BS: Popular Views on Obama

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 May 08 - 09:39 PM

"if somebody wants to find an excuse to vote against a candidate, he can always do it--regardless of the real reason."

Dead right, Ron! And that is what renders almost all the political discussions here about the American election into little more than an empty echo chamber of endless repetition of various people's established prejudices for or against whoever....

Bla. Bla. Bla. Rank prejudice all the livelong day.

Rig, I think your worry about the Faith-Based Init. Hooha is unfounded. Obama is simply doing the politically smart thing to do...he's ensuring that he won't lose a sizeable chunk of votes, which he would if he threatened to close the aforementioned Hooha.

He's acting like any American politician would who had serious intentions of being elected, because there are a few things you must NOT do:

show any disrespect to the great American Idol - the military
show any softness toward punishing crime severely
show lack of any patriotic enthusiasm in any way whatsoever
show any lack of interest in the flag or the national anthem
show any lack of support for religion, motherhood, the family, and God.
show any tendency to question the effects capitalism or tolerate the idea of socialism!

You have to bullshit constantly to win an American election, Rig, and you have to do it within certain very predictable guidelines...

God, the flag, country, the military, the police, families, just plain folks, working mothers, heterosexual marriage...focus on those kind of things and you're safe. Make bloody well sure they don't think you're too high class or too intellectual! That last part is tricky for Obama, because he's clearly a very smart man. He talks like a very smart man. I bet that worries the hell out of a lot of just plain folks who won't vote for him. They'll feel much safer with McCain, a man who reminds them of the rough-hewn, tough-talkin' heroes they saw in all those Hollywood movies all those years ago.

Americans like electing people who build log cabins and ride horses all day and git all dusty while they're doin' it. People like Reagan. It's frontier mythology. They are still ridin' off into the sunset after havin' gunned down a few more redskins and hard cases on behalf of God and country.

McCain is perfect for that dumbass mentality. Obama? He's from another world to those folks.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 26 May 08 - 10:02 PM

When this whole thing started out, the candidates I thought would be best for the country were forced out. We ended up with Hillary and Obama. I thought Hillary would be much better than Obama, but I've stated a few times that if Hillary didn't get the nomination, I'd vote for Obama.

                  This faith based thing is something I cannot stand to see go forward. To me, it's at the core of the Bush presidency. It was the wigged out religious idiots that put him in office.
                  Then, after Obama said he wanted to continue down that path, we were introduced to Reverend Wright.

                  It was god who told Bush to invade Iraq. What is god going to tell Obama to do.

                  I just think we need a rational individual in the office.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 May 08 - 10:26 PM

Neither Hillary nor Obama strike me as the type who would claim that God told them what to do. Nor does McCain, for that matter.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ebbie
Date: 27 May 08 - 12:51 AM

"...and now we have what ... uh...some are reading as a suggestion that somebody knock off Osama ...uh..um..Obama [after being prompted by the FNC anchor]....well both if we could [laughing]" Liz Trotta in an interview on FOX

What is WRONG with These People

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 27 May 08 - 11:28 AM

Frank-Walter Steinmeier had hoped to meet personally, but Barack Obama has a lot on his plate at the moment and Germany's foreign minister had to make do with a telephone conversation with the presidential candidate during his recent visit to Washington. Still, that's all it took to stir Steinmeier's enthusiasm for the candidate.

The American may be deep in the midst of a campaign, but members of Steinmeier's entourage told SPIEGEL that Obama's foreign policy questions were very engaged, and he peppered his conversation with questions about the German foreign minister's views on Russia, Iran and Afghanistan.

The conversation lasted about 15 minutes and was very focused. Obama's rhetorical "cruising altitude," was apparently quite high, an advisor to Steinmeier said. At the end of the conversation, the Democratic presidential candidate promised to come to Germany as soon as possible.

