Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 16, 2014, 10:31:36 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
82464 Posts in 2249 Topics by 1062 Members
Latest Member: seawolfpack5
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  The Obama Phenomena
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 12 Print
Author Topic: The Obama Phenomena  (Read 100297 times)
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12033


« Reply #150 on: June 19, 2008, 09:06:52 PM »

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/2008/06/021450print.html

June 18, 2008

Obama, Islamophobe? Muslims barred from picture at Obama event

Once again he throws a billion Muslims under the bus by tacitly acknowledging that they carry just a bit too much political baggage for him.

(But it's OK -- he apologized.)

"Muslims barred from picture at Obama event," by Ben Smith at Politico, June 18 (thanks to all who sent this in):

Two Muslim women at Barack Obama's rally in Detroit Monday were barred from sitting behind the podium by campaign volunteers seeking to prevent the women's headscarves from appearing in photographs or on television with the candidate.
The campaign has apologized to the women, all Obama supporters who said they felt betrayed by their treatment at the rally.

"This is of course not the policy of the campaign. It is offensive and counter to Obama's commitment to bring Americans together and simply not the kind of campaign we run," said Obama spokesman Bill Burton. "We sincerely apologize for the behavior of these volunteers."

Building a human backdrop to a political candidate, a set of faces to appear on television and in photographs, is always a delicate exercise in demographics and political correctness. Advance staffers typically pick supporters out of a crowd to reflect the candidate's message.

When Obama won North Carolina amid questions about his ability to connect with white voters, for instance, he stood in front of a group of middle-aged white women waving small American flags. Across the aisle, a Hispanic New Hampshire Democrat, Roberto Fuentes, told Politico that he was recently asked, and declined, to contribute to the "diversity" of the crowd behind Senator John McCain at a Nashua event.

But for Obama, the old-fashioned image-making contrasts with his promise to transcend identity politics, and to embrace all elements of America. The incidents in Michigan, which has one of the largest Arab and Muslim populations in the country, also raise an aspect of his campaign that sometimes rubs Muslims the wrong way: The candidate has vigorously denied a false, viral rumor that he himself is Muslim. But the denials seem to some at times to imply that there something wrong with the faith, though Obama occasionally adds that he means no disrespect to Islam.

"I was coming to support him, and I felt like I was discriminated against by the very person who was supposed to be bringing this change, who I could really relate to," said Hebba Aref, a 25-year-old lawyer who lives in the Detroit suburb of Bloomfield Hills. "The message that I thought was delivered to us was that they do not want him associated with Muslims or Muslim supporters."...
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12033


« Reply #151 on: June 19, 2008, 09:12:22 PM »

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2008/06/muslim_grievanc.html#

Obama supporters! Just not in the photos....
Logged
SB_Mig
Guest
« Reply #152 on: June 19, 2008, 10:39:35 PM »

Quote
Ummm how about LBJ?


I'll have to defer to my elders on this one as I was not around.l.. wink

As to McCain's character, cheating on his first wife in order to marry the younger ex-cheerleader doesn't quite put him on my "mr. nice guy list". And although cleared of wrongdoing in the Keating Five debacle, he was a known a business associate of Keating, so I'm going the conservative-Obama-guilt-by-association route with that one...

GM - I mean, really, with the "get the Muslims out of the picture" story? Obama has no more control over who is placed behind him than I  do. From the same article:

Quote
Across the aisle, a Hispanic New Hampshire Democrat, Roberto Fuentes, told Politico that he was recently asked, and declined, to contribute to the "diversity" of the crowd behind Senator John McCain at a Nashua event.

Does this mean that not enough Hispanics like McCain and he wanted one in the shot to prove he's into diversity? Or that he loves Hispanics and just couldn't live without one in the picture? No. The handlers want the shot to look good. Period. It has nothing to do with the speaker. I've worked a number of events for politicians from local to executive level, and I guarantee that  just about anyone can show up. And when they do, the crowd handlers will place them very specifically for maximum effect. But stupid handlers are stupid handlers, and in Obama's case they were just plain clueless.

Between now and November, both campaigns are going to make amazing gaffes. Unfortunately, our voting public is more focused on flag pins, who called their wife what name, who wrote a paper on what in college, and where someone went to elementary school than they are on the actual issues. Politicians play to our ignorance, not our intelligence, and most people are happy to do the lemming walk.

Can you imagine if our "news" shows (and that goes for both sides) and bloggers (who I shudder to even call journalists) actually spent time debating the candidates stances on the issues? But that wouldn't make for good television, would it?
Logged
sgtmac_46
Power User
***
Posts: 109


« Reply #153 on: June 20, 2008, 04:38:57 AM »

Do you honestly  think Obama believes the government gave black people HIV ? Do you honestly think most of Obama's supporter believe that. I'm positive   Neo Nazi/KKK vote  will all be for McCain . It is not really a good reason to vote for Obama.
You're positive of that why?  Because McCain is white?  The reality is that Neo-Nazis/KKK are anti-government in general....and for all practical matters are in agreement with the Nation of Islam on most topics, especially when it pertains to their anti-semetic views.

Does Obama believe it?  Can't say if he truly believes it or has just used it to gain political support in Chicago area politics......but it's clear most of his supporters/pastor etc believe, or at least CLAIM to believe it, so the difference about whether Obama believes it or not is moot as he surrounded himself with people who believe it and proclaim it as true.
Logged
sgtmac_46
Power User
***
Posts: 109


« Reply #154 on: June 20, 2008, 04:43:19 AM »

Quote
...far left radicals who also appears to have embraced a black nationalist ideology when it was politically convenient on the local level in Hyde Park Chicago.  Over the years Barry has surrounded himself with left wing terrorists, black seperatists and assorted fringe fruitcakes and nutjobs...

So the thing I always wonder when people make this argument is, "What are you afraid of?"

Do you really think that somehow, IF he's voted into office, the US is going to suddenly become a far left, radical, black separatist state? That people are suddenly going turn to Islam? I just don't get the fear factor. Do you honestly think that career politicians are going to take whatever bill he puts in front of them and ignore their constituents? That the entire country will suddenly go all glassy eyed and let the administration run all over them? I just don't buy it.


  First of all

A) Where did you get 'Islam' from my post?

B) So your argument is really going to be 'Who cares, what's the worst damage he could do?'?!



"What is the concern? His questionable acquaintances? His lack of a moral compass? His willingness to do/say/try anything to get elected? If those are the arguments, we might as well empty the US Congress and start over."

ALL OF THE ABOVE!  What do you think he's running for? THE MOST POWERFUL OFFICE ON THE PLANET!  And your argument is REALLY going to be 'HEY, WHAT'S THE WORST HE COULD DO?!'  That's kind of sad.
Logged
sgtmac_46
Power User
***
Posts: 109


« Reply #155 on: June 20, 2008, 04:45:45 AM »

The man's mentor, Frank something, is/was a formal member of the US Communist Party; there is his friendship with unrepentant Weather underground terrorists, there is his association with Rev Wright's church (which praises and honors Louis Farrakan), his wife's shame in our country, etc etc etc.  Then there is the matter of the man's voting record, and his positions.

Does not the confluence of all these things raise a warning flag for you as to the man's inner compass?  And does not our President's inner compass matter?
Sad to say, Crafty......but there are a large number of Kool-aid drinkers in this country who have jumped on the 'Cult of Obama Personality' bandwagon, and who are willing to IGNORE any inconvenient truths!  Not just disagree with the facts, but flat out DECLARE THEM IRRELAVENT!

'What's the worst damage that he could do.....he and Michelle look like a cute couple, and that's good enough fore me!'

These folks think they're voting on American IDOL Crafty!  I'm truly frightened.....not of Obama, but at the stupidity of my fellow citizens!
Logged
sgtmac_46
Power User
***
Posts: 109


« Reply #156 on: June 20, 2008, 04:49:31 AM »

Crafty,

I am not defending or supporting the senator.

Honesty and integrity are two things that I find lacking in the majority of our politicians. Actually, I can't think of a political figure in the past 20 years without major character/personality deficits, questionable business practices, or who is not morally ambiguous at best. Politics is a business. And that business is all about staying in office, no matter what.

Obama's background is questionable at the very least, but just as politically transparent as any number of other politicians. His constituents are made up of a mix of lower/mid/upper class voters, of different races. His associations are strictly political capital. Of course he's going to attend a particular type of church, if that is going to get make him popular or get him votes. If you want to be popular with a certain crowd (in his case, liberal voters) you hang out with the people that can help you get popular. And guess what? It will, at some point, come back to bite you in the ass.

Do I think he should be commended on him choice of friends or business partners? No. Does he know some sketchy people? Hell yes. Is that o.k.? Hell no. But really, honestly, how many political figures don't have skeletons in their closet (or living room for that matter)? Do Obama's associations make him anymore questionable than any number of other politicians? I'd say it's about a 50/50 on that one. I mean, just look at the amazing political scandals of the past 12 months, on both sides of the aisle.

I am more concerned about this perception that by virtue of Obama's past, his administration is somehow going to ride roughshod all over the country. Do people really believe that an individual has that much power in today's day and age? I mean, checks and balances? Anyone? And if they do hold this belief, where did it come from? Why would Obama's presidency be any more politically effective/powerful/dangerous than the current administration's? And if people do have concerns about unchecked presidential power, perhaps they should have been complaining (as some have in these forums) over the past 8 years.

I would ask those who are concerned about who gets voted-in the following:

When was the last time a president came into office with unchecked power, completely changed the fabric of our society, our political standing in the world, and ignored anything that the voting public or Congress said? I'm going to go with....never.

I just find the "sky is falling" scenarios ridiculous. IF Obama gets voted in, we are not going turn into a communist, socialized medicine, far left, terrorist loving society. Let's give ourselves a little more credit than that.




  Your equivocation is a defense......simply saying 'Yeah, well, but all politicians' is a DODGE!  Not ALL politicians are running for President of the United States.  Moreover, the faux parity i've seen offered by the MSM attempting to carry Obama's water is ridiculous.........ask a question about Obama's RELIGIOUS guru of 20 years gets a silly attempt to create false parity with McCain and John Hagee or some guy who introduced him once at a speech.  It's absurd.
Logged
sgtmac_46
Power User
***
Posts: 109


« Reply #157 on: June 20, 2008, 04:52:44 AM »

SB Mig, Take your last post on Obama and apply those same questions to Mcain and what say ye?

I honestly think you find very little scandal, charecter flaws or skeletons in his closet.......
Not that he's impeccable, but so far the biggest thing I've heard negative about him is that he has a bad temper undecided
Yea there are some questionable right wing extremist pastors that try to align themselves with him.....the thing is though, is that he has no personal association to them.......Please though do expound on the negatvies that you know of on John Mcain......
                                                           TG
  Maybe he used a racial slur to one of his torturers at the Hanoi Hilton once.
Logged
sgtmac_46
Power User
***
Posts: 109


« Reply #158 on: June 20, 2008, 04:58:07 AM »

Just so I clearly understand you point not voting for Senator McCain is the same as joining a cult and drinking cyanide? It is not possible that  someone could make a logical informed choice to vote differently?

I don't think anyone was arguing SH was good for Israel. The issue being Palestinian suicide bombers are extremely painful but they are not an existential threat to Israel the way a  nuclear Iran would be.

"Not that he's impeccable, but so far the biggest thing I've heard negative about him is that he has a bad temper"

Does a bad temper excuse  calling his a wife a trollop and a four letter word? How does adultery fit into having a moral compass?   

