BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????

Subject: BS:Obama lacks 'patriotism'?
From: GUEST,Art Thieme
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 08:02 AM

Personally, I hold that if hell has a religion, it is Patriotism!

And the Patriotism illustrated by the U.S. administration for the last 8 years is not only a travesty and sheer wrongheadedness, it is absolutely insane.

If Barrack Obama can CHANGE that, I AM FOR HIM!!

Art Thieme

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: Riginslinger
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 09:14 AM

But what does it say for his electability in the general election?

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: kendall
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 09:18 AM

He offers hope, and God knows we can use some of that. He wants us out of Iraq, and 60% of the American public agree. McCain offers more war, more tax breaks for the rich and no choice for women. I see it as a no brainer.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 09:24 AM

The right wing and Republican National Party are just getting warmed up. They will not give Obama the free pass he is getting right now from Clinton, the Democratic party, and the MSM, who are terrified of being labeled racist for being critical of him. Some of us already know they are racist whether they are critical of him or not.

Not Clinton. I don't believe the Obama campaign smears against her and Bill that they are racist. I really just don't believe that, and it just showed, IMO, that Obama wasn't going to above playing the race card right and left, with accusations of the Clintons not being black enough.

Crazy ole world.

So, the race card will be played against Obama by the Republicans, but not the Democrats or Clinton, especially because they will be able to say, accurately, that he played the race card first during the primaries.

The patriotism issue, especially with the way his loose cannon wife is shooting her mouth off, is going to hurt in the fall if he becomes the nominee. They will play those Michelle Obama videos over and over and over and over. To very good effect, because no one in this country is better at that sort of dog wagging than the Republicans.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: kendall
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 09:28 AM

Who said "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel" ??

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: Amos
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 09:28 AM

Jaysus what a gutter we call democracy! But this is nothing new.

Michelle and Barack Obama are steering their lives into hell to make some difference in the national condition.

How patriotic can you get?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 09:58 AM

About as naive as that view, I guess.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: Amos
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 10:04 AM

Mroowwwwr.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: katlaughing
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 10:17 AM

Samuel Johnson, Kendall.

I call the shrub et alia the "False Patriots" and made up a bumper sticker about them being so.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 10:25 AM

"False are the bickering reigns
Of honor, of homeland, of war."

      Bob Beers

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: Amos
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 12:32 PM

> What has happened to our country that has left it so divided? I don't
> remember anyone trying to force their beliefs down another's throat when I
> was younger. This is supposed to be a country where we respect everyone's
> religious beliefs not impose our own.
>
> We have to find a way to pull together or divided we will fall.

(The above from a correspondent on a list. I thought my answer might be of interest. I could of course be wrong. It happened once...).

I concur with your sentiment; which is why Obama is important. He's apparently the only truly unifying voice out there.

As to what happened, the history of illegitimacy over the last eight years, both in our national political tribulations and our international engagements, is all the explanation I think is needed. 9-11 was addressed as an act of war, when it should have been addressed as an international crime. Illegitimate warfare on a huge scale followed, and the nation lost its repute and the sympathy of the world as a result of that strategic blunder. A second consequence of elective warfaring was the necessary suppression of dissent internally and the need for the curtailment of civil liberties. People arrested in the houses of Congress because they are wearing unfriendly teeshirts, and shoved into "free-speech zones" if they want to voice their opinions publicly at events, are two quick examples.

Because the Bush Administration chose war instead of an international criminal prosecution as their response to 9-11, the country has effectively been placed on a schizophrenic footing, tied up in a battle that has lost its meaning and its place in time, but which seems perpetual.

That's my current two cents worth on it. FWIW.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 01:43 PM

Quite correct. They treated a crime as an act of war, they responded in a totally inappropriate fashion, and the USA has gone down the road to perdition ever since.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 01:48 PM

Just who will Obama 'unify'? You think the right wing, the Repubs, the televangelists, the Dobsons, the Limbaughs, the libertarians--will line up behind Obama?

Why would anyone in their right mind believe that, when all evidence is to the complete contrary?

That isn't just naive, it is delusional.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: pdq
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 01:50 PM

The most common reason given for an O'Bamma vote is "he gives people hope".

Well, this is what Friedrich Nietzsche has to say:

                "Hope in reality is the worst of all evils because it prolongs the torments of man."

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 02:05 PM

I think I'd go for Barack Obama over Friedrich Nietzsche any day.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: Amos
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 02:08 PM

Well, I am sorry to say so, but Nietzche was dead wrong.

Hope instead of facing bad situations is madness, but that is not what Obama is offering. Facing the present without hope is just apathetic materialism at its worst.

It is not hope that prolongs the torments of the human condition; hope is the only thing that has led us out of the pathos of filth, hunger, danger and oppression in countless scenarios.

So in that respect, I have to offer the notion that Nietzche was nuts in this respect.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 02:09 PM

The point is, and I will continue to make a fine one of it, Obama unites no one, except the people who worship him.

People aren't that gullible, usually.

But there are always exceptions to that rule. Peron, Marcos, the Duvaliers...

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: Amos
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 02:11 PM

Obama unites no one

He has brought more Republicans under his umbrella than anyone had any right to expect. It has nothing to do with worship, you silly. It has to do with putting your attention where there is some glimmer of possibility for improvement.

Improvement that can be actualized -- not a pantomime like Nader's.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 02:12 PM

Really Amos? How many exactly, and what proof do you have of that statement?

Oh right--none. That's just your delusional wishful thinking talking again.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: John Hardly
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 02:45 PM

No big surprise that the "founder" of Nihilism, Nietzche, found hope to be a bad thing.

Man cannot live without hope. Period. My mother used to say that man could live through just about any trial if only he could only be convinced that the trial was a temporary thing. That was but one way of expressing this same thought: Man NEEDS hope.

If man lacks hope he logically has only two remaining choices:

He can commit the physical act that is the logical end of his intellectual suicide...

...or he can act out in his frustration -- taking as many with him to share in his misery -- either physically or mentally, but usually both.

The lack of hope is EXACTLY why the Republican nominee (no matter who it might have been, though in this case it turned out to be McCain) cannot win this year's general election. The conservative base upon which Republicans count to add up to enough votes to win in the general election have finally and utterly given up hope that the Republican party is the vehicle by which they might express their political will.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: John Hardly
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 02:51 PM

But, yes, Obama, as with ALL progressives, lacks "patriotism" as one would normally define patriotism.

That is because if one has chosen to define themselves as "progressive", they have BY DEFINITION eschewed the status quo. If the status quo is the nation as it stands, then the progressive, by definition, is not "patriotic". Rather, the most positive thing that could be said of a progressive is that he/she is...

...HOPEFUL

Progressives are hopeful that, as much as they dislike this country, they MIGHT be able to change it into something they COULD find tolerable.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 03:01 PM

I would have said that he represents optimism - as he seems to have a genuinely optimistic view of the potential of his country - and the fact that he is black doesn't work against him, it creates a sense that the USA doesn't have to represent slavery, opression and international arrogance, but could equally represent civil rights, tolerance and international responsibility.

Americans want to redefine themselves and who can blame them. If his fairytale comes true then they can say "hey - this is what we're really about" and feel good about themselves.

And I think this is different to dropping a penny in the oxfambox - because it isn't just a quick guilt placebo, it's a choice of US president - it's a real gesture of trust and progress.

I'm amazed at how much courage America has to not cling on to the safety of the old prejudices so much.

Good on you guys!

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 03:10 PM

Janet--

"the free pass Obama is getting right now from " Hillary. Right. Anything you say. That shows us exactly what we need to know about your grasp of reality--and how seriously to take anything you say in the future.

Unsurprisingly.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: pdq
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 03:13 PM

Will someone please give us a good definition of patriotism?

Once it meant 'nationalism', but that is now a bad word. The 'progressives' want someting called 'globilization' of our economy, open borders with Mexico (and therefore all the world), and submission to the World Court and to the will if the United Nations. No part of that agenda can be called 'nationalism'.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 03:17 PM

In the US context right now, it means empire building, a la the Bush Doctrine.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: mrdux
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 03:19 PM

"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it."
   
