Murray Tucker: Audacity of hope

Advertisement

— I support the candidacy of Barack Obama for president because I see a bright future for the United States. I am troubled that so many in my age group (retired) are fearful that if we let down our guard, some boogeyman will capture our bodies and minds and destroy our way of life. If there is a message in Obama's quest for the presidency, it is that this country is great, its people are great, and we can accomplish anything we set our collective mind to doing.

Rhetoric pervades the airwaves. The candidates make promises on which they cannot deliver. Talking heads pronounce polls that vary widely, day by day, and analyze the tidbits of sensationalism that sell programs, rarely delving into the nuances of policy because they fear (know?) that such discussion will bore 90 percent of their audience. After they get past discussing Obama's blustering pastor, Clinton's "obliterate Iran" or McCain's mix-up of Shia and Sunni, and five minutes of commercials, there is no time for discussing what is really important.

If you want to know where Obama stands, read his book "Audacity of Hope." In it you will find a well-written discussion of his views on values, opportunity, politics, faith, race, family and international relations.

You will find surprising praise for Ronald Reagan (to the consternation of many liberals): "Still, the conservative revolution that Reagan helped usher in gained traction because Reagan's central insight - that the liberal welfare state had grown complacent and overly bureaucratic - contained a good deal of truth."

And tribute to Obama and a prescient comment from George W. Bush: "You've got a bright future, but I've been in this town awhile, and let me tell you, it can be tough. When you get a lot of attention like you've been getting, people start gunning for ya. And it won't just be coming from my side. : Everybody'll be waiting for you to slip."

To say that Obama's religious background is eclectic would be an understatement. His mother exposed him to Christianity, Buddhism, Confucianism and Shintoism. His father was born a Muslim but was an atheist - neither belief probably had an effect since his father left when Obama was 4.

Living in Indonesia, he attended a Catholic school and a madrass, a Muslim school. His mother studied religion from the detached view of an anthropologist. His grandparents, who probably had the most impact on him as a youth, are probably best described as skeptics.

Obama describes his own coming to faith best in his earlier book, "Dreams From My Father." In summary, as a community organizer for churches on the South Side of Chicago, he came to terms with faith. He attributes his epiphany to understanding his mother's loneliness during her final months and concluded that it arose from her lack of faith and the spiritual healing he observed then accepted within the church community in which he worked.

Obama presents in his writings and his oral presentations one of the most positive views held by an American politician. He has an abiding faith in what this country can accomplish and a sincere regret for the divisiveness that has grown during the past three decades.

Murray Tucker

Steamboat Springs

Comments

Matthew Stoddard 7 years, 3 months ago

Hey freshair- Why did you use only Obama's last name in your 539am post this morning? I thought it's proper to use his "given" name? Or are you pulling a John F. Kerry, there?

0

freshair 7 years, 3 months ago

Hammer....and what, Dear Hammerboy, have I referred to in voicing my opposition to his candidacy other than his politics and his associations with confirmed America-haters like Wright and Ayers? Huh? Why don't you take a remedial course in Reading Comprehension for a few months and then come back and see if you can make any sense.

0

seeuski 7 years, 3 months ago

Matthew, It would be nice if you would stop personally attacking people who are neighbors in the same community as you. It sucks. If you have something of value to say then say it.

0

seeuski 7 years, 3 months ago

Freshair, You have hit it on the head, look at what has happened to Juan Williams for his honest dialogue regarding Rev. Wright, he is being threatened and castigated throughout the left and black communities. As I stated above, anyone who speaks out about Obama's connections are targeted and labeled.

0

another_local 7 years, 3 months ago

My concern with Obama is not so much what he wants to do but more, his ability to get it done. I would feel a lot better about him if he had actually been in a leadership position, any leadership position, before. He does not have a track record of building consensus, executive roles or even budget responsibility (public or private). That, and his state intention to raise taxes in ways that will stiffle the economy, are why I will vote for McCain.

0

freshair 7 years, 3 months ago

The most Liberal member of Congress, a wife who has never been proud of America, and a demagogue, radical preacher who he's known for 20 years,married him and his wife, has said was a second father to him and yet Obama would have us believe that Rev Wright's racist, Black Liberation rap was 'news' to him.

