BS: Popular Views on Obama

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Oct 08 - 06:24 PM

"He will (thank God!)"



                And that, of course, is the problem!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 13 Oct 08 - 07:55 PM

Only, good Rig, if you are one of those ideologues.

Which I suppose you must be, judging from your reactive little posts.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Oct 08 - 09:42 PM

It's just that I think we need to progress towards a workable solution.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Oct 08 - 09:52 PM

So, Mr. Hypocrite, since you don't like "thank God" ,exactly why is the McCain/ Palin ticket preferable on that issue?

And anybody who doesn't support Obama/Biden is ipso facto supporting McCain/Palin.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Oct 08 - 09:58 PM

Well, it is possible to document the facts being put forward by the Obama people about what he's said and his life history. So that would mean that the anti-Obama side is lying.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Oct 08 - 09:59 PM

Okay, Ron, I would agree. Given the choices we have McCain/Palin is preferable to Obama/Biden. I wish there were other choices out there, but...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 13 Oct 08 - 10:13 PM

McCain - Palin is a path toward a lot more destruction, pal. Shake off any delusions on that score.

But, hell, is a bit like discussing with a stone wall to point out, yet again, the reasons why this is so.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Alice
Date: 13 Oct 08 - 10:23 PM

Anyone who says they prefer Ralph Nader but then chooses McCain over Obama seems really confused about what Nader stands for. The fact is, my views match those of Nader more than any other candidate, but McCain is WAY down the list, far away from Nader's views.
If you go to
http://selectsmart.com/president/2008.html and select your views, it will match your views to those of the candidates and show you what percentage each agrees with you.

Here is the way the issues and the candidats match up with my views on the issues:
Ralph Nader   (81%)
Barack Obama   (76%)
Dennis Kucinich (withdrawn) (75%)
17 other candidates who ran in decreasing agreement until the
list reaches
John McCain   (20%)

So, Rig, your views agree with Obama a lot more than you think if you prefer Nader. If Nader's views and mine agree 81% and McCain only 20%, I really wonder why you would not vote for Obama. It must be something other than the issues.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Sawzaw
Date: 13 Oct 08 - 10:50 PM

Mr conflicted Amos:

"As it is, you sound like a parrot"

"I have to echo Bobert's remarks here."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ebbie
Date: 14 Oct 08 - 12:49 AM

"He will (thank God!) disappoint ideologues and purists of the left and the right." Frank Shaeffer

"He will (thank God!)"

And that, of course, is the problem!" Rig

Surely, surely, Rig, you're not that dense.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Oct 08 - 08:33 AM

How McCain Will Steal the Election from Obama (Sort Of)

Imagine an election where one of the participants calls foul. Investigations are launched or at least called for. Prosecutors raise the specter of charges, the U.S. attorney and FBI get involved. No voter fraud is ever actually found. But by the time that conclusion is reached, the myth has been solidified both to soothe the loser's supporters and condemn the winner.

Sound familiar? Sound like the recent ACORN scandal?

Well, actually I'm talking about the 1960 election between John F. Kennedy and Richard M. Nixon. That Nixon was cheated out of a win is the stuff of legend on the Right. The allegations say that Kennedy loyalists fixed the vote counts in Illinois and Texas--swinging 51 electoral votes and a majority in the Electoral College to Kennedy. In more hyperbolic versions there is alleged involvement by the mob, the Teamsters Union or legendary Chicago mayor Richard Daley.

The story goes on that Nixon, "for the good of the country," conceded honorably and exited the scene. No matter that Nixon was later chased out of the White House for cheating in an election. The myth endures.

This whole story--maybe to be replayed with Obama playing Kennedy and McCain playing Nixon--is a canard. It is a fable. A lie made up by the conservative movement to hold together their fraying coalition.

In 2008 the stakes are bigger than they've ever been before for conservatives and the canard is that much more important to them.

In the case of Obama the conservative movement is lining up a serious of story elements. They are:

    • Obama was a community organizer.
    • ACORN, a group that does community organizing, has committed voter fraud.
    • Obama is from Chicago.
    • You know what happens in elections in Chicago. Remember the 1960 election.

The story is half true and half lies. As we all know, Barack Obama is from Chicago and was a community organizer. Those are the only true parts of the conservative story. But the other two facts are myths: the 1960 election wasn't stolen (says the conclusion of recounts and investigations in 1960 and numerous academic studies since). And, ACORN has not committed voter fraud. Not one bit.