                                    – George Bernard Shaw

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 03:21 PM

pdq--

As usual, you are somewhat off. "The progressives" do not want globalization---as I'm sure some will be by to tell you soon.

And as for "submission to the will of the UN", what planet are you living on? When has the US bowed to "the will of the UN"?

Seems to me, that in March 2003, for instance, the US did in fact the opposite.

If you want to rant, please try to marshall a few facts. It doesn't seem like an unreasonable request. Thanks so much.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: Donuel
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 03:22 PM

A REAL American is a God Fearing American
A REAL American knows guns are more important than jobs
A REAL American is a WASP
A REAL American knows the business of America is Business
A REAL American knows we are #1 in EVERYTHING no matter what the facts are
A REAL American served in the military and is proud to kill who ever he was ordered to kill
A REAL American President will not hesitate to use our nuclear arsenal to save the world
A REAL American will call anyone who does not obey our military interests as UNPATRIOTIC
A REAL American is NOT a smug intellectual drug crazed atheist hippie tree hugger whacko unpatriotic enviormentalist.

-------------------------

We have all heard of these virtual talking points throughout our lives.
Thank you right wing, but your definitions do not serve or help any of the Americans I know



Some of our founding fathers hoped that secular patriotism would replace the power of religion in govement affairs and avoid the schizms created by Rome and Luther.
George Washington saw that this wasn't going to go as well he hoped.
It hasn't gone as well as I hoped. Even the attack on science by religion has changed little since the 17th centruy.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: Greg F.
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 03:23 PM

What has happened to our country that has left it so divided?

Karl Rove & the boys??

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: pdq
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 03:27 PM

Thanks   mrdux   that definition is too true to be funny.

Seriously, how can one say that Obama is partiotic or not without establishing what 'patriotism' is?

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 03:28 PM

That is like saying only one party in a divorce is to blame. Never true.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 03:40 PM

"I am sorry to say so, but Nietzche was dead wrong."

I'm glad to say it.
......................

"That is like saying only one party in a divorce is to blame. Never true."

Yes it is. Not always, but often enough.

That's a bit like saying that both parties are to blame in all road accidents, muggings, rapes etc.

This thread is drifting a bit. Still it's a pretty pointless thread - "Obama lacks patriotism" is a daft thing to say. A bit like saying "Obama hasn't got two legs".

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: Amos
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 03:56 PM

Patriotism is traditionally defined as an actual love of one's nation.

That, of course, includes the culture or cultures which inform the everyday life in that nation.

The United States offers plenty of grounds for genuine and heartfelt patriotism that has nothing to do with the cant of grade-school polemics that Donuel is being sarcastic about, or the blind stupidity of illegitimate nationalism that seems to inform the Bush Administration. The middle ground, and the high road, are the kind of patriotism that envisions the possible and admires the core principles, and looks to making them work better. That's the kind that Obama shows, although I have not heard him mouth off about it.

It is also the kind that Gigi speaks from, when she speaks coherently. It is also the kind that informs my sentiments, and thos eof many others here.

The American experiment was a radical and revolutionary concept in 1770. Let's hope it survives another century. Despite the odds.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 04:30 PM

It has never been about patriotism at Bush/Cheney, Inc. They are simply masterful at manipulating politics by appealing to it in ways that cause people to react to Bush the same way Obama is getting people to react to him.

Patriotism is a scoundrel's last refuge. But even saying that is ridiculously cliche in this context.

The Republicans are going to use that Michelle Obama video repeatedly to drive the wedge.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 05:24 PM

Loving your country and being proud of it are clean different things.

There's nothing patriotic about being proud of your country when it's doing something wrong - for example tolerating racism in its institutions. The right response of a patriot - someone who genuinely loves their country - in those circumstances is to feel ashamed of it, and try to do something to change things.

As Chesterton commented "My country, right or wrong" is a thing no patriot would ever think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying "My mother, drunk or sober".

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: John Hardly
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 05:38 PM

Yes, but Michelle Obama didn't say that she's not proud of the country when it's doing something wrong.........and proud of the country when it does right.

No, she said only that she has NEVER IN HER ADULT LIFE BEEN PROUD OF THE USA. That leads to only one logical conclusion: In Michelle Obama's mind, the USA has NEVER IN HER LIFETIME done anything to be proud of.

That is the problem with her speech.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: Amos
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 05:43 PM

John Hardly:

As I have made clear before on this subject, taking her words literally does both of you a disservice, as they lose the full context of what she saud. And do not ignore that she clarified what she meant the next day for those too tin-eared to appreciate what she was saying. In fact, you have altered her literal words for the worse, let alone any ordinary person's understanding of what she meant in context.

She and Obama have repeatedly made clear how proud they are of the country in general. And they have also remarked on how especially proud they are of the way people are turning to in response to his call.

LEt's not go trumping up ideas they don't have, just to try to make them look bad, shall we?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 05:53 PM

The implication I read is that, throughout Michelle Obama's life, there has always been something of which all patriotic American should have felt ashamed, in the shape of the universal assumption that no black person could be welcomed by a white electorate as a realistic candidate for the presidency.

The implication that Michelle Obama's rhetoric was equivalent to saying "the USA has NEVER IN HER LIFETIME done anything to be proud of" just doesn't stand up. There could be any number of things to be proud of - but alongside them something no truly patriotic American could be proud of.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 06:05 PM

Patriotism is, as Amos said, simply love of one's nation. It comes naturally to young people, it can subside into bitterness or cynicism sometimes in older people. It can be misdirected by demagogues into zenophobia and hatred of outsiders. It can be used as an excuse for domestic witchhunts, as in the McCarthy era. It can become nothing more than aggressive self-interest wrapped in a flag, and that's where the expression comes from that "patriotism is the last refuge to which a scoundrel clings".

Patriotism can be magnificent, noble, beautiful, and touching. It can be ugly, vicious, stupid, and hateful. That all depends on whether it is used well and wisely...or not.

Politicians always will appeal to people's natural sense of patriotism in order to gain support. This is good if the politician is aiming that support in a positive direction. It's not so good at all if the politician is aiming that support in a destructive direction.

Both the Republicans and Democratic Parties use the issue of patriotism shamelessly to promote their respective agendas...but their real agenda is not patriotism. Their real agenda is getting elected, having power, and cashing in. Their real agenda is personal success. Unenlightened self-interest.

That's a misuse of patriotism.

*********

Michelle Obama's specific statement was simply a poor choice of words...driven by some strong emotion that was going through her at that moment, probably an emotion fuelled by her anger at the racial discrimination she has seen in America during her life.

Anyone can carelessly make such a statement in the heat of the moment. If you're a private individual, it doesn't matter much, because it will soon be forgotten, but such carelessness can cost you heavily in the field of politics, and Obama's enemies will no doubt make hay with it. It'll be a case of turning an unimportant molehill into a mountain, but they'll still do it.

If any human being on this Earth was held accountable for EVERY word they ever uttered....well, we would all be compromised way worse than Michelle Obama if that were the case. Not one person here would escape unscathed.

So be glad YOU are not running for President or are not married to someone who is...

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 06:06 PM

It doesn't matter how Obama's supporters see this. What matters is how the Republicans will use it against Obama to get votes.

And they will. That video is a gold mine for them. They are likely raking in a ton of money over at the RNC as we speak, just linking to the You Tube video from the Republican blogosphere.

And they aren't even running against him yet.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 06:11 PM

How sad that molehills should carry the weight of mountains. But that's clever marketing. Why do 35 million young women in North America feel that their noses aren't the right size or shape?

Clever marketing.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: Amos
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 06:18 PM

It is one thing to analyze the enemy's tactics, and another to forward the enemy's PR line. Big difference, whether in politics or in war.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 06:18 PM

For the same reason that young men believe that alcohol consumption increases one's virility?