B Hussein Obama's talents, glib and camera friendly, would be much better utilized in many commercial endeavors. But, President of the USA? To any sober observer of the Domestic and World political scene that possibility is very scary, indeed.

0

Murray Tucker 7 years, 3 months ago

Dear another_local and freshair. You've made up your mind long before Obama was in Congress, and probably before he was born. As to budget: You like what the current Administration has done with 7 years of experience? You like what McCain offers, more debt. And since you are concerned with Obama raising taxes I guess you are in the $250,000 plus (1% of the population) along with the farmers in this area who have collected well over $10 million for not planting crops in their swamps, one of which wanting to have us pay for his reservoir.

As to race bating freshair, "Hussein." Yes, that is Obama's middle name. Maybe you need a new moniker-perhaps, "dogbreath?"

0

424now 7 years, 3 months ago

The audacity of severely misconceived allegiance.

Murray & 60408,

You would have us vote into the presidency a man with absolutely no experience in foreign affairs. You propose this at a time when there is a boogie man lurking in the shadows. At a time in history when a strong leader capable of driving threats to our collective safety and well being into the ground, you choose to support man with no leadership skills.

In this time of Anti-American rhetoric and emotion around the world you are supporting the pretty boy. I believe your reasoning behind this choice is a party based opinion.

In my opinion McCain is the only choice that will foster a secure future.

Please reference this previous thread to understand my reasoning and argument more completely.

http://www.steamboatpilot.com/forums/open/reader_forum/499/

0

seabirth 7 years, 3 months ago

"You would have us vote into the presidency a man with absolutely no experience in foreign affairs."

like george w bush?

one of my biggest problems with those who cry about obama raising taxes is the total disregard for the current situation we are in. the devalued dollar and higher inflation is a tax on savings. the increase in the cost of oil and gas, metals, and FOOD has had more impact on americans than the small amount an increase in taxes would have. it doesn't pass the smell test when bush and mccain supporters talk about fiscal issues... their policies of fiscal irresponsiblility have gotten us into the mess we are in.

of course, i laugh when people supporting mccain bring up rev wright... you know mccain not only has gone after the support of preachers who preach hate against catholics and gay people, but has flip-flopped on the issue of hateful pastors.

0

freshair 7 years, 3 months ago

60408...labelling me a 'Racist' because I used Obama's full birth name, Barack Hussein, Obama puts you in good company--with that other Race-baiting racist, Rev. Wright. You share that distinct blend of disregard for fact and outright stupidity which is a hallmark of many supporters of B Hussein Obama.

I have enough faith in the intelligence of the average American, yourself excluded, that come November they will reject this creation of the MTV era and elect someone with the character and experience to serve as president. And that is John McCain.

0

another_local 7 years, 3 months ago

60408, You have no basis for any statement about making up my mind. Whatever you mean to imply by the statement, I don't care for it.

I have voted in 13 presidential elections, most often for a democrat, but not always. I am not at all pleased with what "W" has done in the last 2 terms and voted against him in both elections. A year ago, I would have been astonished if someone proposed that I would vote Repulican this time around.

At this time, I think that experience in political world, both international and domestic is the most important thing we need in the white house. Since I am not 100% pleased with the policy plans of either side of the ballot, I will go with experience.

When you assume.......

PS, how is Braidwood these days? What brings you to our little blog?

0

seabirth 7 years, 3 months ago

domestic issues: mccain has stated "I don't understand economics very well." sounds like the man to lead us during these times of inflation and possible recession.

i know it sounds terrible, but to me mccain was a great candidate back in 2000... before he became the great flip-flopper. imo, his age is clearly a huge issue. i really do not vote based on VP's, but you clearly would have to with mccain.

0

Matthew Stoddard 7 years, 3 months ago

Actually, freshair...you didn't use his full given name. You used the name he normally goes by, Barack, as first initial then used his middle name in a formal sense. It's the same way Coulter does it...just to put the name Hussein out there in order to think that will frighten people. How many times did you ever put Bush out there as G. Walker Bush? Haven't seen that one pop up. It shows contempt by putting out the Saddam-sounding portion of his name, and is race-baiting in it's own fashion. Congrats! You're a Liberal, especially voting for McCain, because all Conservatives know he's not really a Conservative!

