|
Post by Ginnie on Jun 7, 2008 23:32:36 GMT -4
although they do in better than here in Canada. As it is, the politicians up here are plain dumb mudslingers, whereas in the States they are intelligent mudslingers. ***NOW PLAYING*** The Sensational Alex Harvey Band - The Hot City SymphonyI know I said I was leaving, but thanks for putting that in your sig, Ginnie. I just looked them up on YouTube (saw "Next") -- great stuff. [deleted obama link] Then you absolutely HAVE to see this: www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zuuwG7NuPk&feature=relatedIn fact, everyone here should look at this. Ladies and gentlemen, for your pleasure, THE SENSATIONAL ALEX HARVEY BAND PERFORMING ANTHEMor FRAMED: www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zuuwG7NuPk&feature=related
|
|
|
Post by stalepie on Jun 7, 2008 23:40:49 GMT -4
I'm not liking this one as much, but thanks! Here's another video by TheYoungTurks about Obama and Murdoch: www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhOm2fh5qXY(it was the first link that came up when I searched Google for "murdoch supports obama") but I knew he had been a financier of Hilary Clinton's campaign. Almost positive of that.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 8, 2008 0:42:28 GMT -4
Obama possibly being a muslim: stupid rumor, yes. His dad was a muslim, but he abandoned Obama at a pretty young age (Obama was raised primarily by his grandparents, who are white Christians). He has vaguely Islamic first and middle names, but he didn't pick them. And his chruch is Christian (at least they say they're Christian - the race hate in their sermons isn't very Chrsitian at all). I personally wouldn't have a problem voting for a good muslim who was also a good candidate anyway.
Obama being a Marxist - well I would say he seems to be more of a Socialist-Populist than a Marxist myself. He certainly doesn't seem to have a problem with taxing the rich to pay for bigger social programs. Marxist is probably going too far.
Obama not appearing on Fox: Yeah, that's a problem. He's willing to talk to Ahmadinejad without precondition but not Fox News? Republican candidates don't avoid MSNBC, and they get murdered there every time they show up.
I hadn't heard anything about a fist jab thing until you talked about it. I guess not "everybody" is talking about it. The Fox video looks like a fluff piece, not a serious attack on anyone. Assigning some sort of sinister intent to it seems silly to me, even if the "terrorist" bit is a little bit of an odd non-sequitor. Besides, the president doing a chest bump is funny. I think more presidents should chest bump.
Senator Liberman is one of my favorite Democrats (or was, he's an Independent at the moment), and would have been the best thing about an Al Gore presidency. I don't think anyone blinked twice at a Jewish vice-presidential candidate - most people really only vote for the candidate at the top of the ticket anyway (when they're not accidently voting for Ralph Nader).
I'm not sure what Pat Robinson is on about. He might be pointing out that the nation's roots are primarily Judao-Christian in nature, and that forgetting that would be "selling out our origin."
The serious problems with Obama are: 1) He wants to pull out of Iraq before the job is done. 2) He naively believes that talking to people like Ahmadinejad or Kim Jong-Il might accomplish something positive, rather than playing into their game. 3) He wants to raise taxes (only on the "rich", of course) to pay for yet more big, inefficient government programs. 4) He wants to appoint liberal justices who make their decisions through "empathy". 5) He's pro-abortion, and rated as one of the most liberal senators in the senate (obviously only problems for a conservative like myself, but for me they are problems). 6) He was a member of a racist church for twenty years, and only left when it became politically necessary to do so. That speaks rather ill of his judgement and character. Because of those points I will take John McCain instead, even though he wasn't my first choice either.
|
|
|
Post by stalepie on Jun 8, 2008 4:36:08 GMT -4
Yeah, I might vote for McCain too.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 8, 2008 10:47:36 GMT -4
I would also like to note that Mrs. Clinton's campaign contributed quite a bit to the "Obama is a secret muslim" idea. In particular her appearance on "60 Minutes" where she said "No. No, there is nothing to base that on. As far as I know.” The Obama campaign was not pleased by that caveat. Several people connected to her campaign also circulated e-mails claiming Obama was a muslim - two Clinton campaign coordinators in Iowa were forced to resign because of this. There was also a photo of Obama in Kenyan dress that might appear muslim to some people. No one seems quite sure of who started circulating it, but the Obama campaign thought it came from the Clintons: “On the very day that Senator Clinton is giving a speech about restoring respect for America in the world, her campaign has engaged in the most shameful, offensive fear-mongering we’ve seen from either party in this election."
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Post by reynoldbot on Jun 9, 2008 6:18:39 GMT -4
The absolute worst bit of mudslinging towards Obama has to be the whole "flagpin" issue. What a disgrace.
When it comes to pulling out of Iraq, I'm a bit torn. I do believe that we, as the idiots that came in and messed everything up, have a responsibility to fix our mistakes. Pulling out of Iraq is not going to do Iraq any good. However, and this is big, I also don't believe we are capable of fixing our mistakes. I really don't see any point in sending troops there to die if nothing is going to be accomplished by it. That country is pretty much screwed and there's not much we can do about it.