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 06:22 PM

So Amos, you seem to be saying that anyone who dares to criticize Obama, is guilty of spouting Republican anti-Obama propaganda?

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: Amos
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 06:27 PM

I did not say that, young lady, but if the tin slipper fits...



A

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: pdq
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 06:29 PM

"Loving your country and being proud of it are clean different things."

Then perhaps you will be kind enough to tell us which is 'patriotism' and which is something else?

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: artbrooks
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 06:33 PM

The best possible course for any candidate or candidate's family member, or friend, or staffer, or supporter (or any individual) who doesn't want to say anything that can ever be misquoted or taken out of context or twisted around because of poor word use is to never say anything. It would be awfully quiet out there!

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 06:34 PM

Yes. ;-) They say that even a fool will be thought wise if he never speaks.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 06:39 PM

"being proud of your country" is a rather fuzzy and indefinite phrase. It could be interpreted so many ways.

Does it mean intrinsic pride in one's country as a home, a place of value, a land you love? If so, then it's totally justifiable and intelligent patriotism.

Does it mean pride in every single thing one's country ever does in terms of both foreign and domestic policy, regardless of what it is? If so, it's not intelligent patriotism, it's some sort of blind political fanaticism.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: frogprince
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 07:18 PM

Another definition of patriotism is, the conviction that your national identity is more important than the fact that you're a
human being.
Just after 9/11, I heard a combo of radio talk-hosts pumping up a bunch of the most jingoistic "patriotism", pushing "proud to be an American" to the max. A caller dared to respond that he loved this country, and felt very fortunate to have been born here, but that he realized that he was American by accident of birth, and had no more right to take pride in it than in having been born blond or blue-eyed. The radio hosts responded with absolute vehemence against him, declaring him totally unfit to be an American.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 07:30 PM

Yeah, that's how people are terrorized into obedience in an incipient fascist regime.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 07:37 PM

"Loving your country and being proud of it are clean different things."

Then perhaps you will be kind enough to tell us which is 'patriotism' and which is something else?

Love of your country, I'd have thought fairly obviously. And it's not exactly a difficult distinction to make between the implications of love onthe one hand and pride on the other. As in Chesterton's example, you love your mother drunk or sober, but that doesn't mean you have to make out you are proud of her getting drunk. And the same for a mother with a drunk of a son
....................

Another definition of patriotism is, the conviction that your national identity is more important than the fact that you're a
human being.

I'd call that a distortion and even a negation of patriotism. It's a bit like a wife-beater claiming that his actions were an indication of love for his wife.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: meself
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 07:46 PM

"And the same for a mother with a drunk of a son"

I'm not a drunk, so leave my mother out of this!!

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: Amos
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 08:01 PM

AGreed, and his wife, too.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: meself
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 11:37 PM

(Thank you for your kind support).

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: Ron Davies
Date: 25 Feb 08 - 12:48 AM

Another molehill some--like our resident Sour Cynics--are determined to make a mountain.   Obama is patriotic--just because he opposed the Iraq war does not change that. As I recall, we've been through that issue more than once, and it's clear to any sensible person that opposition to the Iraq war is perfectly compatible with patriotism.

So his wife phrased her view awkwardly. Amazing, that's the first time any politician has ever been caught phrasing a sentiment such that the opposition can use it, isn't it? Or maybe not. And she's not in fact a politician--and is not even running for anything--(in contrast to Team Clinton, it is painfully obvious.)

Again, just as the emphasis on "Hussein" as his middle name, this sort of attack is only significant to people who weren't about to vote for Obama anyway.   For thinking individuals--as most independents are-- this is yet another pathetic non-issue, along with his supposed refusing to salute the flag correctly. ( I'm sure he'll be very careful to put his hand on his heart every time he salutes the flag from now on--just to keep from bruising the tender sensibilities of the giant intellects who see Armageddon in the slightest deviation from prescribed behavior.)

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: artbrooks
Date: 25 Feb 08 - 04:39 AM

Ron, it wasn't while saluting the flag, it was while the national anthem was being played. As Obama himself said afterward, look around the crowd at any b-ball game and see what the majority does. According to Snopes, there are plenty of photos of him out there with his hand over his heart while the anthem played. Myself, my father was in the military when I was growing up, and I was trained to rise during the anthem and salute during the pledge.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: John Hardly
Date: 25 Feb 08 - 07:39 AM

Anyone who had a proper civics class in elementary school knows that the hand does NOT go over the heart during the national anthem. Hats come off and one stands at attention, but no hand over the heart. Obama got it right.

The hand over the heart was an invention regarding the pledge of allegience.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: jacqui.c
Date: 25 Feb 08 - 09:27 AM

There was another interesting little bit of film showing another candidate's wife doing her bit a day or so after Michelle Obama made her statement. That was McCain's wife standing there and saying that she ALWAYS felt proud of her country.

To me, Michelle had it right from her own perspective. I suppose that it could be difficult for anyone who had not been there to understand what, exactly, she was saying - I certainly did not see it as being unpatriotic and agree with the person who said that the Obamas are doing the most patriotic thing they can for this country.

McCain's wife IMHO, made herself look rather ignorant with her statement. Bearing in mind that the McCains have an adopted daughter who is not white I would have thought that, at some point, they would have come across the prejudice that still exists. If she has not understood how that can change a person's view of pride in the country of their birth she can't be into deep thinking a hell of a lot. I was surprised that she had been allowed to make that statement, although I suppose it was good for whipping up the patriotic fervour of those who don't think these things through.

I would take love of country over pride in country every day. To truly love one's country gives room to make changes that will improve that country - pride, to me, smacks of complacency with a flawed process.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: Amos
Date: 25 Feb 08 - 10:16 AM

OF course the right wing just has to jump up and down and fill the airwaves with distorted, hydrophobic snarls about such matters, trying to claim they are really big important issues. They ain't.

You have to wonder how such mad capering is even possible in a reasonably intelligent human; but I understand that if we were to focus on the really important issues, the important elements of the commonweal, the state of our species, the bestiality of our worst violence and the inadequacy of our best science, why, we would not think very much of people like Bush and those he sucked up in his flaming wake.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: Riginslinger
Date: 25 Feb 08 - 10:19 AM

Ron - The problem with molehills are, if you put enough of them together you really do have a mountain.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Feb 08 - 01:40 PM

The problem with molehills are, if you put enough of them together you really do have a mountain.

You'd need an awful lot of them. Unless American molehills are very much bigger than the ones in this part of the world. (Maybe in Texas...)

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: artbrooks
Date: 25 Feb 08 - 01:44 PM

You're thinking of prairie dog hills , McGrath.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: Amos
Date: 25 Feb 08 - 02:44 PM

The problem with molehills is that people use them to avoid important questions by pretending they are potential mountains.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Feb 08 - 02:50 PM

Yes, but remember...for a mole, a molehill is a very important matter.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: Amos
Date: 25 Feb 08 - 02:54 PM

YEah -- it takes a real mole to think his hill is a mountain.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 25 Feb 08 - 07:13 PM

I always knew that LH was the Mole!!

BTW McGrath, I have just had to stitch my ribs back up after laughing at your comments RE one person being to blame in a divorce.

... and to clarify the nature of my mirth ... I couldn't agree with you more ...


tee hee!

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 25 Feb 08 - 07:58 PM

Try again here.

The thing is, I understand why some people (again, I don't include myself in this category) would be upset to hear Michelle Obama say what she said. It comes down to the issue of privlege. Both the Obamas have led extremely privleged lives. Highly educated at the best colleges, tremendous wealth, great health--you know what I mean?

To say that you are mostly not proud of the country that gave you all that, especially in light of what so many people in this country and every country around the world are lacking on a daily basis...

I'm just saying, it seems so petty and begrudging, considering their status in life.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Feb 08 - 08:08 PM

Well, I suppose you aren't supposed to say what you actually feel when you are in politics, even as a politician's wife, Just stick to what you are supposed to feel.

The term "politically correct" gets thrown around an awful lot, and frequently is applied, but it's fitting enough in this case. And the other word for it is bullshit.