Michelle Obama never said she was ashamed of her country.    The opposite of "really proud" is not shame. It was not great comment but not the same as saying she was ashamed of her country

There are logical thoughtful reasons to vote  for McCain. Variations of Barak is evil and scary because he greeted is wife with a terrorist  fist pump or accepted $200 from someone from Weather Underground etc  are not really great arguments

 We can play this game with McCain  and argue about his moral compass which is much less interesting than arguing the issues

 "John McCain has called off a fundraiser(but kept the money) at the home of a Texas oilman who joked about rape during a 1990 gubernatorial run in the state.

The Texan, Republican Clayton Williams, made the joke during his failed campaign against Democrat Ann Richards. Williams compared rape to the weather, saying, "As long as it's inevitable, you might as well lie back and enjoy it."

"He also compared Richards to the cattle on his ranch, saying he would "head her and hoof her and drag her through the dirt."


:The campaign said it would not return money Williams had raised for McCain because the contributions came from other individuals supporting McCain and not from Williams. Williams told his hometown newspaper, the Midland Reporter-Telegram, that he had raised more than $300,000 for McCain."


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/14/mccain-cancels-event-over_n_107139.html


On a positive note no matter who wins --we will  at least  have a president who believes in evolution .
NOT voting for John McCain has nothing to do with it........but I THROUGHLY believe buying in to this Obama cult of personality has PLENTY of analogy with Jim Jones.......you take a charismatic one term senator who missed more votes than he was present for, who throws the words 'Hope and Change' around without actually explaining what they mean.......and then a bunch of of people start believe he's some sort of Messiah?!  PLEASE!  I expect him very shortly to start walking in to the audience and HEALING PEOPLE WITH HIS BARE HANDS!


Again, the silliness of this discussion is that ANY discussion of 'OBAMA' merely finds the retort of 'Well, what about McCain?'  Well WHAT ABOUT HIM?  He's not my first choice......but one things for sure, he spent YEARS in a HANOI HELLHOLE when he was OFFERED a chance to leave, but without his fellow prisoners......HE stayed, and that tells me McCain is at least a LOYAL and HONORABLE MAN!

Obama?  He spent his youth doing drugs and then discovered that he could embrace identity politics and use it to buy him wealth and POWER!
Logged
sgtmac_46
Power User
***
Posts: 109


« Reply #159 on: June 20, 2008, 05:02:57 AM »

IMO Racism  no matter the flavor is morally equivalent and maybe those who suffer it themselves should know bettter.   Be kind to the stranger because you were a stranger in a strand land etc.   Practically it is worse for the person in power to be racist than those not in power to be racist  because of the size of the impact.


And yet.....isn't electing someone president giving them power?  I'm starting to suspect that what Obama does or does not believe in, is or is not, or what he WILL do in office is entirely irrelavent to his supporters.  I suspect the REALITY, and you can correct me if i'm TRULY wrong......the reality is how 'Voting for Obama' makes his supporters FEEL about themselves as 'enlightented human beings'.  That's why any discussion of him is utterly ignored, because it isn't about HIM......it's really about THEM and what they feel voting for Obama says about them as a HUMAN BEING!  In their minds they 'feel' voting for Obama is 'right'......and any rational discussion of the man is entirely side-stepped because their EMOTIONS have already made up their minds.


Now i've already pretty much acccepted the idea that Obama is going to win........the Republican party allowed the MSM to pick it's candidate, John McCain, who is really nothing but a strawman candidate they wanted for Obama or Hillary.   McCain generates zero excitement from his base, while Obama leaves his mesmerized by his messianic bearing.  So he's going to be elected president....ONCE! 

So i'm not really even INTERESTED in discussing John McCain.....i'm FAR more interested in what has turned presumably intelligent human beings in to SUCKERS for this guy Obama!

Quote from:
"I cried all night. I’m going to be crying for the next four years. What Barack Obama has accomplished is the single most extraordinary event that has occurred in the 232 years of the nation’s political history. ...The event itself is so extraordinary that another chapter could be added to the Bible to chronicle its significance." -Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr.


http://obamamessiah.blogspot.com/

Yeah, Jesse......i've got a feeling we're ALL going to end up crying for the next four years!
« Last Edit: June 20, 2008, 05:32:31 AM by sgtmac_46 » Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12033


« Reply #160 on: June 20, 2008, 05:57:43 AM »

SB,

I'll concede that it was some campaign staffer or staffers that did the selection of the backdrop. Still, I find it telling who was there for the photo op and their agendas, as articulated in the Debbie Schlussel article.
Logged
SB_Mig
Guest
« Reply #161 on: June 20, 2008, 11:14:36 AM »

Sgtmac,

First of all

Quote
A) Where did you get 'Islam' from my post?

I did not get it from your post. I inserted it, as a more extreme example of how some people are portraying an Obama administration. It has nothing to do with you, and if you're offended, I apologize.

Quote
B) So your argument is really going to be 'Who cares, what's the worst damage he could do?'?!

Apparently, you haven't read any of my posts in detail. The questioned I posed was "What do people really think he is capable of doing?", to which I have yet to receive an answer. I just don't buy that the guy is somehow going to re-work the  fabric of our country and make it a socialist, terrorist loving state, as some have argued. This is not the same as saying he's going to be a good/great president, or asking "What's the worst he could do."

My argument (and if you read all my posts re: the subject, you would have gleaned as much) is that all politicians are crooked, and we should start paying attention to that fact on both sides of the aisle.

And, I ask, "Do people really believe that our elected officials and their constituents are going to let Obama do whatever he wants?"

I do want to know what's the worst he could do, but not in the rhetorical. What do people think Obama is truly capable of? Is he dangerous? On what do you base that opinion? I want to know.

Quote
Your equivocation is a defense......simply saying 'Yeah, well, but all politicians' is a DODGE!

Again, what dodge? In the post that you refer to, I say:

Quote
Do I think he should be commended on him choice of friends or business partners? No. Does he know some sketchy people? Hell yes. Is that o.k.? Hell no.

I'm not defending the senator. I'm pointing out that politicians do whatever it takes to make the connections to get into office. Do I have a problem with that? Yes. If you want to intepret that as a defense of Obama's character, whatever.

Quote
Again, the silliness of this discussion is that ANY discussion of 'OBAMA' merely finds the retort of 'Well, what about McCain?'

Didn't mention McCain once, except when asked by Tom. And if you don't think that both sides don't play the "what about the other guy" game, you are not paying attention.

Quote
"So i'm not really even INTERESTED in discussing John McCain"

Really? Well, I find that kind of sad, because it tells me that you've lost faith in the process. I find the political system deeply flawed, but that doesn't mean I'm disengaging from it.

Quote
the reality is how 'Voting for Obama' makes his supporters FEEL about themselves as 'enlightented human beings'.

Where do you get this? I've met more than a handful of Obama supporters, and I have yet to come across this sentiment.

I'm concerned about Kool-Aid drinkers as well. I just happen to think everyone does it, on both sides of the aisle. That doesn't mean I support it, condone it, or want to drink any. Anyways, I like lemonade.
« Last Edit: June 20, 2008, 11:24:02 AM by SB_Mig » Logged
rachelg
Guest
« Reply #162 on: June 20, 2008, 06:40:25 PM »

Do you honestly  think Obama believes the government gave black people HIV ? Do you honestly think most of Obama's supporter believe that. I'm positive   Neo Nazi/KKK vote  will all be for McCain . It is not really a good reason to vote for Obama.
You're positive of that why?  Because McCain is white?  The reality is that Neo-Nazis/KKK are anti-government in general....and for all practical matters are in agreement with the Nation of Islam on most topics, especially when it pertains to their anti-semetic views.


I incorrectly though that partly because McCain is white and partly because neo nazi/kkk do usually vote Republican and run for office as Republicans-- they are the extreme right
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12033


« Reply #163 on: June 20, 2008, 07:20:53 PM »



[/quote]

I incorrectly though that partly because McCain is white and partly because neo nazi/kkk do usually vote Republican and run for office as Republicans-- they are the extreme right

[/quote]

"Neo nazi/kkk do usually vote republican" Huh? You base this on what, exactly?
Logged
sgtmac_46
Power User
***
Posts: 109


« Reply #164 on: June 20, 2008, 07:58:26 PM »



Apparently, you haven't read any of my posts in detail. The questioned I posed was "What do people really think he is capable of doing?", to which I have yet to receive an answer. I just don't buy that the guy is somehow going to re-work the  fabric of our country and make it a socialist, terrorist loving state, as some have argued. This is not the same as saying he's going to be a good/great president, or asking "What's the worst he could do."

My argument (and if you read all my posts re: the subject, you would have gleaned as much) is that all politicians are crooked, and we should start paying attention to that fact on both sides of the aisle.

And, I ask, "Do people really believe that our elected officials and their constituents are going to let Obama do whatever he wants?"

I do want to know what's the worst he could do, but not in the rhetorical. What do people think Obama is truly capable of? Is he dangerous? On what do you base that opinion? I want to know. 
Again, what you're saying, despite your protestations otherwise is 'Hey, what's the worst he could do?'...........as the MOST POWERFUL PERSON ON THE PLANET?!


Really? Well, I find that kind of sad, because it tells me that you've lost faith in the process. I find the political system deeply flawed, but that doesn't mean I'm disengaging from it.
  I see you only put part of what I said in that quote.....discussing McCain isn't necessary in order to discuss Obama.....and bringing up McCain on your part is an attempt to divert attention away from the point of this thread, which is Obama.  THAT is the context of that quote. 

And if you believe that the POTUS is irrelavent, why are you bothering to vote at all?  Because the notion of 'What's the worst he could do?' suggests YOU'VE lost faith in the process......which is supported by the assertion 'all politicians are crooked'. 


Where do you get this? I've met more than a handful of Obama supporters, and I have yet to come across this sentiment.
I get this from the rabid emotional attachment that folks have made with Obama....it's not a rational choice that they wish to defend with 'He will do this, he will do that!'  They've decided on him, they're not sure why (or they're not being honest) and any discussion of why is met with 'Oh yeah, well McCain!'.

I'm concerned about Kool-Aid drinkers as well. I just happen to think everyone does it, on both sides of the aisle. That doesn't mean I support it, condone it, or want to drink any. Anyways, I like lemonade.
Yeah?  Who is the Messianic figure that Conservatives have crowned Saint?  Even Reagan was a man......not in the same league as Saint Obama the Faultless!
« Last Edit: June 20, 2008, 08:01:54 PM by sgtmac_46 » Logged
rachelg
Guest
« Reply #165 on: June 20, 2008, 08:29:16 PM »




I incorrectly though that partly because McCain is white and partly because neo nazi/kkk do usually vote Republican and run for office as Republicans-- they are the extreme right

[/quote]

"Neo nazi/kkk do usually vote republican" Huh? You base this on what, exactly?
[/quote]

 I based this on  conversations  I have had with  people who do voter analysis.   For example   in his first term Bush got something like 82% percent of the vote in  Periora .  A chunk of that from analysis of precincts  was  thought to be from Matt Hale supporters. In  Peroria Bush would have won anyway but 82% is incredibly high.   I don't have written support or the original analysis so YMMV.

 
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12033


« Reply #166 on: June 20, 2008, 09:25:04 PM »

Left-Wing Racism Remembered   
By Floyd and Mary Beth Brown
FrontPageMagazine.com | Monday, May 19, 2008

Did you know…Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican? Every civil rights law, beginning in the 1860s through the 1950s and 1960s, was fought against by Democrats? Or the KKK had links to the Democratic Party? Not only are these questions addressed by the National Black Republicans Association (NBRA), but also more surprising facts.

