 sj |
||
|
||
BS: The Real Obama
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 22 Jul 08 - 09:45 PM Not all of them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: Riginslinger Date: 22 Jul 08 - 09:35 PM Well, that media seems to be all in for Obama! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: Donuel Date: 22 Jul 08 - 06:18 PM The media* knows how to turn the world on a dime. all someone has to do is drop a dime on Baraack. When I say media, I am thinking the ruling class that owns most of the banks, capital and Congress. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: Riginslinger Date: 22 Jul 08 - 06:10 PM Yes, the voter doesn't have much of a choice in this election. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: Little Hawk Date: 22 Jul 08 - 05:58 PM I agree, Strinsinger. It isn't hard at all to make Obama look better than McCain. In fact, it's effortless. McCain is a surprisingly poor candidate for the Republicans, in my opinion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 22 Jul 08 - 05:32 PM >>> The MSNBC crew are bunch of vacuous bobble-heads incapable of legitimate journalism. True but they are a lot better journalists than CNN. Not to mention Fox. PBS and NPR are pretty good but they fall for the "any right wingnut who disagrees is balance" line way too much. "Scientist find fossil evidence of a single woman which all people are descended from in Africa" "No, she had to be a white woman and it was only six thousand years ago says Pastor Loudbelly Blinkerbrain of The Shutupandlistento The Word Church in Brotherlover Kentucky. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: Stringsinger Date: 22 Jul 08 - 05:16 PM The idea that the press doesn't like to be told what to do is a big joke. They take their orders from the corporate headquarters. The MSNBC crew are bunch of vacuous bobble-heads incapable of legitimate journalism. Olbermann may be the exception there. Obama is being made to look good because McCain is so terrible. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: Donuel Date: 22 Jul 08 - 05:11 PM The only real Barack character I have found in a Hollywood movie is a sci fi flick called "This Island Earth" Barack is the Alien who is evil for a good reason. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: Donuel Date: 22 Jul 08 - 04:56 PM True , it used to be the October surprise. We used to see Thanksgiving decorations in stores before Xmas too. Now is a festive combination of Xmas/Halloween decorations. Almost poetic isn't it. The real Obama is a huge impediment to the safety of all our war criminals. If he were smart he would cut a deal to insure that the Bush crew stays out of prison. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 22 Jul 08 - 03:01 PM In Canada, Christmas starts November 1 In the US we have Thanksgiving in between Halloween and Christmas. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: Little Hawk Date: 22 Jul 08 - 02:55 PM Election campaigns and Christmas. Both very expensive. Both very long. Both offering much more than they deliver. Both apparently unavoidable. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: GUEST,Morris Date: 22 Jul 08 - 01:33 PM It's the October surprise, I believe. Please don't rush us into election mode any sooner than necessary; the election sale ads last long enough as it is. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: Little Hawk Date: 22 Jul 08 - 01:25 PM Nor I. I hope the "September surprise" does not bear similarities to one we had about 7 years ago. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: Riginslinger Date: 22 Jul 08 - 12:58 PM I can't wait! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: Donuel Date: 22 Jul 08 - 10:43 AM As George Carlin said, "if its advertised as REAL, it isn't. The only thing I have ever seen literally thrown under a bus in Washington DC was a phone booth during a mass demonstration against yet another war. We are in the whining stage of the campaign by McCain. The September surprise is designed to occur just soon enough for the alledged scandal to sink in but not enough time to fully regute it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: Amos Date: 22 Jul 08 - 10:13 AM Gee, Morris, that was a really interesting point of view. Well, a little bit, anyway... A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: GUEST,Morris Date: 22 Jul 08 - 08:56 AM The only people paying attention to the election are pundits, media whores, and political junkies. Once Obama won the nomination, everyone began to ignore him, McCain, and their circuses. All this conjecturing and pontificating is inside the Beltway echo chamber crap. Especially the "foreign" trip to look presidential. What's on pay per view, honey? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: Riginslinger Date: 22 Jul 08 - 08:13 AM "Dang. Now he's thrown the Irish under the bus. Where will it stop?" It won't stop any time soon. I have it on good authority that he's headed for Germany. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: Little Hawk Date: 22 Jul 08 - 07:04 AM Their desperate search for something, anything to raise controversy about is reminiscent of an ape searching fruitlessly through another ape's fur for a flea that cannot be found.... They pretend that it's all "news". It isn't. It's entertainment, a low, tawdry form of entertainment, mind you, but that's what the media game requires. I am reminded of the paparazzi who pursue people like Angelina Jolie all over the world, hoping to catch a grainy shot of her taking her top off, said shot snapped through a hotel window from a treetop 500 feet away, with a telephoto lens. Ah yes, the glories of independent journalism! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 22 Jul 08 - 12:31 AM On "Race for the the White House" today the guest host said that calling it a "dress code" rather than "guidelines" would come back to bite Obama because "the press doesn't like to be told what to do." Do you think that show might be scraping the bottom of the barrel for nits to pick? Its a difficult job they have. Report McCain's gaffes, then making up crap to criticize Obama for so that they will look balanced. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: Amos Date: 21 Jul 08 - 11:55 PM Thanks, Art. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: Little Hawk Date: 21 Jul 08 - 11:36 PM My country does have the same problems, just as Amos says. To a lesser extent...but bascially the same problems. We are participating in the war in Afghanistan, and we are selling arms all over the place. There's a huge arms industry in Canada. And yes, we have suffered damage as a society because of it. A majority of Canadians would prefer we were not in Afghanistan...but our government is a corporate servant, just like yours is, Rig, so we are so far "staying the course", and losing lives steadily in the process. Our government did not join the Iraq war simply because public opposition here would have been so massive that they didn't consider it politically feasible to do that. I expect that Obama will stay the course in Iraq and the whole region around there. I hope he surprises me, though, and withdraws American troops. I would bet three to one that that will not happen....I would even bet five to one that it won't happen. But if it does, I'd be delighted to lose that bet. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: artbrooks Date: 21 Jul 08 - 11:35 PM Amos, wearing green is a symbol that a Muslim has made the "haj" pilgrimage to Mecca. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: Amos Date: 21 Jul 08 - 11:21 PM LH, like Aesop's cat on the roof mocking the fox, issues his proclamations from the safe harbor of Canada, Rig. His own country has the same problems, but they are not the dramatic stage the world watches so much. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: Riginslinger Date: 21 Jul 08 - 11:12 PM Well, LH, if you're paying taxes in this country, and you've seen a decline in government services, maybe the door has already hit you in the ass. As power hungry as Obama seems to be, it would be amazing to me to see him walk away from a war. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: Little Hawk Date: 21 Jul 08 - 11:04 PM If Obama (secretly) has in fact no intention of withdrawing from Iraq...and I think that is probably the case...there is just one thing that I will find funny about that in retrospect... It will surprise the hell out of DougR. ;-) His faith in the awfullness of "liberals" depends on Obama doing all the "wrong" things (as Doug would define them). He won't know how to explain it if the Democrats do not do what he expects and "cut and run" from Iraq...but I'm sure he'll still find something bad about how they handle the occupation. As for me, I'll still be opposing the American military presence there 100% and looking forward to the day when they leave in haste and the door hits them hard on the ass on the way out. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: Amos Date: 21 Jul 08 - 10:42 PM Is green a meaningful color in Arab countries? What was the actual deal? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: Ebbie Date: 21 Jul 08 - 10:19 PM Dang. Now he's thrown the Irish under the bus. Where will it stop? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: Riginslinger Date: 21 Jul 08 - 09:47 PM Obama has taken up arms agains the Irish. This just in... 'In a memo to reporters, described as "a few guidelines we sent staff before departure to the Middle East," Obama advance staffer Peter Newell laid out rules on attire for Jordan and Israel. First among them: "Do not wear green."' |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: Amos Date: 21 Jul 08 - 08:06 PM As the interview on Hardball quotes, OPbama's own take on himself is the problem of balancing a hard head with a big heart. I would not have him be any less hard headed; nor smaller hearted. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: GUEST,Boris Date: 21 Jul 08 - 07:39 PM "Yes, things have been getting more reasonable lately." But things are not as fun as when Martin Gibson ruled Mudcat! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 21 Jul 08 - 07:20 PM Hardball's take on the real Obama. Hard head and a big heart! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: Little Hawk Date: 21 Jul 08 - 06:38 PM Al Queda will flourish as long as... 1. The USA and Britain keep alienating Muslim populations, and... 2. as long as the USA and Britain still think they need an Al Queda out there to scare people with. One "safe haven" will be quickly replaced by another. You don't want to kill the goose that lays the imperial eggs, after all. How could we fight more wars if there was no one left to fight? Without more wars, what would our enormous defense industries do to make a living? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: Stringsinger Date: 21 Jul 08 - 05:24 PM Response to Jack the Sailor "We need to get Bin Laden and deny Al Qaeda a safe haven." This is the current meme. bin Laden is probably dead. Al Qaeda will continue to have a safe haven as long as we seek military objectives in Afghanistan. It will become another Iraq with more liaions to dope pushers. "I don't think that this is a big deal either ideologically or in monetary terms. He says that his program participants will not be allowed to to use the money to preach or discriminate in hiring. So his program would be little change from they way it was before Bush." this means that our tax dollars are going to support "faith-based initiatives whether we like it or not and that there is no That to me is a big deal. It's also a violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution. This makes Obama like Bush. >3. He has also caved in on the Telecoms. "That was disappointing to me as well. Ultimately it was the Bush administration's fault that the Telecoms were being sued. Hopefully, Obama, once elected will pursue the matter where it should be pursued, through the Justice Department." Don't hold your breath. Obama is beholden to these corporate interests and any other idea is naive. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 21 Jul 08 - 05:18 PM Do Europeans know the real Obama? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 21 Jul 08 - 04:35 PM The writing in the Op Ed was pretty straight forward, but then, he certainly didn't speak down to the audience when we saw him in person. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: Riginslinger Date: 21 Jul 08 - 04:31 PM Does Obama speak down to the reader when he writes, the way he does to an audience when he speaks? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: Amos Date: 21 Jul 08 - 01:56 PM DV: Hang around a while. You obviously have some brainmatter at work, and your contrbutions are welcome. While it is true autobiographies are not the best source material, it is also true that you can see a person's thought processes, their selection of importances, and which things bring out their strongest feelings, in their writing. This is just as true of Obama as it was of Thomas or Rousseau. The need for a grain of salt does not bury the other, telling flavors in the mix. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 21 Jul 08 - 01:53 PM >>Don't go away completely, though. This is the most civilized that Mudcat has been in years. Things got bad after Rick Fielding, Mudcat's grownup, died. Other neo-grownups left. That niche seem to be destined to stay unfilled.<< What don't you agree with? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: GUEST,DV Date: 21 Jul 08 - 01:44 PM As a relative newcomer here, I'm afraid I can't agree. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: Little Hawk Date: 21 Jul 08 - 01:24 PM Yes, things have been getting more reasonable lately. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 21 Jul 08 - 01:20 PM >> This is the most civilized that Mudcat has been in years. Things got bad after Rick Fielding, Mudcat's grownup, died. << I agree with this. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 21 Jul 08 - 01:19 PM You are certainly entitled to your opinion. Indeed thank you for the reasoned argument. It is quite preferable to your previous tactic of just saying "not credible" with no explanation. Its fair to point out that autobiographies are self serving. But as Ebbie as said. If I may paraphrase, if you want to get to know someone, a good place to start is their words. Obviously a discussion like this can only scratch the surface. Its been nearly eight years since he left office and I certainly don't know the "real" Bill Clinton. Certainly he surprised me a few times during Hillary's campaign. I'm also finding things out about Jimmy Carter. To know the real Obama at this point is asking a bit much. The Rizza article in the New Yorker opened my eyes to some things. I thought he was a great speaker. But now I find that he is a tougher and more crafty politician than I thought. I see that as a double edged sword. I see him as more capable of carrying out an agenda, but I do not put as much store in the face value of his agenda. But still, I trust his skills and agenda a lot more than I trust McCain's. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: pdq Date: 21 Jul 08 - 01:00 PM GUEST,DV... Don't go away completely, though. This is the most civilized that Mudcat has been in years. Things got bad after Rick Fielding, Mudcat's grownup, died. Other neo-grownups left. That niche seem to be destined to stay unfilled. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: GUEST,DV Date: 21 Jul 08 - 12:51 PM Self-penned political memoirs by politicians with presidential aspirations are not credible as critical biographical sources. Those tomes are propaganda of a self-promotional, commercially exploitable nature in contemporary US politics. Every major candidate either pens one (or several in some cases) themselves or, more often, has a ghost writer do it. Publishers and editors of such biographies and memoirs are notorious for not fact checking these types of books. From a recent Slate article on this very subject (the credibility of political autobiographies): How "true," for example, are real autobiographies, written by real people, describing real events? Coincidentally, I was first taught to ask this question by Gay, now an emeritus professor of history, during a seminar on autobiography that he taught some 20-odd years ago. As I recall it, we were debating Rousseau's Confessions when Gay pointed out some element of the story that could not possibly have been true. He then invited us to think about why, in that case, Rousseau had changed it. For unconscious emotional reasons? Or consciously, in order to shape his reputation? Beyond "setting the record straight," none of these books was ever intended to have deeper literary or historical significance. They don't do careful self-analysis, but neither do they add much to the bigger picture. They don't necessarily lie, but they are intended to shape public perceptions of the author, which is why many read like extended versions of those candidate-life-story films one sees nowadays at political conventions. And that is all the cut and paste, or further discussion you will get out of me in an Obama thread here. I cannot abide people who refuse to acknowledge the fact their personal hatreds of public figures reflects their personal prejudices, not "facts" or "truth". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: Little Hawk Date: 21 Jul 08 - 12:30 PM Yeah, I was wondering about that spelling, Amos. Thanks, eh? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: Amos Date: 21 Jul 08 - 12:25 PM (Psst--LH...that's "hail", not "hale".) DV: WHen you said that Barack Obama would just be a continuation of Bush you not only kind of insulted folks who wouldn't pee on the Bush if it was burning on a mountainside, but you also made a serious error in logic, conflating things as the same which are very different. So I endeavoured to point out where those differences lie. You then saw fit to reject the distinctions, saying they were not visible to you. Which means you are either dense or insensitive to the nature of individual character, or just generally bitter in some way you have not said. Or that my perceptiono f those differences is delusory, which is an interpretation I think is pretty improbable. If I am loony, I have lots of folks who agree with my strange perceptions! But I seriously don't think so. Who's bullying? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: Little Hawk Date: 21 Jul 08 - 11:50 AM Man! If this thread was a hamster running on an exercise wheel, he'd have generated megawatts of power by now.... But there was a comment way back there that I have to respond to. It was this one, by one of the Guests: "Obama is just another Chicago political slick talker. He would be at his best and right at home on the Chicago City Council. It is amazing how many of you he has duped. Wait until they finally show the tape of him in full "blackspeak." Well, by gosh! That sounds just like what certain mean-minded cynics are saying about Chongo Chimp: "Chongo is just another Chicago political slick talker. He would be at his best and right at home on the Chicago City Council or running some local boxing club. It is amazing how many of you he has duped. Wait until they finally show the tape of him in full "apespeak." I feel obliged to point out that this sort of negative commentary is quite unfair to both Obama and Chongo, despite the fact that they both hale from the greater Chicago area. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 21 Jul 08 - 11:30 AM Do you think that you are shedding light by saying "not credible", "not credible" and not providing a single fact or insight to back that up? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 21 Jul 08 - 11:27 AM DV, Why would the Fox reporter lie about this? Its not like Rupert Murdoch and Obama are buddies. He also seems to have provided a lot of very credible detail which Andrea Mitchell did not. The only thing unprecedented about the trip is that Obama is on it. Also, Obama has no motive for barring the Press from the trip. He gets to pick and choose the press traveling with him in Europe. If could take press to the war zones there is only an upside for him to take them. I am beginning to find reason to doubt your judgement on what is credible. BTW, There are another couple of problems with Andrea Mitchell's reporting. She tends to under analyze and over dramatize. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: GUEST,DV Date: 21 Jul 08 - 11:22 AM I'm done with this discussion. I won't be bullied and intimidated by Obama supporters here, or anywhere else. Your contributions to this thread are doing nothing to shed light on our understanding of 'The Real Obama', and nor is this thread. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: pdq Date: 21 Jul 08 - 11:21 AM Obama said he was going on a world-wide fact-finding mission. He is now on it. In Afghanistan (Sunday, I believe) he said he did not expect to pick up a single fact that would change his publically-stated foreign policy. Er, sounds like the US taxpayers are spending a lot of money on jet fuel for nothing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 21 Jul 08 - 11:18 AM I didn't personally attack you DV. I simply pointed out that paranoid ravings from skeptics were not credible. I did this in exactly the same way that you pointed out that people who support Obama and quoted his words were not credible. There was no need for you to take it personally unless you believe that your words are such that others could mistake them for paranoid ravings. On the other hand you strongly implied that the judgement of those who support Obama is not to be trusted because they are acting on emotion. I did not take this as a personal attack. If you must know, I took it as irrational stereotyping and profound ignorance. But perhaps you have another explanation. Perhaps you have mountains of evidence showing why one could not come to a rational decision to support Obama. If so, I'd really like to read it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: GUEST,Dv Date: 21 Jul 08 - 11:14 AM I don't agree with your view of Andrea Mitchell. However, she isn't the only reporter who has publicly commented upon the Obama bubble, and the unprecendented lack of press access to a travelling US senator in Iraq. Nowhere did I say Obama and Bush are the same. I said they share the same positions on certain issues. That some people interpret that to mean (in their mind) that I said Obama and Bush are the same, doesn't mean I am stupid or insane, as you and the other gentlemen suggested with your nasty responses. As to the link you provide to Fox News, I don't find that to be a credible reason for the press blackout. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 21 Jul 08 - 11:06 AM Andrea Mitchell is a Neocon hack. She pretends to be fair, but always treats Democrats (other than Lieberman) snidely. Even Fox News is more fair and balanced than her. This guy explained the lack of access for the press in Iraq. Interestingly, it is not Obama's fault. It is congressional and DOD policy. All such junkets are handled that way. {sarcasm} But lets give Andrea the benefit of the doubt. Why should NBC's senior political corespondent be expected to know meaning of the word "unprecedented". {/sarcasm} Major Garrett The Obama Trip — Two Parts, Semi-Explained DV I don't think that comparing Bush and Obama is a problem at all. It is you saying that they are the same and expecting us to agree that poses the problem. I do not believe they are the same. In fact I believe that many of the problems with Bush and his administration were unique to him among all those running for President in the history of this country. In fact, I think that McCain would be far better than Bush. Of course I also think that Obama would be far better than McCain. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: GUEST,DV Date: 21 Jul 08 - 11:04 AM Are you suggesting that anyone who posts a critical view of Obama in a web forum you frequent, is personally attacking you? That is a pretty bizarre claim. I would say ditto to Amos, who apparently is having difficulty disagreeing with people without personally insulting them. For the record, I've never been a Bush supporter. As to voting, I don't get out to do that much. But I do have opinions about our contemporary political life & it's players, which I express without personally attacking those whose opinions are different from my own. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: Amos Date: 21 Jul 08 - 10:52 AM Well, DV, you may be missing my point intentionally, or through cranial density, or some other reason, but miss it you surely have. So never mind. What were your views of Bush in 2000 and 2004, by the way? Were you strongly inclined either way? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 21 Jul 08 - 10:51 AM DV, Rude it may have been but it certainly was called for. Who are you to judge whether my support for Obama is "credible"? Its quite rude of you to imply that Obama supporters can't decide what is "credible" or that simply because they are Obama supporters that their judgement is inferior to yours. I don't ask you to forgive the rudeness, but it may put you in good stead to try to understand it. I don't feel a need to walk on eggshells to be polite to someone who has just tried to denigrate my intelligence. I don't consider it rude to treat someone as they try to treat me. If you do consider such behavior "uncalled for and profoundly rude" you should probably not engage in it your self. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: GUEST,DV Date: 21 Jul 08 - 10:33 AM Jack the Sailor, your over the top hateful reaction to my posting is uncalled for and profoundly rude. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: GUEST,DV Date: 21 Jul 08 - 10:32 AM Yes I agree with that, pdq. Obama's handlers have him completely in a bubble. The press traveling with him aren't getting any access whatsoever, and I learned on NBC News last night, the press pool is only receiving Pentagon feeds of him. That is it. And Andrea Mitchell referred to that as "unprecedented" denial of access to US politicians travelling to foreign lands, but especially to Iraq. Very, very scary. Amos, they are comparable quantities. One is a politician who is president of the US, the other one of two major party candidates who will become president of the US. That makes the two men comparable, and any claims otherwise are just bizarre, considering the number of men who ever reach this level of the political stratosphere. Comparing Bush to Obama is exactly what voters and pundits are doing, because they are now officially in the same league, despite some Obama fans protests to the contrary. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: Amos Date: 21 Jul 08 - 10:26 AM DV: THe possibility should be carefully weighed that, in not seeing the differences I mention, you are discussiong flaws in your own vision more than in the people under discussion. The two men are not comparable quantities. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: Ebbie Date: 21 Jul 08 - 10:12 AM OK, that is all of Obama's book that I will post at this time. :) Like JtS, though, I think that what one writes is a good clue to what and how one thinks. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 21 Jul 08 - 10:00 AM DV, Paranoid ravings pulled from the asses of skeptics are even less credible. Starting from the assumption that everything Obama says is a lie will not bring us any closer to who the "real Obama" is. If we are lucky, we will find out more about his plans and abilities as president after he is sworn in in January. For now pretty much all we have to go on are his writings and a few short biographical pieces. His writings are the most credible source for me. But then I haven't decided to dismiss everything the man has said. {sarcasm} Maybe we should be listening to John McCain's or Hannity's opinion. The don't have an axe to grind. Right? {/sarcasm} Perhaps you have seen one to many magazine covers? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: pdq Date: 21 Jul 08 - 09:54 AM What you are allowed to see on the major news media is a cafefully-made, simulated candidate product guaranteed to contain no annoying substance. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: GUEST,D19/J45 Date: 21 Jul 08 - 09:49 AM Obama is just another Chicago political slick talker. He would be at his best and right at home on the Chicago City Council. It is amazing how many of you he has duped. Wait until they finally show the tape of him in full "blackspeak." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: GUEST,DV Date: 21 Jul 08 - 09:00 AM Those who quote chapter and verse from Obama's political writings/propaganda aren't credible. Nor are those who have embraced Obama based upon their emotional reactions to him credible. That seems to be many of his supporters, and a substantial percent of the media covering him as a phenomenon. In fact, those who insist on cut and paste "evidence" of Obama's positions and Bush's positions on policy matters aren't credible either, because on the list that Stringsinger provided in the second post to the thread, both their positions are widely known to anyone who follows politics closely. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: Donuel Date: 21 Jul 08 - 08:51 AM He speaks only English but he does that well. He said he was embarrassed that he is not fluent in any other language. for speculation) It is likely that Barack will have to implement some similar measures as FDR, such as a WPA. He will face 2 of the big THREE car manufacturers going out of business. He will try to restore the dignity of the poor and newly poor middle class much to the ire of the ruling class who will want to exploit the growing underclass as they would immigrant labor. Big Oil will behave like a wounded animal and lash out at the PResident over tax breaks for alternative energy and efficient cars and the corporate legacy of lies regarding global warming. Obama will be their singular target painting him as a barrier to massive supplies of domestic oil. for Amos) Obama is A man for all quantum. When interviewed one on one or gining a speech he behaves like a particle but when traveling he behaves like a wave. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 21 Jul 08 - 07:48 AM >>Well...yeah...but what the heck! There was still lots in life that a citizen of Rome could hope for, regardless of what the next danged Emperor was going to do. He could hope for good relationships, a happy family, interesting work, and all the other stuff that he had the power to put into effect in his life.<< Yeah but if he was in Julius Caesars time he could justifiably worry about the empire moving to Turkey in 400 years. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: Little Hawk Date: 21 Jul 08 - 02:14 AM "I'd say that if all of them are corrupt, lying and pandering, there's not a lot that can be hoped for." That depends on where you place your hopes, I guess. Consider if a citizen of Rome had said that of the Roman emperors: "I'd say that if all of them are corrupt, lying and pandering, there's not a lot that can be hoped for." Well...yeah...but what the heck! There was still lots in life that a citizen of Rome could hope for, regardless of what the next danged Emperor was going to do. He could hope for good relationships, a happy family, interesting work, and all the other stuff that he had the power to put into effect in his life. The main things I hope for in life have absolutely nothing to do with what the next American president or the next Canadian Prime Minister is going to do once elected. I expect governments to often do stupid things, and sometimes some good things too, but that's just a very small part of my life. It is not where my primary hopes and dreams lie. It's interesting, but it's hardly the be-all and end-all. To surrender would be to imagine that it is, and to do that would be to accord it far more importance, frankly, than it deserves. With every government, remember..."this too shall pass!" But you will still be who you are, regardlress, and that's where your real power lies. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: Ebbie Date: 21 Jul 08 - 02:03 AM Here is more of what Obama says in The Audacity of Hope: Page 10 of the Prologue "I am a Democrat after all; my views on most topics correspond more closely to the editorial pages of the New York Times than to those of the Wall Street Journal. *I am angry about policies that consistently favor the wealthy and powerful over the average Americans and (I)insist that government has an important role in opening up opportunity to all. *I believe in evolution, scientific inquiry and global warming. *I believe in free speech, whether politically correct or politically incorrect, and I am suspicious of using government to impose anybody's religious beliefs – including my own – on nonbelievers. *Furthermore I am a prisoner of my own biography: I can't help but view the American experience through the lens of a black man of mixed heritage, forever mindful of generations of people who looked like me were subjugated and stigmatized, and the subtle and the not so subtle ways that race and class continue to shape our lives. But that is not all I am. I also think my party can be smug, detached and dogmatic at times. *I believe in the free market, competition and entrepreneurship, and think no small number of government programs don't work as advertised. *I wish the country had fewer lawyers and more engineers. *I think America has more often been a force for good than for ill in the world; *I carry few illusions about our enemies, and revere the courage and competence of our military. *I reject a politics that is based solely on racial identity, gender identity, sexual orientation or victimhood generally. *I think much of what ails our inner city involves a breakdown in culture that will not be cured by money alone, and that our values and spiritual life matter at least as much as our GDP. "Undoubtedly some of these views will get me in trouble. I am new enough on the national political scene that I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views. As such I am bound to disappoint some, if not all, of them." Emphases mine. Eb |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: Ebbie Date: 21 Jul 08 - 01:48 AM Google Obama + website for the information you say you want. People who allege - without corroboration or links - corruption, lying, and pandering, to my mind are not all that credible. Further, I'd say that if all of them are corrupt, lying and pandering, there's not a lot that can be hoped for. I prefer to believe that with the right person at the helm there is much we can do. I do not see the need, nor do I have the desire, to surrender. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: GUEST,DV Date: 21 Jul 08 - 12:40 AM Sorry, but I don't see those differences. Sadly, I see another conventional politician, lying and pandering to the American public to fulfill his personal ambitions by becoming the most powerful man on earth. I find Obama and McCain to be every bit as scary as Bush, because I believe we are living in an era of unprecedented corruption of which Obama has participated fully in. What frightens me most about these two so-called "leaders" who would be the next most powerful man in the world, is neither of them is even talking about the economy, the number one issue of most importance to Americans. That shows such a profound disconnect with reality, it is terrifying. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: Amos Date: 21 Jul 08 - 12:11 AM You are being so dazed by the apparent similarities, which are largely situational necessities, that yoy entirely miss the idfferences that are far more important -- the character intelligence, fundamental motives and difference in sheer ethic level. These are the vital differences, and it is possible that you cannot see them for various reasons but they are there, and therein lies all the difference. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: Ebbie Date: 20 Jul 08 - 11:34 PM Today at my part time job at the bookstore, whenever I had the chance, I picked up Obamaa's Audacity of Hope.. I didn't get far into the book but I like what I have read so far. Here is part of Page 9 of the Prologue: "Religious or secular, black, white, or brown, we sense – correctly- that the nation's most significant challenges are being ignored, and that if we don't change course soon, we may be the first generation in a very long time that leaves behind a weaker and more fractured America than the one we inherited. Perhaps more than any other time in our recent history, we need a new kind of politics, one that can excavate and build upon those shared understandings that pull us together as Americans. "That's the topic of this book: how we might begin the process of changing our politics and our civic life. This isn't to say that I know exactly how to do it. I don't. Although I discuss in each chapter a number of our most pressing policy challenges, and suggest in broad strokes the path I believe we should follow, my treatment of the issues is often partial and incomplete. I offer no unifying theory of American government, nor do these pages provide a manifest for action, complete with charts and graphs, timetables and ten-point plans. "Instead, what I offer is something more modest: personal reflections on those values and ideals that have led me to public life, some thoughts on the ways that our current political discourse unnecessarily divides us, and my own best assessment – based on my experiences as a senator and lawyer, husband and father, Christian and skeptic – of the ways we can ground our politics in the notion of a common good." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 20 Jul 08 - 10:39 PM Joe, If I understand what Obama has been saying about this, if the nuns would be willing to hire the best qualified computer instructor, even if he or she is Muslim, or Jewish or Hindu or atheist, they might be in luck! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: Joe Offer Date: 20 Jul 08 - 10:33 PM Way up to, there was mention of "faith-based initiatives." Well, in Sacramento, the most important social service programs are run by liberal Catholics who invite everyone to work as volunteers. The nuns I work for at the women's center insist very strongly that they are non-sectarian - mostly because they don't want the bishop meddling with us. The food bank, founded by a Catholic priest as a parish ministry, has also evolved into a citywide nonsectarian program. The Loaves and Fishes Dining Room, which provides a multitude of service for the homeless, is also nonsectarian. But I suppose you could call all of these service faith-based, even though many of the volunteers have no religious affiliation. Because they make heavy use of volunteers and because they know how to turn a dime into a dollar, these programs are the most effective services the poor people of Sacramento can get. A little Federal money would help, but the programs have been reluctant to accept it because they don't want to deal with George W. Bush. If the money came from an Obama administration, that might be a different matter. Would it be so wrong for the government to give a little money to these "faith-based" programs? We sure could use a computer instructor... I suppose that these programs wouldn't accept the money even from Democrats - they don't want to deal with government regulation. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: Riginslinger Date: 20 Jul 08 - 10:26 PM "And your proposition that one is the continuation of the other (Obama and Bush) is equally unsupportable and absurd on the face of it." Except for the war in Iraq, now that he's clinched the nomination, and the continuation of Faith Based Initiatives, and (as was pointed out above) capital punishment, and the right of individual citizens to keep and bear arms, and... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 20 Jul 08 - 10:16 PM According to the most recent New Yorker (Yes, that one) "The real Obama" joined Trinity United for the contacts and virtually stopped going there once his children were born. I believe him when he says he didn't hear Wright say the things in the clips. And when he talks religion, he doesn't actually say he is and avid church goer. He says that faith is important and it "informs" him. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: Little Hawk Date: 20 Jul 08 - 10:04 PM How many of Wright's sermons have you ever listened to? I suspect you have listened to nothing but a few selected fragments of one or two sermons on YouTube. If you took ALL the things that any person said in the last 20 years, looked carefully around for the few times he went ballistic over something or totally lost his temper, and then carefully edited them into an expose film with the intention of ruining his reputation, you could ruin anyone's reputation. (including yours or mine or anyone else's here) That's how politically motivated character assassination is done. You pay no attention to 100,000 harmless words that a person may have said on 15,000 different occasions. No, you find 15 or 20 words he said on one or two occasions when he was emotionally way off balance, and you damn a person's entire character on the basis of those alone. This could be done to McCain too, just as it's been done to Obama. It could be done to anyone who's running for office. You just have to really look around carefully, and you will find something you can use to embarass them. I really doubt that Wright was giving "hate sermons" for the last 20 years. ;-) But if the Hitler regime, let's say, was after Wright...then it would be "hate sermons" for sure that they said he had been giving for the last 20 years. That's all they would see, because their only desire would be to see something bad. That's how it works when you're out to destroy someone...and the people who looked around painstakingly for these few damaging excerpts couldn't care less about Reverend Wright. He was just a means to an end. They had been given a job: to destroy Obama's candidacy. So they looked with all due diligence for anything they could find. There's a name for people like that, but it's not a nice one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: GUEST,D18/J45 Date: 20 Jul 08 - 09:49 PM The real Obama sat and listened to the Reverend Wright's hate sermons for 20 years, nodded his head and mumbled "Amen." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: Little Hawk Date: 20 Jul 08 - 09:38 PM Oh, I'm not happy with it. I just regard it as inevitable, that's all. That's how the system works. It is amoral. That is not to say that I am or that I approve of such ammorality. Obama must say what a clear majority of voters want to hear or he won't get elected. He must also avoid saying things that the party machine that's backing him doesn't want to hear him say. This will require evasiveness, grandstanding, chest-pounding declarations of patriotism, constant appeals to people's most primitive emotions, glittering generalities to make people feel good, a certain number of outright lies, and a certain number of misleading statements, plus a bunch of promises that cannot possibly be fully met. And that will entail a certain amount of betrayal and reversal of position after being elected. This is so for either Obama or McCain. It makes me wonder why anyone would even want to run for president of the USA. You'd have to be either incredibly ambitious or maybe a little bit crazy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: GUEST,DV Date: 20 Jul 08 - 08:53 PM I also might add, people seem to be very comfortable with--indeed hope that Obama will in fact lie and say whatever the American public wants to hearin order to get elected--and then do a lot of 180 flips on the policy positions he campaigned on. Why this is seen is a positive thing for Obama to do by them, I don't know. I have a real problem with being lied and pandered to about such important issues. I am not of the "whatever it takes to get elected" school of politics. I don't think politicians should be moving targets during elections, just to be able to claim the prize of winning the highest elected office. I have a lot of trouble with that sort of amoral thinking, and winning at all costs mentality. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: John O'L Date: 20 Jul 08 - 08:46 PM Obama ain't easy to pigeon hole because he doesn't bring the tradtional resume' that politicans usually have at this point in time in one's candidacy... As a first-term senator he has, like Nelson Mandela, side-stepped a lot of the political process which, as a rule, corrupts ideals and dilutes enthusiasm. Like Mandela he may bring a degree of statesmanship to the presidency. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: GUEST,DV Date: 20 Jul 08 - 08:46 PM My opinions of Obama seem to share common views with Stringsinger, GregF, and akenaton, as expressed in this thread. Claiming that Obama and Bush aren't the same misses the point. We are talking about their positions on policies. No one has suggested Bush and Obama are "the same" whatever that means. Some of Obama's stated positions (those mentioned by Stringsinger) on certain policy matters are very, very similar to the Bush/Cheney administration positions. So if Obama is elected, we will see a continuation of those policies in an Obama administration. When someone says they are comfortable with Obama's positions that are the same or very similar to Bush's, it isn't beyond the pale to point out they then must be comfortable with a continuation of Bush policies in those areas. It was my observation of that reality, is all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: Little Hawk Date: 20 Jul 08 - 08:38 PM Jack, the Bush administration did not go into Afghanistan to eliminate Al Queda. ;-) They don't want Al Queda to be eliminated. They need them as a continual reason to be doing all this aggressive empire-building. They went into Afghanistan for the same basic reason the Soviets did: to create a client regime there which would cooperate fully with their future strategic plans, and that is also why they have gone into Iraq...to create a client regime there. They have one in Aghanistan now, but it's weak and it will, I think, meet the same ignominious end as Najibullah's regime did when the Soviets left. They have accomplished only a semi-client government in Iraq...and I don't think they'll ever succeed in making it fully cooperative with American aims. It's not about Al Queda. It's not about WMDs. It's not about Osama or Saddam or Ahmadinejad. Its about empire-building, one nation at a time, through overthrowing existing regimes and replacing them with client regimes which are basically puppet governments. Now if you are running a country in this day and age (when empire-building is no longer seen as a "nice" or "proper" thing to do) and you want your people to like what their government is doing, well, you can't tell they you are engaging in aggressive empire-building! Certainly not. So you tell them that you are "protecting" them against dire threats from terrible foreign people, fanatics who have huge terrorist networks all over the place, WMDs, and other awful stuff that can never be found or eliminated. (And you follow aggressive policies which will inevitably result in bringing forth such people to quite an extent.) By supposedly looking for the foreign threat that you either invented or provoked so that you can supposedly eliminate it you are enabled to send your armies and air forces wherever you want to in the world, always with an apparent justification. That's how it works. You kick the Third World dog repeatedly. The dog finally snaps at you. You then tell everyone, "That dog is a public danger. It has to be put down." and you send in the Marines. Read George Orwell's 1984 and pay particular attention to the parts about the mysterious and endless war overseas that just goes on and on. Only my opinion, of course. But that's what this place is for, expressing our opinions. Now, Obama may know these things. I wouldn't be surprised if he knows plenty of it, but if he does then he can't talk about it openly. If he did, it would lose him the election. People like Kucinich and Ron Paul have dared to talk plainly about what's really going on with America's foreign policy, which is grand imperialism and an illegal war of aggression, and it guaranteed that they would not end up running successfully for president. No politician can be open and honest about this stuff if he wants to become president. So if Obama is smart, he will continue to say the kind of things he is saying, continue to talk tough on winning in Afghanistan, etc. Hell, that's what you have to do if you want to get elected. You have to act like we are "the good guys", and we're just protecting ourselves. You cannot become leader of the Roman Empire by telling the Romans that Rome is a greedy, lying, hypocritical, corrupt, ruthless, conquering empire with the blood of millions on its hands, hungry for more plunder, universally hated and feared by all except the Romans, and that Rome cares nothing about robbing and dominating anyone within the reach of its long arm any time it wants to. Goodness, no! What you tell them is that Rome will remain strong and courageous under your leadership, strong enough to fend off any barbarians who dare approach its lands, and that wherever Rome goes in its search to better the lives of others it will bring enlightenment, prosperity, freedom, and justice. Tell them what they want to hear if you wish to rule Rome. This applies not just in Rome, but in any nation. Watch as Obama and McCain tie themselves up in knots telling people what they want to hear for the next few months. Who would I vote for? Obama. I like his version of what I "want to hear" quite a bit better than I like McCain's. What do I expect to happen afterward? Oh...(shrug)...who knows? We'll have to wait and see about that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: Bobert Date: 20 Jul 08 - 08:33 PM Ya' know, electing presidents is somewhat of a crap shoot... Is there anything that Obama believes that I disagree with??? Well, I don't know... He said he was disappointed with the Supreme Court decision on not allowing capital punishement on child rapists... Hey, I don't support the death penalty for anything but I understand that he had to take that away from the McCain or her was going to be branded a protector of child rapists... Heck, by the time the Swiftboaters got to him they might have been portraying him as a child rapist??? NO, Obama ain't easy to pigeon hole because he doesn't bring the tradtional resume' that politicans usually have at this point in time in one's candidacy... But, with that said, Obama does seem to have an ***open mind*** and he does seem to possess some valuable ***people skills*** (not to mention a decent jump shot...lol...) and that's purdy much what I am going on here and... ...I expect that is what many Obama supporters are going on... Comes down to hope and hope, after the last 7 years, ain't a bad thing... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: Amos Date: 20 Jul 08 - 07:47 PM DV: I find that thought unsupportable by the evidence. The differences between Obama and Bush are so great as to make close comparison absurd. And your proposition that one is the continuation of the other is equally unsupportable and absurd on the face of it. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: Riginslinger Date: 20 Jul 08 - 07:43 PM "IF those churches spend the money where it is needed and respect equal rights in employment." I'll bet Reverend Wright and that flugelhorn guy can't wait to get their greedy hands on that money. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 20 Jul 08 - 07:19 PM No DV, The pooh poohers (certainly this pooh pooher) are rejecting the idea that Obama is the same as Bush. I would have been for Bush's attack on Al Qaeda in Afghanisatn, IF he had finished the job. I think that the Bush Administration is the proper target for those opposed to the warrant wiretaps. The phone companies are being sued because the Justice Department and the Congress are not doing oversight. There is a world of difference between Bush and Obama on these issues. I have no problem with a man who started out organizing churches. Looking at the good that they do and wanting to help them do more. IF those churches spend the money where it is needed and respect equal rights in employment. Bush switched to Iraq without the elimination the threat that Al Qaeda in Afghanistan posed. He totally corrupted the Justice Department. He used "faith-based initiatives" as a way to directly bribe congregations into voting for him. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: GUEST,DV Date: 20 Jul 08 - 06:19 PM Looks like a whole lot of folks here (those pooh-poohing Stringsinger's remarks) will be perfectly content to live with the Bush status quo after the election. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: Amos Date: 20 Jul 08 - 06:19 PM The critical thing about them is that they are an outlet for soical need, and must never become and input for political rationale. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: pdq Date: 20 Jul 08 - 06:01 PM "And as for "faith-based initiatives"? Guess what - the churches, synagogues, temples, etc. are the ones on the ground helping others, primarily through volunteers. Why should they be excluded?" Thank you for saying that. It should be obvious to anyone who is not blinded by their politics. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: Little Hawk Date: 20 Jul 08 - 05:18 PM How smart do you think I think they are? ;-) I lived down there for 10 years, you know, and my impression is that the average American is about as smart as the average German was in the late 30's or as the average Iranian or Canadian or Frenchman or Englishman or anyone else is right now. Smart people can easily be fooled by bad governments, and they can easily be fooled by a well-orchestrated media campaign. They believe whatever they hear most often from the authoritative sources they take for granted. I hear more blather about Ahmadinejad these days than I do about any other foreign "bad guy" in our media, so, yes, I think that he is the reigning bogeyman right now, not Osama Bin Laden. And the reason for that is that the primary present strategic planning is being aimed at Iran. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: artbrooks Date: 20 Jul 08 - 05:10 PM PNAC? And the fairies at the foot of the garden as well. And who cares about Ahmadinehad? If Bush and his crew have been trying to make him the current reigning champion among official "bad guys", they have been singularly unsuccessful. Believe it or not, LH, most Americans are just slightly smarter than you think. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: Little Hawk Date: 20 Jul 08 - 04:56 PM It depends on who you really think is attacking America, doesn't it? I think America's own political leaders and CIA and military-industrial establishment have been attacking America, and they have been doing so for, oh, at least the last 5 decades. They find their Osamas and Noriegas and Castros and Allendes and Saddams and Ahmadinejads out in the world...usually in countries that are physically quite incapable of directly threatening the USA...because they know that such symbolic and faraway "evil enemy" figures are needed to keep the American public scared, keep their eyes focused abroad instead of at the corruption within, and keep the public supporting the scoundrels who are sending their sons and daughters off to wars of choice. In the same way, Hitler found Jews, Communists, pacifists, and other such scapegoats convenient. He also found the Reichstag fire very convenient...just as the PNAC found the 911 attacks. They had to have such an event, according to their own written planning statements on the matter, in order to effectively usher in "the New American Century". Perhaps Osama was on their payroll...or perhaps they just found it easy enough to open a few doors, turn a blind eye, and let his people walk through and arrange things in a most convenient way. Anyway, they got what they wanted. They got a frightened, angry public, and it allowed them to do everything they have done since. Osama could not have worked better for them if he was on their payroll, and he continues to work well for them as long as he remains officially alive (?) and uncaptured. Ahmadinejad, however, is the current reigning champion among offical "bad guys". Osama has long been displaced by first Saddam (who was no threat at all to the USA)...then by Ahmadinejad (who is no threat at all to the USA). Saddam has been "got". He was no longer very useful after Iraq had been occupied, because the war was fought to occupy Iraq. Another war was fought to occupy Afghanistan. Both wars are still under way. Another war may presently be fought to occupy Iran. If so, I fear it will trigger a series of further disasters in the world that will be substantially beyond the scope of the PNAC's planning. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: artbrooks Date: 20 Jul 08 - 04:43 PM You know, "caving on the Telecoms" just doesn't bother me that much, if that really means not allowing them to be retroactively sued for something that they thought, at the time, they were legally required to do. In fact, I don't see any of the three issues that Stringsinger mentions to be all that important as far as defining Obama is concerned. I don't see him as especially preoccupied with politico/military issues in the Stans, but I'd be concerned if he wasn't concerned with that problem. And as for "faith-based initiatives"? Guess what - the churches, synagogues, temples, etc. are the ones on the ground helping others, primarily through volunteers. Why should they be excluded? He is a politician, and that means (by definition) that he has to respond to various constituencies - call it "pander" if you'd like. Not taking positions on issues that are important to many citizens is just stupid, and concedes those to the opposition. As the election approaches, his public pronouncements get closer to the Center, which is just fine with me, especially as |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: akenaton Date: 20 Jul 08 - 03:32 PM "As we near the election Obama and McCain will draw closer together" John Pilgers words seem to be coming true even sooner than he thought and the winner as always will be the two party system. Will you ever"get it" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 20 Jul 08 - 03:18 PM The lesson can't be "Attack america and we will ignore you and start a war with your enemies. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: Greg F. Date: 20 Jul 08 - 03:17 PM Responsible for the death of over three thousand American citizens? Guess Osama and Baby Bush are about even there- tho the edge goes to Bush when you count dead peaceful Iraqi citizens- so I suppose he needs to be "got" as well? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: Amos Date: 20 Jul 08 - 02:04 PM As far as we know, Osama bin Laden is the primary agent behind the wanton death of over three thousand peaceful American citizens. For that reason alone, he needs to be got. Addressing the real core issues behind the situation is something Obama is intelligent enough to do. But I think it is realistic to say that if the Taliban is not put to rest, and Afghanistan is not supported, we will make another enemy. It is a cruelty to offer self-determination and then wimp out, as Bush I did in failing to support the Iraq indigenous uprising back when his son was still drinking and losing his ball team. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: Little Hawk Date: 20 Jul 08 - 01:49 PM Jack, I truly think that Bin Laden is inconsequential as anything but a huge propaganada tool to provide an fulltime ongoing excuse for fighting foreign wars in various places. He may even be dead already...but if he is, the system would not want people to know it, because they want their bearded bogeyman out there to justify various actions, and Bin Laden is still useful in that sense, just like Saddam Hussein was useful. Likewise, Al Queda is largely (though not completely) a mythical bogeyman created in order to justify distant wars and increased domestic surveilance and reduction of civil rights on the homefront. Not that there isn't some real Al Queda out there...there is...but their presence and their strength has been blow totally out of proportion, again for propaganda purposes. The propaganda has been so effective that it has convinced thousands of young Muslims that there is something powerful out there for them to join up with...so the myth helps stoke its own existence merely by its own repetition. This hunt to destroy "Al Queda" is about as silly, ultimately, as the search for the Holy Grail, and like the Holy Grail or the Fountain of Youth...Al Queda is never going to truly be found or eliminated. It will simply vanish into the sands of history presently when the world media decide to pick another official bogeyman to promote instead...and then young men who are angry at the great powers will attempt to join something else instead of "Al Queda"...because the media will tell them it's out there to join! Thus will the next conflict be neatly arranged by those who desire it. Whether or not Al Queda ever existed, there are tremendous reasons why young Muslims would volunteer to fight against American and coalition occupying forces in Iraq, Afghanistan or anywhere else they go...and those reasons are reasons of nationalism and anti-colonialism on the part of those young men. They're fighting the USA because the USA is messing around in their societies and harming them...NOT because of "Al Queda". You don't need to "get Bin Laden". In fact, getting him would be a big strategic loss to the PNAC's planners, because they would lose their wild goose...and then they'd have to find another similar one so they could continue the wild goose chase. They'd have to find or invent a new Bin Laden. And they would. I guarantee it. There's always another one. You will NEVER deny "Al Queda" a safe haven. There will always be another safe haven somewhere, because "Al Queda" isn't the problem. The problem is that the USA, Britain, Canada, and Australia are promoting a huge quasi-colonial (corporate) effort in the world right now, are using their military force and financial power to do it, and are alienating and infuriating millions of Third World people (most of them Muslims) and some of those people are always going to be willing to get a gun or a bomb and fight back. They will fight us wherever we go with our armies and our corporate power. This war will be endless until the Anglo powers stop trying to dominate and rob a very large part of the world of its local strategic resources, particulary oil. **** Faith-based initiatives? A tempest in a teapot. I agree with you there, Jack. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: Bill D Date: 20 Jul 08 - 01:47 PM "3. He has also caved in on the Telecoms." I think that the Telecom isssue is not dead. Perhaps it is just wishful thinking, but something tells me we will hear more about it when Bush is out of office. Lord, I hope so! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: Riginslinger Date: 20 Jul 08 - 01:38 PM I don't know how you'd figure out who "the real Obama" actually is. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: Ebbie Date: 20 Jul 08 - 01:29 PM Somewhere else, the point is made that "it is a politician that is elected". The way to lead is to get into office and for a politician election is the primary thing. Regarding Afghan and Pakistan, my impression is that bin Laden and those who shelter and hide him are important figures to any new government. Bush at one time proclaimed his intention to "get bin Laden, whether dead or alive". Later, of course, Bush said, he had lost interest in him, "...didn't consider him to be of importance." As for faith-based initiatives, it is possible to make a good case for that approach. By and large, it is the churches and the people affiliated with them who know the needs, and who have for a long time been serving the people with those needs. There are churches and denominations out there who make no sectarian demands on the people they serve. Which, to a certain degree, cannot be said of the human and social services. Everyone has an agenda. "Perhaps the most telling area where Obama has stuck to a focused conception of U.S. national interests is Iraq. Despite the progress in Iraq, despite the possibility of establishing a democracy in the heart of the Arab world, Obama's position is steely—Iraq is a distraction, and the sooner America can reduce its exposure there, the better. I actually wish he were somewhat more sympathetic to the notion that a democratic Iraq would play a positive role in the struggle against Islamic extremism. But his view is certainly focused on America's core security interests and is recognizably realist. Walter Lippmann and George Kennan made similar arguments about Vietnam from the mid-1960s onward." Fareed Zakaria Thanks for your reponse, Frank. I'm interested in dialogue and more information as well as conjecture. Conjecture is mostly what I've got. :) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 20 Jul 08 - 01:20 PM 1. His preoccupation with military actions in Afghanistan and Pakistan. We need to get Bin Laden and deny Al Qaeda a safe haven. 2. His continuation of "faith-based initiatives". I don't think that this is a big deal either ideologically or in monetary terms. He says that his program participants will not be allowed to to use the money to preach or discriminate in hiring. So his program would be little change from they way it was before Bush. 3. He has also caved in on the Telecoms. That was disappointing to me as well. Ultimately it was the Bush administration's fault that the Telecoms were being sued. Hopefully, Obama, once elected will pursue the matter where it should be pursued, through the Justice Department. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Real Obama From: Stringsinger Date: 20 Jul 08 - 12:58 PM The problem Obama is going to have are three-fold. 1. His preoccupation with military actions in Afghanistan and Pakistan 2. His continuation of "faith-based initiatives". 3. He has also caved in on the Telecoms. His compromises in which he attempts to bring people of different political and religious ideas together may be his undoing. You can't force people to accept ideas that are obnoxious to them. For me, that would be paying taxes for "faith-based initiatives" and prolonging a war in Afghanistan. These are highly objectionable to me and I am not alone. McCain's candidacy makes these point moot in this next election but not after the election. |
|
Subject: BS: The Real Obama From: Ebbie Date: 20 Jul 08 - 12:50 PM Barack Obama may well be our next US President. I welcome that prospect and support the agendae I perceive him to hold. Any insights and information that anyone has I'd like to add to what I have gathered to this point. I am interested in knowing more about him, how he is perceived at home and abroad. (I haven't yet read more than excerpts and subsequent reviews from and about his two books; I definitely will.) Obama seems to be a multi-faceted man and I think we are going to be frequently surprised at where his intellect and his ambitions take him. We are well aware that the next administration, whoever it is, will be faced with tremendous, almost irresolvable problems, at least in the short term. I hope Americans, as well as the world stage recognizes that fact and are patient with results and alert to nuance and intent. Here is a recent article that explores Obama: "Obama never uses the soaring language of Bush's freedom agenda, preferring instead to talk about enhancing people's economic prospects, civil society and—his key word—"dignity." He rejects Bush's obsession with elections and political rights, and argues that people's aspirations are broader and more basic—including food, shelter, jobs. "Once these aspirations are met," he told The New York Times's James Traub, "it opens up space for the kind of democratic regimes we want." This is a view of democratic development that is slow, organic and incremental, usually held by conservatives." Fareed Zakaria |