The few minutes spent on the telephone gave Steinmeier the impression that Obama is prepared to fundamentally reconsider the course of US foreign policy. Steinmeier was impressed, and only a day later he publicly outed himself as the senator's latest fan. "Yes we can," the minister, not known for his emotional outbursts, chanted, evoking Obama's campaign slogan during a speech at Harvard University. Steinmeier used the term to express his desire for a renewal of trans-Atlantic relations.

'Germany Is Obamaland'

But the foreign minister hasn't been alone in his admiration for the candidate -- Berlin has been teeming with Obamamania for weeks now. Even conservatives are taken by the Democrat. After the Bush era, Chancellor Angela Merkel of the conservative Christian Democrats can easily imagine working together with a liberal Democrat in the White House. And Norbert Röttgen, chief whip for the Christian Democrats in parliament, sees Obama as the messenger of a new wave of politics that could also provide a model for Germany.

"Germany is Obamaland," says Karsten Voigt, the German government's coordinator for trans-Atlantic relations. He says Germans see the African-American senator as a kind of "mixture of John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr."
...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 May 08 - 12:18 PM

Those people (on Fox) are disseminating propaganda, Ebbie...very deliberately calculated propaganda that is intended to influence their viewers to think in certain patterns. They are doing what Goebbels did in Germany, and they are pandering in a very blatant way to certain viewpoints that are out there. They want their viewers to think "Obama...Osama", "Obama...Muslim", "Hillary...assassin", etc...

And most of their daily viewers just lap it up.

Those people would make the most enthusiastic crowds at some new Nuremberg rallies, I'm sure. The outer format would be a bit different, but the inner spirit would be almost indistinguishable.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 May 08 - 12:54 PM

Washington Post:
Obama's Patriotic Call

By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008; Page A13

If the 2008 election is to be a debate about the true meaning of patriotism, then bring it on.

Ever since Barack Obama took off his flag pin, Democrats and liberals have had a queasy feeling that talk of patriotism would be a covert way to raise the matter of Obama's race; to cast him as some sort of alien figure ("You know what his middle name is?"); and to paint him as an effete intellectual out of touch with true American values.

I have no doubt that these things will happen. Moreover, John McCain's sacrifice for his country will be a central theme of the Republican campaign. And why not? Yes, many Republicans refused to honor John Kerry's service during the campaign four years ago, but McCain wasn't part of that, and his service deserves the praise it gets.

Yet Obama cannot simply cede the terrain of patriotism to McCain, and progressives should not assume that patriotism is somehow a bad thing, akin to jingoism or nationalism.

The reaction of too many progressives to patriotism is "automatic, allergic recoil," say two young Seattle writers, Eric Liu and Nick Hanauer, in their important book "The True Patriot."

Instead of recoil, they offer rigorous standards for what patriotism should be. "True patriots," they write, "believe that freedom from responsibility is selfishness; freedom from sacrifice is cowardice; freedom from tolerance is prejudice; freedom from stewardship is exploitation; and freedom from compassion is cruelty."

Their new progressive patriotism bears some resemblance to the old progressive patriotism of Theodore Roosevelt. "We cannot meet the future," Roosevelt said in a 1916 Memorial Day speech, "either by mere gross materialism or by mere silly sentimentalism; above all, we cannot meet it if we attempt to balance gross materialism in action by silly sentimentalism in words."

For good measure, the trust-buster also declared that "the big business man" must "recognize the fact that his business activities, while beneficial to himself and his associates, must also justify themselves by being beneficial to the men who work for him and to the public which he serves."

As Liu and Hanauer and and Roosevelt suggest, anyone who enters into a serious discussion of patriotism is required to offer more than bromides about love of flag and of country. Patriotism has to involve definitions, commitments and actions.

Obama already has the template for moving the debate in this direction. In December, he gave one of his best, and least noticed, speeches: a call to national service. The policies he proposed include a doubling of the Peace Corps and an expansion of the AmeriCorps program from 75,000 to 250,000 slots. (President Bush, by the way, deserves credit for saving AmeriCorps from the hostility of some in his own party.) Obama would link his $4,000 tuition tax credit to a service requirement.

