Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Fri 21 Mar, 2008 08:54 am
If you're John McCain this has to be.... has to be oh so delicious.... I sure hope Seth cub has something wrong I don't know about that will make him ineligible for the draft....

And yes although McCain hasn't mentioned a draft.. he has mentioned lovin' that war... and I'm sure he and bush are already talking about him stepping right in and getting us in another with Iran or something....can't do that with a volunteer army no one wants to volunteer for...

jeez what a mess...
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Fri 21 Mar, 2008 09:01 am
re; the post above this one may I offer this?


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/20/AR2008032002284_pf.html
0 Replies
 
nappyheadedhohoho
 
  1  
Fri 21 Mar, 2008 09:01 am
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
If you're John McCain this has to be.... has to be oh so delicious.... I sure hope Seth cub has something wrong I don't know about that will make him ineligible for the draft....

And yes although McCain hasn't mentioned a draft.. he has mentioned lovin' that war... and I'm sure he and bush are already talking about him stepping right in and getting us in another with Iran or something....can't do that with a volunteer army no one wants to volunteer for...

jeez what a mess...


That might be Obama's next desperate wag-the-dog move (it worked so well for Kerry) and it is the Democrats that want the draft reinstated.

The idea that the Democratic party would nominate a Senator whose minister who says "God damn America" is almost as ridiculous as nominating a candidate who publicly testified against soldiers in time of war.

Almost.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Fri 21 Mar, 2008 09:02 am
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200803/POL20080321a.html
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Fri 21 Mar, 2008 09:04 am
I doubt you'll see a draft again. Certainly not under a Republican administration. The electoral consequences would be absolutely predictable and, as important, the continued shift towards privatization of military functions does nothing but fill Republican coffers and further solidify the corrupt cooperation between the party and the big arms and related corporations.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Fri 21 Mar, 2008 09:05 am
blatham wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Hmmm. Hillary must have finally told Bill Richardson that he wasn't on the short list for her VEEP or Secretary of State. . . or . . . he is convinced she can't get the nomination. He has held off making his endorsement for a very long time because he wants one of those appointments so very badly. Richardson wants to be President and I think he wants a high level position to get the necessary exposure and name recognition, etc. to be viable the next time around. So he's hung his hat on Obama.


Them Latinos. Selfish, lazy. If a good or noble thought ever enters their head, they would have stolen it from a white person's garage.


You know, I never think of Richardson as a 'Latino' or anything other than just a regular guy. I wonder why you see it necessary to identify him as a Latino? But there's no accounting for the latent prejudices held by those with their noses in the air and who most presume to judge the motives and intent of others is there? Something along the lines of methinks he protests too much or something like that.

(P.S. I know Bill Richardson personally and know people are are very close to him. He wants to be President. You can take that to the bank.)
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Fri 21 Mar, 2008 09:06 am
Relevant bit, for those who can manage to hold more than one thought in their heads at a time, from Dionne
Quote:
One black leader who was capable of getting very angry indeed is the one now being invoked against Wright. His name was Martin Luther King Jr.

An important book on King's rhetoric by Barnard College professor Jonathan Rieder, due out next month, offers a more complex view of King than the sanitized version that is so popular, especially among conservative commentators. In "The Word of the Lord Is Upon Me," Rieder -- an admirer of King -- notes that the civil rights icon was "not just a crossover artist but a code switcher who switched in and out of idioms as he moved between black and white audiences."

Listen to what King said about the Vietnam War at his own Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta on Feb. 4, 1968: "God didn't call America to engage in a senseless, unjust war. . . . And we are criminals in that war. We've committed more war crimes almost than any nation in the world, and I'm going to continue to say it. And we won't stop it because of our pride and our arrogance as a nation. But God has a way of even putting nations in their place." King then predicted this response from the Almighty: "And if you don't stop your reckless course, I'll rise up and break the backbone of your power."