0

freshair 7 years, 3 months ago

Mentioning 'Hussein' is race-baiting? The last time I checked, Arabs were considered members of the Caucasian branch of humanity. So by your definition I am guilty of 'race-baiting' Caucasians. Try again.

0

Matthew Stoddard 7 years, 3 months ago

Then let's call it "Name baiting," since Hussein implies seems to allude to how close it might remind you of Saddam Hussein's name, in order to possibly perpetuate a climate of fear around him.

He typically goes by Barack Obama. Why did you make it a specific point to go out of your way to call him "B. Hussein Obama" when only Coulter calls him that? I wonder why you didn't instead call him "Bra" Obama, since he was born in Hawaii and people say "Bra" for "Dude" all the time.

0

freshair 7 years, 3 months ago

B Hussein Obama or Barack Hussein Obama, what's the difference? FYI, Barack is also an Arabic name, so by leaving it out and just using his initial, and by using your logic, I am actually minimizing any 'taint' of ethnicity by only referring to him by one of his two Arabic names.

0

another_local 7 years, 3 months ago

Actually Seabirth, I spoke about political experience not issues experience and the choice was deliberate. We need political leadership with a history of both accomplishment and the ability to work both sides of the aisle. I am less concerned with McCain's ability to cover the minutia of the issue than I am with ability to put together a constructive majority to make decisions and get things done. I am also interested in leaders that have executive experience either in the private sector or in the public sector. McCain has it. Obama does not.

I agree, age is an issue. It cuts both ways.

0

Matthew Stoddard 7 years, 3 months ago

Minimizing the "taint"...that's hilarious! The difference is that B. Hussein Obama and Barack Hussein Obama aren't the general most people refer to him. Did you read "Godless" by A. Hart Coulter? Or are you always listening to the radio hilarity of R. Hudson Limbaugh? Nobody ever refers to a name of R. Wilson Reagan, do they?

Still- why didn't you just refer to him as the majority of people do: Barack Obama?

0

Matthew Stoddard 7 years, 3 months ago

Oops! Forgot to say, "The difference is that B. Hussein Obama and Barack Hussein Obama aren't generally the way most people refer to him."

0

freshair 7 years, 3 months ago

Kielbasa, let me give you a quick reality check. Barack Hussein Obama is his given name. Why people do or don't refer to him by his full name is a matter of personal choice. Although I guarantee you those taking offense are, like yourself and the mostly Liberal media backing him, Obamophiles whose antenna are rotating 24/7 for any PC commandments violated in discussing or commenting BHO.

And another thing I can guarantee you is that outside of this country,especially the Islamic world, referring to him by his 3 names is the perfectly normal thing to do and this strange American taboo on the Left to acknowledge his full, given name is seen as one more example of American Political Correctness in action.

This heightened 'sensitivity' so prevalent among the Obamaites, is strictly a product of Election-anxiety. His 'name' is the last thing you should be worrying about. His record(or lack of it), his wife and his Radical Left associations are his real problem

0

momofthree 7 years, 3 months ago

freshair, you are being completely disingenuous, and it makes you look ridiculous. You did not refer to John Sidney McCain in your post above... why not? Because your purpose in refering to Barack Obama as B. Hussein Obama is indeed to highlight that middle name, Hussein. Whatever your reasons for doing that (and it's hard to imagine they're good ones), at least admit that's what you're doing.

0

freshair 7 years, 3 months ago

momofthree...I see you're also a member of the paranoid Obamaite segment. Try to follow along here....His given name is Barack Hussein Obama. He has never expressed any discomfort at being referred to as such, indeed, his profile on Wikipedia, which, one can assume has been contributed by his admirers owing to the overwhelming positive and glowing spin put on his 'accomplishments', he is prominently named Barack Hussein Obama.