He also suggests ideas that conservatives should embrace, including a Social Investment Fund Network and a Social Entrepreneur Agency that would encourage the innovations of the private, not-for-profit sector.

But Obama's speech was about more than programs. It was suffused with the rhetoric of a reformer's patriotism. "I have no doubt that in the face of impossible odds, people who love their country can change it," he said. "Loving your country shouldn't just mean watching fireworks on the Fourth of July; loving your country must mean accepting your responsibility to do your part to change it."

Obama's is just one approach to patriotism and service. Sen. Jim Webb's new GI Bill of Rights is an essential step toward honoring those who have sacrificed in Iraq, and Sen. Chris Dodd has proposed important interim steps toward expanding AmeriCorps by bringing its rewards to those who perform service more closely in line with current college costs.

Dodd says he always explains his decision to join President John F. Kennedy's Peace Corps by saying, "The president asked me." He wins nods from youthful audiences when he says, "Let me tell you what it was like to be young, to be an American and to be asked."

Dodd was campaigning for Obama in South Dakota last Friday when he spoke with me, and he seems to have gotten this message to his candidate. Pinch-hitting for Ted Kennedy as the commencement speaker at Wesleyan University on Sunday, Obama revisited the themes of his December speech and explicitly renewed JFK's call, promising that "service to a greater good" would be "a cause of my presidency."

A competition between Obama and McCain over who can issue the most compelling summons to service would serve the country far better than an empty rhetorical skirmish over which of these candidates is the true patriot. And, yes, it's a good thing that Obama has been seen wearing the flag pin again.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 May 08 - 12:57 PM

another from the Washington Post...

Worldviews in Need of Merger

By Richard Cohen
Tuesday, May 27, 2008; Page A13

Chris Matthews, in a look of revelation not seen since the late DeMille did biblical epics, said the other day that he is beginning to think a Barack Obama-Hillary Clinton ticket makes sense. Maybe so. But I have an even better ticket in mind: Obama-McCain. That way we might get a sensible foreign policy.

As it is now, the two probable presidential nominees have outlined a foreign policy that sort of goes like this: Obama will talk to anyone while John McCain will talk to no one. I would guess that both would love to amend their positions but are mortally afraid of appearing reasonable. Obama represents a constituency that holds that much of the world's troubles are caused by the United States and can be rectified by a president who is alert to cultural nuance and can be a keen listener. This is the world according to Oprah Winfrey.

McCain, on the other hand, is seeking the support of a constituency that thinks the United States is always the innocent party and would show weakness by even acknowledging the existence of, not to mention the occasional justifiable grievance of, certain entities -- particularly Hamas, Hezbollah and the entire country of Iran. This is the world according to an ostrich.

I attribute Obama's predicament to inexperience and a certain worrisome naivete. When he said he would personally negotiate with Iran (if he were president), he might not have realized exactly what he was saying.

McCain, though, knows exactly what he himself is saying -- and how wrong he is -- because he once said pretty close to the opposite. In 2006, McCain was interviewed by James P. Rubin, a former Clinton administration official then slumming as a journalist. Rubin asked McCain whether American diplomats should continue to work with the Palestinian government in the Gaza Strip if -- as had just become the case -- "Hamas is now in charge." McCain essentially said yes.

"They're the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them," he told Rubin. "It's a new reality in the Middle East." I have truncated McCain's quote, but it is -- I avow and attest -- an accurate reflection of what he said.

After Rubin's recent recounting of his McCain interview in a Post op-ed, the McCain camp went berserk. It called Rubin a liar and said he had taken the quote out of context. In one sense, he had: In 2006, McCain was not an official presidential candidate. Now he is.