But the very people who complain about "political correctness gone mad" in other contexts can be relied upon to hit the roof in a case like this.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 25 Feb 08 - 08:17 PM

No, you really aren't supposed to say what you really feel, not at that level of politics especially.

And Michelle Obama needs to get that through her skull, and do it quickly, or it could cost her husband the election.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: Amos
Date: 25 Feb 08 - 08:29 PM

Excuse, me Gigi, but there was a LOT of un-privelege in his life as well, compared to many middle class folks.

ANd for the last time, you would be much better off understanding what she meant before addressing it, for crying out loud, accoridng to her own clarifications.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Feb 08 - 08:37 PM

Looking at clips of Michelle Obama on YouTube I suspect that the number of votes she'll win for her husband is going to be a lot larger than the number she'll lose by this kind of thing.

And coming across as a straight talker will be a big element in this, because it doesn't seem to happen too often in this kind of context - in either of our countries.

When it comes to "First Ladies" I also suspect that Michelle will fill (and transform) that tricky role rather better than Hillary ever did.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 25 Feb 08 - 08:45 PM

Guys, I agree with you. What I'm talking about is I understand the other side.

Are neither of you capable of empathic understanding of your opponents?

Amos, it doesn't wash that they weren't always as wealthy as they are now. The point is, this country gave them the opportunity to rise to the level they are at now. THAT is the point, regardless of how Michelle Obama backpedalled in her high heels.

And McGrath--you are much more hopeful about the way powerful women get treated than I suspect most women are--most women I know have empathy for Mrs. Clinton, Mrs. Obama, and Mrs. McCain. The pathological hatred of Hilary Clinton comes from men far more than women, and seems deeply rooted in misogynist values at the heart of our society.

Women's lives are very complicated these days. The run the same sort of gamut at a much lower level, that Hilary and Michelle run.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: John Hardly
Date: 25 Feb 08 - 09:00 PM

"The pathological hatred of Hilary Clinton comes from men far more than women, and seems deeply rooted in misogynist values at the heart of our society."

No. If there is such thing as a "pthological hatred of Hilary" it doesn't stem from misogyiny. Quite the opposite. If anything it stems from her defense of her husband's obvious misogyny.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: Riginslinger
Date: 25 Feb 08 - 10:21 PM

If it didn't matter to her, why would anyone else want to stick their nose into it?

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: Ron Davies
Date: 25 Feb 08 - 10:44 PM

"pathological hatred of Hillary"--no doubt it must be hatred of all women. And the "pathological hatred" of Bush must be hatred of all men. Couldn't possibly be revulsion at what each has done individually-- or not done. Of course not.

And "hatred" of Hillary is a bit strong. Though for Bush it's probably not too strong a word.

For Hillary, for many I suspect it's more deep disgust with her sordid campaign. And there's ample reason.

1) refusing to admit she was wrong in voting to authorize Bush to use force against Iraq

2) Team Clinton trying to typecast Obama as a "black candidate"--and consign him to that ghetto.

3) Team Clinton trying to allege that because Obama cited Reagan as an agent of change, Obama agreed with Reagan politically.

4) Hillary, after agreeing that the Michigan and Florida votes would not count, trying to count them after all---after she "won".

5) NY NOW head citing Kennedy's endorsement of Obama as "the ultimate betrayal"--though there's very little difference between Hillary and Obama on issues of concern to NOW. I certainly did not notice a rebuke by Hillary of this statement by NY NOW.



There are many more--"The task of filling up the blanks I'd rather leave to you."

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Feb 08 - 11:10 PM

There are several women on this site who seem to hate Hillary with a truly pathological hatred, GG, even morseo than their male counteparts do. I have noticed that. I don't know why they hate her that much, but they do.

My own mother (a true political junkie) hates Hillary with a pathological hatred. She called her a "bitch" the other day. Astounding! My mother never uses such language. Well, never until Hillary.

She thinks Obama's great and she loves Michelle Obama too. She is very upset that Nader has entered the race.

How about that, eh? ;-) And she's Canadian, and can't even vote in your election.

Me, I've always sort of liked Hillary. She seems like a smart lady. I don't like the machine behind her much, don't trust 'em. I don't trust the machine that backs Obama much either, however.

I think you might be on the wrong track with this notion of misogyny playing a big part in the Hillary-hating, as it's my impression that a great many women hate her with a vengeance for whatever reason...and certainly so do a great many men, but I don't think misogyny has much to do with that. I think partisanship has the most to do with it.

It doesn't explain my mother's hatred of Hillary, though, because my Mother always prefers Democrats to Republicans. She regards most Republicans the way you might regard some loathsome, demonic creature that just crawled out of an open coffin.

She seems to regard Hillary pretty much the same way.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 25 Feb 08 - 11:16 PM

Clearly we travel in different circles. Nearly every woman I know, excepting my female African American friends and work colleagues, is pretty pro-Clinton.

And nearly all of my female African American friends and work colleagues was supporting Clinton until about January, when Obama won Iowa.

Now, many of my women friends and colleagues aren't huge fans of hers, it is true. But none of them has the pathological hatred you see in many of these women's husbands, just as a for instance. Or the men who are now supporting Obama--it is like it's become open season for really dark sexist abuse of her.

So, sure there are some women here with a pathological hatred of Hilary. I'm also guessing there are a few women here who plan to vote for her.

OTOH, how many Mudcat men have come out to champion the cause of Hilary Clinton?

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: Amos
Date: 25 Feb 08 - 11:49 PM

I have not for one, but it is because I do not find her trustworthy; Barack appears more open and honest, and more principled. Of late, both their rhetorics have gotten so blown up I can't see them clearly at the moment; so I am relying on the data I had before things heated up some. I think, on the whole Obama is smarter than Hilary in several important ways; and probably vice-versa. But I believe in he final analysis that Barack Obama is a better person, whatever that means.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: Riginslinger
Date: 26 Feb 08 - 01:33 AM

I would support Hillary because I think she has a better chance of beating McCain. None of the pundits agree with me, but they change their minds on a regular basis. I find it hard to understand why so many men don't like her. I personally think it has more to do with the men than with her.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 26 Feb 08 - 08:24 AM

Yes, pundits opinions are tied very closely to their polling data, so changes with the wind.

The only 'conventional wisdom' out there among media pundits is "everyone hates Hilary and is going to vote for Obama--isn't that an amazing shift?"

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Feb 08 - 08:27 AM

What I'm talking about is I understand the other side.

But "the other side" isn't going to vote for either Clinton or Obama. And the evidence appears to be is that non-aligned voters are more likely to come out to vote for Obama than for Clinton.
.............................

So far as Hillary Clinton is concerned, I don't think it's by any means just sexism that she's up against. I suspect that for a lot of people what puts them off Clinton is more that she seems so much in control of herself, and unspontaneous. A bit wooden in fact - in contrast to Bill who is is able to come across as open and spontaneous. And in contrast to Michelle Obama as well,incidentally.

The irony is that in some ways this wooden quality is one Hillary Clinton shares with Obama. But he seems better at rising above it and letting loose with the enthusiasm and passion when the occasion demands it. Al Gore and Kerrey also had the same wooden quality, and it didn't help them at all.

An element of diffidence isn't a bad thing in a politician of course - it would have been better if Clinton had been a bit less spontaneous in his dealings with Monica, for example. But it doesn't help when it comes to getting selected or elected. Probably more damaging than the occasional indiscreet remark.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 26 Feb 08 - 08:31 AM

McGrath, if you truly believe no Republicans will ever vote for Clinton or Obama, then there is no hope that either of them will in November, and no hope of ever breaking out of the partisan wars.

Period.

Is that what you truly believe?

You see, I don't believe that, and I actually live in this country. I live in a part of the country where the partisan battles haven't been as polarized as in some places. I live in a part of the country where it isn't considered the least bit unusual to cross party lines to vote for the candidate you want.

So when people are dismissive in their attitudes like you are being in that last post, I know one thing for certain. They are quite happy with the partisan status quo.