Perhaps you're too young to remember previous presidents John Fitzgerald Kennedy, Richard Milhous Nixon, Ronald Wilson Reagan, George Walker Bush and William Jefferson Clinton. All of whom were frequently referred to in the media by their full names. I am not being disingenous but you are certainly being paranoid and exhibiting symptons of a severe case of Election-anxiety.

As I previously stated, his name is the least of his worries. The 2 biggest millstones around his neck are his wife and his racist Rev Wright.

0

Matthew Stoddard 7 years, 3 months ago

AHHHHH!! So now you are addressing him respectfully as a Muslim! That's odd considering he's purportedly Christian. Do most Christians always address each other with all given names (or more) when speaking of each other? Evidently not, since...

From the idiotic post in question:

"I have enough faith in the intelligence of the average American, yourself excluded, that come November they will reject this creation of the MTV era and elect someone with the character and experience to serve as president. And that is John McCain."

Didn't you mean, "J. Sidney McCain?"

You and Coulter seem to be the only ones that refer to Obama as "B. Hussein Obama," using the lame-a$$ excuse that "it's his given name." No, it's a way to purposely show contempt, the same way as some old idiot always saying "Dims" instead of "Dems." My given name is Matthew Clay Stoddard, yet most people call me by my preference, Matt. Do people always address you by your "given" name or by the name you prefer to be called? Don't bother aswering since you are anonymous. It was rhetorical.

Plus, I'm not an Obama-ite. I've voting 3rd party this year since my party has put up J. Sidney McCain and I'm afraid he may die (of natural causes) in office during a 4 or 8 year stint, and I still don't know who his running mate is. I would have voted for him had he won the Party in 2000, and voted for him over G. Walker Bush earlier that year.

0

Matthew Stoddard 7 years, 3 months ago

Oh...do you mean this Wiki link?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama

or maybe this one where the header is "Ronald Wilson Reagan"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan

Ooops! Nope! That one also has a header with just "Ronald Reagan." In fact, pretty much nowhere else except the first paragraph (where almost all Wiki biographies state the full, given name of people, when applicable) and above his picture does it state "Ronald Wilson Reagan."

The one where at the very top header it says, "Barack Obama," not "B. Hussein Obama?"

And where did we always see all the other Pres names in media print out in full?

0

freshair 7 years, 3 months ago

Kiel...I really, truly enjoy knocking back these softballs that pass for your analysis. From the leading paragraph of the wiki link you so kindly posted: 'Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. (born August 4, 1961) is the junior United States Senator from Illinois and a candidate for the Democratic Party's nomination in the 2008 U.S. presidential election.'....Ooops, they even inserted 'Jr.'. I'm sure you and momofthree and that other Obamawit will be expressing your outrage at Wikipedia for including that uncalled for 'slur.'

'So now you are addressing him respectfully as a Muslim!'....I am? Just how did you reach that conclusion? Never mind, the twisted and tortured illogic of the Left is familiar to all. The fact is his name is a very common Muslim name but other than that, I am no more addressing him as a muslim than I would address any person by their ethnic or religious name.

If I'm addressing someone named Jose Martinez as Jose Martinez am I addressing him by his Hispanic name? Of course! Because that's his name. Life must be very troublesome for you, seeing sinister conspiracies and motives behind the most benign events. My advice...It's not just Beauty which is in the eye of the beholder, there's plenty of Paranoia in there also.

0

freshair 7 years, 3 months ago

'And where did we always see all the other Pres names in media print out in full?'

Oh, in media like the NYTimes, Wash Post, WSJ, Time, Newsweek, US News&World report to name just a few of the print media. I guess you don't read much outside of the Pilot. And of course the television outlets commonly referred to Clinton by his first, middle and last name.

0

Matthew Stoddard 7 years, 3 months ago

"And another thing I can guarantee you is that outside of this country,especially the Islamic world, referring to him by his 3 names is the perfectly normal thing to do..."

"...especially the Islamic world..." So what is that supposed to imply- Judaism?

As for Jr., why didn't you use that portion if you were so worried about printing his given name? You seem to be flipping back and forth as to what is a given name or not, now. Is this your Clintonization, like determining the definition of "is"?