McCain's campaign then supplied a piece of the interview that Rubin had left out. Here it is: "I think part of the relationship is going to be dictated by how Hamas acts, not how the United States acts." Well, duh. Not only is that obvious, it materially changes nothing. What's missing is a McCain oath to never, ever talk to Hamas until it is, in essence, no longer Hamas. It's clear that McCain was once guilty of sensible flexibility. Until he secures his GOP base, this could be dangerous. Someone could mistake him for a moderate.

As for Obama, he's coming off as McCain's mirror opposite -- just dying to talk to anyone McCain won't. This, too, is a mistake, because when a president sits down with an antagonistic foreign leader, doing so can only be to settle what has already been settled. Negotiations can be a dangerous business, especially when one negotiator has a free and rambunctious press to goad him into compromises while the other is covered by suitably intimidated sycophants.

Campaigns tend to make idiots out of really smart people. Already, Hillary Clinton has been soiled by her fantasy bravery in Bosnia, Obama stood by for too long while his minister made a fool of him, and McCain, who wakes up every morning being as decent a person as there is, calls someone a liar because he has been embarrassed by his own words. No one's looking good here.

But while Americans take campaign rhetoric with a grain of salt, foreign audiences -- including leaders -- tend to believe what they hear. They are now sizing up McCain and Obama on the basis of what they are saying. One sounds like an inflexible hard-liner and the other like a naif. What America really needs is to combine the two -- some moderation on McCain's part, some realpolitik on Obama's. Either man could fill that role by himself. All it takes is a decent regard for when history says not to talk -- and when it says to listen.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 27 May 08 - 12:57 PM

He is th e most rational individual available, Rig. And your gut instinct of revulsion about the Faith-Based Etcetera is, I think, misplaced. Look into it a bit more closely. The existing organization is very careful (at least in words) to make their support available to "people of any faith, or none" who are doing social good works of some kind. Obama has made it clear that if he keeps the office, it would have to be carefullly vetted not to be biased toward any single patho r group.

If it were called "the Office of Charitable NGO Liaison" would you have a problem with it? In other words, is your reaction against the substance or the label?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 27 May 08 - 04:14 PM

I would happily support someone who wanted to do away with this program. We had public organizations in place to do the things that the Faith-Based groups are supposed to be doing. After Reagan--Bush and Bush, much of the funding for these agencies was cut.
                     Now, somebody has realized why they were in place in the first place, and they come up with the Faith-Based buffoons.
                     A Democrat, you would think, would want to go back to public administration and get away from the ass-kissing process that certainly must be found in what is going on now. A Democrat who would not shut these scams down, is just another scammer, it seems to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 May 08 - 04:42 PM

"Faith-based" does not necessarily mean "bad", Rig. Faith-based organizations have been engaging in useful charity and public service ever since human societies have existed.

Indian medicine people did that for thousands of years in their societies. They were the healers and teachers and they were also the religious leaders of those people. What are you gonna do about that? ;-)

Your reaction to "faith" is as blind as a neocon's reaction to "socialism". It has become an unthinking reflex on your part, seems to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 27 May 08 - 04:44 PM

Well, you haven't quite answered my question -- do you have some evidence of "these scams", or are you extrapolating that just from the label?

What would you think of the program if everything else were the same byt the name changed as I described upthread?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 May 08 - 05:48 PM

"...Even conservatives are taken by the Democrat..." (From a quote in that post by Amos 27 May 08 - 11:28 AM)

Not too surprising. The thing is, the Democratic party, in European teerms is a conservative party, well to the right of centre. (And that "centre" is currently pretty well to the right to start with, in historical terms.)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 27 May 08 - 05:54 PM

Little Hawk - Whatever faith based organizations do to add to their numbers is their business, as sad as it is for me to see that happen. But I think I have a right to be upset when I pay taxes and they're doing it with public money.