The facts about ACORN are worth getting out. ACORN is an organization that, among other things, registers low-income people to vote. One of the ways they do this is to hire door-to-door canvassers from the neighborhoods they are working in. This sort of work is tightly regulated. So, when one of the thousands of people they give jobs to doesn't do their work right and brings back bogus or phony voter registration cards, the law REQUIRES that ACORN turn the forms in to the voter registration office. The law, rightly, doesn't want anybody throwing out voter registration forms for any reason.

But ACORN goes a step farther. They have people assigned to do quality control on all the cards--calling people on the forms after they fill them out. When they find bad information on the cards they attach a cover sheet to the card but, as mentioned above, they turn in the cards as required by law. The effect is that a few bad canvassers or a poorly run office will mean that bad cards are submitted as part of the normal process. But ACORN has done everything possible to make sure voting officials know to check the forms.

The sad fact is that in at least one state--Nevada--the voting officials disregarded ACORN's cover sheets flagging the voter registration forms. That should have never happened. The resulting blowup was a scandal in search of a scandal.

The stunning con of this whole thing is the assumption that bad voter registration cards being submitted will lead to vote fraud. If somebody submits a card for Mickey Mouse it isn't like Mr. Mouse is going to show up to vote. There is no voter fraud if nobody votes.

But the big story here is what the Right is doing. Their attacks on ACORN open up the door for two things.

First, the ACORN myth allows the Republicans to do more purging of the voter rolls--the process of removing people from the voter rolls because of arbitrary anomalies in the voter registration databases. Richard L Hasen, author of the Election Law Blog and a distinguished law professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles recently wrote, "Careless purging--driven by unsubstantiated fears about voter fraud--can lead to many eligible voters being incorrectly removed from the polls." Already in Ohio the Republican Party is pushing for more purging and they found a federal judge who agreed citing ACORN's activities.

Second, in the event that campaigning, purging and intimidating voters doesn't work, the Right is creating a myth like they did in 1960. They are creating the myth of a stolen election. Conservatives plan to claim that ACORN and Barack Obama stole the election. Their hope is to steal the legitimacy of what is looking like a massive repudiation of Bush, conservatives and the Republican Party. The Right plans to steal the election by trying to steal the legitimate defeat of them by progressive forces.

And why wouldn't they? The entire Republican coalition could be shattered with this election. White suburban voters who once voted Republican on tax issues are running away from Republicans on a host of issues--including taxes. Independent are looking more and more like Democratic voters. Barack Obama may even win a majority of male voters. All of them are joining with urban votes, voters of color, young people, working class union members and others to form a long-term governing majority for progressives--a progressive majority.

Conservatives are scared of a progressive majority. And they're going to lie, cheat and steal to prevent it from happening. But they can only be successful if we let them.

The best way to deflate the conservative fable is to win with an overwhelming landslide that guarantees there won't be a dispute of the results.

We also need to confront the Republican vote purging and suppression. Already big efforts by the Obama campaign, the DNC and independent groups are working on this. Progressives and Democrats are united in this effort.

But we also need to make sure the ACORN canard doesn't get to live in daylight. It is time to circle the wagons and make sure John McCain and the Right can't steal the election...even if we win.

For progressives, the ball is in our court.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-matzzie/how-mccain-will-steal-the_b_133989.html

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Oct 08 - 08:47 AM

Who else worked with Ayers?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Oct 08 - 09:06 AM

CarolC

And the 2000 eleection was not stolen, either, by the facts of the matter and the post-election investigation- but most here believe it was...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 14 Oct 08 - 09:38 AM

I suspect it was, but I have seen no conclusive evidence it was or was not. At the time it seemed certain, because the Supreme Court wrote an illogical decree.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Oct 08 - 09:48 AM

"The results of the study showed that had the limited county by county recounts requested by the Gore team been completed, Bush would still have been the winner of the election. The recount also showed that had there been a full statewide recount of all counties, Al Gore would have received more votes than Bush. However, neither campaign requested such a total statewide recount, and it was never formally carried out."


IF Gore had been honest, and asked for the ENTIRE state to be recounted, he WOULD have won- since he asked that ONLY the precincts that he thought he could pick up votes in be recounted, EVEN IF THEY HAD RECOUNTED he would have lost.