And if it'a Leftist conspiracy, why did you not say McCain was "J. Sidney McCain or John Sidney McCain?" A little Freudian slip? It's an easy question, so I don't know why it's taking you this long to try and persuade us that you didn't purposely go out of your way to point out Hussein and not Sidney.

0

Matthew Stoddard 7 years, 3 months ago

No, I've subscribed to Time Magazine for almost 20yrs. and watch FOX News. They don't seem to always say "Hussein" or "W. Jefferson Clinton." Weird.

Plus...look at the links you provided. I don't see Hussein in either link line. Sure, it says it at the header again, but then refers to "Obama" throughout the rest of the post.

Again- why the purposeful rendering of Obama's given name (even if you left Jr. out of it) and not McCain's name?

0

Matthew Stoddard 7 years, 3 months ago

In fact, you only listed in your initial post, in the first paragraph:

"The most Liberal member of Congress, a wife who has never been proud of America, and a demagogue, radical preacher who he's known for 20 years,married him and his wife, has said was a second father to him and yet Obama would have us believe that Rev Wright's racist, Black Liberation rap was 'news' to him."

"...yet Obama..." (Not Barack Hussein Obama or B. Hussein Obama)

and

"...believe that Rev Wright's racist,..." (not Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremiah_Wright)

Why not the full given names there, if that's how it's proper to put it? Why the multiple discrepancies all in the course of 1 thread?

Remember: the questions get harder as we go along!

0

spukomy 7 years, 3 months ago

Obama has shown poor judgement by staying in Rev Wright's church for 20 years. Only to push him aside when it became politically advantageous.

Michelle Obama is finally proud of the US, but won't show us her senior thesis. Probably because she soaked in all the Rev Wright had to say.

Oprah sat in Rev Wright's church for a bit. She quickly realized that this guy's teachings would hurt her career. At least Barrack now has Rosie O'Donnell's endorsment.

Is anyone in Barrack's camp actually trying to get him elected?

0

freshair 7 years, 3 months ago

Kielbasa, you are all over the place in trying to dig your way out of the typical illogical holes you construct. How does my referring to the islamic nature of the name Barack Hussein Obama-as a sidebar within the context of the rest of the world having no problem with the use of his full name as compared with the Politically Correct commandments of the American left and its media lackeys-how in your typically paranoid Leftist mental process do you reach the twisted conclusion that I am using his full name as a measure of Muslim respect?

The point to be taken were your thought process of a finer clarity was that to address him as Barack Hussein Obama, as the rest of the world does with no problem, is addressing him with Global Respect. Something which our Politically Correct special interest groups preclude us from being part of.

0

dave mcirvin 7 years, 3 months ago

Very Well Stated, Murray Tucker. I am a registered independent and what seems clear is that Obama is the only remaining candidate that provides an avenue for any considerable change. Sure we all ruminated over much of the Paul and Kusinich rhetoric but WitchClinton is far too polarizing and confrontational to have any overwhelming success in passing bills through congress. McSame provides no significant alternative to W in regard to the conflict in Iraq, "current voting record" with regard to torture, health care for John Q Public and his stance on the economy/tax cuts for high income recipients/trickle down economics.

I will live with perception of Obama's relative, political inexperience and actually consider it a positive without preconceived ideas and conditioned responses. Thoughtful minds including Dodd, Biden, Hagel, Kennedy, Webb and possibly Colin Powell may provide imperative and heterogenous guidance (not the 'Project for a New American Century' community). Hamas' recognition of someone different and ready to promote dialogue, present alternative views and direction with regard to Israel and a Palestinian state may be most beneficial. Toxic testosterone titers alone works only temporarily in sports and in the Clemens-Bonds-Canseco world of baseball (and no, let's not bring up Triple Crown since they already have 26 comments on their page).

The face and the heritage of Obama may make it more difficult to recruit middle eastern males with no hope of a future against lily white America.

0

weallnutz 7 years, 3 months ago

"edskis proves propoganda works for the simple minded," nothing he quoted was untrue, the list was quotes and simple truths documented over and over again. When you don't like the argument call the messenger simple minded? I guess I would have to call Barrack Obama simple minded, I don't like his political arguments....at least the few he's made, does anybody really know his plans other than saving the world and making everybody rich and happy by change? He seems to always leave one thing out....How, tell me that maybe I'll change my opinion but until then I guess he keeps his propoganda aimed at the simple minded.