A few months ago, we had the privilege to meet the chairwoman of NBRA, a brave and gusty woman named Frances Rice. “The double standard looms large when Democrats practice racism,” says Rice. “Those who search in the Republican Party haystack for the racist needles, ignore the mountain of evidence about racism in the Democrat Party.”

Rice does not initially appear to be the type of person who would strike out and dare to challenge a giant, but that’s just what this modern day “David” has done. Rice said her organization is working to set the record straight and “wake up” black voters and “shed the light of truth on the racist past and failed socialism of the Democratic Party.”

Little did we know Rice would soon be feeling the intense, sizzling heat of the national spotlight for reminding people and speaking the truth that the Democratic Party wishes we would all forget.

Last week, when Democrats became aware of NBRA’s Fall 2007 magazine being distributed at a black-voter event in Tallahassee, the liberal media and Democratic Party giants alike began firing their attacks. One headline in a newspaper read, “Magazine stirs race politics” and wrote that the magazine “pushes racial buttons by highlighting low points in the history of the Democratic Party.” A reporter from the The Miami Herald decried The Black Republican magazine, calling its comments “strident” and saying Democrats were “outraged.”

Sometimes the truth hurts.

Rice cites renowned liberal historian and author Dr. Eric Foner in her well-documented expose, “The Ku Klux Klan was the Terrorist Arm of the Democratic Party”. In “A Short History of Reconstruction,” Professor Foner wrote: “Founded in 1866 as a Tennessee social club, the Ku Klux Klan spread into nearly every Southern state, launching a ‘reign of terror’ against Republican leaders black and white.” Again, it was Foner who said, “In effect, the Klan was a military force serving the interests of the Democratic party…and all who desired the restoration of white supremacy.”

Several other articles, including one titled “Why Martin Luther King, Jr. Was a Republican,” also raised the ire of “giants.” Frances Rice says she knew MLK’s family and “there’s no way they were Democrats” in the 1960s. Not only did King vote for Eisenhower in 1956, but this was a time when racist southern Democrats such as Bull Connor used vicious dogs and fire hoses to break up protests; after all, segregation and discrimination were the law of the land in the South.

One who saw firsthand Connor’s atrocities was our nation’s first female black secretary of state, Condi Rice. Not only did she witness the brutality inflicted on the peaceful protestors at the 1963 Children’s March in Birmingham, but Condi’s neighborhood experienced threats of violence. One of her childhood friends was killed in a church bombing by the Ku Klux Klan along with three other girls. Secretary Rice’s family repeatedly faced discrimination. A prime example of this was when John, her father, tried to register to vote with the Democratic Party. They told him that to register as Democrat he must first guess the number of beans in their jar. Not one to accept such insulting treatment, John Rice headed over to the Republican register and promptly became a Republican.

“’Racism’” is the trump card in the indictment of Republicans,” points out Dr. Thomas Sowell of the Hoover Institute. “But the cold fact is that the whole Jim Crow era in the South was dominated by Democrats.”

The mission of the NBRA is “to be a resource for the black community on Republican ideals and promote the traditional values of the black community which are the core values of the Republican Party: strong families, faith in God, personal responsibility, quality education, and equal opportunities for all.”

We saw evidence of one of their bold campaigns in Florida. Prominently displayed on a gigantic billboard was the proclamation that “Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican” along with a photo of the civil rights leader, the organization’s name and Web site. It was hard to miss. Currently NBRA has identical signs in several other states and hopes to go nationwide. To help and donate go to: www.NBRA.info

The Republican Party, the party of Abraham Lincoln, fought to free blacks from slavery. Now the daunting goal of NBRA is to “return black Americans to their Republican Party roots by enlightening them about how Republicans fought for their freedom and civil rights and are now fighting for their educational and economic advancement".
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31214


« Reply #167 on: June 20, 2008, 10:20:44 PM »

"the reality is how 'Voting for Obama' makes his supporters FEEL about themselves as 'enlightented human beings'."

"Where do you get this? I've met more than a handful of Obama supporters, and I have yet to come across this sentiment."

Exhibit A:  My sister and brother-in-law  cheesy
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4066


« Reply #168 on: June 21, 2008, 07:21:13 AM »

Now BO's handlers have him out there saying "don't be afraid".  "They will try to scare you", etc etc
This is another psychological play on the minds of the gullible.  There are countless examples in history of demagogues who used the same psychology to lure people into their path to destruction.

He is absolutely a leftist communist-like demagogue pretending to be what he is not.

I can't say he worse than HC but he is certainly just as much a fraud.  Woops, I am sorry for the "personal" negative attack, BO.
OK you want to talk about issues.  Then stop lying about your plans and your goals.

Whether the public can be educated about his communist bent will be up to McCain and his handlers (since all Presidential campaigns have armies of handlers thanks to the Clintons who have shown that endless manipulation of perception can even keep them popular).
It doesn't help to have a leftist media (except for Fox and some radio talk shows).

Logged
SB_Mig
Guest
« Reply #169 on: June 21, 2008, 02:54:41 PM »

GM,

Some see these events as one of the reasons African Americans began to leave the Republican party:

Robert Moton and the Colored Advisory Commission

In 1922, former President and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court William Howard Taft selected Robert Russa Moton to give the chief address at the dedication of the Lincoln Memorial. At the time, many considered Moton to be the most powerful African American in the country. In elite, white political and financial circles, his status was unparalleled.

In race relations, Moton advocated accommodation, not confrontation. He firmly believed that the best way to advance the cause of African Americans was to convince white people of black people's worth through their exemplary behavior. Never one to rock the boat, he didn't fight segregation or challenge white authority.

A protégé of Booker T. Washington, Moton had succeeded him as principal of Tuskegee Institute. From this position, Moton worked long and hard to win the trust of white politicians and philanthropists and secure donations for Tuskegee and other African American institutions and organizations.

His power in the country stemmed from the money he could raise from whites who appreciated his conservative views and methods. In addition to his access to leaders in Washington, Moton sat on the boards of major philanthropic organizations with the likes of Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller Jr., and his influence was considerable. When Julius Rosenwald, president of Sears, Roebuck and Company, provided the funding to build more than 6,000 "Rosenwald" schools for rural Southern African Americans, Moton's skills were clearly in play behind the scenes.

Over the years, Moton's words and deeds impressed Herbert Hoover, who invited Moton to visit him anytime he was in Washington. However, during the Great Flood of 1927, it was Hoover who found himself calling on Moton for assistance. Secretary of Commerce during the Coolidge administration, Hoover had his eye on the presidency. When President Coolidge placed Hoover in command of all flood relief operations during the disaster, it seemed to be the perfect vehicle to raise his national profile and revive his reputation as the "Great Humanitarian."

Drawing on lessons he had learned feeding the starving European victims of World War I, Hoover swept into action. He cut through bureaucratic red tape, got aid to victims devastated by the flood and was dubbed a hero by the national press. There was only one thing that could tarnish Hoover's glowing image -- the treatment of African Americans in the Washington County levee camps. Hoover had visited the area and had approved the local flood relief committee's decision, under the leadership of Will Percy, to keep the African American refugees on the levee. But as conditions deteriorated in the camps, word slowly filtered North, and the scandal threatened to derail Hoover's presidential ambitions.

Hoover's friends urged him to get what they called "the big Negroes" in the Republican Party to quiet his critics, and Hoover turned to Robert Moton for the job. Hoover formed the Colored Advisory Commission, led by Moton and staffed by prominent African Americans, to investigate the allegations of abuses in the flood area.

The commission conducted a thorough investigation and reported back to Moton on the deplorable conditions. Moton presented the findings to Hoover, and advocated immediate improvements to aid the flood's neediest victims. But the information was never made public. Hoover had asked Moton to keep a tight lid on his investigation. In return, Hoover implied that if he were successful in his bid for the presidency, Moton and his people would play a role in his administration unprecedented in the nation's history. Hoover also hinted that as president he intended to divide the land of bankrupt planters into small African American-owned farms.

Motivated by Hoover's promises, Moton saw to it that the Colored Advisory Commission never revealed the full extent of the abuses in the Delta, and Moton championed Hoover's candidacy to the African American population.
Quote
However, once elected President in 1928, Hoover ignored Robert Moton and the promises he had made to his black constituency. In the following election of 1932, Moton withdrew his support for Hoover and switched to the Democratic Party. In an historic shift, African Americans began to abandon the Republicans, the party of Abraham Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation, and turned to Franklin Delano Roosevelt's Democratic Party instead.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12033


« Reply #170 on: June 21, 2008, 05:35:24 PM »

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/06/is_obamas_great_seal_illegal_1.asp

Change!
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31214


« Reply #171 on: June 21, 2008, 06:32:13 PM »

SB Mig:

Great piece of history!  If you don't put it on the Race thread on the "Science etc" forum for posterity, I will.

Marc
Logged
SB_Mig
Guest
« Reply #172 on: June 21, 2008, 06:52:08 PM »

Crafty,

Done...

GM,

Quote
“’Racism’” is the trump card in the indictment of Republicans,” points out Dr. Thomas Sowell of the Hoover Institute. “But the cold fact is that the whole Jim Crow era in the South was dominated by Democrats.”

And?

If the Dems were so bad back then, why have they managed to maintain a lock on the African American electorate for so long? And why have Republicans struggled to bring African Americans "back" to the party?
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12033


« Reply #173 on: June 21, 2008, 07:27:14 PM »

http://www.townhall.com/Common/PrintPage.aspx?g=fec88e70-0648-453d-9a14-0e65f8354ffb&t=c

Obama or Not, America Still a 'Racist Nation'
Larry Elder
Thursday, April 10, 2008

Republicans show more optimism about race relations than do Democrats. A June 2007 Gallup Poll asked Republicans and Democrats to rate relations between blacks and whites. Among Democrats, 67 percent said relations were "somewhat good" or "very good," while 77 percent of Republicans gave those answers. Similarly, 22 percent of Republicans ranked black/white race relations as "somewhat bad" or "very bad," yet 31 percent of Democrats gave those pessimistic responses.

As I wrote in my new book, "Stupid Black Men: How to Play the Race Card -- and Lose," a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll asked which type of presidential candidate would you not vote for, even if that candidate agreed with you on most issues. More Democrats (17 percent) than Republicans (13 percent) wouldn't vote for a Mormon. For a 72-year-old candidate -- again, more Democrats (19 percent) than Republicans (12 percent) refused to vote for someone that age. Likewise more Democrats (4 percent) than Republicans (3 percent) ruled out voting for a black candidate.

Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, D-Mo., a black Clinton supporter, explained why whites vote for Obama. According to Cleaver, "This is (their) chance to demonstrate that we have been able to get this boogeyman called race behind us. And so they are going to vote for him, whether he has credentials or not, whether he has any experience …"

Here's where things get interesting.

As to the argument that an Obama election would show an America overcoming its history of racial injustice, Cleaver says no, it would show the opposite. "Yet Cleaver asserts," according to an Associated Press article, "that Obama as president could actually hamper efforts to curb racial injustice. He said future concerns about race 'would be met with rejection because we've already demonstrated that we're not a racist nation.'"

In other words, whites cleverly intend to vote for Obama -- not because they consider him qualified or the better candidate, but so that they can diminish future allegations of alleged racism and racial injustice. But Cleaver sees through the plot. To Cleaver, America remains a "racist nation." And Obama as president simply pulls the wool over the eyes of America, minimizing the continued and future victims of racism, while giving America's racists free rein to continue their deviousness.

Former Democratic vice presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro, another Clinton supporter, makes the opposite argument. Ferraro claims that Obama's race gives him an advantage that obscures his otherwise thin resume. "If Obama was a white man," said Ferraro, "he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman of any color, he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."

