Obama '08?

You're welcome to your opinion, of course, but the '57 Islaamic states' part was an example of you being an ass. Spreading a slur.

Cycloptichorn

Just for the record: there are 57 member states of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference .

Ticomaya wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

In this case, it's not really a question of whether or not they are violating the law. They are violating the law. They have admitted to doing so. Their only argument is that the law shouldn't apply. But that's for the courts to decide; as things stand currently, the laws DO bind them and they are in violation of it.

That sort of blows away your whole "Bush has removed our 4th Amendment rights" screed, doesn't it?

Uh, nope?

Where have you become confused, one must wonder?

Just b/c the rights still exist doesn't mean that the gov't respects those rights; and we have little ability to stop them from doing so outside of legal action, which is ongoing.

Cycloptichorn

Sigh, you have your good days and not-so-good days, Okie.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Sigh, you have your good days and not-so-good days, Okie.

Cycloptichorn

Some days, I like to interrupt the Obama love fest here with a little reality for a change.

XXXX --
Big news today: for the first time since this campaign began, Barack Obama has taken the lead among superdelegates.

We've won more elected delegates, more states, and more votes than Senator Clinton. But until yesterday we trailed among Governors, Members of Congress, and Democratic Party leaders -- the so-called "superdelegates" who have a vote in the nominating process.
As it stands, we have 279 superdelegates who have committed to cast their convention votes for us. That includes 21 since last Tuesday's elections, and 3 who switched their support from Senator Clinton.
We have just 152 delegates to go before Barack Obama clinches the nomination.

But Senator Clinton intends to compete vigorously in the remaining contests; at the same time we face increasing attacks from Senator McCain and the Republican attack machine.

Barack needs your support to close out this nomination and start building for the general election...

...Given the long history the Clintons have with the Democratic Party, it's no surprise Senator Clinton maintained her superdelegate lead for so long.

But right now it's clear that the Democratic Party is uniting around Barack's candidacy.

Here's what a few superdelegates who recently changed their support had to say:

"After careful consideration, I have reached the conclusion that Barack Obama can best bring about the change that our country so desperately wants and needs."

- Rep. Donald Payne (NJ-10)

"He has shown he can connect with Democrats, Republicans and independents across this country."

- Kevin Rodriquez (VI)

"It's time to come together as a party and support Sen. Obama and prepare for a victory against John McCain in November."

- Del. Jennifer McClellan (VA-71)

We need to act quickly to encourage the remaining superdelegates to join us and close out this race. And we need to start building now to beat Senator McCain this November.


Tomorrow, voters in West Virginia -- where Senator Clinton has an enormous lead -- will head to the polls.

On Wednesday, Barack will continue to have an insurmountable lead in states, votes, and delegates.

He will also have the endorsements of more superdelegates than Senator Clinton -- a clear sign that Democrats across the country and throughout the party are ready for a new kind of politics.

This grassroots movement, funded by more than 1.5 million individual donors, has supported Barack when he was up and when he was down.
Now, the nomination is in sight, and it's because of you.
Thank you,
David
David Plouffe
Campaign Manager
Obama for America

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Sigh, you have your good days and not-so-good days, Okie.

Cycloptichorn

Some days, I like to interrupt the Obama love fest here with a little reality for a change.

'Reality' is accusing Obama of being a closet Muslim?

A serious answer, please

Cycloptichorn

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Sigh, you have your good days and not-so-good days, Okie.

Cycloptichorn

Some days, I like to interrupt the Obama love fest here with a little reality for a change.

'Reality' is accusing Obama of being a closet Muslim?

A serious answer, please

Cycloptichorn

In regard to the 57, that seems like a very odd number, did he mean 47? But if you add 2 states, you still end up with 49, still not right. I don't think it was a Freudian slip, but who knows, and my main point was to tweak the folks here, I admit to that. It would be interesting to know if other recent situations caused the subject of the 57 Islamic states to be mentioned and talked about, perhaps that number was in his mind?

Ticomaya wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

In this case, it's not really a question of whether or not they are violating the law. They are violating the law. They have admitted to doing so. Their only argument is that the law shouldn't apply. But that's for the courts to decide; as things stand currently, the laws DO bind them and they are in violation of it.

That sort of blows away your whole "Bush has removed our 4th Amendment rights" screed, doesn't it?

Uh, nope?

Where have you become confused, one must wonder?