I agree Jason that much of the Obama mudslinging came from the Clinton campaign. I thought it was pretty disgraceful considering both the sheer offensiveness of the stuff they were coming up with and the way she tried to pretend she was somehow justified in bringing it up.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 9, 2008 10:59:23 GMT -4
The absolute worst bit of mudslinging towards Obama has to be the whole "flagpin" issue. What a disgrace. It was a bit silly, by itself. Taken in conjunction with comments by his wife and his pastor it becomes a little more troubling. I guess I am much more of an optomist - I think we can in fact fix the mess and that Iraq does have a chance to become a stable, prosperous nation who can be a valuable ally in a volitile and strategically important area.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jun 9, 2008 12:09:11 GMT -4
The absolute worst bit of mudslinging towards Obama has to be the whole "flagpin" issue. What a disgrace. The mud slinging issue gets way overplayed. People call out the other sides murky actions as some moral justification for the correctness of their own opinions or at least their sides superior moral stance. Mudslinging has a long history in American (and global) politics from all camps. Its not going to stop any time soon. The only way to oppose it is to take a bi-partisan stance against it and base ones policy arguments in fact as much as posible. Saying ones side doesn't engage in mud slinging is hardly believable. Pointing out that ones side is currently less deep in the muck is than side one is criticizing is not particularly inspiring. Ignoring the multilateral nature of negative advertising and mud slinging makes one appear foolish. Partisan bickering over mud slinging is really a just mud slinging anyway, an attempt to take a moral position without the need to discuss issues. The partisan high ground should be set by making the case one's camp has the better positions on the issues at hand. The fray will always exist, but some can rise above it and set an example.
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Post by reynoldbot on Jun 9, 2008 15:37:15 GMT -4
Are you kidding me? You think it's troubling that he doesn't wear a flagpin? People like you are the reason such manufactured "controversies" take hold. I think you are willing to repeat any negative comment made of Obama, no matter how ridiculous. I don't like McCain, but I sure am not going to take every bad thing said about him at face value.
I applaud optimism as long as it's realistic. Iraq has been a violent, unstable region for centuries. It will be a cold day in hell before Iraq becomes a "stable, prosperous nation."
I'd say it's worked pretty well for Obama so far. Having gone through some pretty harsh mudslinging already, to a lot of people he came out looking like the only adult in a room full of screaming children.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 9, 2008 16:31:20 GMT -4
Are you kidding me? You think it's troubling that he doesn't wear a flagpin? I think it's troubling that he and his wife, like many liberals, don't seem to have a very high opinion of the U.S. ("just downright mean" - Michelle Obama). This despite the fact that the nation has obviously been very good to them. The business of the flag pin is one sign among many that all together might form an issue worth thinking about. So were Japan and Germany, before World War II, or South Korea, before the Korean War. Japan in particular had no tradition of democracy at all before WWII, and was ruled by the military class as a police state for most of its history. Now it is a largely pacifist nation strongly devoted to democracy.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jun 9, 2008 18:39:13 GMT -4
My biggest concern about Iraq is that the US pulling out without finishing the job plays right into OBL's hands. He has always claimed that the US didn't have the guts to fight it out, that if you give them a bloody nose they will run. He points to Vietnam and Somalia when he says this.
If the US runs from Iraq, not only will he be vindicated in that claim, but it will give him the ability to claim the defeat of both Superpowers. Such a statement will reinforce the works of people like Sayyid Qutb when he wrote:
"It is essential for mankind to have new leadership!
The leadership of mankind by Western man is now on the decline, not because Western culture has become poor materially or because its economic and military power has become weak. The period of the Western system has come to an end primarily because it is deprived of those life-giving values which enabled it to be the leader of mankind. .....
Islam is the only System which possesses these values and this way of life."
From introduction to Milestones
OBL believes that by showing that Islam can beat both the East and the West that it can prove the dominant civilisation, that Muslims will flock to his banner and help re-establish the Islamic Caliphate and the Muslim Empire, welding the Muslim nations together as one under God and Islamic (Shari'ah) Law.
Qubt said "All nationalistic and chauvinistic ideologies which have appeared in modern times, and all the movements and theories derived from them, have also lost their vitality. In short, all man-made individual or collective theories have proved to be failures.
At this crucial and bewildering juncture, the turn of Islam and the Muslim community has arrived...
Thus the turn of the Muslim community has come to fulfill the task for mankind which God has enjoined upon it. ... Islam cannot fulfill its role except by taking concrete form in a society, rather, in a nation; for man does not listen, especially in this age, to an abstract theory which is not seen materialized in a living society.
If Islam is again to play the role of the leader of man- kind, then it is necessary that the Muslim community be restored to its original form.
OBL and his followers believe this wholeheartedly and claim that they are indeed this "the Muslim community restored to its original form". They believe that if they can defeat the West then people will start to listen to them and their ways. If they show the Muslim nations that their form of Islam is greater than the West, that if they, like Mohammad, have fought the evils that surround them and cleansed the lands to allow "real" Islam to grow there again, that the Islamic nations will throw out everything Western and return to the "pure" form of Islam preached by people like Qutb.