If today's technology had existed then, I would imagine the media playing quotations of that sort over and over. Right-wing commentators would use the material to argue that King was anti-American and to discredit his call for racial and class justice. King certainly angered a lot of people at the time.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/20/AR2008032003021.html?nav=hcmodule
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Fri 21 Mar, 2008 09:09 am
blatham wrote:
I doubt you'll see a draft again. Certainly not under a Republican administration. The electoral consequences would be absolutely predictable and, as important, the continued shift towards privatization of military functions does nothing but fill Republican coffers and further solidify the corrupt cooperation between the party and the big arms and related corporations.


well now that's undeniable... but I still don't think it's physically possible to open any more fronts without more bodies...

in his Fayetteville speech yesterday Obama was talking about broadening up special services.... how you gonna do that without bodies? And no one's volunterring or worse yet... being retained... the pundit speaking yesterday on NPR was saying the Army was facing a Major, as in the rank, crisis because everyone's taking retirement.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Fri 21 Mar, 2008 09:16 am
Foxfyre wrote:
blatham wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Hmmm. Hillary must have finally told Bill Richardson that he wasn't on the short list for her VEEP or Secretary of State. . . or . . . he is convinced she can't get the nomination. He has held off making his endorsement for a very long time because he wants one of those appointments so very badly. Richardson wants to be President and I think he wants a high level position to get the necessary exposure and name recognition, etc. to be viable the next time around. So he's hung his hat on Obama.


Them Latinos. Selfish, lazy. If a good or noble thought ever enters their head, they would have stolen it from a white person's garage.


You know, I never think of Richardson as a 'Latino' or anything other than just a regular guy. I wonder why you see it necessary to identify him as a Latino? But there's no accounting for the latent prejudices held by those with their noses in the air and who most presume to judge the motives and intent of others is there? Something along the lines of methinks he protests too much or something like that.

(P.S. I know Bill Richardson personally and know people are are very close to him. He wants to be President. You can take that to the bank.)


You know anyone who runs as a candidate for the Presidency who does not want to be President?

Your post was simply stupid in it's unnecessary partisan sliming.
0 Replies
 
eoe
 
  1  
Fri 21 Mar, 2008 09:18 am
blatham wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
blatham wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Hmmm. Hillary must have finally told Bill Richardson that he wasn't on the short list for her VEEP or Secretary of State. . . or . . . he is convinced she can't get the nomination. He has held off making his endorsement for a very long time because he wants one of those appointments so very badly. Richardson wants to be President and I think he wants a high level position to get the necessary exposure and name recognition, etc. to be viable the next time around. So he's hung his hat on Obama.


Them Latinos. Selfish, lazy. If a good or noble thought ever enters their head, they would have stolen it from a white person's garage.


You know, I never think of Richardson as a 'Latino' or anything other than just a regular guy. I wonder why you see it necessary to identify him as a Latino? But there's no accounting for the latent prejudices held by those with their noses in the air and who most presume to judge the motives and intent of others is there? Something along the lines of methinks he protests too much or something like that.

(P.S. I know Bill Richardson personally and know people are are very close to him. He wants to be President. You can take that to the bank.)


You know anyone who runs as a candidate for the Presidency who does not want to be President?



Laughing Laughing
Too silly!
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Fri 21 Mar, 2008 09:20 am
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
blatham wrote:
I doubt you'll see a draft again. Certainly not under a Republican administration. The electoral consequences would be absolutely predictable and, as important, the continued shift towards privatization of military functions does nothing but fill Republican coffers and further solidify the corrupt cooperation between the party and the big arms and related corporations.


well now that's undeniable... but I still don't think it's physically possible to open any more fronts without more bodies...

in his Fayetteville speech yesterday Obama was talking about broadening up special services.... how you gonna do that without bodies? And no one's volunterring or worse yet... being retained... the pundit speaking yesterday on NPR was saying the Army was facing a Major, as in the rank, crisis because everyone's taking retirement.


Military history/strategy/present preparedness isn't something I know much about. I can make the observation that the US has made a big shift from ground combat towards increases in bombing (as Hersch predicted would happen). Those changes have the advantage of removing death from in front of the cameras (American cameras, though not Arab/muslim cameras) and in reducing the pressure on personnel.

But I don't know how those trends and facts might apply to Iran.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Fri 21 Mar, 2008 09:21 am
Under the heading of "mixed blessings"...

Quote:
WASHINGTON -- Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, who are running for president as economic populists, are benefiting handsomely from Wall Street donations, easily surpassing Republican John McCain in campaign contributions from the troubled financial services sector.

It is part of a broader fundraising shift toward Democrats, compared to past campaigns when Republicans were the favorites of Wall Street.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-wallstdems21mar21,0,1476659.story
0 Replies
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Fri 21 Mar, 2008 09:23 am
Funny thing though Blatham, I don't think King was a rascist. Like many Americans, he did indeed criticize a war he thought was wrong. Just like many Americans do today. And quite frankly, I don't think most people would care much if Wright stuck to criticizing the war in Iraq.

