Hillery, Obama, Edwards and the Democrates

Quote:

Right? OK, so the conservative folks that are forwarding those emails about Obama being really or secretly Muslim - those are all bigots then too, right?

In my opinion...yes they are.
Religion is the last thing that people need to be worrying about in politics.

0 Replies

Not to muddy up the waters here, MM, but I do think it would be somewhat troublesome for a Muslim to run for president, after all, lets be realistic. It is not at all incomprehensible that terrorists routinely use houses of worship to spread their hatred, collect money for terrorist organizations, etc. Certainly not all, and perhaps not even that many, but we know of a few.

Such would have to be evaluated specifically for the person that is running, but a very close scrutiny would be in order, I think. If there is absolutely no evidence of any ties to their particular sect or house of worship, then fine, we could then vote on their other qualifications and overall record. Whether people admit it or not, people do vote for all kinds of things, looks, age, educational background, etc. Does that mean we are prejudiced against old people if we vote against somebody that is past 70. The answer is no, and the same would apply to a Muslim. It would simply believe somebody else younger or of more mainstream religious beliefs could govern more to our liking.

I would more readily vote for a Muslim for County clerk because I know they would not be dealing with Palestinians and Jews in the MIddle East as County Clerk. I would not prefer somebody that might be slightly sympathetic to Palestinian or terrorist organizations. Does that mean I am bigoted? No, I don't think so. It merely means I would rather vote for somebody that more closely mirrors my philosophy and world view.

As far as the emails, if he was a Muslim, it would be appropriate to know it, and it wouldn't be bigotry. But we know he apparently is not. The issue is the truthfulness of the emails, and if they are lies, then those that are doing it should be exposed, especially if they are part of a campaign. It is perhaps more appropriate to know more about the somewhat troublesome beliefs of the pastor of his church. If they are religious, that shouldn't be an issue, but inasmuch as they are political, it is appropriate to discuss.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
Right? OK, so the conservative folks that are forwarding those emails about Obama being really or secretly Muslim - those are all bigots then too, right?

In my opinion...yes they are.

OK, accepted. Good on you.

0 Replies

Nugget from the last Democratic debate, as jotted down on Tapped:

Quote:

"FREE STATEMENTS" FROM OBAMA AND EDWARDS

As he has in his apperances with Oprah, Obama quotes MLK's "fierce urgency of now" in reference to restoring America's standing in the world, creating economic security, and battling climate change.

Edwards is more combative and populist, saying jobs, the middle class, and health care are all at risk because of "corporate power and corporate greed in Washington, D.C. You can't make a deal with them, you can't make them go away. You have to be ready to fight."

I think Edwards was right on in those last two sentences.

0 Replies

So government greed doesn't exist? I don't have a choice to not buy their stuff. With corporations, I have a choice.

I would say, let the corporations be as greedy as they want. If I don't want it at their price, they won't be selling it. Is that greed? I doubt it. Holding a man up and making him pay for somebody elses stuff, now thats greed.

You need to rethink your definition of greed, in my opinion.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

So government greed doesn't exist? I don't have a choice to not buy their stuff. With corporations, I have a choice.

I would say, let the corporations be as greedy as they want. If I don't want it at their price, they won't be selling it. Is that greed? I doubt it. Holding a man up and making him pay for somebody elses stuff, now thats greed.

You need to rethink your definition of greed, in my opinion.

Another chestnut from okie.

Our government is "the people" therefore in the oakmesiter's twisted mind, the people taking away their own stuff are greedy.`

Makes sense to me.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
Right? OK, so the conservative folks that are forwarding those emails about Obama being really or secretly Muslim - those are all bigots then too, right?

In my opinion...yes they are.
Religion is the last thing that people need to be worrying about in politics.

Unless someone like Huckleberry gets elected, then you had better worry a lot about religion.

0 Replies

Roxxxanne wrote:

okie wrote:
So government greed doesn't exist? I don't have a choice to not buy their stuff. With corporations, I have a choice.

I would say, let the corporations be as greedy as they want. If I don't want it at their price, they won't be selling it. Is that greed? I doubt it. Holding a man up and making him pay for somebody elses stuff, now thats greed.

You need to rethink your definition of greed, in my opinion.

Another chestnut from okie.

Our government is "the people" therefore in the oakmesiter's twisted mind, the people taking away their own stuff are greedy.`

Makes sense to me.

You ignore the fact that government is capable of exceeding its constitutional mandates and begins to act like Robin Hood. I realize there is much disagreement on what the mandates include, but I am not a lone wolf in believing it has already exceeded those mandates on a few fronts, due to the greed for power by politicians. This trend will likely continue.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

During this extended pause in our conversation...

Krugman's column today brings up some points I think we have to be honest regarding. I'll post the whole thing...

Quote:
Big Table Fantasies

By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: December 17, 2007
<snipped>

Thoughts?

OK, here I am, belatedly. But I'm probably the wrong guy to ask, since my response is pretty predictable.

My first, superficial reaction is, "oh oh, now they did it". The blatantly misleading hack job the Obama campaign did on Krugman because he was getting too critical for its liking has predictably backfired.

Personally, I'd guess that Krugman was insulted even just by the transparent, amateuristic character of the attempt to cut him down to size a bit; the supposed side-by-side was so lame that he must have felt that if they were to attack him, fer chrissakes couldnt they have done a little bit more credible a job than that? Isnt he worth that much at least? Anyways, I'm sure I'm projecting here, but it's pretty obvious Krugman must be pissed off a bit, and he's a imposing opponent to have.