"We are also surrounded by Jahiliyyah today, which is of the same nature as it was during the first period of Islam, perhaps a little deeper. Our whole environment, people's beliefs and ideas, habits and art, rules and laws-is Jahiliyyah, even to the extent that what we consider to be Islamic culture, Islamic sources, Islamic philosophy and Islamic thought are also constructs of Jahiliyyah!
This is why the true Islamic values never enter our hearts, why our minds are never illuminated by Islamic concepts, and why no group of people arises among us who are of the calibre of the first generation of Islam.
It is therefore necessary-in the way of the Islamic movement-that in the early stages of our training and education we should remove ourselves from all the influences of the Jahiliyyah in which we live and from which we derive benefits. We must return to that pure source from which those people derived their guidance, the source which is free from any mixing or pollution. We must return to it to derive from it our concepts of the nature of the universe, the nature of human existence, and the relationship of these two with the Perfect, the Real Being, God Most High. From it we must also derive our concepts of life, our principles of government, politics, economics and all other aspects of life."
Now while that might take time to do, and resistance inside many Muslim nations will oppose such ideas, but a lot of that resistance is based on backing by the West. If the west is seen as weak and unable or unwilling to act, then those that strive to cover the world in Shari'ah will be emboldened, in short, those that preach radical Islam will win out over those that call for moderation and progressiveness.
Backing out of Iraq could start a civil war that has the potential to overflow into the entire Middle East and beyond, a war that could be over the fate of Mankind. Yes it might sound doom and gloom, but one has to understand the mindset of the enemy, and the Withdrawal of the US from Iraq like a beaten dog with its tail between its legs will send a message to the radicals that is stronger than anything we can imagine. When the mere bombing of a US ship was enough to re-establish AQ as a force to be reckoned with, suddenly allowing it to go from broke, struggling to survive, and near death to being flooded with cash and recruits almost overnight, what would the winning of a war against the US do?
The beast that the US is fighting is not an easy one to beat, it is a hydra that grows two new heads for each one removed, but running will just make it more powerful and increase its influence tenfold. In 1990 the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan. The US abandoned the people there to their fate and extremists took control. It was from that safe haven that AQ was able to strike the US on 9/11. What could they do with Iraq as their safe haven? An oil rich country set right in the middle of the Middle East with borders on Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iran, and Syria? Is this a scenario we really want to contemplate? If not, then better hope a solution is found before Obama is elected and pulls out because if he does, well... The world certainly is not going to be a better place.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Jun 9, 2008 19:20:29 GMT -4
Ahhh, actually policy. Yes, Obama has a 16 month plan for removing most US troops from Iraq. He has also said that he would reserve the right as Commander in Chief to assess the situation and take other steps when he takes office. And he has also said that he'd leave troops in Iraq or neighboring countries to deal with al Qaeda, if necessary.
So the question is, can that be done? Or do we have to keep tossing US troops onto the rocks at the current levels? The current force levels are seriously degrading our military capabilities. We can't do it forever.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Jun 9, 2008 19:30:27 GMT -4
But this thread is really about the stupid things The Right say about Barack Obama, not about actual policy issues. Stupid things like this: George Putnam, NEWSMAX (March 6): It is this reporter’s opinion that Obama is dangerous — not because of the power he seeks, but because of the power he has.
He has the power to inculcate people with fear and desperation and to label it, “hope.” He has the power to divest people of patriotism and then present himself as the person who can restore it.
Obama’s rhetoric is downcast. He paints a picture of America as a wasteland.
Following the Iowa caucus, he declared, “Our nation is at war. Our planet is in peril. Our healthcare system is broken, our economy is out of balance, our education system fails too many of our children, and our retirement system is in tatters.”
These are the words of a man who is asking for your vote as president of the United States.
There is no question that people like Sen. Obama are offering the next generation a change similar to the promises that Adolph Hitler and Benito Mussolini offered the discontented youth of their respective countries. That's right. Black is white, up is down. It's not Republicans who use fear as a weapon, it's Obama. Obama is like Hitler and Mussolini.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Jun 9, 2008 19:37:10 GMT -4
You can't count on Ann Coulter saying something stupid: "Other than that, Barack's really been kind of coasting on his record, since his first big accomplishment of being born half-black. I keep hearing people say, 'Oh, Obama could never be elected because he's half-black. You know, 'cause we're just such a racist country.' What are they talking about? He wouldn't be running for president if he weren't half-black. mediamatters.org/items/200802080017
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Post by reynoldbot on Jun 9, 2008 19:46:34 GMT -4
Why in the world would Obama be running for president if he didn't love his country? And, I should point out that I think you are confusing a negative opinion of our current administration or foreign policy or state of government with not loving this country. I think he is running because he sees what he and many others believe to be a sorry state of affairs in washington and wants to change it. Again, it sounds to me that you are taking to heart all of the stupid things said about Obama.
What's more important - the lives and wellbeing of thousands of U.S. soldiers or our national pride?
|
|