Facts= No "seemed" about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Oct 08 - 09:53 AM

Review of Limited Sets of Ballots (initiated but not completed)   
• Gore request for recounts of all ballots in Broward, Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, and Volusia counties Bush by 225
• Florida Supreme Court of all undervotes statewide Bush by 430
• Florida Supreme Court as being implemented by the counties, some of whom refused and some counted overvotes as well as undervotes Bush by 493
Unofficial recount totals   
• Incomplete result when the Supreme Court stayed the recount (December 9, 2000) Bush by 154
Certified Result (official final count)   
• Recounts included from Volusia and Broward only Bush by 537

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 14 Oct 08 - 09:59 AM

Well, the facts are, as you say, that the state on the whole voted for Gore and got Bush. And note that your polemic, however fervent, does not take into account voters disenfranchised by the partisan manipulations of the Jeb and Katherine Harris axis of weevils.

Also, the fact is that the machinery of politics buying the Supremes played an important illegitimate role in the outcome as well.

Note, too, that 12 states in that election were "decided" by less than 5%, and the extent of disenfranchisement in any of them is debatable.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Donuel
Date: 14 Oct 08 - 10:03 AM

Why do people say they do not trust Obama and that he scares them?

Because that is what they are told to think.

Based on my own reasearch, the AM clear channel radio stations repeat the phrases I do not trust Obama and Obama scares me (or an equivalent saying) as much as 36 times an hour and a low of 3 times an hour. The rate of repeating these sayings is only slightly lower than it was 2 months ago. When you include alleged annoymous call in people the rate is higher than it was two months ago.

Even serious pundits are stating that people feel that Obama scares them, when the truth is that is only what people have been told to think. Consider for a moment the average American man calling a radio show and admitting he is full of fear regarding "such and such", it does not happen. People tend to guard their fears as one of the most private of all emotions. It is tantamount to saying "I am a coward".

I am willing to go on npr and present my findings against the framework of my long standing experience with hypnosis and my life long quest to expose propoganda and free people from false memory and and emotion.

My first newspaper article on propoganda and hypnosis appeared in the Democrat and Chronicle, a Gannet publication. There I stated that people gobble up gobbledegook and feel full of information when it was really just the equivalent of junk food.

The opinion that people don't know Obama or that they are scared is not a self generated emotion, while it does play into the hands of racial unease by some.

It is only a planted false emotion.

Watch and listen to eople who now repeat that mantra of fear and unknowing, they stumble on the words as they might when recalling an event that they think happened but did not actually occur. The McCain campaign is now folding in the notion of 9-11 terrorist associations on top of the foundation of being scared and not trusting and it causes susceptable people to feel that they have been told thaqat Barack is an Arab.   This subjective observation...

This should be enough to get my point...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Donuel
Date: 14 Oct 08 - 10:10 AM

James Baker has said the events portrayed in the film, recount are factual accurate and a true representation of what happened in Florida.

I too believe that Obama would have to have a at least a 20% lead in the polls to barely win the election by a hair.

Between disenfranchising people from access to the polls and malicious voting software, Barack would need an enormous cushion to overcome the tricks of the trade of elections today.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 14 Oct 08 - 10:28 AM

"Anyone who says they prefer Ralph Nader but then chooses McCain over Obama seems really confused about what Nader stands for."


                     Not at all, he/she is probably just repulsed at what Obama stands for.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Donuel
Date: 14 Oct 08 - 11:07 AM

I see that one member has become only very recently repulsed by the notion of becoming a citizen with a fair vested interest in their future rather than a puppet for the infinitly wealthy.

Why is that.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Alice
Date: 14 Oct 08 - 11:44 AM

Rig, what Nader stands for and what Obama stands for are not very different. There is something else that makes you against Obama than what he stands for. What you are saying is illogical, if you support Nader.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ebbie
Date: 14 Oct 08 - 12:23 PM

"Not at all, he/she is probably just repulsed at what Obama stands for."

Well, Obama does stand for, in the minds of some people, the main thing that they fear: uppity Black people in power over White people. shudder

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 14 Oct 08 - 12:40 PM

RIg:

Exactly what are you referring to in the phrase "what Obama stands for"??? SPeak the truth.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 14 Oct 08 - 12:57 PM

"what Obama stands for"???