Black state Sen. Robert Ford, D-S.C., also a Clinton supporter, takes the Cleaver position. In explaining his refusal to support Obama, Ford said, "It's a slim possibility for (Obama) to get the nomination, but then everybody else is doomed. Every Democrat running on that ticket next year would lose because he's black and he's top of the ticket. We'd lose the House and the Senate and the governors and everything. I'm a gambling man. I love Obama. But I'm not going to kill myself."

Reverends Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton can now breathe easier. If Obama loses, blame race. If Obama wins, blame race. Either way, Obama's election, as regards race relations, means nothing. So Jackson and Sharpton and the rest of the like-minded traveling circus can remain in the business of ferreting out, exploiting and often exaggerating allegations of racism for face time on TV and continued relevance.

In 1911, former slave Booker T. Washington prophetically wrote about "black leaders" like Cleaver, Jackson and Sharpton: "There is (a) class of colored people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs -- partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs. … There is a certain class of race-problem solvers who don't want the patient to get well, because as long as the disease holds out they have not only an easy means of making a living, but also an easy medium through which to make themselves prominent before the public."
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12033


« Reply #174 on: June 21, 2008, 07:47:13 PM »

Crafty,

Done...

GM,

Quote
“’Racism’” is the trump card in the indictment of Republicans,” points out Dr. Thomas Sowell of the Hoover Institute. “But the cold fact is that the whole Jim Crow era in the South was dominated by Democrats.”

And?

If the Dems were so bad back then, why have they managed to maintain a lock on the African American electorate for so long? And why have Republicans struggled to bring African Americans "back" to the party?


Look at the "black leadership" that Obama and the left have wedded themselves to. Black conservatives are blasted as "Uncle Toms" and sellouts. Look at Obama's "spiritual advisor", who when he wasn't shouting "God damn America" was smearing Clarence Thomas and Condoleeza Rice. The dems love "diversity", just as long as everyone marches in ideological lockstep. HRC can do her verbal minstrel show in speaking to black audiences and gets a free pass while President Bush has minorities in high ranking positions in his two terms and gets nothing but derision in exchange. Lip service to minorities from the dems wins approval while actual steps towards a colorblind society from republicans is ignored. Much like the utter hypocrisy of dems who "care about the environment" while jet setting around the world and living in sprawling mansions, because the dems give lips service to the professional race hucksters like Jackson and Sharpton and their lot, then real action isn't needed or demanded. It isn't logical, but this is the way things are today.


Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12033


« Reply #175 on: June 21, 2008, 07:55:45 PM »

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/04/30/hillarys-fake-multilingual-schtick/

Hillary’s fake “multilingual” schtick
POSTED AT 3:46 PM ON APRIL 30, 2007 BY BRYAN   


If you’re a Southerner, Hillary Carpetbagger thinks that you speak a for-een language. That’ll win over those red states.

Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton said Friday she sees her sometimes Southern accent as a virtue.

“I think America is ready for a multilingual president,” Clinton said during a campaign stop at a charter school in Greenville, S.C.

The New York senator — who said she’s been thinking about critics who’ve suggested that she tried to put on a fake Southern accent in Selma, Ala. — noted that she’s split her life between Arkansas, Illinois and the East Coast.

Clinton added a Southern lilt to her voice last week when addressing a civil rights group in New York City headed by the Rev. Al Sharpton. On Monday, dealing with a microphone glitch at a fundraiser for young donors, she quoted former slave and underground railroad leader Harriet Tubman.

It’s not a “Southern lilt” that Hillary adds, or not just a Southern lilt. She always adds it when speaking in black churches. What the reporter is passing off as falling into an old habit is just a shameless pander. And a bad one at that.

I’m sure Hillary is joking about being “multilingual,” but that’s the kind of joke that would get a Republican in trouble. So would faking the accent. And besides, as a joke it’s not even funny. And why do Democrats tend to joke about what “America is ready for” anyway? Liberal political humor, when it comes, nearly always has an annoying top-down, know-it-all, we’re-your-betters quality about it.

Hillary’s phony accent has been good for a Hot Air joke, though. I’m sure she’ll be good for quite a few jokes between now and election day.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12033


« Reply #176 on: June 21, 2008, 08:36:46 PM »

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/06/21/whos-playing-the-race-card/

Preemptive strike!
Logged
sgtmac_46
Power User
***
Posts: 109


« Reply #177 on: June 21, 2008, 09:05:50 PM »

Crafty,

Done...

GM,

Quote
“’Racism’” is the trump card in the indictment of Republicans,” points out Dr. Thomas Sowell of the Hoover Institute. “But the cold fact is that the whole Jim Crow era in the South was dominated by Democrats.”

And?

If the Dems were so bad back then, why have they managed to maintain a lock on the African American electorate for so long? And why have Republicans struggled to bring African Americans "back" to the party?

The truth?  Though it is entitlements and government programs post-1960's that is largely responsible for destroying the fabric of black america.....those entitlements are also addictive to those who are short-sighted.  Entitlements are a drug, an opiate used to keep a people loyal while simultaneously keeping them in bondage.

Moreover, telling the TRUTH about entitlements is NEVER a popular position......especially to those receiving them.  A pleasant lie is ALWAYS more palatable than the TRUTH!  There's your answer.
« Last Edit: June 21, 2008, 09:08:14 PM by sgtmac_46 » Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12033


« Reply #178 on: June 21, 2008, 09:58:10 PM »

**And Michelle Obama panders to this lunacy, without criticism.**

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A33695-2005Jan24?language=printer

washingtonpost.com
Study: Many Blacks Cite AIDS Conspiracy
Prevention Efforts Hurt, Activists Say
By Darryl Fears
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 25, 2005; Page A02


More than 20 years after the AIDS epidemic arrived in the United States, a significant proportion of African Americans embrace the theory that government scientists created the disease to control or wipe out their communities, according to a study released today by Rand Corp. and Oregon State University.

That belief markedly hurts efforts to prevent the spread of the disease among black Americans, the study's authors and activists said. African Americans represent 13 percent of the U.S. population, according to Census Bureau figures, yet they account for 50 percent of new HIV infections in the nation, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Nearly half of the 500 African Americans surveyed said that HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, is man-made. The study, which was supported by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, appears in the Feb. 1 edition of the Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes.

More than one-quarter said they believed that AIDS was produced in a government laboratory, and 12 percent believed it was created and spread by the CIA.

A slight majority said they believe that a cure for AIDS is being withheld from the poor. Forty-four percent said people who take the new medicines for HIV are government guinea pigs, and 15 percent said AIDS is a form of genocide against black people.

At the same time, 75 percent said they believe medical and public health agencies are working to stop the spread of AIDS in black communities. But the responses, which varied only slightly by age, gender, education and income level, alarmed the researchers.

"As a researcher knowing that these beliefs were out there, I wasn't as surprised as people I share the study with," said Laura Bogart, a behavioral scientist for the Rand Corp., who co-authored the study with Sheryl Thorburn, associate professor in the College of Health and Human Sciences at Oregon State.


"But the findings are striking, and a wake-up call to the prevention community," Bogart said. "The prevention community has not addressed conspiracy beliefs in the context of prevention. I think that a lot of people involved in prevention may not be from the community where they are trying to prevent HIV."

The findings were also no surprise to Na'im Akbar, a professor of psychology at Florida State University who specializes in African American behavior.

"This is not a bunch of crazy people running around saying they're out to get us," Akbar said. The belief "comes from the reality of 300 years of slavery and 100 years of post-slavery exploitation."

Akbar cited the Tuskegee experiment conducted by the federal government between 1932 and 1972. In it, scientists told black men they were being treated for syphilis but actually withheld treatment so they could study the course of the disease.

Today, he said, African Americans are more likely to live in communities near pollution sources, such as freeways and oil refineries, and far from health care centers. "There are a lot of indicators that our lives are not valued," Akbar said.

Phill Wilson, executive director of the Black AIDS Institute in Los Angeles, said past discrimination is no longer an excuse for embracing conspiracies that allow HIV to fester.

"It's a huge barrier to HIV prevention in black communities," Wilson said. "There's an issue around conspiracy theory and urban myths. Thus we have an epidemic raging out of control, and African Americans are being disproportionately impacted in every single sense."

Black women made up 73 percent of new HIV cases among women in 2003, and black men represented 40 percent of new cases, according to the most recent federal figures available. Among gay men, blacks represented 30 percent of new infections, and adolescents ages 18 to 24 accounted for nearly 80 percent of new HIV cases.

"The whole notion of conspiracy theories and misinformation . . . removes personal responsibility," Wilson said. "If there is this boogeyman, people say, 'Why should I use condoms? Why should I use clean needles?' And if I'm an organization, 'Why should I bother with educating my folks?' The syphilis study was real, but it happened 40 years ago, and holding on to it is killing us."
Logged
sgtmac_46
Power User
***
Posts: 109


« Reply #179 on: June 22, 2008, 03:03:52 AM »

**And Michelle Obama panders to this lunacy, without criticism.**

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A33695-2005Jan24?language=printer

washingtonpost.com
Study: Many Blacks Cite AIDS Conspiracy
Prevention Efforts Hurt, Activists Say
By Darryl Fears
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 25, 2005; Page A02


More than 20 years after the AIDS epidemic arrived in the United States, a significant proportion of African Americans embrace the theory that government scientists created the disease to control or wipe out their communities, according to a study released today by Rand Corp. and Oregon State University.

That belief markedly hurts efforts to prevent the spread of the disease among black Americans, the study's authors and activists said. African Americans represent 13 percent of the U.S. population, according to Census Bureau figures, yet they account for 50 percent of new HIV infections in the nation, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Nearly half of the 500 African Americans surveyed said that HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, is man-made. The study, which was supported by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, appears in the Feb. 1 edition of the Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes.

More than one-quarter said they believed that AIDS was produced in a government laboratory, and 12 percent believed it was created and spread by the CIA.

A slight majority said they believe that a cure for AIDS is being withheld from the poor. Forty-four percent said people who take the new medicines for HIV are government guinea pigs, and 15 percent said AIDS is a form of genocide against black people.

At the same time, 75 percent said they believe medical and public health agencies are working to stop the spread of AIDS in black communities. But the responses, which varied only slightly by age, gender, education and income level, alarmed the researchers.

"As a researcher knowing that these beliefs were out there, I wasn't as surprised as people I share the study with," said Laura Bogart, a behavioral scientist for the Rand Corp., who co-authored the study with Sheryl Thorburn, associate professor in the College of Health and Human Sciences at Oregon State.


"But the findings are striking, and a wake-up call to the prevention community," Bogart said. "The prevention community has not addressed conspiracy beliefs in the context of prevention. I think that a lot of people involved in prevention may not be from the community where they are trying to prevent HIV."

The findings were also no surprise to Na'im Akbar, a professor of psychology at Florida State University who specializes in African American behavior.

"This is not a bunch of crazy people running around saying they're out to get us," Akbar said. The belief "comes from the reality of 300 years of slavery and 100 years of post-slavery exploitation."

Akbar cited the Tuskegee experiment conducted by the federal government between 1932 and 1972. In it, scientists told black men they were being treated for syphilis but actually withheld treatment so they could study the course of the disease.

Today, he said, African Americans are more likely to live in communities near pollution sources, such as freeways and oil refineries, and far from health care centers. "There are a lot of indicators that our lives are not valued," Akbar said.

Phill Wilson, executive director of the Black AIDS Institute in Los Angeles, said past discrimination is no longer an excuse for embracing conspiracies that allow HIV to fester.