                   Amos - The nature of the "scam" is in the way these things are organized in the first place. Again, I think the most unfortunate part of the whole thing is the fact that it's done with tax payer money. Has anyone looked to see if they dole out funds to Wiccans, Pegans, and Pantheists? If they haven't given those folks a piece of the pie, why not?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 27 May 08 - 06:08 PM

I believe, Rig, from your remarks, that you have not looked into what organization "X" really does do, and have concluded things about its nature that are generalized and in accurate because of the very offputting use of the word Faith and Bush's neurotic dependency on his imaginary playmate to keep him sober.

All well and good. But administratively, if they say "any faith, or none" it is polite to tentatively accept that assertion while looking for more facts.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 May 08 - 06:10 PM

Charity and good works are things that many religious people do for their own sake, Rig, simply because it is the right thing to do...and not to "add to their numbers". You seem incapable of even imagining any religious person who acts out of an inner social ideal rather than to enlarge or aggrandize an outer religious power structure.

That's sad. Most of the kindest and most intelligent and finest people of character I've ever known have been members of some religion (a great variety of different ones) or of some spiritual discipline. And a few others have not.

It shows that you do not even begin to comprehend what religion means to any sincere person who happens to be, to use your term, "religious".

Your terms of reference are way out of context and they are based on some kind of emotional grudge you are carrying.

******

As for the Faith-Based Initiatives thing, I don't know enough about that to comment much on it. It's not an issue in Canada, only in the USA.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 27 May 08 - 06:35 PM

It would probably never be an issue in Canada, you'd have to elect an idiot like George W. Bush before it would be allowed to surface.

                         Your experience with Bible Thumpers must be a lot different than mine, but I'll take your word for the ones you know.

                         In the long run, however, people who think like I do would constitute such a tiny little minority, it wouldn't be worth a political candidates time to worry about us.

                         Getting back to Amos' point, though. Even if these "faith based" people were all honest and upright, we had civil programs in place to cover these kinds of problems, and Reagan and Bush, Bush gutted them, and Clinton did little to help restore them. Maybe that's what bothers me the most.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 May 08 - 06:41 PM

Yes, I fully understand your concern about those programs being gutted. That has happened in Canada too, to a pretty bad extent, ever since the 1980s, due to the neoconservative movement having had its effect on Canadian politics too ever since the beginning of the Reagan era.

However, I doubt that we will ever elect an idiot comparable to George W. Bush! ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 27 May 08 - 07:22 PM

I certainly hope not!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 27 May 08 - 07:39 PM

The red righter are all over Obama because he stated that his greatuncle had been part of the frces that liberated Auschwitz; in fact it was not Auschwitz, which was liberated by the Red Army, but Buchenwald, and Obama quickly acknowledged his mistatement and corrected it.

I want to see how Hillary responds to this news -- "An easily understandable mistake"? Or, "a shameful distortion, self-serving lying!"

I am betting she will be smart enough to go with the former.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 27 May 08 - 08:32 PM

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) Ñ The Democratic Party says the results from Oregon's presidential primary election give Barack Obama 31 pledged delegates to Hillary Clinton's 21.

Obama thumped Clinton, wining 58 percent of the vote, which was counted a week ago.

But the precise allocation of delegates, announced Tuesday, awaited final results and calculations down to the district level.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Donuel
Date: 27 May 08 - 08:56 PM

Obama is not as patriotic as John McCain, in fact Barak Hussein is profoundly UNpatriotic.*


McCain talking point #1.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 May 08 - 09:05 PM

Oh, hell, Sergeant Fury and his Howling Commandos aren't as patriotic as John McCain! Everybody knows that. John McCain chews up iron nails, kills Commies with a mere glance, and eats terrorists for breakfast. He laughs in the face of death. ;-D

The usual election-time bloody nonsense, in other words...