One thing about the partisan status quo I really hate--Republicans keep winning the game.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Feb 08 - 12:04 PM

I took "the other side" as meaning the committed kind of Republican, rather than all those who have voted Republican, or been registered as Republicans.   And the indications seem to be that, when it comes to voters who aren't committed, Obama is better placed than Clinton. These kind of issues sound more like stuff that would appeal to people who were already settled opponents rather than would turn off people who had been finding Obama attractive.

The other suggestion I have seen is that there are signs that Obama is capable of getting significant support from within the very large pool of people who would normally be expected no to vote at all, a pool which is larger than the number of people who normally vote for either one of the parties.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Feb 08 - 01:29 PM

Isn't it the candidate to whom the independents swing who is most likely to win? I hear that there are a lot of independents in the USA now. It seems more likely to me that they would vote Democratic this time, simply because people have gotten pretty fed up with the Bush administration's performance in the last 7 years.

I really wish that Huckabee and Ron Paul would both run on their own independent tickets...but I guess they figure that they would destroy their own political futures in so doing...since they would become persona non grata to the main machine...as represented by the mighty Duopoly.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Feb 08 - 01:42 PM

You know, it just occurred to me...what is really tremendously wrong in the USA political scene is your "winner-take-all" system. What would be far better would be to have proportional representation in Congress...and a bunch of different parties to represent different shades of opinion. Under such a system the Democrats and Republicans would not be able to maintain their present stranglehold on the government. No party would be able to. A number of smaller parties would soon have to find ways to work together in Congress to pass legislation and determine policy, and that would be far more democratic.

What you have now is a sort of renewable elected dictatorship in which the last big winner gets to call the shots until the next election. That's what we have in Canada too. I think it's a lousy system.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Feb 08 - 03:14 PM

Oh, I think it would work better than the present monopoly system of governing.

Monopolies do not encourage either honesty or fairness. You see, if you want to gain a consensus, then you have to propose something fair and reasonable, don't you?

If you have a dominant majority, then you can ram through anything you want to by what amounts to political brute force, and all you need fear is that distant election, somewhere down the road.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: irishenglish
Date: 26 Feb 08 - 03:24 PM

"If you have a dominant majority, then you can ram through anything you want to by what amounts to political brute force." Um...doesn't having a majority in a democratic republic, mean that you are screwed if you're in the minority because nothing of your agenda will get fair play? In other words, we lived through a Republican President, and a Republican controlled House and Senate. It sucked, but we survived. I would rather have that than all of these endless coalitions (such as in Europe) that survive for about 3 months before it breaks apart again.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Feb 08 - 05:30 PM

Not me. I'll go for coalitions anytime. I don't care if they are shortlived. The best governments we've ever had in Canada, in my opinion, were the minority governments (when the governing party had to bargain with a third party in order to pass legislation). Minority governments are more responsible, more democratic, and less dictatorial in their nature.

What you really need to have a progressive and fair society IS the continual expression of good will and honest intent toward establishing a consensus...and that has been recognized in some of the wiser cultures on this planet. It was the basis, for example, of negotiation and government in most aboriginal societies in North America.

To base a society on the maintenance of mutually competitive power blocs and institutionalized, formalized division is downright stupid. It encourages people to think in terms OF such division as being a normal thing. It reduces domestic politics into a form of warfare. As Lincoln once wisely said, "A house divided against itself cannot stand."

He was right.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Feb 08 - 05:46 PM

Looks like at least one totally inoffensive post from GG was deleted out of the last few posts on this thread.

May I ask why?

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: irishenglish
Date: 26 Feb 08 - 06:06 PM

So is it those coalitions that keep Quebec from independence, or the other way around in Canada? As to where you get less dictatorial and more democratic from I don't know. Your basic principles are valid and sound, but the achievability of those goals is questionable. Would you have me not cast a vote in this election because those goals are unattainable in the present climate? No, I will vote for the person whose ideals are closest to mine, and continue to work and speak for change. And at this point, coalitions in the European sense will not work in this country.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Feb 08 - 06:14 PM

This is drifting the thread, but I got curious. As I understand it the internal voting arrangements in US states is a matter for them to decide for themselves. So I was wondering whether any of them have introduced a proportional voting system or a single transferable vote system, which would be likely to result in a multi-party set-up at a state level?

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Feb 08 - 06:19 PM

Goodness, no! Perish the thought that I would take your right to vote for the party of your choice away from you. ;-) One must do the best one can with an ongoing situation.

************

I think that the primary forces keeping Quebec in Canada so far have been...

1. $$$$ (Big financial incentives to Quebec to stay in.)

2. The sheer inertia of the historical status quo in Canada, which is considerable.

3. The tacit (though unstated) willingness of the Canadian federal government to use military force, if necessary, to keep Quebec in Confederation.

4. The tacit (if unstated) total unwillingness of most Quebecois to lose their lives pointlessly over such an unnecessary and foolish conflict.

3. and, of course more $$$$$$$$$$!!!!

Bribery often works far better than threats. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: irishenglish
Date: 26 Feb 08 - 06:23 PM

Cheers Little Hawk!

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: artbrooks
Date: 26 Feb 08 - 06:51 PM

McGrath, if I understand what you mean by proportional representation, it involves voting for a party rather than for individuals, and the party receives representation according to the percentage of the vote it receives. Am I anywhere close? The US Constitution requires that Senators and Representatives be directly elected, so the states wouldn't have the ability to go to a proportional representation system even if they wanted to. Besides, we like the option of electing the odd Socialist or Libertarian from time to time!

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Feb 08 - 07:26 PM

There are various systems which get lumped together as "proportional representation", though technically some of them aren't.

The simplest is where there is a single transferable vote - voters put the candidates in order of preference (or maybe pick their preferred three in order of preferance, in the London Mayoral version), and the ones at the bottom get eliminated, so the vote moves to the second choice, and so forth.

It means that the winning candidate is the one who is seen by most voters as best, or at any rate as least worst. Whereas under first-past-the-post it is perfectly possible (in fact it frequently happens) to get someone elected who is loathed by most of the voters, if their votes were distributed between two or more other candidates.

I'd imagine that a single transferable vote system would be quite compatible with the constitutional requirement you mentioned, art, since it does involve direct election. And it could make it easier for people to elect "the odd Socialist or Libertarian from time to time".

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Feb 08 - 07:34 PM

No, you still vote for the individual you like best in your riding...although your vote is usually influenced quite a bit by their party affiliation, in all likelihood.

The seated national assembly, however, must seat a number of members that in some way approximates proportional representation of the various parties' national support at the polls. There are a variety of ways of doing that, and it can get somewhat complex as to how it is done.

The best way of voting, I think, is to have an instant run-off in each riding. That is, you don't just vote for one person when you vote. You vote for all those running, but in the order of your preference from most favorite to least.

So if I have 5 people running in my riding, then I indicate on my ballot my choice of...

# 1
# 2
# 3
# 4
# 5

The results are all tabulated on computer, in a database. If none of the candidates receives a clear majority in that riding, then the computer drops the candidate with the least votes, and rechecks the database. That process continues until one candidate does secure a majority of votes.

It's a bit like the process at a political leadership convention...but without all the hoopla. It can be done quite quickly once the ballots are recorded in the computer.

This method usually avoids the injustices that occur when a party with, say, only 37%$ popular support defeats two or three dissimilar parties, any of whom would get more than 37% of the vote if they were running on their own against that first party!.

For instance, the conservatives in this country would very seldom win a Canadian election at all were the opposing votes not split between the liberals and the socialists...to put it in very general terms...because only about 1/3 of the Canadian public generally supports what is normally termed a conservative viewpoint in North American politics.

Yet, with a winner-take-all system in place, the conservatives frequently win elections, despite representing what is clearly a minority of the voters in this country. So a minority of voters gets a majority voice in government!