"It's a huge barrier to HIV prevention in black communities," Wilson said. "There's an issue around conspiracy theory and urban myths. Thus we have an epidemic raging out of control, and African Americans are being disproportionately impacted in every single sense."

Black women made up 73 percent of new HIV cases among women in 2003, and black men represented 40 percent of new cases, according to the most recent federal figures available. Among gay men, blacks represented 30 percent of new infections, and adolescents ages 18 to 24 accounted for nearly 80 percent of new HIV cases.

"The whole notion of conspiracy theories and misinformation . . . removes personal responsibility," Wilson said. "If there is this boogeyman, people say, 'Why should I use condoms? Why should I use clean needles?' And if I'm an organization, 'Why should I bother with educating my folks?' The syphilis study was real, but it happened 40 years ago, and holding on to it is killing us."
There seems to exist a belief in victimhood......one certain 'groups and individuals' seem to wish to exacerbate for political POWER!

In other words, to believe that you have control over the world around you as an individual, takes your support away from those who practice IDENTITY POLITICS!  So the PIMPS of identity politics have to foster a MYTH that YOU as an individual are a POWERLESS VICTIM of forces beyond your control......and only your political SUPPORT of a larger than life Messiah (ENTER OBAMA STAGE RIGHT) can SAVE YOU from those EVIL FORCES OF THE WORLD!
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4066


« Reply #180 on: June 22, 2008, 08:11:12 AM »

Well this the same sick stuff the gays do, blame Ronald Reagan for the spread of aids - while they are spreading it around themselves around in orgies at gay baths and along turnpike exits and public parks and (apparently) public bathrooms.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31214


« Reply #181 on: June 25, 2008, 03:39:20 AM »

Obama's Social Security Fine Print
By DONALD L. LUSKIN
June 25, 2008; Page A15

Last week, Barack Obama revealed his plan to shore up Social Security's shaky finances by raising the income level on which the payroll tax is applied. Currently, incomes above $102,000 are exempt, with that threshold rising every year indexed to wage inflation. Mr. Obama would keep that limit in place, but then assess payroll taxes on incomes above $250,000, which his campaign claims would apply to only the richest 3% of Americans.

Mr. Obama angered liberals last year when he admitted that there was a "Social Security crisis." But at least Mr. Obama's base should be appeased now that his solution to the "crisis" is to soak the rich. One liberal columnist actually noted with glee the fact that this would take us back to top tax rates not seen since the 1970s.

According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, Mr. Obama's new tax would siphon off 0.4% of gross domestic product annually. Combined with Mr. Obama's other tax-hike initiatives, "the total tax on labor would be close to 60 percent. In high-tax states like California and New York, the top rate would be even higher."

Would it help Social Security's financing problems? Mr. Obama has no idea. One of his senior economic advisers admitted to me that no one on the campaign has run any detailed models or performed any rigorous analysis. When one proposes an enormous tax increase, shouldn't there at least be a spreadsheet somewhere?

But the most alarming thing about Mr. Obama's proposal is that the $250,000 threshold, above which the payroll tax would be applied, refers to household income, not individual income. So it's quite deceptive when he claims that the $250,000 threshold will "ensure that lifting the payroll tax cap does not ensnare any middle class Americans."

Suppose your household consists of you and your spouse, each earning wages of $150,000 per year. Currently, you are each subject to the payroll tax up to $102,000 of wages, so together you are taxed on $204,000. Under the Obama plan, you'd be taxed again on another $50,000 of wages.

At the current payroll tax rate of 12.4% – 6.2% from wage-earners and 6.2% from their employers – your household would be looking at a tax hike of $6,200 per year. You probably didn't consider yourself rich before, and you certainly won't after paying that tax bill.

But that tax bill could be higher still. While the payroll tax has always been calculated just on wages from labor, Mr. Obama hasn't decided yet what forms of income will be included in the $250,000 threshold. It's an open question whether it might include interest on savings and capital gains income.

And neither has Mr. Obama said whether the rich – and, truth be told, the middle class – paying his new higher taxes will get correspondingly higher Social Security benefits when they retire. Throughout the history of the Social Security program, there has always been a connection between what you contribute in taxes and what you get back in benefits. If Mr. Obama uncaps the wages subject to tax, but doesn't uncap benefits, then he has severed the link between them. Social Security would stand revealed not as a work-related contributory retirement system, but simply as a tax-funded welfare and income-redistribution program.

And for all that, Mr. Obama's proposal won't help Social Security's long-run solvency problems.

According to the Social Security Administration actuaries, uncapping all wages subject to the payroll tax (not just those above $250,000) doesn't make much difference to the system's long-run solvency. If the increased payroll tax payments earn increased benefits, then only about one third of the system's 75-year shortfall is addressed. Even if there is no corresponding benefit increase, only about half the shortfall is addressed.

Remember, that inadequate result is what you get when all wages are subject to payroll taxes. Mr. Obama's plan – even with his household definition of $250,000 income – would collect far less than that. No wonder Mr. Obama's economic advisers aren't interested in doing any detailed analysis.

Worst of all, even the small contribution to Social Security solvency that Mr. Obama's plan might make is entirely illusory. In fact, the more taxes his plan collects, the worse Social Security's long-term situation gets. That's because all plans based on collecting taxes and saving them in the Social Security Trust Fund for future benefit payments rely on the U.S. government being able to redeem the Treasury bonds that trust fund holds.

There's only one place that the money to redeem those bonds can come from: taxes. So ironically, any tax dollars collected today will have to be collected all over again – plus interest. You like the idea of paying more taxes today for Mr. Obama's Social Security plan? Then just wait 20 years or so, because you'll get to pay more taxes all over again.

Mr. Luskin is chief investment officer of Trend Macrolytics LLC.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12033


« Reply #182 on: June 27, 2008, 03:46:19 AM »


Unabashedly Unprincipled
Obama’s repositionings are legion — and make even the Clintons look scrupulous.

By Charles Krauthammer

To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies.  — Obama spokesman Bill Burton, Oct. 24, 2007
That was then: Democratic primaries to be won, netroot lefties to be seduced. With all that (and Hillary Clinton) out of the way, Obama now says he’ll vote in favor of the new FISA bill that gives the telecom companies blanket immunity for post-9/11 eavesdropping.

Back then, in the yesteryear of primary season, he thoroughly trashed the North American Free Trade Agreement, pledging to force a renegotiation, take “the hammer” to Canada and Mexico, and threaten unilateral abrogation.

Today, the hammer is holstered. Obama calls his previous NAFTA rhetoric “overheated” and essentially endorses what one of his senior economic advisers privately told the Canadians: The anti-trade stuff was nothing more than populist posturing.

Nor is there much left of his primary season pledge to meet “without preconditions” with Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. There will be “preparations,” you see, which are being spun by his aides into the functional equivalent of preconditions.

Obama’s long march to the center has begun.

And why not? What’s the downside? He won’t lose the left, or even mainstream Democrats. They won’t stay home on Nov. 4. The anti-Bush, anti-Republican sentiment is simply too strong. Election Day is their day of revenge — for the Florida recount, for Swift-boating, for all the injuries, real and imagined, dealt out by Republicans over the last eight years.

Normally, flip-flopping presidential candidates have to worry about the press. Not Obama. After all, this is a press corps that heard his grandiloquent Philadelphia speech — designed to rationalize why “I can no more disown (Jeremiah Wright) than I can disown my white grandmother” — then wiped away a tear and hailed him as the second coming of Abraham Lincoln. Three months later, with Wright disowned, grandma embraced and the great “race speech” now inoperative, not a word of reconsideration is heard from his media acolytes.

Worry about the press? His FISA flip-flop elicited a few grumbles from lefty bloggers, but hardly a murmur from the mainstream press. Remember his pledge to stick to public financing? Now flush with cash, he is the first general-election candidate since Watergate to opt out. Some goo-goo clean-government types chided him, but the mainstream editorialists who for years had been railing against private financing as hopelessly corrupt and corrupting, evinced only the mildest of disappointment.

Indeed, the New York Times expressed a sympathetic understanding of Obama’s about-face by buying his preposterous claim that it was a pre-emptive attack on McCain’s 527 independent expenditure groups — notwithstanding the fact that (a) as Politico’s Jonathan Martin notes, “there are no serious anti-Obama 527s in existence nor are there any immediate plans to create such a group” and (b) the only independent ad of any consequence now running in the entire country is an AFSCME-MoveOn.org co-production savaging McCain.

True, Obama’s U-turn on public financing was not done for ideological reasons, it was done for Willie Sutton reasons: That’s where the money is. It nonetheless betrayed a principle that so many in the press claimed to hold dear.



As public financing is not a principle dear to me, I am hardly dismayed by Obama’s abandonment of it. Nor am I disappointed in the least by his other calculated and cynical repositionings. I have never had any illusions about Obama. I merely note with amazement that his media swooners seem to accept his every policy reversal with an equanimity unseen since the Daily Worker would change the party line overnight — switching sides in World War II, for example — whenever the wind from Moscow changed direction.

The truth about Obama is uncomplicated. He is just a politician (though of unusual skill and ambition). The man who dared say it plainly is the man who knows Obama all too well. “He does what politicians do,” explained Jeremiah Wright.

When it’s time to throw campaign finance reform, telecom accountability, NAFTA renegotiation or Jeremiah Wright overboard, Obama is not sentimental. He does not hesitate. He tosses lustily.

Why, the man even tossed his own grandmother overboard back in Philadelphia — only to haul her back on deck now that her services are needed. Yesterday, granny was the moral equivalent of the raving Reverend Wright. Today, she is a featured prop in Obama’s fuzzy-wuzzy get-to-know-me national TV ad.

Not a flinch. Not a flicker. Not a hint of shame. By the time he’s finished, Obama will have made the Clintons look scrupulous.

— Charles Krauthammer is a nationally syndicated columnist.

© 2008, The Washington Post Writers Group

National Review Online - http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YWJlOWU0Y2I4YTI0M2JmMTljM2Q4OGRkMjllZDc5MWQ=
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31214


« Reply #183 on: June 27, 2008, 09:52:56 AM »

Indeed.

I've noted that whenever he says "As I have always said , , ," he is about to lie about what he previously said.  Most recent example, his comments yesterday on Heller.  How on earth can someone say the Second is an individual right AND have supported the DC law?  And what about all his previous statements of arch-liberal nature?  Oh, barf.  angry

Anyway, here's this:

Monsieur Obama's Tax Rates
FROM TODAY'S WALL STREET JOURNAL EUROPE
June 27, 2008

Celebrity chef Alain Ducasse insists that his change of citizenship this week from high-tax France to no-income-tax Monaco wasn't a financial decision but an "affair of the heart." Right. But even if he's being sincere, plenty of other Frenchmen have moved abroad to escape their country's confiscatory taxes.

Americans should be so lucky: Theirs is the only industrialized country that taxes its people even if they live overseas. That hasn't been a big problem as long as U.S. tax rates have been relatively low. But with Barack Obama promising to lift rates to French-like levels, this taxman-cometh policy could turn Americans into the world's foremost fiscal prisoners.

And make no mistake, taxes under a President Obama could be truly à la française. The top marginal tax rate, including federal, state and local levies, could approach 60% for self-employed New Yorkers and Californians. Not even France's taxes are that high now that President Nicolas Sarkozy has capped the total that high-earning Frenchmen like Mr. Ducasse can pay in income, social and wealth taxes at 50% of earnings.

Mr. Sarkozy set this "fiscal shield" because he knows that tax rates affect behavior. When he visited London this year, he observed that the British capital is now home to so many French bankers and other professionals seeking tax relief that it's the seventh-largest French city. Those expatriates choose not to use their creativity and investment capital to benefit France and its economy.