I do not consider being a war hero as being any kind of recommendation for holding office. Never did. I want a war hero if I'm going to conduct a military assault, and I'll put him in the front ranks with the newbies who haven't been under fire before. Let him do what he's good at...fighting and killing people. Let someone who's good at governing run the government. I see no connection whatsoever between those 2 roles.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Charley Noble
Date: 27 May 08 - 09:07 PM

This is all very confusing to someone who "Likes Ike."

Whatever happened to Huey, Dewey and Louie?

I've been away from political campaigns for a while...

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 27 May 08 - 09:46 PM

Well Charlie, have you heard David Brooks' contribution to the Veepstakes?

Obama needs an old white general to balance the ticket, so Brooks suggested Ike.

McCain needs somebody younger than he is, so Brooks suggested Ike for him too.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 May 08 - 10:30 PM

(Heh!)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 28 May 08 - 12:15 AM

An elegant excerpt from Obama's graduation address at Wesleyan :

"We will face our share of cynics and doubters. But we always have. I can still remember a conversation I had with an older man all those years ago just before I left for Chicago. He said, ÒBarack, IÕll give you a bit of advice. Forget this community organizing business and do something thatÕs gonna make you some money. You canÕt change the world, and people wonÕt appreciate you trying. But youÕve got a nice voice, so you should think about going into television broadcasting. IÕm telling you, youÕve got a future.Ó



Now, he may have been right about the TV thing, but he was wrong about everything else. For that old man has not seen what I have seen. He has not seen the faces of ordinary people the first time they clear a vacant lot or build a new playground or force an unresponsive leader to provide services to their community. He has not seen the face of a child brighten because of an inspiring teacher or mentor. He has not seen scores of young people educate their parents on issues like Darfur, or mobilize the conscience of a nation around the challenge of climate change. He has not seen lines of men and women that wrap around schools and churches, that stretch block after block just so they could make their voices heard, many for the very first time. ..."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 May 08 - 05:53 PM

Something wrong with that link there, Amos...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 28 May 08 - 09:14 PM

Today, in Denver, Obama announced that he wanted to pass federal legislation that would allow illegal immigrants to qualify for "in-state" tuition at colleges and universities. That means if you're a US citizen, and you live in Idaho, but you want to go to school in Oregon, you have to pay "out-of-state" tuition rates. But if you're illegally in the country, you get a discount.

                      McCain is looking better and better.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 29 May 08 - 12:01 AM

Sorry--the correct link for Obama's address at Wesleyan is:

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/samgrahamfelsen/gGBPzl.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST
Date: 29 May 08 - 12:59 AM

Have any of you googled 'obama homosexual' and read about the Sinclair/Young stuff? A crack-smoking homosexual headed for the white house. man o man. On the other hand there's a guy who was in the hands of the soviet psychologists for 7 years. 7 years of no telling what being done to him.

But if McCain gets the nomination, Obama will win. Obama's never faced competition in an election, because of scandals. His state-level election, the opponent was scandalized and lost. His primary in the US senate race, the opponent was scandalized and lost. His opponent in the general election, scandalized and lost. Obama's got where he is with the help of the FBI's mud mining. And you don't think 7 years of soviet brain manipulation of McCain will result in a little mud? Obama is the handpicked candidate of the intelligence community, and you know those are the Bushmen. CIA/Skull and Bones and all that stuff. Obama will continue the Skull and Bones economics and in a year people will be morphing his big-eared assface into GWBush's with photoshop. No difference between the two politically and not much in looks.

Obama was selected for fast-tracking 25 years ago by the Brezinski. Obama is backed by Rockefeller money. Obama/Gore want a 10 million person 'green army' to push you around. Obama is bought and paid for by the same special interests that control the Bushes and the Clintons.

So, a drooling soviet mind slave, or a racist crack-smoking homosexual? The lesser of two weevils.

http://mail.moment.net/~michael/Terrorism101.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 29 May 08 - 01:58 AM

I can see why you don't use your real name, dude. You probably don't even remember it.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 29 May 08 - 08:36 AM

Yes sir, that's pretty wild all right!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 29 May 08 - 10:13 AM

THe Larry Sinclair shtick is off the table, probably unfounded, and of no interest, IMHO.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 May 08 - 10:42 AM

The only way to find out for sure is if he gets elected...then watch what he does in the next 4 years.