Just b/c the rights still exist doesn't mean that the gov't respects those rights; and we have little ability to stop them from doing so outside of legal action, which is ongoing.

Cycloptichorn

I'll help - they have removed the 4th amendment rights from American citizens, in the name of 'security.'

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

In this case, it's not really a question of whether or not they are violating the law. They are violating the law. They have admitted to doing so. Their only argument is that the law shouldn't apply. But that's for the courts to decide; as things stand currently, the laws DO bind them and they are in violation of it.

That sort of blows away your whole "Bush has removed our 4th Amendment rights" screed, doesn't it?

Uh, nope?

Where have you become confused, one must wonder?

Just b/c the rights still exist doesn't mean that the gov't respects those rights; and we have little ability to stop them from doing so outside of legal action, which is ongoing.

Cycloptichorn

Where did I become confused? Let's see ... okie asked teeniebone to name something Bush/Cheney did to take away her rights, and you said:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I'll help - they have removed the 4th amendment rights from American citizens, in the name of 'security.'

LINK

You didn't proffer they didn't "respect" them, you said they "removed" them. Now you say they "still exist."

Well, did they remove them, or do they still exist ... which is it?


I think what "confused" me was your lack of clarity of thought or expression.

You are probably right, but how could I pass up a convenient opportunity to tweak the Obama-ites. You all would have to admit you would do the same with any Republican or conservative.

It all pretty much comes down to what folks can imagine, doesn't it? Personally, I can't imagine a person who has some sort of subversive, radical ideas hiding that for some 20 years or more of his life, two books and a career of legislative actions. I also can't imagine some segments of our society ever being fully satisfied that someone with a funny name and an international background is still 100% American, just like the rest of us. I can't imagine how one single misstatement could weigh more than a lifetime of work in some people's eyes.

And this isn't all directed at you, okie. I think you've shown a relatively open mind or at least a willingness to consider things that aren't familiar ideas to you. But I think we all suffer from a failure of imagination.

FreeDuck wrote:

It all pretty much comes down to what folks can imagine, doesn't it? Personally, I can't imagine a person who has some sort of subversive, radical ideas hiding that for some 20 years or more of his life, two books and a career of legislative actions. I also can't imagine some segments of our society ever being fully satisfied that someone with a funny name and an international background is still 100% American, just like the rest of us. I can't imagine how one single misstatement could weigh more than a lifetime of work in some people's eyes.

And this isn't all directed at you, okie. I think you've shown a relatively open mind or at least a willingness to consider things that aren't familiar ideas to you. But I think we all suffer from a failure of imagination.

I agree, and for myself, I find it a rather big pill to swallow to believe Obama is All American and apple pie, while at the same time he has a close relationship with the whacked out Wright, and a church that is based on a racist theology. He goes to the trouble of naming his book, Audacity of Hope, after something he heard in a sermon of Wright's, yet there is hardly a mention of Wright in his book. This tells me two things, one that there is more to the relationship, and more to his admiration of what the man preaches, than he wants to cover in his book. Why? Obama is not a dummy, and I think he realizes how different some of those beliefs are from traditional American beliefs. At worst, I am left a feeling of having just read a book that is a total snow job, and at best I still feel I don't know the man after reading a book that he supposedly wrote.

Lastly, I would like to address the name of the book, Audacity of Hope. What is it about this title that makes no sense to me? I commented to Butrfly that I thought the title was dumb, and I had not read the book. Well, I have read the book, and still no clues about the title except that he was inspired by a Wright sermon for the title. That isn't comforting. Also, he says little about the purpose and general message of the sermon that I could find, and so this causes a curiosity. I don't find hope to be audacious, and I think it is a weird term to attach to it. Look up the definition of Audacious:

1 a: intrepidly daring : adventurous <an> b: recklessly bold : rash <an>
2: contemptuous of law, religion, or decorum : insolent
3: marked by originality and verve <audacious>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/audacious

You can find other definitions in different dictionaries, but take this one from Merriam Webster online, audacious is not a particularly great term to want to subscribe to. Does he subscribe to recklessly bold or rash policies that may be contemptuous of past traditions or something? That is not particularly inspiring to me, in fact it sounds troubling. Is there a hidden message here, that some people understand and others don't? And the logic of the title leaves me at a loss as to what the purpose of the book was after I read it. The book was not about hope, it was about him, but even if some things in there were, it wasn't audacious as far as I could tell. The man remains a mystery.