0

Matthew Stoddard 7 years, 3 months ago

Hey freshair- Check you own eyes- in the URL (link line) how is his name put there? No "Hussein" in either URL you posted. D'oh!

Granted- Biography links...should have the full name. Now, find me 10 news articles (not editorials) that state any of the top 3 pres candidates with the full, given names.

And yet once again: Why are you all over the place when giving "given names?" You can say I'm all over the place, but each post I've put to you has asked this one, little question that you keep trying to avoid answering, since it will show you to not believe what you write. Otherwise, what harm could there be in answering it?

0

nikobesti 7 years, 3 months ago

Freshair: You should be proud of your fear mongering. How old are you? I'm surprised you haven't slipped in an "s" instead of a "b" in "Obama." You didn't use anyone else's middle name so it's quite clear you're playing childish games. When a speaker used Obama's middle name on stage during a McCain rally, McCain tastefully apologized, because he realizes childish scare tactics when he hears them. Of course we know McCain has more class than you, but at least you could have enough guts to admit you're using his middle name for a reason.

0

nikobesti 7 years, 3 months ago

spukomy: I hate to burst your bubble, but Obama has been running one of the best campaigns in recent history. He's raising money at unprecedented rates. Despite trite attacks from Clinton and Limbaugh/Coulter, he has only gained more and more delegates on Hillary. Unfortunately for you, Americans are sick and tired of attack campaigns and are voting appropriately. Obama surely made some mistakes in the past and made a few slips of the tongue during the campaign, but it hasn't hurt him because Americans are finally wising up. Obama's camp most definitely is trying to get him elected, and right now he's got McCain beat every heads-up poll. Nice try, though.

0

seeuski 7 years, 3 months ago

stormpeakco, You said,"Hamas' recognition of someone different and ready to promote dialogue, present alternative views and direction with regard to Israel and a Palestinian state may be most beneficial. "

Here is a link that will help you understand what Hamas's true goals are in regards to a so called Palestinian state. (http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm)

0

Ed Miklus 7 years, 3 months ago

For all you fans of liberal media darling, black liberation theology participator, Weather Underground associator, gee I think Marxism is cool, no I don't understand the Capital Gains Tax, wow I taught at the college level, so my wife isn't pround of America until I became a candidate, let me spend 660 billion when I become president, no I don't wear an American Flag lapel pin, no I don't care to know how to use the power of the American Presidency in foreign relations Freshman Senator B. H. Obama (can't deal with that given name stuff) with about about 14 months of senatorial experience, I didn't know that Kool-aid came in latte flavor!!!

0

twostroketerror 7 years, 3 months ago

I'm pround you turned an entire paragraph into a sentence...

0

Matthew Stoddard 7 years, 3 months ago

I couldn't tell if edskis was for Obama or against him, but it seems that edskis prefers the tainted latte over the Kool-Aid.

And how does wearing a pin make you more electable over someone else? Does the pin have special powers like Green Lantern's power ring? I suppose it makes for a good target if a terrorist was sniping people from afar. Tells you who to kill first just like a 'cruit officer wearing non-subdued rank on the front lines.

If he wears Stars & Stripes styled boxer shorts instead, might that that make him more patriotic than someone wearing tighty-whiteys? I guess it worked for Rocky since he wore plaing boxing trunks the first time he fought Clubber Lang and lost, but won the 2nd time when Apollo Creed gave him his Old Glory trunks (hopefully washed) to put Lang out!

And this $660 billion...How dare he spend that little!?!!?? He needs to make sure to incur at least $3.5 trillion in debt for up to 7yrs from being sworn in or he'll never get out of Bush's debt shadow.

Go 3rd Party Candidates!!

0

rsssco 7 years, 3 months ago

edskis proves that propaganda works for the simple-minded.

0

Matthew Stoddard 7 years, 3 months ago

Yes, but is edskis wearing his lapel pin and is edskis his full, given name?