          Self serving corruption!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ebbie
Date: 14 Oct 08 - 01:10 PM

Riginslimer, du bist ein esel.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 14 Oct 08 - 07:16 PM

"The Permanent (Smear) Campaign
        
Conservatives realize that a successful Obama presidency could remake American politics. If Obama wins the election, they will try to destroy his presidency with lies, just as they sought to do to Bill Clinton.
        
PAUL WALDMAN | October 14, 2008 | web only
        

Throughout his nearly two-year-long campaign for the White House, Barack Obama has talked about Americans' hunger for unity -- their ache for a government that will get past the petty divisions of recent decades, put aside partisanship, and come together to solve problems. From what we can tell, Obama's desire to provide that kind of presidency is sincere and stems from his own personality and history. Throughout his life, people have remarked on his ability to make those who disagree with him feel as though he has listened to their perspective and approached them with an open mind, even if he hasn't brought them around to agreeing with him.

But as we finally approach the end of this campaign, one has to wonder whether Obama knows quite what he's in for. Not what will happen over the next three weeks but what he'll face if he actually wins. Because for all his talk of bringing Americans together, a President Obama could face an opposition so consumed with disgust and anger and outright hate that it would make the 1990s look like a tea party.

That, of course, was what was supposed to happen if Hillary Clinton were the nominee. In fact, one of the arguments Obama supporters made early in the primary process was that if Clinton prevailed, the vast right-wing conspiracy would kick into high gear, besieging the woman they had hated so much for so long with an assault of unimagined viciousness. But now there is little doubt that that machinery of obsessive hostility was easily retrofitted for a new target.

Obama's apparently genuine desire for civility and inclusiveness shouldn't be mistaken for naiveté; as his opponents have discovered, he knows how to wield a shiv when necessary. In this race he has had to deal not only with the institutional efforts against him from his opponent and the Republican National Committee, but with a widely distributed campaign of smears and lies spread through viral e-mails and extremist Web sites. Unlike the McCain campaign, this broader effort will not fold up operations on Nov. 4. If Obama wins, the people now devoting their energies to seeing that he doesn't get elected will simply devote their energies to seeing that his presidency goes down in flames.

And the urgency of their cause (if not the despicable tactics they will no doubt use to advance it) will be thoroughly justified. Conservatives will quickly realize that the extraordinary challenges facing the government provide the opportunity for Obama to be either a spectacular failure or one of America's greatest presidents.

No president accomplishes all of his goals, but consider what Obama has before him. No matter what else he does, there are four large tasks on which his term in office will likely be judged. If he sees the country through the current economic crisis, brings the war in Iraq to an end, passes health-care reform that actually achieves something close to universal coverage, and sets the country on a course away from a reliance on fossil fuels, Obama would be considered the most important president since Franklin D. Roosevelt. If he succeeds, his presidency would be a mirror image of George W. Bush's, with accomplishments equal in grandeur to Bush's failures.

And that, of course, would be an unmitigated disaster for the GOP. It took 24 years after the death of the greatest Democratic president for an actual conservative (Richard Nixon) to win the White House, and Roosevelt's legacy was such that even Ronald Reagan's assaults on the New Deal and the Great Society were more rhetorical than substantive. Reagan may have hated Social Security and Medicare, but he wasn't going to risk his presidency in a futile attempt to dismantle them.

The danger for the GOP is that Obama's potential accomplishments could be just as lasting. If he does usher in a new energy paradigm, Republicans won't get anywhere advocating a return to the old one (and no matter what, it seems unlikely that we'll be hearing those weirdly gleeful chants of "Drill, baby drill!" after this election is over). If he guides us out of Iraq with a minimum of ensuing chaos, their foreign-policy and national security proposals will continue to be stained by the memory of conservative support for Bush's disastrous escapades. If Obama actually passes health-care reform, Americans will be grateful to Democrats for at least mitigating one of our most anxiety-provoking public-policy problems. And Republicans are already denying that they were ever really serious about the free-market fundamentalism that they championed for so long and that has proven so calamitous to the economy. If Obama sees us through to an economic revival, it will be almost impossible for them to explain why their ideas about the economy ought not be dismissed out of hand...."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Sawzaw
Date: 15 Oct 08 - 01:25 AM

Hank updated his classic “Family Traditionâ€쳌 for the 2008 presidential campaign:

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Sawzaw
Date: 15 Oct 08 - 01:44 AM

Jesse Jackson: Obama will rid United States of 'Zionist' control


The New York Post reported Tuesday that the Rev. Jesse Jackson said the United States will rid itself of years of "Zionist" control under an administration headed by Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.