Senator Obama's plans to raise income, Social Security and capital-gains taxes amount to a belief that people don't react to punitive tax rates. If so, he needn't worry about people leaving the country and could let them pay taxes in whichever part of the globe they choose to live in. Once Americans are paying French-style tax rates, they ought to have the same freedom to move as Alain Ducasse.

See all of today's editorials and op-eds, plus video
WSJ

Logged
sgtmac_46
Power User
***
Posts: 109


« Reply #184 on: June 28, 2008, 05:14:10 AM »

Wow.....it's awesome that Obama wants to throw spitballs in the dark with taxes and hope it accomplishes......something?  huh

Well, he does promise 'Hope and Change'........he doesn't promise whether or not that 'change' is going to be for the better.

Obama's 'Change' mantra reminds me of the old doctor joke.



Doctor: Well, I have good news and bad news.

Family: Well, what's the good news, Doctor?

Doctor: The good news is the patient is stable.

Family: Well, what's the bad news?

Doctor: The bad news is he's dead.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2008, 05:16:57 AM by sgtmac_46 » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31214


« Reply #185 on: June 28, 2008, 11:10:06 AM »

The smoothness with which he morphed from gun grabber to Individual Constitutional right with "reasonable" regulation is scary.

======
Another doctor joke:

"You want the good or the bad news first?"

"Good news."

"My son just got accepted to Harvard Medical school."

"What's the bad news?"

"You're paying for it."
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31214


« Reply #186 on: July 02, 2008, 07:32:37 AM »

Bush's Third Term
July 2, 2008; Page A12
We're beginning to understand why Barack Obama keeps protesting so vigorously against the prospect of "George Bush's third term." Maybe he's worried that someone will notice that he's the candidate who's running for it.

Most Presidential candidates adapt their message after they win their party nomination, but Mr. Obama isn't merely "running to the center." He's fleeing from many of his primary positions so markedly and so rapidly that he's embracing a sizable chunk of President Bush's policy. Who would have thought that a Democrat would rehabilitate the much-maligned Bush agenda?

 
Take the surveillance of foreign terrorists. Last October, while running with the Democratic pack, the Illinois Senator vowed to "support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies" that assisted in such eavesdropping after 9/11. As recently as February, still running as the liberal favorite against Hillary Clinton, he was one of 29 Democrats who voted against allowing a bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee reform of surveillance rules even to come to the floor.

Two weeks ago, however, the House passed a bill that is essentially the same as that Senate version, and Mr. Obama now says he supports it. Apparently legal immunity for the telcos is vital for U.S. national security, just as Mr. Bush has claimed. Apparently, too, the legislation isn't an attempt by Dick Cheney to gut the Constitution. Perhaps it is dawning on Mr. Obama that, if he does become President, he'll be responsible for preventing any new terrorist attack. So now he's happy to throw the New York Times under the bus.

Next up for Mr. Obama's political blessing will be Mr. Bush's Iraq policy. Only weeks ago, the Democrat was calling for an immediate and rapid U.S. withdrawal. When General David Petraeus first testified about the surge in September 2007, Mr. Obama was dismissive and skeptical. But with the surge having worked wonders in Iraq, this week Mr. Obama went out of his way to defend General Petraeus against MoveOn.org's attacks in 2007 that he was "General Betray Us." Perhaps he had a late epiphany.

Look for Mr. Obama to use his forthcoming visit to Iraq as an excuse to drop those withdrawal plans faster than he can say Jeremiah Wright "was not the person that I met 20 years ago." The Senator will learn – as John McCain has been saying – that withdrawal would squander the gains from the surge, set back Iraqi political progress, and weaken America's strategic position against Iran. Our guess is that he'll spin this switcheroo as some kind of conditional commitment, saying he'll stay in Iraq as long as Iraqis are making progress on political reconciliation, and so on. As things improve in Iraq, this would be Mr. Bush's policy too.

Mr. Obama has also made ostentatious leaps toward Mr. Bush on domestic issues. While he once bid for labor support by pledging a unilateral rewrite of Nafta, the Democrat now says he favors free trade as long as it works for "everybody." His economic aide, Austan Goolsbee, has been liberated from the five-month purdah he endured for telling Canadians that Mr. Obama's protectionism was merely campaign rhetoric. Now that Mr. Obama is in a general election, he can't scare the business community too much.

Back in the day, the first-term Senator also voted against the Supreme Court nominations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito. But last week he agreed with their majority opinion in the Heller gun rights case, and with their dissent against the liberal majority's ruling to ban the death penalty for rape. Mr. Obama seems to appreciate that getting pegged as a cultural lefty is deadly for national Democrats – at least until November.

This week the great Democratic hope even endorsed spending more money on faith-based charities. Apparently, this core plank of Mr. Bush's "compassionate conservatism" is not the assault on church-state separation that the ACLU and liberals have long claimed. And yesterday, Mr. Obama's campaign unveiled an ad asserting his support for welfare reform that "slashed the rolls by 80 percent." Never mind that Mr. Obama has declared multiple times that he opposed the landmark 1996 welfare reform.

* * *
All of which prompts a couple of thoughts. The first is that Mr. Obama doesn't seem to think American political sentiment has moved as far left as most of the media claim. Another is that the next President, whether Democrat or Republican, is going to embrace much of Mr. Bush's foreign and antiterror policy whether he admits it or not. Think Eisenhower endorsing Truman's Cold War architecture.

Most important is the matter of Mr. Obama's political character – and how honest he is being about what he truly believes. His voting record in the Senate and in Illinois, as well as his primary positions, would make him the most liberal Presidential candidate since George McGovern in 1972. But he clearly doesn't want voters to believe that in November. He's still the Obama Americans don't know.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4066


« Reply #187 on: July 02, 2008, 08:02:42 PM »

I've actually told patients "good" and "bad" news for years:

They come in with a stuffed nose, sore throat, and often a cough.

After examining them I would tell them the "good" news,  "you don't have pneumonia or strep throat.  You have a cold".

The bad news is,
"there is not a darn thing I can do about it."

So the patient doesn't walk away thinking I am a smart alek I state the truth, that it is amazing that modern medicine still has no decent treatment for the common cold.

I get different responses but usually the patient is relieved.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12033


« Reply #188 on: July 04, 2008, 07:24:25 AM »

http://www.townhall.com/Common/PrintPage.aspx?g=e818e768-97ba-43ff-8bf0-ae02961990fb&t=c

Obama Flips and Flops
Charles Krauthammer
Friday, July 04, 2008

WASHINGTON -- You'll notice Barack Obama is now wearing a flag pin. Again. During the primary campaign, he refused to, explaining that he'd worn one after 9/11 but then stopped because it "became a substitute for, I think, true patriotism."

So why is he back to sporting pseudo-patriotism on his chest? Need you ask? The primaries are over. While seducing the hard-core MoveOn Democrats that delivered him the caucuses -- hence, the Democratic nomination -- Obama not only disdained the pin. He disparaged it. Now that he's running in a general election against John McCain, and in dire need of the gun-and-God-clinging working-class votes he could not win against Hillary Clinton, the pin is back. His country 'tis of thee.

In last week's column, I thought I had thoroughly chronicled Obama's brazen reversals of position and abandonment of principles -- on public financing of campaigns, on NAFTA, on telecom immunity for post-9/11 wiretaps, on unconditional talks with Ahmadinejad -- as he moved to the center for the general election campaign. I misjudged him. He was just getting started.

Last week, when the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional the District of Columbia's ban on handguns, Obama immediately declared that he agreed with the decision. This is after his campaign explicitly told the Chicago Tribune last November that he believes the D.C. gun ban is constitutional.

Obama spokesman Bill Burton explains the inexplicable by calling the November -- i.e., the primary season -- statement "inartful." Which suggests a first entry in the Obamaworld dictionary -- "Inartful: clear and straightforward, lacking the artistry that allows subsequent self-refutation and denial."

Obama's seasonally adjusted principles are beginning to pile up: NAFTA, campaign finance reform, warrantless wiretaps, flag pins, gun control. What's left?

Iraq. The reversal is coming, and soon.

Two weeks ago, I predicted that by Election Day Obama will have erased all meaningful differences with McCain on withdrawal from Iraq. I underestimated Obama's cynicism. He will make the move much sooner. He will use his upcoming Iraq trip to acknowledge the remarkable improvements on the ground and to abandon his primary season commitment to a fixed 16-month timetable for removal of all combat troops.

The shift has already begun. Thursday, he said that his "original position" on withdrawal has always been that "we've got to make sure that our troops are safe and that Iraq is stable." And that "when I go to Iraq ... I'll have more information and will continue to refine my policies."

The flip is almost complete. All that's left to say is that the 16-month time frame remains his goal but he will, of course, take into account the situation on the ground and the recommendation of his generals in determining the ultimate pace of the withdrawal.

Done. And with that, the Obama of the primaries, the Obama with last year's most liberal voting record in the Senate, will have disappeared into the collective memory hole.

Obama's strategy is obvious. The country is in a deep malaise and eager for change. He and his party already have the advantage on economic and domestic issues. Obama, therefore, aims to clear the deck by moving rapidly to the center in those areas where he and his party are weakest, namely national security and the broader cultural issues. With these -- and most importantly his war-losing Iraq policy -- out of the way, the election will be decided on charisma and persona. In this corner: the young sleek cool hip elegant challenger. In the other corner: the old guy. No contest.

After all, that's how he beat Hillary. She originally ran as a centrist, expecting her nomination to be a mere coronation. At the first sign of serious opposition, however, she panicked and veered left. It was a fatal error. It eliminated all significant ideological and policy differences with Obama -- her desperate attempts to magnify their minuscule disagreement on health care universality became almost comical -- making the contest entirely one of personality. No contest.

As Obama assiduously obliterates all differences with McCain on national security and social issues, he remains rightly confident that Bush fatigue, the lousy economy and his own charisma -- he is easily the most dazzling political personality since John Kennedy -- will carry him to the White House.

Of course, once he gets there he will have to figure out what he really believes. The conventional liberal/populist stuff he campaigned on during the primaries? Or the reversals he is so artfully offering up now?

I have no idea. Do you? Does he?

Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4066


« Reply #189 on: July 04, 2008, 07:36:49 AM »

Now the Clintons are out there army of bullshit artists appear to doing the same for Bo.  Here it comes.  "I went to Iraq and the generals told me it will take some time.  Therefore, *I* may decide *we* need to stay a bit longer to.....

and as always the undecided stooges will forget or not care what he said before or how he lived his entire life and simply go for it like they always did for the skinny Santa and his accomplice with the hips the size of a hippos.  The Clintons have proved to the human race that there are plenty of people who can easily be manipulated no matter what as long as you say whatever they want to hear.

If I hear one more pundint say that McCain can still win if only he does...

Folks the game is over.  If McCain isn't going to say whatever the wind blowing that day says he ought to its over.  Lets not give the American people more credit than they deserve.  Many voters are not smart.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080704/ap_on_el_pr/obama_iraq;_ylt=AsQjTtiNZjEqvQsBlhUpOMCs0NUE
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4066


« Reply #190 on: July 10, 2008, 09:28:50 AM »

The Jesse Jackson thing is as far as I am concerned no big deal.  So he said what he said and he thought it was off the record.
Is there any person on Earth who may not have said or thought something they would rather not be for public consumption?

It is hardly a scandal.  So it was crude - so what!  IT fits with Rev. Jackson's decades long actions, public positions, etc.  It is really nothing new.  Jackson got a raw deal on this one although I disagree with the philosophy of his premise - that more Black fathers need to take more responsibility for their children and stop playing the blame and victim game.