The fact that there is a winner-take-all system in place in the USA is precisely what has so far prevented any third party from becoming a truly viable force in American elections.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: artbrooks
Date: 26 Feb 08 - 07:57 PM

I really don't think that is the reason we have never had a true third party. Rather, it is related to what you call "winner-take-all", and the fact that the two major parties have both breadth and depth. That is, they are all over the country, although there are certainly regional strengths and weaknesses, and they present candidates at all levels of government - from town councils to President. "Political machine" is generally considered to be a dirty word(s), but the fact is that the electoral process, from top to bottom, is dominated by the two parties. And they are, by the way, very different, regardless of what some people may say.

The other parties, Libertarian, Socialist, Green and so forth, rarely participate below the level of national representative (Congressman or Senator) or state governor. There are some limited exceptions; some cities have elected Socialist mayors in the past, although I don't think we have one right now. If the US were ever to have a third party, and I'm really not talking about the scant chance of an Independent winning the Presidency, that party will have to organize from the dog catcher level on up, and do it on a national basis.

Probably the best->next best->third choice system you describe is constitutionally allowable. Whether it could ever be voted in by a state legislature dominated by the Big Two is doubtful.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Feb 08 - 08:08 PM

Presumably the American way of getting this kind of reform at state level, if people wanted it, would be via some kind of referendum - as an Electoral Proposition.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 26 Feb 08 - 09:00 PM

The Green party has been pushing hard for prop rep, and we now have it in Minneapolis & St Paul for local elections.

I don't know what the "US Constitution" argument is against it. To my knowledge, there is nothing in the Constitution that says you can't have prop rep.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: Riginslinger
Date: 26 Feb 08 - 09:35 PM

GG - Could you explain what prop rep is?

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: artbrooks
Date: 26 Feb 08 - 09:40 PM

GUEST,guest, the Constitution says that Senators and Representatives are directly elected, and does not provide for a division according to the percentage of votes the different parties receive. I really don't know where the first choice -> second choice system, commonly referred to as proportional voting or single transferable voting, would fall out if (1) it were passed into law and (2) faced a constitutional challenge.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Feb 08 - 09:43 PM

"proportional representation"

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: Riginslinger
Date: 26 Feb 08 - 10:35 PM

Yeah, it's not likely to happen, but if there were just some way to advance "outside the box" thinking, the country would certainly be a better place.
                   The two major parties aren't going to let that happen, and they've sold their soles to the company store. Where does that leave us?

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: Amos
Date: 26 Feb 08 - 10:38 PM

One step ahead of where we would be if Hil was elected, Rig.


Every step ahead counts.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: Riginslinger
Date: 26 Feb 08 - 11:34 PM

I don't see Obama abandoning the party. They own him and the corporations own it.

                How did the Republicans chase the Whigs out, anyway?

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: Peter Kasin
Date: 27 Feb 08 - 03:16 AM

Did anyone really answer Guestguest's question about who would vote for Obama, beyond his core followers, and what evidence there is of that?

GuestG, I think he would attract more independents and some moderate Republicans in the general elecion than you might think. There is evidence of it: He has already done well among independents in open primaries, and has gotten Republican votes in those primaries as well, and not the "mischief" type of crossover voting. President Eisenhower's granddaughter, a lifelong Republican, wrote an opinion piece endorsing Obama, for one. He has demonstrated appeal to moderate Republicans who are disturbed by the direction their party has taken. The big question is whether McCain will shift more to the center when he goes into general election mode, and win back a good portion of the Obama-leaning Repubs and moderate independents.

As for independents to the left of him, now that Nader has entered the race, who knows what will happen there. So many variables in this election!

Guest, to be clear, is it your position that Hillary would attract more independents than Obama?

Chanteyranger

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 27 Feb 08 - 08:02 AM

Oh, I'm not saying he won't draw indies & some Republicans. Quite the contrary, I think the Democratic candidate, whomever it is, will do that because of the anger at the Republican party right now.

I also think Nader will draw from that same pool, as will Ron Paul if he decides to go indie, or Libertarian again (why does everyone not seem to know Ron Paul has run as the Libertarian party candidate in the past?).

But here is what I think is most likely to happen with Obama. I think he is already peaking in terms of his popularity. The media destroyed the Edwards campaign by refusing to cover it, choosing to put all the coverage on the two historic horse race candidates that weren't historic. Clinton isn't the first woman and Obama isn't the first African American, so that has always been a bogus claim the media used to rationalize and justify their annointing the winners before voters hit the voting booths.

So out beyond the primaries we get. So many things can happen between now and November with the economy and with Iraq. Now, in most elections, the economy tanking would mean the current president's party would lose. Except there isn't an incumbent running, so we can't throw the bum out, as usually happens during economic recessions.

So, if the voters choose to vote their pocketbooks, whom do they vote for in November? McCain or Obama?

McCain is the devil you know, he'll undoubtedly pass another 'stimulus' package when he gets into office, as will the Democrat. Both will be superficial, and meant to appease voters without ruffling Wall Street's feathers too much.

So, who do you vote for if you are an independent (about 1/3 of the voters in my state) or a disgruntled Republican or Democrat?

Answer: it's a toss up at this point, and the end result could be a low voter turnout in the fall, which also happens when times are bad.

And low voter turnout, in recent elections, has favored Republicans.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: Amos
Date: 27 Feb 08 - 10:27 AM

Who would vote for him?

He's just won eleven regional primary contests or caucuses, often by a 60 to 40 ratio, and you're wondering who would vote for him? WTF?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 27 Feb 08 - 11:14 PM

No matter what way you spin it Amos, you always spin it so you are right, and your True Blue candidate (you quickly leap on the bandwagon of any Democratic candidate that will be the party's choice, and stick with them hell or high water) is the 'the only logical, rational choice'.

I fully understand that is your truth as you see it. But really Amos, it gets so tiresome, you always trying to dictate to others how they should think, feel, believe, and vote.

That 60/40 ratio is among a small percentage of the voters who actually will turn out for a primary. Have more people turned out than usual this year? Yes. In record numbers? No. The numbers are roughly the same as they were for Clinton in 1992.

Get a grip, man. It's a long way to go to November. Most people are still very much ignoring anything to do with the election.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: Amos
Date: 27 Feb 08 - 11:20 PM

Geeze, Gigi, there is nothing more assertive in my post than in the -- to me -- bewildering assertion, "Who would vote for him", which requires a complete ignoral of the remarkable groundswell that has developed in support of his bid. The tens of thousands at his rallies are all chopped liver?

I was genuinely gobsmacked at the question, is all.

As for asserting my point of view, I plead guilty. I thik it is often a common failing among those who have one to assert -- you yourself being another excellent example, not so?


Peace,


A

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 27 Feb 08 - 11:25 PM

Amos, you have a lot of leisure time apparently, and seem pretty damn obsessed with the election this year, just like you were last time. And last time you went off the deep end by the time the election rolled around. Your hatred of the other is so palpable. It just isn't natural or humane--to yourself first, but to anyone else either.

Maybe it's time for a break.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: Amos
Date: 27 Feb 08 - 11:42 PM

You misunderestimate me, but I appreciate the faint perfume of concern behind your words.

First of all, I do not hate people, generally. But I grieve for and get aggrieved by acts of dramatization or "ugly thinking", ignoral, and similar mental blunders which have terrible consequences. The reason I got aggrieved at the last election was that I was smelling the spilled blood of thousand of children and adults who never needed to go through the traumas they did, except for the hamfisted intervention of gross stupidity. So I rail against the Bush administration, not because I hate the individuals themselves, but because they collectively are responsible for murder, mayhem, and human suffering on dishonest grounds.

As for going off the deep end, well I seem to be pretty operational at present. Sure -- I take the course of human events seriously, but I ain't completely nuts -- if I am protesting something, I can usually tell you what it is.

But thanks for the guidance; I shall take it under advisement.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 28 Feb 08 - 07:30 AM

Well, you and I part company in terms of whom we fault for the current state of affairs. Politicians do what politicians do, and voters need to get on board with the level of mayhem they cause when we start electing crooks and scoundrels because they mouth the platitudes we want to hear--the 'feel good' candidates, in other words.