The daily quoted the veteran civil rights leader on Tuesday as having said that although "Zionists who have controlled American policy for decades" remain strong, they will lose a much of their clout when Obama enters the White House.

Speaking at the first World Policy Forum event in Evian, France, Jackson promised "fundamental changes" in U.S. foreign policy. He said the most important change would occur in the Middle East, where "decades of putting Israel's interests first" would end.
        Advertisement
Jackson said that Obama "wants an aggressive and dynamic diplomacy." He went on to criticize the Bush administration's handling of Middle East diplomacy, telling the Post, "Bush was so afraid of a snafu and of upsetting Israel that he gave the whole thing a miss. Barack will change that," because, as long as the Palestinians haven't seen justice, the Middle East will "remain a source of danger to us all."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 15 Oct 08 - 10:16 AM

Hank's rework is really sad--a bunch of jingoistic party soundbites strung together to a hackneyed tune.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Oct 08 - 01:07 PM

Obama will rid the USA of Zionist control???

Awright! There's another great reason to vote for Obama. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 17 Oct 08 - 10:50 AM

An interesting armchair psychological analsyis of Barack Obama, from David Brooks.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Oct 08 - 01:17 PM

Who's Playing the Race Card?

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, October 17, 2008; Page A25

Let me get this straight. A couple of agitated yahoos in a rally of thousands yell something offensive and incendiary, and John McCain and Sarah Palin are not just guilty by association -- with total strangers, mind you -- but worse: guilty according to the New York Times of "race-baiting and xenophobia."

But should you bring up Barack Obama's real associations -- 20 years with Jeremiah Wright, working on two foundations and distributing money with William Ayers, citing the raving Michael Pfleger as one who helps him keep his moral compass (Chicago Sun-Times, April 2004) and the long-standing relationship with the left-wing vote-fraud specialist ACORN -- you have crossed the line into illegitimate guilt by association. Moreover, it is tinged with racism.

The fact that, when John McCain actually heard one of those nasty things said about Obama, he incurred the boos of his own crowd by insisting that Obama is "a decent person . . . that you do not have to be scared [of] as president" makes no difference. It surely did not stop John Lewis from comparing McCain to George Wallace.

The search for McCain's racial offenses is untiring and often unhinged. Remember McCain's Berlin/celebrity ad that showed a shot of Paris Hilton? An appalling attempt to exploit white hostility at the idea of black men "becoming sexually involved with white women," fulminated New York Times columnist Bob Herbert. He took to TV to denounce McCain's exhumation of that most vile prejudice, pointing out McCain's gratuitous insertion in the ad of "two phallic symbols," the Washington Monument and the Leaning Tower of Pisa.

Except that Herbert was entirely delusional. There was no Washington Monument. There was no Leaning Tower. Just photographs seen in every newspaper in the world of Barack Obama's Berlin rally in the setting he himself had chosen, Berlin's Victory Column.

Herbert is not the only fevered one. On Tuesday night, Rachel Maddow of MSNBC and Jonathan Alter of Newsweek fell over themselves agreeing that the "political salience" of the Republican attack on ACORN is, yes, its unstated appeal to racial prejudice.

This about an organization that is being accused of voter registration fraud in about a dozen states. In Nevada, the investigating secretary of state is a Democrat. Is he playing the race card, too?

What makes the charges against McCain especially revolting is that he has been scrupulous in eschewing the race card. He has gone far beyond what is right and necessary, refusing even to make an issue of Obama's deep, self-declared connection with the race-baiting Rev. Wright.

In the name of racial rectitude, McCain has denied himself the use of that perfectly legitimate issue. It is simply Orwellian for him to be now so widely vilified as a stoker of racism. What makes it doubly Orwellian is that these charges are being made on behalf of the one presidential candidate who has repeatedly, and indeed quite brilliantly, deployed the race card.

How brilliantly? The reason Bill Clinton is sulking in his tent is because he feels that Obama surrogates succeeded in painting him as a racist. Clinton has many sins, but from his student days to his post-presidency, his commitment and sincerity in advancing the cause of African Americans have been undeniable. If the man Toni Morrison called the first black president can be turned into a closet racist, then anyone can.