That said, owever, the bigger issue never mentioned (to my knowledge) is that this hardly hurts BO. It helps him.
Notice BO to my knowledge never said anything about Black fatherhood before he won the crat nomination.  Only after, when he makes the obvious effort to appeal more to the "center" group of voters. 

He already has the party nomination locked up.  He already has a stranglehold on the Black vote. Almost nothing he says will change that.  It is a given.

So now he tries to appeal to the more conservatives from all groups who agree with Bill Cosby.  So now he looks like the one who is saying what many think needs to be said in the Black "community".  He is again changing his image as more mainstream.  He is just another suburban Joe with traditional American/family values.  Look at that overdone video of him and his children. 

And now he separates himself from the old angry Black school Jess Jackson (to some extent).

And the liberal media will be playing right along.  In public he will "accept" JJ's apology and play the high road.  In private he and his advisors are saying and thinking that JJ's remarks were terrific, perfectly timed and help BO "rise above it all".  Off the record they are thanking JJ.

EOM



Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4066


« Reply #191 on: July 10, 2008, 09:36:12 AM »

***his premise - that more Black fathers need to take more responsibility for their children and stop playing the blame and victim game.***

This is the opposite of JJ's premise.  I meant his philosophy is *not* this and that Blacks are victims of racist Whites and they are not responsible for any of it - unlike others who feel that absent fathers need to start taking responsibility irregardless of the cause.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31214


« Reply #192 on: July 10, 2008, 09:36:54 AM »

In fairness to BO, I am under the impression that he touched on these themes in his speech at the 2004 Dem convention.

JJ is a demogogic race baiting extortionist.  That said, I agree-- no big deal here.   Indeed its fun to see someone being caught being themself.  cheesy
Logged
SB_Mig
Guest
« Reply #193 on: July 10, 2008, 05:05:29 PM »

An interesting take on the Jackson "slip"

When The Man is One of Us
Sure, Jesse is an old fool who doesn't know how to act. But his latest gaffe shows how none of us is really ready for this moment.

July 10, 2008--On one level, it is easy to dismiss the Rev. Jesse Jackson Sr.'s crudely worded metaphorical threat to castrate Barack Obama for supposedly talking down to black people as the raving of an increasingly irrelevant, former big shot suffused with resentment at the rising star who pushed him off stage.

That, after all, is the sort of talk we'd expect from a lynch mob, not a civil rights leader who does not seem to realize that the times have passed him by. Even his son and namesake, Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., agrees that his dad is doing more harm these days than good. Pronouncing himself outraged and disappointed by his father's ugly words about Obama, Jackson Jr. issued a statement that, in effect, ordered dear old dad to "keep hope alive" and shut up.

That's good advice, and one can only hope that Jackson Sr. accepts it. But in a deeper sense, his stunningly inappropriate comments symbolize the social, political and psychological vertigo that all of us, and especially black Americans, are experiencing because of Obama's success. We are all, including Obama, in a place we never really thought we would be, and it has knocked us off our feet. We don't know how to act. We don't have a plan. We're searching for our equilibrium. And until we regain our footing, we can expect all sorts of bizarre behavior from people who ought to know better. Hold on to your hat.

We haven't really been in a place this confusing since 1954, when the NAACP's crusade against segregation culminated in the Brown vs. Board decision and the walls came tumbling down. It's fair to say that we were so focused on winning that fight that we weren't prepared for the victory or its aftermath. We've spent nearly 60 years since then trying to figure out what kind of relationship we want to have with America and with each other. For the most part, we, like Jackson Sr., have seen ourselves as outsiders battling for justice and a seat at the table. Our default has been to protest. And while that mindset has served us well, it has, in a flash, been made damn near obsolete by the prospect, even the likelihood, that one of us may soon become the most powerful man in the world. If that happens, how can we seriously argue that we're being held back by anything but the limits we place on ourselves?

That, it seems to me, accounts in part for the frustration some of us are feeling by what we interpret as Obama's move to the center. We are simply not accustomed to one of our own playing real, power politics. Some of us see his call for an expansion of George Bush's half-hearted commitment to faith-based social programs as mere politics, what Jackson Sr. castigated as "talking down to black people." We explain Obama's support for the compromise Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the Supreme Court's upholding of a citizen's right to bear arms as attempts to inoculate himself against Republican attacks.

And, of course, they are.

But they, like Obama's Father's Day speech urging black men to take more responsibility for their children, are more than political posturing. They represent the first stirrings of a new consensus that places more emphasis on a public discussion of personal responsibility than on protest, on publicly delving into our own shortcomings and dysfunctional behavior.

There's nothing new about this kind of self-examination, but in the past we've conducted it mainly in private, in barbershops and beauty parlors, and churches. We've bristled when whites in power like Daniel Patrick Moynihan, joined in the critique of, for example, our soaring rate of out-of-wedlock births. We've moaned about the negative consequences of washing dirty laundry in public. But such a self-protective mindset no longer makes sense because Obama is one of us, who has taken part in our private handwringing about the self-inflicted wounds that bedevil segments of the black community. He hasn't said anything most of us haven't heard or said at the dinner table. But now, because Obama is who he is, the whole world is listening in to the conversation.

The attention makes us uncomfortable and disoriented. So does the prospect that one of us might soon be in charge of trying to fix this mess instead of simply complaining about it.

We're not really ready for the day when The Man becomes a black man.

It's a dizzying idea that is going to take some getting used to. And until we do, we'll stumble about, like Jesse Jackson Sr., saying all kinds of crazy things as we slip and slide on the new paradigm.

Jack White is a former columnist with TIME magazine.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4066


« Reply #194 on: July 11, 2008, 09:14:15 AM »

 at ;east in public.  It would certainly have been news.  Here is his 2004 speech.  No where does he speak of personal responsibility for kids.  If I am wrong please show me.

Barack Obama

2004 Democratic National Convention Keynote Address

 

"The Audacity of Hope"

delivered 27 July 2004, Fleet Center, Boston

Windows Media Video of Address

Audio mp3 of Address

Plug-in required for flash audio

click for pdf  click for flash

 

[AUTHENTICITY CERTIFIED: Text version below transcribed directly from audio. (2)]

Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Dick Durbin. You make us all proud.

On behalf of the great state of Illinois, crossroads of a nation, Land of Lincoln, let me express my deepest gratitude for the privilege of addressing this convention.

Tonight is a particular honor for me because, let’s face it, my presence on this stage is pretty unlikely. My father was a foreign student, born and raised in a small village in Kenya. He grew up herding goats, went to school in a tin-roof shack. His father -- my grandfather -- was a cook, a domestic servant to the British.

But my grandfather had larger dreams for his son. Through hard work and perseverance my father got a scholarship to study in a magical place, America, that shone as a beacon of freedom and opportunity to so many who had come before.

While studying here, my father met my mother. She was born in a town on the other side of the world, in Kansas. Her father worked on oil rigs and farms through most of the Depression. The day after Pearl Harbor my grandfather signed up for duty; joined Patton’s army, marched across Europe. Back home, my grandmother raised a baby and went to work on a bomber assembly line. After the war, they studied on the G.I. Bill, bought a house through F.H.A., and later moved west all the way to Hawaii in search of opportunity.

And they, too, had big dreams for their daughter. A common dream, born of two continents.

My parents shared not only an improbable love, they shared an abiding faith in the possibilities of this nation. They would give me an African name, Barack, or ”blessed,” believing that in a tolerant America your name is no barrier to success. They imagined -- They imagined me going to the best schools in the land, even though they weren’t rich, because in a generous America you don’t have to be rich to achieve your potential.

  They're both passed away now. And yet, I know that on this night they look down on me with great pride.

They stand here -- And I stand here today, grateful for the diversity of my heritage, aware that my parents’ dreams live on in my two precious daughters. I stand here knowing that my story is part of the larger American story, that I owe a debt to all of those who came before me, and that, in no other country on earth, is my story even possible.

Tonight, we gather to affirm the greatness of our Nation — not because of the height of our skyscrapers, or the power of our military, or the size of our economy. Our pride is based on a very simple premise, summed up in a declaration made over two hundred years ago:

        We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That is the true genius of America, a faith -- a faith in simple dreams, an insistence on small miracles; that we can tuck in our children at night and know that they are fed and clothed and safe from harm; that we can say what we think, write what we think, without hearing a sudden knock on the door; that we can have an idea and start our own business without paying a bribe; that we can participate in the political process without fear of retribution, and that our votes will be counted -- at least most of the time.

This year, in this election we are called to reaffirm our values and our commitments, to hold them against a hard reality and see how we're measuring up to the legacy of our forbearers and the promise of future generations.

And fellow Americans, Democrats, Republicans, Independents, I say to you tonight: We have more work to do --  more work to do for the workers I met in Galesburg, Illinois, who are losing their union jobs at the Maytag plant that’s moving to Mexico, and now are having to compete with their own children for jobs that pay seven bucks an hour; more to do for the father that I met who was losing his job and choking back the tears, wondering how he would pay 4500 dollars a month for the drugs his son needs without the health benefits that he counted on; more to do for the young woman in East St. Louis, and thousands more like her, who has the grades, has the drive, has the will, but doesn’t have the money to go to college.

Now, don’t get me wrong. The people I meet -- in small towns and big cities, in diners and office parks -- they don’t expect government to solve all their problems. They know they have to work hard to get ahead,  and they want to. Go into the collar counties around Chicago, and people will tell you they don’t want their tax money wasted, by a welfare agency or by the Pentagon. Go in -- Go into any inner city neighborhood, and folks will tell you that government alone can’t teach our kids to learn; they know that parents have to teach, that children can’t achieve unless we raise their expectations and turn off the television sets and eradicate the slander that says a black youth with a book is acting white. They know those things.

People don’t expect -- People don't expect government to solve all their problems. But they sense, deep in their bones, that with just a slight change in priorities, we can make sure that every child in America has a decent shot at life, and that the doors of opportunity remain open to all.

They know we can do better. And they want that choice.

In this election, we offer that choice. Our Party has chosen a man to lead us who embodies the best this country has to offer. And that man is John Kerry.

John Kerry understands the ideals of community, faith, and service because they’ve defined his life. From his heroic service to Vietnam, to his years as a prosecutor and lieutenant governor, through two decades in the United States Senate, he's devoted himself to this country. Again and again, we’ve seen him make tough choices when easier ones were available.

His values and his record affirm what is best in us. John Kerry believes in an America where hard work is rewarded; so instead of offering tax breaks to companies shipping jobs overseas, he offers them to companies creating jobs here at home.

John Kerry believes in an America where all Americans can afford the same health coverage our politicians in Washington have for themselves.

John Kerry believes in energy independence, so we aren’t held hostage to the profits of oil companies, or the sabotage of foreign oil fields.

John Kerry believes in the Constitutional freedoms that have made our country the envy of the world, and he will never sacrifice our basic liberties, nor use faith as a wedge to divide us.

And John Kerry believes that in a dangerous world war must be an option sometimes, but it should never be the first option.

You know, a while back -- awhile back I met a young man named Shamus in a V.F.W. Hall in East Moline, Illinois. He was a good-looking kid -- six two, six three, clear eyed, with an easy smile. He told me he’d joined the Marines and was heading to Iraq the following week. And as I listened to him explain why he’d enlisted, the absolute faith he had in our country and its leaders, his devotion to duty and service, I thought this young man was all that any of us might ever hope for in a child.

But then I asked myself, "Are we serving Shamus as well as he is serving us?"