So as far as the Bush/Cheney debacle, I fault the voters who voted for Bush/Cheney, and to lesser extent, the Democratic party leadership for not fielding any decent alternatives to the crooks and scoundrels.

But really--it is the voters who voted for Bush/Cheney that got us into this mess with their blind allegiance to the party.

Ironic isn't it, how 'left wing purity' is what gets the bad rap, when it is right wing purity that is destroying the nation before our eyes?

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Feb 08 - 09:07 AM

"...you always trying to dictate to others how they should think, feel, believe. and vote."

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: Amos
Date: 28 Feb 08 - 11:10 AM

We don't part that far, Gigi...my biggest and deepest upset in the Kerry Bush election was with the abysmal, moronic unthyinkingness of the voters who could not see through the thin facade of supercilious righteous jingoism presented in defense of the Rove-Wolfowitz-Rumsfield "axis of effective evil". I could not believe I lived in a country formed on such intelligent ideals and degraded into such muttonheaded stupidity.

But a man put in office, even if elected by morons, has the obligation to see further than their blind spots, whereas Bush was the embodiment and poster-child of blind spots.

So it was not inaccurate, and a lot more convenient, to rail against his Gang of Seven than it would have been to find names for, and complain about, 150 million voters. :D


A

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: Riginslinger
Date: 28 Feb 08 - 09:22 PM

There's no reason to think that those political assassins won't be right back at it the moment they know for sure who the candidate is.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: Don Firth
Date: 28 Feb 08 - 09:40 PM

Besides,

If you can keep your head while others are losing theirs,
You don't know what the hell is going on!
                               —paraphrase of Rudyard Kipling

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: Riginslinger
Date: 28 Feb 08 - 11:12 PM

Boy, wouldn't it be nice to slow things down to the pace of Rudyard Kipling.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: Stringsinger
Date: 29 Feb 08 - 10:02 AM

Obama is as much a patriot as anyone else in this race. McCain is a warlord.
Obama at least will talk to people and not bomb them. (We hope!)

A true patriot cares enough about his country to check it when it is doing the wrong or immoral things. Tom Paine was a patriot who was arrested for criticizing.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: Amos
Date: 29 Feb 08 - 11:19 AM

Patriotism is not defined by the willilngness to murder people in your country's name; it is defined by the will to use intellilgence, energy, and good will to improve the economics, rights, freedoms and ideals of the nation. Dead people is NOT an ideal for this nation, even when it becomes a necessary measure of defense, which is a helluva lot less often than it gets cracked up to be.

If an individual has "dead people" as an ideal, he is temporarily or chronically insane.

That's why I am worried about John McCain. His 100-year-war predictions strike me as a madness invested in prophecy, not an analytical effort at describing the future.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: artbrooks
Date: 29 Feb 08 - 11:39 AM

Amos, you surely know he didn't predict a 100 year war, right?

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: Amos
Date: 29 Feb 08 - 02:34 PM

Actually my remark is a conflation of two statements he did make, one to the effect that he'd be perfectly content for us to stay in Iraq for 100 years. The second was his promise there would be more wars.

So, yes, I know, literally, he did not predict 100 years of war. Sorry.

But I think he mind's predilection toward war has all the signs of a self-fulfilling belielf, IMHO. When I try to foresee the future with him at the helm, versus the future with Barack at the helm, I see a lot more bloodshed and chaos in the former because McCain is predisposed to military action, while Obama is predisposed to not use war as a means of diplomacy except when all other resources fail.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: Ron Davies
Date: 29 Feb 08 - 09:59 PM

Gee, Janet, it's interesting that you have exactly zero evidence to put up against the 5 good reasons I gave for not caring for Hillary's campaign. As I indicated, that's just the start--and absolutely none have anything to do with criticism of her as a woman--in fact several of them may stem from her delightful spouse--for whom I voted twice. (But he has very efficiently annihilated his own good reputation in several circles while "helping" Hillary. I would not be tempted to vote for him anymore for any post above dogcatcher.)

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: artbrooks
Date: 29 Feb 08 - 10:01 PM

Dogcatcher is really a very responsible position...

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 01 Mar 08 - 09:30 AM

Ron, I'm ignoring you and your 'demands' that people provide you with 'proof' of whatever bullshit line you are trolling with on any given day.

Hope the Obamamania thing works out for you. I know you find it far more comforting than thinking critically for yourself. Most True Blue leaners, just like most True Red leaners, have those lemming tendencies to let others think for them.

But way to be a foot soldier for the cause.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: Ron Davies
Date: 01 Mar 08 - 01:16 PM

Janet--


So sorry you don't like requests for evidence, sources, and logic. Seems that may say something about your intellectual abilities.

And of course, one might note you are not in fact ignoring me--otherwise you would have said nothing to me. So you're wrong on that, too. Congratulations.

And no other Hillary partisan has come up with any answer to reasons people might not care for her campaign.

Also, I agree with Art. Dogcatcher is a very responsible position. One I think might well fit Bill Clinton pretty well. So I would vote for him for that office.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 01 Mar 08 - 01:29 PM

I'm so devastated by your insults, Ron.

Now then, since I'm not ignoring you today, how about you explain yourself this. I'm guessing most posters here accept at face value what I've said about Hilary Clinton, ie that I most definitely wouldn't support or vote for her.

Which begs the question, why do keep trying to portray me as a closet Hillary operative (or whatever it is you are trying to paint me as), eh Ron?

I think you are a deeply fearful person, Ron, and insecure as hell about yer man Obama.

Could it have anything to do with the fact that Clinton has nepotism on her side, what with her VERY popular former president husband?

You know--the ONLY Democrat to beat the Republicans in a quarter century?

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: Amos
Date: 01 Mar 08 - 02:21 PM

That was then, Gigi. THis is now. :D


A

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 01 Mar 08 - 02:54 PM

Is your name Ron?

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: Amos
Date: 01 Mar 08 - 03:20 PM

For an interesting comparison see this article in the Times.


A-whose-secret-name-just-may-be-Ron

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: Ron Davies
Date: 01 Mar 08 - 06:21 PM

Janet--

You're doing a wonderful job of ignoring me, as you promised you'd do.    Do all of your promises last that long? I on the other hand made no promise to ignore you.   In fact as long as you talk nonsense I will point this out. If you start making sense--with logic, evidence and sources-- I will be glad to discuss issues with you. Simple as that.

I note with interest that you still have no answer to any of the points I made on why Hillary's campaign is repugnant.   

And in fact there are more. A recent one is her decision to wrap herself in the mantle of Ann Richards, claiming that she would have supported her---even though Ann's survivors are split on this--one endorses Hillary, 2 do not. Yet despite the wishes of the family, as expressed to the Hillary campaign, they went ahead on and put on the commercial.

And now (Source:   WSJ 1 Mar 2008) Hillary is "looking hard at the Texas two-step process..."    "The Texas Democratic Party charged that Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign 'threatened' to challenge aspects of the state's two-step nominating process". Chad Dunn, the state party's lawyer--NB--not Obama workers, but the state party--- , "and other party workers went out of their way to characterize the campaign's actions as 'threats of litigation' ''.

"Glen W Smith, who ran the late Ann Richard's 1990 gubernatorial campaign"---so much for any likely blanket endorsement of Hillary by Ann Richards, were she still alive--"called the Clinton actions a "victory at all costs strategy" and said it could 'blow up' efforts to revitalize the state party".

This woman is getting desperate--and it's not a pretty sight.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Mar 08 - 06:25 PM

So what's your name, guest?

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Mar 08 - 07:21 PM

These bitchy little feuds on the political threads are so entertaining that I wonder why some of them haven't gotten into "National Enquirer" or "News of the World" yet?

I can see it now at the grocery line checkout....

"GG Ignoring Ron Davies again!"

"Ron Davies: 'Where's Your Proof?'"

"Amos horns in on GG-Ron Davies Feud! GG says, 'You're not Ron!'"