And Obama has shown no hesitation in doing so to McCain. Weeks ago, in Springfield, Mo., and elsewhere, he warned darkly that George Bush and John McCain were going to try to frighten you by saying that, among other scary things, Obama has "a funny name" and "doesn't look like all those other presidents on those dollar bills."

McCain has never said that, nor anything like that. When asked at the time to produce one instance of McCain deploying race, the Obama campaign could not. Yet here was Obama firing a preemptive charge of racism against a man who had not indulged in it. An extraordinary rhetorical feat, and a dishonorable one.

What makes this all the more dismaying is that it comes from Barack Obama, who has consistently presented himself as a healer, a man of a new generation above and beyond race, the man who would turn the page on the guilt-tripping grievance politics of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

I once believed him.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 17 Oct 08 - 01:23 PM

Those who yap McCainisms and Bushisms in their support--including major media outlets--have been emphasizing that "funny name" over and over, and Krauthammer is completely aware of it. Nor have either Bush OR McCain said anything to correct the abuse of tyhat name as a ridiculous pushbutton to stir up FUD in voters. Krauthammer is a professional disingenue.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Oct 08 - 07:26 PM

LOL

Original lyrics to the Hank Williams Jr. song, Family Tradition...


Country music singers
have always been a real close family
but lately some of my kin folks
have disowned a few others and me
i guess its because
i kinda changed my direction
i guess i went and broke the family tradition

they get on me wanna know Hank
why do you drink?
(Hank) why do you roll smoke?
Why must you live out the songs that you wrote?
over and over
everybody made my prediction
so if i get stoned
I'm just carryin'
on an old family tradition

I am very proud
of my daddys name
although his kinda music
and mine ain't exactly the same
stop and think it over
put yourself in my position
if i get stoned and sing all night long
it's a family tradition

Don't ask me Hank
why do you drink?
(Hank) why do you roll smoke?
Why must you live out the songs that you wrote?
If I'm down in a Honky-Tonk
Some ol' slicks tryin to give me corrections
I'll say leave me alone
I'm singin all night long
it's a family tradition

Lordy, I have loved some ladies
and I have loved Jim Beam
and they both tried to kill me
in 1973
when that doctor asked me
Son how did you get in this condition
I said hey sawbones I'm just carryin on
an old family tradition

So don't ask me Hank
why do you drink?
(Hank) why do you roll smoke?
Why must you live out the songs you wrote?
Stop and think it over
Try and put yourself in my unique position
If I get stoned and sing all night long
It's a family tradition!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Alice
Date: 18 Oct 08 - 03:15 PM

In Saint Louis, Missouri, the crowd that showed up today to hear Obama speak was estimated at 100,000 or more people.

Photo:
click

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 18 Oct 08 - 08:23 PM

That picture--the largest crowd ever assembled at a political event--is worth a thousand words. Thanks, Alice.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 18 Oct 08 - 08:27 PM

Olberman on Obama's counter-attack.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 18 Oct 08 - 09:40 PM

From the traditionally Republican Chicago Tribune:

The historically Republican newspaper has crossed sides for the first time in its history to endorse its native son:

The Republican Party, the party of limited government, has lost its way. The government ran a $237 billion surplus in 2000, the year before Bush took office -- and recorded a $455 billion deficit in 2008. The Republicans lost control of the U.S. House and Senate in 2006 because, as we said at the time, they gave the nation rampant spending and Capitol Hill corruption. They abandoned their principles. They paid the price.
...

We do, though, think Obama would govern as much more of a pragmatic centrist than many people expect.

We know first-hand that Obama seeks out and listens carefully and respectfully to people who disagree with him. He builds consensus. He was most effective in the Illinois legislature when he worked with Republicans on welfare, ethics and criminal justice reform.

...

When Obama said at the 2004 Democratic Convention that we weren't a nation of red states and blue states, he spoke of union the way Abraham Lincoln did.

It may have seemed audacious for Obama to start his campaign in Springfield, invoking Lincoln. We think, given the opportunity to hold this nation's most powerful office, he will prove it wasn't so audacious after all. We are proud to add Barack Obama's name to Lincoln's in the list of people the Tribune has endorsed for president of the United States.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 18 Oct 08 - 10:06 PM

An endorsement of Obama by the Los Angeles Times

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 18 Oct 08 - 11:29 PM

From the Baltimore Chronicle:

...In so many ways, Obama has tacked to the middle or even the right, while spouting soaring but empty rhetoric about "change."