I thought of the 900 men and women -- sons and daughters, husbands and wives, friends and neighbors, who won’t be returning to their own hometowns. I thought of the families I’ve met who were struggling to get by without a loved one’s full income, or whose loved ones had returned with a limb missing or nerves shattered, but still lacked long-term health benefits because they were Reservists.

When we send our young men and women into harm’s way, we have a solemn obligation not to fudge the numbers or shade the truth about why they’re going, to care for their families while they’re gone, to tend to the soldiers upon their return, and to never ever go to war without enough troops to win the war, secure the peace, and earn the respect of the world.

Now -- Now let me be clear. Let me be clear. We have real enemies in the world. These enemies must be found. They must be pursued. And they must be defeated. John Kerry knows this. And just as Lieutenant Kerry did not hesitate to risk his life to protect the men who served with him in Vietnam, President Kerry will not hesitate one moment to use our military might to keep America safe and secure.

John Kerry believes in America. And he knows that it’s not enough for just some of us to prosper -- for alongside our famous individualism, there’s another ingredient in the American saga,  a belief that we’re all connected as one people. If there is a child on the south side of Chicago who can’t read, that matters to me, even if it’s not my child. If there is a senior citizen somewhere who can’t pay for their prescription drugs, and having to choose between medicine and the rent, that makes my life poorer, even if it’s not my grandparent. If there’s an Arab American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process, that threatens my civil liberties.

It is that fundamental belief -- It is that fundamental belief: I am my brother’s keeper. I am my sister’s keeper that makes this country work. It’s what allows us to pursue our individual dreams and yet still come together as one American family.

E pluribus unum: "Out of many, one."

Now even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us -- the spin masters, the negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of "anything goes." Well, I say to them tonight, there is not a liberal America and a conservative America -- there is the United States of America. There is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America -- there’s the United States of America.

The pundits, the pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I’ve got news for them, too. We worship an "awesome God" in the Blue States, and we don’t like federal agents poking around in our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States and yes, we’ve got some gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and there are patriots who supported the war in Iraq. We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America.

In the end -- In the end -- In the end, that’s what this election is about. Do we participate in a politics of cynicism or do we participate in a politics of hope?

John Kerry calls on us to hope. John Edwards calls on us to hope.

I’m not talking about blind optimism here -- the almost willful ignorance that thinks unemployment will go away if we just don’t think about it, or the health care crisis will solve itself if we just ignore it. That’s not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about something more substantial. It’s the hope of slaves sitting around a fire singing freedom songs; the hope of immigrants setting out for distant shores; the hope of a young naval lieutenant bravely patrolling the Mekong Delta; the hope of a millworker’s son who dares to defy the odds; the hope of a skinny kid with a funny name who believes that America has a place for him, too.

Hope -- Hope in the face of difficulty. Hope in the face of uncertainty. The audacity of hope!

In the end, that is God’s greatest gift to us, the bedrock of this nation. A belief in things not seen. A belief that there are better days ahead.

I believe that we can give our middle class relief and provide working families with a road to opportunity.

I believe we can provide jobs to the jobless, homes to the homeless, and reclaim young people in cities across America from violence and despair.

I believe that we have a righteous wind at our backs and that as we stand on the crossroads of history, we can make the right choices, and meet the challenges that face us.

America! Tonight, if you feel the same energy that I do, if you feel the same urgency that I do, if you feel the same passion that I do, if you feel the same hopefulness that I do -- if we do what we must do, then I have no doubt that all across the country, from Florida to Oregon, from Washington to Maine, the people will rise up in November, and John Kerry will be sworn in as President, and John Edwards will be sworn in as Vice President, and this country will reclaim its promise, and out of this long political darkness a brighter day will come.

Thank you very much everybody. God bless you. Thank you.

Book/CDs by Michael E. Eidenmuller, Published by McGraw-Hill (2008)

Also in this database: Barack Obama - A More Perfect Union; Barack Obama - Announcement for the U.S. Presidency

Windows Media Video Source: Linked directly to www.BarackObama.com

Copyright Status: Text, Audio, Video and Images (AP) = Restricted, seek permission.
   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Top 100 American Speeches

Online Speech Bank

© Copyright 2001-2008.
American Rhetoric.
HTML transcription by Michael E. Eidenmuller.
All rights reserved.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12033


« Reply #195 on: July 13, 2008, 10:42:25 AM »

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2008/05/16/2008-05-16_middle_name_hussein_is_only_one_reason_t.html

 
Friday, May 16th 2008, 4:00 AM
Middle name Hussein is only one reason terror thugs like Barack Obama

Barack Hussein Obama wants it both ways.

Any American who uses his full name is trying to scare voters, his wife charges. But Obama says he understands why Islamic terror group Hamas looks at his middle name and trusts him.

Ditto for his plan to meet with Iran's madman president and other rogue leaders. Obama sees his open-door policy as evidence he will end President Bush's "cowboy diplomacy." When Bush slammed that plan Thursday as "appeasement," Obama accused him of a "false political attack."

It's a legitimate attack, because Obama's kumbaya foreign policy is dangerous. And his name, including the Hussein part, is fair game because Obama has declared it an international advantage.

He can want it both ways, but he can't have it.

The trouble started when Hamas adviser Ahmed Yousef said, "We like Mr. Obama" and added, "we hope he wins the election."

That's an endorsement, plain and simple. When John McCain jumped in, promising to be Hamas' "worst enemy," Obama got huffy and accused McCain of "divisive fear-mongering."

That's par for the Obama course. Michelle Obama once said anyone using her husband's full name is throwing the "ultimate fear bomb. When all else fails, be afraid of his name."

Maybe we should be afraid. Consider what Obama says in an interview in the current Atlantic magazine.

Asked by writer Jeffrey Goldberg if he was "flummoxed" by the Hamas support, Obama responds no and says: "It's conceivable that there are those in the Arab world who say to themselves, 'This is a guy who spent some time in the Muslim world, has a middle name of Hussein and appears more worldly and has called for talks with people, and so he's not going to be engaging in the same sort of cowboy diplomacy as George Bush,' and that's something they're hopeful about."

He adds: "That's a perfectly legitimate perception as long as they're not confused about my unyielding support for Israel's security."

In fact, there is confusion. Some of it goes to his long relationship with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, whose church magazine printed anti-Israel views. There is no evidence Obama objected.

The Atlantic interview adds to the confusion. While Obama stresses the importance of Israel to Jews, he also seems to parrot liberal nonsense that blames the entire Mideast conflict on Israeli settlements.

He even links Israeli parents' concern for their children's safety to settlements, posing the question: "Is settlement policy conducive to relieving that over the long term, or is it just making the situation worse?"

WRONG QUESTION. The right one is why should Israel or anyone else meet with Hamas, which won't recognize Israel's right to exist and fires rockets into civilian areas? Hamas' vow to destroy Israel has nothing to do with settlements or borders.

One question has been answered, though. Now we know why Hamas prefers Barack Hussein Obama. He's told us himself.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31214


« Reply #196 on: July 13, 2008, 06:54:40 PM »

CCP:

Concerning BO and personal responsibility for kids in his 2004 speech, what about this passage?

"Go in -- Go into any inner city neighborhood, and folks will tell you that government alone can’t teach our kids to learn; they know that parents have to teach, that children can’t achieve unless we raise their expectations and turn off the television sets and eradicate the slander that says a black youth with a book is acting white. They know those things."



Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12033


« Reply #197 on: July 14, 2008, 08:44:30 AM »

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/07/14/obama-immigration-enforcement-terror/

Somehow, Obama makes McCain look good on illegal immigration. Amazing!
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5936


« Reply #198 on: July 15, 2008, 12:43:11 PM »

From Thomas Sowell, "Are Facts Obsolete?":

In an election campaign in which not only young liberals, but also some people who are neither young nor liberals, seem absolutely mesmerized by the skilled rhetoric of Barack Obama, facts have receded even further into the background than usual.

As the hypnotic mantra of "change" is repeated endlessly, few people even raise the question of whether what few specifics we hear represent any real change, much less a change for the better.

Raising taxes, increasing government spending and demonizing business? That is straight out of the New Deal of the 1930s.

The New Deal was new then but it is not new now. Moreover, increasing numbers of economists and historians have concluded that New Deal policies are what prolonged the Great Depression.

Putting new restrictions of international trade, in order to save American jobs? That was done by Herbert Hoover, when he signed the Hawley-Smoot tariff when the unemployment rate was 9 percent. The next year the unemployment rate was 16 percent and, before the Great Depression was over, unemployment hit 25 percent.

One of the most naive notions is that politicians are trying to solve the country's problems, just because they say so-- or say so loudly or inspiringly.

Politicians' top priority is to solve their own problem, which is how to get elected and then re-elected. Barack Obama is a politician through and through, even though pretending that he is not is his special strategy to get elected.

Some of his more trusting followers are belatedly discovering that, as he "refines" his position on various issues, now that he has gotten their votes in the Democratic primaries and needs the votes of others in the coming general election.

Perhaps a defining moment in showing Senator Obama's priorities was his declaring, in answer to a question from Charles Gibson, that he was for raising the capital gains tax rate. When Gibson reminded him of the well-documented fact that lower tax rates on capital gains had produced more actual revenue collected from that tax than the higher tax rates had, Obama was unmoved.

The question of how to raise more revenue may be the economic issue but the political issue is whether socking it to "the rich" in the name of "fairness" gains more votes.

Since about half the people in the United States own stocks-- either directly or because their pension funds buy stocks-- socking it to people who earn capital gains is by no means socking it just to "the rich." But, again, that is one of the many facts that don't matter politically.

What matters politically is the image of coming out on the side of "the people" against "the privileged."

If you are a nurse or mechanic who will be depending on your pension to take care of you when you retire-- as Social Security is unlikely to do-- you may not think of yourself as one of the privileged. But unless you connect the dots between capital gains tax rates and your retirement income, you may fall under the spell of the well-honed Obama rhetoric.

Obama is for higher minimum wage rates. Does anyone care what actually happens in countries with higher minimum wage rates? Of course not.

Economists may point to studies done in countries around the world, showing that higher minimum wage rates usually mean higher unemployment rates among lower skilled and less experienced workers.

That's their problem. A politician's problem is how to look like he is for "the poor" and against those who are "exploiting" them. The facts are irrelevant to maintaining that political image.

Nowhere do facts matter less than in foreign policy issues. Nothing is more popular than the notion that you can deal with dangers from other nations by talking with their leaders.

British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain became enormously popular in the 1930s by sitting down and talking with Hitler, and announcing that their agreement had produced "peace in our time"-- just one year before the most catastrophic war in history began.

Senator Obama may gain similar popularity by advocating similar policies today-- and his political popularity is what it's all about. The consequences for the country come later.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4066


« Reply #199 on: July 15, 2008, 10:21:47 PM »

At best he is trying to have it both ways. He says blacks already know they need to take responsibility:

***they know that parents have to teach***

If that were the case than what is the problem?  Why can't blacks do what millions of immigrants are doing?  I think he is again removing responsibility from blacks who bask in victim hood, and laying the blame on something or someone else.  But I am not sure who or what.

Take this phrase:

***turn off the television sets and eradicate the slander that says a black youth with a book is acting white***

I am not sure exactly who he is laying the blame on.  Where is this *slander* coming from, that according to BO is the source of Blacks' woes?

We've already heard some Blacks never ending way to blame whitey by turning the argument around and claim it is now the white controlled media that exploits Black gangs who are now the role model for so many black (and white) kids around the country.  It's not the gangbangers - it is the white assholes who exploit them to make money by promoting them.

(If this isn't the most crazy and twisted argument to avoid taking responsibility I've ever heard.)

Anyway, again this guy seems to be playing it both ways. 
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 12 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!