obama want to go to Japan, probably to apologize to no end while he is there. Perhaps he does remember Wright ranting about the bombs? And might that be a reason why he is so anxious to go there and make things all peachy and wonderful by apologizing endlessly?
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Thu 12 Nov, 2009 12:07 am
@okie,
Ya, Obama going around apologizing to everyone in sight is offensive, and not productive in the long run. we get more mileage out of being respected for our power than for being liking liked for being "accommodating".

However, when we Americans are talking amongst ourselves we must be clear that decades of supporting corrupt foreign leaders because it was the short cut of the moment over supporting the democratic impulses of foreign peoples has come at a great cost to us. We are not liked for reasons, many of them are valid. Admitting this to ourselves does not make us anti American, we can only fix what we acknowledge to ourselves as being true.
okie
 
  0  
Thu 12 Nov, 2009 12:14 am
@OCCOM BILL,
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Okie; Google the fallacy and you'll find it isn't “court of law” specific. People think sloppily outside of court rooms too. At some point in your life, you've shared meals with thieves, tax cheats, drug dealers and wife beaters. We all have. It is simply ridiculous to think that anyone could make their way through life without inadvertently befriending a fiend or two. Holding that against anyone is just silly.

Bill, I am sorry, but I don't know anybody that associates with Marxists and communists. Sorry, but your reasoning just doesn't fly. And also the argument that Obama merely ran into a few of these people on a casual basis is also just wrong. Many of these people were central figures to the formation of his political career. Starting with Frank Marshall Davis, who Obama claimed in his book served as a virtual surrogate dad while he was a teenager, the man was a devout Marxist and member of the Communist Party USA, Bill. Later, he sat in Wrights church for many many years, and I think praised the man as his mentor, somebody he admired for his beliefs, not only that, the church for its beliefs, which was founded upon a pseudo Marxist philosophy Black Liberation Theology. Then it was Ayers and Dohrne's home where he launched his political career, and he served on the Annenberg Foundation with Ayers, they had a fairly close relationship. Now I don't know about you, but I do not know of any other politician that launched their career in the home of a former domestic terrorist that was trying to overthrow the country. I could use alot of other examples now in his administration as well, but surely you should be able to have enough common sense to realize this is not normal general run of the mill experience and circumstance for most politicians?

I continue to find it bordering on bizarre that so many seemingly reasonable people attempt to gloss over all of this as if it is nothing unusual or troubling.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  0  
Thu 12 Nov, 2009 12:24 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye, I would never claim the United States has always been perfect, but I would like to add a point to your point, we do not always have a perfect choice to make when we choose a foreign policy toward various political forces and alliances. Often, it is a choice between bad and worse. For example, we did in fact support Hussein during one period, by virtue fo the fact that supporting the Iranians was considered to be a poorer choice at that time, however, we decided that Hussein was truly a very very bad apple, perhaps worse than we suspected previously? Politics is never static, and we constantly learn new information that could change how we approach a foreign policy problem. Sort of like, do you choose to drive a car with a lousy transmission or one with an engine that is almost wore out, neither one is a great choice, but sometimes thats the choice before us. In World War II, we allied with Stalin simply to defeat Hitler, but was Stalin a great guy, absolutely not.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Thu 12 Nov, 2009 12:34 am
@okie,
Quote:
I would never claim the United States has always been perfect, but I would like to add a point to your point, we do not always have a perfect choice to make when we choose a foreign policy toward various political forces and alliances


yes, but when we constantly take the short unprincipled road over the more difficult and time consuming principled one we show who we are, we cant pretend that we care about all of the democracy and transparency clap-trap we have been trying to sell. The kicker is that often we supported the thug leaders for almost no payoff, so the argument "you gotta understand the grand plan" aint going anyplace.

A salesman has got to make the mark think that the salesman is an alright guy, and that he believes in what he is trying to sell. we blew it, and now pay for it when we get hated up and get doors slammed in our face. Obama's "I am so sorry, please forgive my firm for the lies they told you and buy my product" ain't going to help, but lets please be honest about why we are not liked or respected.
okie
 
  0  
Thu 12 Nov, 2009 12:47 am
@hawkeye10,
You might be right in some cases, but I guess merely to assert that it could happen is not enough, one must actually cite specific cases where we have been unprincipled and where a clearly good principled choice was available over one that was not. I am not so sure that you or anyone can come up with very many of those. The reason I say that is often some countries are so riddled with corrupt political situations that one side is probably not all that virtuous compared to the other side. If a culture is corrupt, it will generally produce corrupt results, regardless of which party or alliance is in power. One may be marginally better than another, but often not remarkably or infinitely better.

Another point, we cannot simply wave a magic wand and cleanse the cultures of other countries and cure their political problems and ills, yet we are stuck with dealing with the hand that they deal us.

hawkeye10
 
  0  
Thu 12 Nov, 2009 01:04 am
@okie,
Quote:
If a culture is corrupt, it will generally produce corrupt results, regardless of which party or alliance is in power. One may be marginally better than another, but often not remarkably or infinitely better.



In Africa that is certainly true in my opinion, in other places not so much. You have a valid point though....
0 Replies
 
djjd62
 
  2  
Thu 12 Nov, 2009 06:00 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
Ya, Obama going around apologizing to everyone in sight is offensive, and not productive in the long run. we get more mileage out of being respected for our power than for being liking liked for being "accommodating".


ok you've convinced me

**** the rest of the world, **** everybody that isn't american

death to all non americans, unleash the nukes time to purify this planet of all non american life

elimination of said scum will commence right after tonight's broadcast of dancing with the survivors of america's fattest housewives
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Thu 12 Nov, 2009 06:15 am
@okie,
Our country is filled with corrupt politicians - and it's all our fault!

Amazing when you bother to think about it.
spendius
 
  1  
Thu 12 Nov, 2009 06:32 am
@cicerone imposter,
It would be amazing if politicians weren't corrupt.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  0  
Thu 12 Nov, 2009 08:43 am
@djjd62,
djjd62 wrote:

hawkeye10 wrote:
Ya, Obama going around apologizing to everyone in sight is offensive, and not productive in the long run. we get more mileage out of being respected for our power than for being liking liked for being "accommodating".


ok you've convinced me

**** the rest of the world, **** everybody that isn't american

death to all non americans, unleash the nukes time to purify this planet of all non american life

elimination of said scum will commence right after tonight's broadcast of dancing with the survivors of america's fattest housewives

Pure trash and unadulterated garbage of a post. Now djjd62, maybe you walk around with some kind of a guilt complex that needs to be cleansed, but I do not and I do not think traditionally Americans have. I believe America has largely been a force for good in the world, and we should be proud of a few things, not the least of which much of Europe or most of Europe may be living under tyrannical rule to this day, if not for us, and perhaps if not for other countries and men of principle such as Winston Churchill. Now, if you think all those guys buried in France also should have apologized before they died from machine gun fire, I would suggest you go talk to the survivors in their families and make your lousy case.
 

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 1477
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.96 seconds on 06/28/2025 at 09:09:05