Meanwhile, everything Ralph Nader says makes perfect sense. He has consistently called the Iraq and Afghanistan wars the crimes that they are. He has consistently called for a nationalized health care system, which every other modern nation has long since proven to be a more cost-effective and health-effective way to run a medical system than the failed free-market approach advocated by Obama and the rest of the Establishment political system. He has correctly denounced the economic bailout as welfare for the rich and for the corporate criminals who have been sucking the life out of the US economy for years.

And yet, I think I have to vote of Obama this year.

The reason is partly because I know I would vote for Obama if I lived in Ohio or Indiana, where the race between McCain and Obama is too close to call, and so, to vote for Nader when it is simply safe to do so here in Pennsylvania is really a cop-out.


But even more important, when I see the hate-filled racists and right-wing yahoos braying at McCain and Palin rallies, when I hear people calling for Obama to be killed or lynched, and when I see the rabid hate mail circulating in email inboxes falsely labeling him as a secret Muslim, a terrorist, a Marxist and a black nationalist, I want to see the man resoundingly win this election.

But it's more than that. I also, perhaps against all logic and experience, admit that I expect something good of an Obama presidency.

Call me naïve, but based upon my own life experience, I keep thinking that a guy who has worked as a community organizer, a Harvard Law School grad (and even law journal editor!) who could have named his price at a Wall Street law firm, but who chose instead to be a political and community activist, a guy who has relatives who live in humble surroundings in Kenya, and who spent some of his childhood actually living in a Third World Asian nation, not to mention a guy who has surely felt the sting of being called a nigger, has to bring something new to the White House. Certainly no other president in the history of the country has come to the office with such a background. That is no small thing....

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Sawzaw
Date: 19 Oct 08 - 09:29 AM

Steve Chapman Chicago Tribune:

"It's hard to imagine he would be so indulgent if we learned that John McCain had a long association with a former Klansman who used to terrorize African-Americans, Obama's conduct exposes a moral blind spot about these onetime terrorists, who get a pass because they

(a) fall on the left end of the spectrum and

(b) haven't planted any bombs lately.

You can tell a lot about someone from his choice of friends. What this friendship reveals is that when it comes to practicing sound moral hygiene, Obama has work to do and no interest in doing it."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 19 Oct 08 - 09:52 AM

Your argument collapses completely on the use of the word "association", Sawz. You and I are associated, too, but my character is not slurred by your constant output of irrational fearmongering. Ayers is a strawman in this discussion, waved around by wishful thinking.

"ormer Secretary of State Colin L. Powell Endorses Obama

In an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday, former
Secretary of State Colin Powell endorsed Senator Barack Obama
for president.

New York Times

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 Oct 08 - 08:08 AM

Powell's endorsement makes the race an open racial conflict. I doubt if it will turn out well, no matter how it turns out.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 20 Oct 08 - 08:41 AM

Rig:

That is the most heinous thing I've heatrd you say. And, as one opinion against another, it's a load of codswallop.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Oct 08 - 08:57 AM

So Colin Powell is allowed to endorse White candidates (as he did John McCain in the Republican primary) but he's not allowed to endorse a Black candidate? He's only allowed to endorse a White candidate just because he's Black ?

Am I getting this right?

Colin Powell is not allowed to endorse a Black candidate without being accused of being motivated by race ?

So let me see if I'm getting this right... us White folks can vote for other White folks and that's not about race, but Black people can't vote for other Black people because if they do, that means it's all about race.

Did I get that right?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 20 Oct 08 - 09:04 AM

Nothing right about it, Carol; it's just Rigslimer getting a bit desperate; no matter how hard he flaps his arms he isn't getting any lift.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 Oct 08 - 10:02 AM

We'll see how it plays in Peroria!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 20 Oct 08 - 10:44 AM

Debunking some of Tom Brokaw's Toxic BS -- specifically about Ayers being called a terrorist, inter alia.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Sawzaw
Date: 20 Oct 08 - 11:04 AM

Dear Amos:

Even though I am a lowly burger flipper and car parker and you are among the intelligensia, You and I are associated, but my character is not slurred by your constant output of irrational fearmongering.