That's all just the tactics though. Far more important is the substantive case Krugman is making here. He articulates the doubts about Obama's strategy as clearly, concisely and forcefully as it's been done yet. The predictable part about my response is that I wholeheartedly agree with him. He pretty much speaks my mind.

These parts resound with me especially:

Quote:

Yep. Exactly.

This is the reason why Obama or Hillary... to me it doesnt make any difference anymore. On the issues, I agree with Obama more, he's the more progressive - but for the reasons Krugman describes I dont think he would get anything more done than her, probably actually less. The only way to get something more thorough than either of them would achieve is if Edwards gets to be president.

I also liked Krugman's take on the media coverage, by the way - he hits on a point that I can get particularly vexed about:

Quote:

There's a strong populist tide running in America right now. For example, a recent Democracy Corps survey of voter discontent found that the most commonly chosen phrase explaining what's wrong with the country was "Big businesses get whatever they want in Washington."

And there's every reason to believe that the Democrats can win big next year if they run with that populist tide. [..] But the news media recoil from populist appeals. The Des Moines Register, which endorsed Mr. Edwards in 2004, rejected him this time on the grounds that his "harsh anti-corporate rhetoric would make it difficult to work with the business community to forge change."

[T]he prime beneficiary of media distaste for populism has clearly been Mr. Obama, with his message of reconciliation. [..] Mr. Obama's coverage has been far more favorable than that of any other candidate. [But] let's be blunt: pundits who say that what voters really want is a candidate who makes them feel good, that they want an end to harsh partisanship, are projecting their own desires onto the public.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

My point: speculating all kinds of things about how terrible a person Hillary would be shown to be IF something or other that you have little or no indication of being the case would turn out to be true = facile. Close to a smear, even.

Okie helpfully provided the link to one local volunteer who was caught out doing so and immediately fired. That's pretty thin gruel to go on.

I mean, yeah - IF it turns out that I kill little kittens for fun, it would surely show that I am this and that type of person and have such or so evil motivations, yeah. A meaningless assertion.

Of course, no sooner had I posted this or Hillary proxy Bob Kerrey starts going on about Obama having gone to a "secular madrassa"... score 1 for Mysteryman & Okie.

0 Replies

Yes, nimh, what is this Bob Kerrey thing about anyway? He was praising Obama for the Muslim schooling and for having a middle name Hussein, and so forth. At first, I thought it was just another Democrat saying stupid things, but now I tend to think it was a setup job and a very underhanded tactic to hurt Obama. Sort of like complimenting someone for spending time in jail because it makes you a better candidate. I am in no way implying going to a madrassa or being named, Hussein, is like spending time in jail, but I think that was the predicted effect by Kerry.

Did Kerrey and Hillary discuss this, who knows? The guy has to be smarter than what his words indicate, or is he that naive?

0 Replies

Another thing I just remembered, Bob Kerrey is connected to the New School of New York, home of some of Clinton's best cronies. What do we know about this place? Well, I remember now that on the board of this institution have been people like Bernard Schwartz and Norman Hsu, of all people! If I was an investigative reporter, this looks like a very fertile field indeed, to do some further investigations.

Just a wild guess, I think Kerrey and Clinton probably discussed this strategy ahead of time.

0 Replies

Clinton registers websites, apparently to use to attack Obama.

http://www.hillaryproject.com/index.php?/en/story-details/clinton_launches_obama_attack_web_sites/

And in regard to Kerrey, he has now apologized, which again gets the story in the news, perhaps to again hurt Obama.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Clinton registers websites, apparently to use to attack Obama.

http://www.hillaryproject.com/index.php?/en/story-details/clinton_launches_obama_attack_web_sites/

And in regard to Kerrey, he has now apologized, which again gets the story in the news, perhaps to again hurt Obama.

damned if they do damned if they don't in your world eh? Rhetorical question.

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

okie wrote:
Clinton registers websites, apparently to use to attack Obama.

http://www.hillaryproject.com/index.php?/en/story-details/clinton_launches_obama_attack_web_sites/

And in regard to Kerrey, he has now apologized, which again gets the story in the news, perhaps to again hurt Obama.

damned if they do damned if they don't in your world eh? Rhetorical question.

So tell us all BP, do you approve or disapprove of web sites designed specifically to attack other candidates?

Dont hem and haw or try to dance around the question, its a simple question to answer.

0 Replies

if they are designed to fire back on candidates that have started the ball rolling by piling on.... sure I do.

that clear enough for you?

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

if they are designed to fire back on candidates that have started the ball rolling by piling on.... sure I do.

that clear enough for you?

So if Hillary gets the dem nomination, you wont complain if the repub candidate creates sites designed to do nothing but attack her, correct.

0 Replies

I expect it... they have been attacking her without cease for years as is...
this is news?

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

I expect it... they have been attacking her without cease for years as is...
this is news?

You expecting it is not the issue.
The question is, will you complain about them or will you say nothing about them?

0 Replies

I answered your question...straight up... do you plan to keep asking questions until you get whatever answer you want to show that me and Hillary are in the wrong?

0 Replies

Hillery, Obama, Edwards and the Democrates

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know