My problem with Wright is twofold. First, spewing racist hatred from the pulpit cannot be justified. The man is no better than a white KKK member running around the streets in hoods thinking they should be taken seriously. Obama, who I am sure at some point has been in attendance during his racist outbursts, should have exited the church and never shown his face there again. I'm not saying he should have ceased contact with his friend, the Rev. Wright, but he should not have returned to a place of worship where hatred seems to be a theme of the pastor.

Secondly, I'm trying to figure out how his overt support for Obama from the pulpit has not brought investigation into the church's tax exempt status. He has a right of course to campaign for whoever he wants, but my understanding of the law is that he cannot support a particular candidate from the pulpit. Just one aspect of this whole thing that has been overlooked, in my opinion.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Fri 21 Mar, 2008 09:24 am
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
blatham wrote:
I doubt you'll see a draft again. Certainly not under a Republican administration. The electoral consequences would be absolutely predictable and, as important, the continued shift towards privatization of military functions does nothing but fill Republican coffers and further solidify the corrupt cooperation between the party and the big arms and related corporations.


well now that's undeniable... but I still don't think it's physically possible to open any more fronts without more bodies...

in his Fayetteville speech yesterday Obama was talking about broadening up special services.... how you gonna do that without bodies? And no one's volunterring or worse yet... being retained... the pundit speaking yesterday on NPR was saying the Army was facing a Major, as in the rank, crisis because everyone's taking retirement.


Bodies are not a problem right now though admittedly we don't have the manpower for another major front. The military has surpassed both its enlistment and retention goals every year since 2001 and appears to be on track to do so again in 2008. And that includes mid level and high ranking officers. Now some wise heads suggest Obama will quickly find a way to renege on his promise to start bringing the troops home if he is re-elected, but if he should, those same wise heads suggest that re-enlistments will drop off sharply and recruitment is going to be a huge challenge.

We'll see.

http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=11544
0 Replies
 
nappyheadedhohoho
 
  1  
Fri 21 Mar, 2008 09:28 am
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
blatham wrote:
I doubt you'll see a draft again. Certainly not under a Republican administration. The electoral consequences would be absolutely predictable and, as important, the continued shift towards privatization of military functions does nothing but fill Republican coffers and further solidify the corrupt cooperation between the party and the big arms and related corporations.


well now that's undeniable... but I still don't think it's physically possible to open any more fronts without more bodies...

in his Fayetteville speech yesterday Obama was talking about broadening up special services.... how you gonna do that without bodies? And no one's volunterring or worse yet... being retained... the pundit speaking yesterday on NPR was saying the Army was facing a Major, as in the rank, crisis because everyone's taking retirement.


Scales, a FOX News contributor, said he based his assessment last year "on the statistics that showed a high attrition among enlisted soldiers, officers who were leaving the service early, and a decline in the quality of enlistments," a reference to the rising number of waivers given for "moral defects" such as drug use and lowered educational requirements.

"In fact, what we've seen over the last year is that the Army retention rates are pretty high, that re-enlistments, for instance, particularly re-enlistments in Iraq and Afghanistan, remain very high," Scales said. He noted that re-enlistments were high even among troops who have served multiple tours.
0 Replies
 
nappyheadedhohoho
 
  1  
Fri 21 Mar, 2008 09:42 am
Obama blew it
Michael Myers, LA Times

In my considered judgment as a race and civil rights specialist, I would say that Barack Obama's "momentous" speech on race settled on merely "explaining" so-called racial differences between blacks and whites -- and in so doing amplified deep-seated racial tensions and divisions. Instead of giving us a polarizing treatise on the "black experience," Obama should have reiterated the theme that has brought so many to his campaign: That race ain't what it used to be in America.

He should have presented us a pathway out of our racial boxes and a road map for new thinking about race. He should have depicted his minister, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., as a symbol of the dysfunctional angry men who are stuck in the past and who must yield to a new generation of color-blind, hopeful Americans and to a new global economy in which we will look on our neighbors' skin color no differently than how we look on their eye color.

In fact, I'd say that considering the nation's undivided attention to this all-important speech, which gave him an unrivaled opportunity to lift us out of racial and racist thinking, Obama blew it.