By their fruits ye shall know them.

Same goes for McCain or whoever else might get elected.

If Obama is NOT a chosen tool of the controlling oligarchy that runs America...I fear for his life, frankly. Those guys are not going to yield their controlling hand to any independent-minded upstart in the Oval Office. Absolutely no way possible that that will happen...short of another American revolution...and I see no way of that happening either.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 29 May 08 - 11:37 AM

controlling oligarchy that runs America...I fear for his life, frankly. Those guys are ...

LH:

Who ARE "these guys"???? (Start Butch Cassidy theme music here).



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: frogprince
Date: 29 May 08 - 11:51 AM

could we have the 12:59 post flushed away, and lots of lysol used in the toiletbowl, please.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 29 May 08 - 12:00 PM

Well, it doesn't hurt to have a variety of ideas.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 29 May 08 - 12:11 PM

Rig:

I think that's where you and I differ--you think of those (the 12:59 post) as ideas....



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Charley Noble
Date: 29 May 08 - 12:15 PM

I'm for the full flush!

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 29 May 08 - 12:16 PM

Yes, I suppose, but it might prove important to keep a eye on what other folks are thinking.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Donuel
Date: 29 May 08 - 01:56 PM

Hillary thinks Obama could be another RFK who may be shot soon.

but that is not all

HILLARY HAS GONE way TOO FAR T O D A Y


..now
She is calling for protesters to descend on the Democratic National meeting next week to demonstrate against (Obama) virtually any decision regarding the Florida and Michigan delegates.

The visuals that will be created will have a life of their own and further divide the party and this nation.
All the Republicans need to do is send a few goons to start a riot.


She was always a weasel but now her tactics are like the Bush tactics during the denied recount of Florid's 2000 votes.


Hillary said that the potential for a RFK disruption of the candidate race could change everything so why should she quit now.

She should quit and realize how ashamed she has made us.
If she has a conscience to be ashamed for her own behavior she should in fact apologize and then quit.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 29 May 08 - 01:59 PM

Why should she feel ashamed?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Donuel
Date: 29 May 08 - 05:40 PM

For being a Rove of the Democratic Party

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 29 May 08 - 06:11 PM

The Rove method has been proven to be a winning proposition.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 May 08 - 06:32 PM

So was the Genghis Khan method! ;-) Al Capone was a winner too. Also Boss Tweed and Stalin and Mao Tse-Tung. Don'tcha just love a winner?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 29 May 08 - 07:03 PM

Did Genghis Khan feel ashamed, Al Capone, Boss Tweed, etc., etc.? I doubt it. Remember the words of Vince Lombardi--"Just Win Baby!"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 May 08 - 07:09 PM

Shame never crossed their tiny minds, Rig... ;-)

The biggest jerks I ever knew in school were all people who thought of themselves as "winners" too. It seems to go with the territory.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 29 May 08 - 07:10 PM

Rig:

There are small definitions of "win", and larger ones.

Some businessmen for example believe that any ruthless action in the interest of profit, no matter what its impact on the company's long-term survival, is "a win" and therefore justifiable if it raises the immediate profits of the current quarter.

Rove managed to "win" his little negotiating moments and his pea-brained campaiugns to start wars and steal elections. The long term consequences of his actions were not a win for him (as he is now looked on as a right wing fanatic) nor for the country (as the economy is in ruins and we have lost our international repute because of his actions, not to mention the minds of thousands of good men). Some "win", huh?

Thinking in black and white and in a narrow field of view is a good road to ultimate failure even though you seem to be winning every step of the way.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 May 08 - 07:18 PM

2000!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Break out the Banana Dacquiris, Chongo!