I swear...it's better material than Jen and Brad and Angelina. At least, I think so.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 Mar 08 - 07:26 PM

Well, Little Hawk, it keeps 'em off the streets. . . .

Don Firth (posting as GUEST,Smart-Ass)

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Mar 08 - 07:27 PM

Heh! Heh! Yes, Don, there is that...

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 02 Mar 08 - 10:16 AM

Easily entertained, aren't we? It's been a long and dry stretch since the victory lap on Feb 6th, hasn't it?

At least the SNL skit was entertaining.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Mar 08 - 10:51 AM

What victory lap on Feb 6th? I don't recall a victory lap around here since the end of WWII.

Look, as entertainment goes...it's cheap, okay?

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: Amos
Date: 02 Mar 08 - 11:05 AM

HillaryÕs boys pout that the press should find some dirt on Obama before time runs out. Their once fearsome campaign is now reduced to whining that Obama did not hold any substantive hearings of his Subcommittee on European Affairs. WhatÕs next? Bitterly complaining that he missed a quorum call?

Hillary keeps trying to dismiss ObamaÕs appeal as emotional, something that can be overcome with enough mental discipline. But behind that ethereal presence heÕs a wonky lawyer, just like Hillary. He reads The Times and Philip Roth and talks about the fine points of Medicare Part B in a way W. never could have when he first ran for president. (Or now.)

HillaryÕs visceral attacks will not work. And the RepublicansÕ visceral attacks on the ObamasÕ patriotism, and their usual attempt to make the Democrat seem foreign (Hussein, Hussein, Hussein!), may not have the same traction.

The president took the country to war on his gut, exploited our fears and played the patriotism card to advance his political agenda.

This time, Americans may prefer cerebral arguments to visceral ones. What a refreshing change reality would be. ..."


((Maureen Dowd, TImes)

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Mar 08 - 11:07 AM

Could you please find a way of censoring out the little alien creatures that keep intruding in the text of your cut and pastes, Amos? It's very distracting.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 02 Mar 08 - 11:14 AM

Better yet, could you please stop cutting an pasting shit no one reads (including you, it seems half the time) as your preferred rebuttal tactic against people who don't want to debate you?

Just a thought.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 02 Mar 08 - 11:28 AM

I was referring to Obama's victory lap on Feb 6th, when he swept the primaries.

It is incredibly dull when a Clinton media hack starts whining about the coverage when it is unfair to her. But not, of course, when it was unfair to and disadvantaged Dennis Kucinich and John Edwards.

Not to worry, though. We are but days away from all the Hilary haters banding together to sing a rousing chorus of 'Ding Dong the Witch is Dead'.

And we can begin learning to love the bomb, and the government America deserves.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: Amos
Date: 02 Mar 08 - 12:13 PM

Actually, Gigi, I thought Maureen's remarks were quite on subject, and worth looking over.

If you choose to dismiss them as "shit", to use your word, and dismiss them out of hand, that's your attitude, not a reflection on their merit as ideas.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Mar 08 - 12:19 PM

I gather those little creatures in place of apostrophes don't show up on Amos's screen. I'm glad you see them too Little Hawk - I was beginninh t think maybe I was hallucinating...

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Mar 08 - 02:34 PM

Scary, aren't they? I fear the day when they start migrating from Amos's posts into the adjacent ones.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: artbrooks
Date: 02 Mar 08 - 02:38 PM

I think it is a function of c&p from the New York Times' web page - something weird about the HTML.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 02 Mar 08 - 03:20 PM

A blue clicky link suffices most times. I occassionally cut & paste like everyone else, especially when the link maker isn't working.

But that isn't usually the case.

It is just a real nasty habit to get into using as a preferred method of rebutting something another poster has said that one disagrees with. And the shit rarely gets read by anyone anyway, because they know the tactic when they see it.

As I said, I'm guilty as charged in this regard too--even did it today over on the Prince Harry the Hero thread, when I couldn't get the blue clicky to post the link. But I try not to do it very often.

But there are some offenders who do this far more than is necessary, and they seem to be hanging out largely in the pro-Obama camp right now.

And god help us, we aren't anywhere near the November election yet!

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Mar 08 - 03:31 PM

You don't need a link maker to make a link. You just need the magic formula. (Which is somewhere in FAQ.) I don't think I've ever used the linkmaker. (That's partly because I don't understand how to do it.)

Basic rule when tempted to cut and paste is, I think, you give an indication why you think some article is worth reading and is relevant, a link to it, and a shortish extract cut and pasted, as a taster.

But sometimes there's just a passage in an article which is particularly relevant, and it makes sense to paste that one. But I think it should always be accompanied by a link to the whole thing, so people can see the context, if they wish.

And the other thing is that sometimes an article might not be linkable - perhaps it's liable to be removed from the original, or perhaps it's on a paysite.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 02 Mar 08 - 03:51 PM

Agreed, there are a lot of news sites now (NYT & Washington Post spring to mind) that require registration, so the link may or may not work.

Still, then the thing to do is be judicious in what you choose to paste here.

But the most important thing to remember is not to use cut and paste as a tactic for screaming down other posters you disagree with--and that is happening A LOT right now with certain Obamamaniacs.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: Amos
Date: 02 Mar 08 - 04:01 PM

Guilty as charged, although I have often posted just links.   I feel strongly, sometimes, about the particular phrases of a writer that I paste so they can be embodied in the thread. Other times, as Janet points out, I am just being a jerk.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 02 Mar 08 - 04:08 PM

And need not feel lonely in that regard around here, either Amos. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Mar 08 - 05:05 PM

One thing about cut and pastes - I find that when someone posts a long one I just scroll past it without reading. Whereas a link with a sentence or two that rouses my curiosity, and I click on it and read the whole thing.

And generally articles are much easier to read in the original layout than they are in a thread, because of the layout. And this tends to enable them to come across with much more authority. (Sometimes unjustifiably so.)

Moral being (assuming I'm not unique in this regard), if we want to use an article to strengthen our argument, putting in a link and a taste is the way to do it.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: Amos
Date: 02 Mar 08 - 05:09 PM

Self-knowledge is a wonderful virtue, Janet! :D


A

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: Ron Davies
Date: 02 Mar 08 - 09:14 PM

Still patiently waiting for any answer by any Hillary supporter to any of the many reasons I have given for not caring for her campaign--none of which are dependent on the fact that she is a woman, and some of which are dependent on the wonderful contributions of her delightful spouse.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 02 Mar 08 - 09:27 PM

Try throwing down your gauntlet in a Hilary thread, Ron. I don't know that Hil's supporters are reading your Obama threads.

Or, we'll give you a call when hell freezes over!

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: Riginslinger
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 03:01 PM

"...(reasons for) not caring for her campaign... some of which are dependent on the wonderful contributions of her delightful spouse."


                   Yes, most of Bill contributions were wonderful. NATA is questionable, but might have been passed without him, and then there's the failure of Kosovo. Everything else he did seemed pretty positive to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 05:19 PM

Whether it's a "Hillary" thread or an "Obama" thread doesn't really make much difference - in both cases they are about the contest and therefore about both of them. And also about McCain too.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama lacks 'patriotism'????????????????
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 05:35 PM

Ron - "Still patiently waiting for any answer by any Hillary supporter to any of the many reasons I have given for not caring for her campaign..."

LOL!!! Bullshit, Ron. Total and utter claptrap. Codswallop. ;-) Be honest, man! The only thing you ever wait for from such posters (and you do not do it patiently) is another statement of theirs that you can gleefully pounce on, ridicule, trash, and drench in your unique brand of sarcasm...while demanding PROOF of all their allegations (as if they lived to waste their time looking up more links and stuff to satisfy Ron Davies).

But you restrict this technique only to the political threads. Why? There are so many other juicy subjects available on this forum to which you could bring the same sort of witty and urbane silver stilleto attack posts. Why not start today? All those other unblemished threads are out there waiting for the CEO of Personal Attacks 'R Us to drop in.


****

p.s. I share your assessment of the general sleaziness of the Clinton political machine.