I waited in vain for our hybrid presidential candidate to speak the simple truth that there is no such thing as "race," that we all belong to the same race -- the human race. I waited for him to mesmerize us with a singular and focused appeal to hold all candidates to the same standards no matter their race or their sex or their age. But instead Obama gave us a full measure of racial rhetoric about how some of us with an "untrained ear" -- meaning whites and Asians and Latinos -- don't understand and can't relate to the so-called black experience.

Well, I am black, and I can't relate to a "black experience" that shields and explains old-style black ministers who rant and rave about supposed racial differences and about how America ought to be damned. I long ago broke away from all associations and churches that preached the gospel of hate and ethnic divisiveness -- including canceling my membership in 100 Black Men of America Inc., when they refused my motion to admit women and whites. They still don't. I was not going to stay in any group that assigned status or privileges of membership based solely on race or gender.

We and our leaders -- especially our candidates for the highest office in the land -- must repudiate all forms of racial idiocy and sexism, and be judged by whether we still belong to exclusionary or hateful groups. . . .

We can't be united as a nation if we continue to think racially and give credence to racial experiences and differences based on ethnicity, past victim status and stereotypical categories. All of these prejudices surrounding tribe-against-tribe are old-hat and dysfunctional -- especially the rants of ministers, of whatever skin color or religion, who appeal to our base prejudices and to superstitions about our supposed racial differences. The man or woman who talks plainly about our commonality as a race of human beings, about our future as one nation indivisible, rather than about our discredited and disunited past, is, I predict, likely to finish ahead of the pack and do us a great public service.

Michael Meyers is executive director of the New York Civil Rights Coalition and a former assistant national director of the NAACP. These views are his own.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oew-meyers20mar20,0,3898931.story
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Fri 21 Mar, 2008 09:52 am
One wonders which speech Mr. Myers was listening to.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Fri 21 Mar, 2008 09:54 am
CoastalRat wrote:
First, spewing racist hatred from the pulpit cannot be justified. The man is no better than a white KKK member running around the streets in hoods thinking they should be taken seriously.


Granted I have not watched all of the videos, but I'm trying to figure out which statements were "racist hatred". I understand that what he said was inflammatory, but was it necessarily racist? Could be I just don't know exactly which part you're talking about.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Fri 21 Mar, 2008 09:56 am
coastal rat wrote:
Quote:
My problem with Wright is twofold. First, spewing racist hatred from the pulpit cannot be justified. The man is no better than a white KKK member running around the streets in hoods thinking they should be taken seriously. Obama, who I am sure at some point has been in attendance during his racist outbursts, should have exited the church and never shown his face there again. I'm not saying he should have ceased contact with his friend, the Rev. Wright, but he should not have returned to a place of worship where hatred seems to be a theme of the pastor.


"spewing hatred"..."no better than a white KKK member"

You've been, I'd boldly claim, successfully propagandized. You ought not to feel badly though as the folks who've managed to promote these ideas are very good at it.

As Dionne argues, it wouldn't be difficult to take passages from what King
said or wrote and (in this modern Fox/Limbaugh world) repeat it and repeat it and add commentary to it such that many would come to similar conclusions about King as you have about Wright.

Clearly, the "same as KKK" is a patently false analogy. Unless you have some information regarding reverse cross burning by Wright or lynchings of whites by Wright. How and why did you fall to such a false analogy?

As to "spewing hatred", aside from the point made about how King could be portrayed that way (and he probably was but I don't have time to research it), I'd like to hear your opinions on this after you've actually taken, say, five sermons at random and listened to them start to finish.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Fri 21 Mar, 2008 09:57 am
FD wrote
Quote:
One wonders what speech Myers was listening to


The same one a lot of conservatives, including black conservatives like Armstrong Williams, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Shelby Steele, etc. were listening to. Myers is spot on. You don't eliminate racism by emphasizing racism and focusing on past and present injustices instead of emphasizing the great civil rights strides we have made as a nation.

You don't achieve a color blind society by forcing people to focus on skin color and requiring 'sensitivity' to one race that is not afforded to another.

As I've said before, I think most Americans don't want a "black" President. They want somebody who sees us all in this boat together and who can inspire us all to work together for common goals that we believe in. It is absolutely fine and okay if that President happens to be black.
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 660
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.4 seconds on 11/16/2024 at 02:33:00