0

Ed Miklus 7 years, 3 months ago

Maybe I turned a sentence into a paragraph but I misspelled "proud" like in proud to be an American. Ah....a little self-criticism; maybe our candiates should try some. Can someone pass me the balsamic for my arugula.

0

dogd 7 years, 3 months ago

Check out Obama's finance manager. Her resume= one of the worst bad-actors in the subprime mess-Superior Lending. Think Obama will rein in the hedge-funds, or the larcenous insurance or banking industries? Think again. It's actually ironic that the guy most likely to go against BIG BUSINESS if it is in the national interest is definitely McCain. Obama?? not a chance. Hillary? even less of a chance.

0

seeuski 7 years, 3 months ago

Just like the OJ jury dismissed all the evidence the panting and fainting over B.H. Obama will overshadow anything that matters. As evidenced by some of the earlier comments regarding race baiting etc. anyone who asks about B.H. Obamas connections get the tag.

0

Hammer 7 years, 3 months ago

I am not an Obama fan due to his politics, not his name or his preacher, but his politics. freshair, you are completely out of your mind. I value political leadership. If a person named Osama Bin Hussein ran for president and had the political qualities I value, I would vote for him in a heartbeat. Slam me if you will, but I refuse to be a prejudiced, superiority complexed, know it all, American twit.

0

spukomy 7 years, 3 months ago

nikobesti,

Congrads to Obama for raising lots of $. The "attack campaigns" haven't even begun, on either side. Yes, Obama made some mistakes in the past. I guess they haven't hurt him ......yet.....I guess. "Americans are finally wising up."
Again, congrads to Obama for raising lots of $.

0

freshair 7 years, 3 months ago

Hammer....newsflash, you already are a 'prejudiced, superiority complexed, know it all, American twit.' However I would omit the 'superiority' adjective in your case. To think that this Ultra-Liberal and inexperienced product of Chicago Democratic Machine Politics is someone this country needs as Prez can only be the conclusion of clueless nitwits like yourself.

If the Democrats want to guarantee losing the General Election they'll nominate this Manchurian Candidate. As W. Virgina showed once again last nite, Obama has big, big problems in winning over your typical middle class blue-collar worker. He's lost California, Texas, New York, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio. But the Far Lefties who control the Democratic Party seem to be determined to go down in a blaze of glory with their flag bearer by ignoring the stronger candidate, Clinton.

0

Hammer 7 years, 3 months ago

freshair, you crack me up. You are so typical of a person who desperately wants to sound and feel smart but isn't. If you would actually read my post, I said I am not a fan of Obama, yet you launch into a tirade as though I said I am in love with him. After reading some of your other posts, I fear your momma did not hug you enough. Now, hold your breath and count to ten, then go have a cookie and some milk and calm down.

0

freshair 7 years, 3 months ago

kielbasa...unlike you I am not locked into a rigid pattern of existence. Take my advice and loosen up and roll with the permutations of Life. Feel free to refer to me as the moment requires. Unless its outright insulting, in which case I will return the compliments, any combo of first, middle or last monikers will do. As in BHO, B Hussein Obama, Barack H Obama, B H Obama or even Barry Obama or JFK, John F Kennedy, John Fitzgerald Kennedy etc.

As always, keepin it real,yours truly, FA.

0

Matthew Stoddard 7 years, 3 months ago

"As I stated above, anyone who speaks out about Obama's connections are targeted and labeled."

Would that be the same way people who spoke out against the Iraq War were targeted and labeled as "unpatriotic?" (AAAAAHHHHHH!!!! Moral Equivalence!!!! AAAAAHHHHH!)

No, the only thing freshair hit on the head was him/herself.

0

Matthew Stoddard 7 years, 3 months ago

First comes, "And another thing I can guarantee you is that outside of this country,especially the Islamic world, referring to him by his 3 names is the perfectly normal thing to do and this strange American taboo on the Left to acknowledge his full, given name is seen as one more example of American Political Correctness in action."

then comes, "kielbasa...unlike you I am not locked into a rigid pattern of existence."

How Liberal of you to acknowledge a less rigid lifestyle. And this is why Dems won the Senate and House- we have people like freshair, Coulter and Limbaugh making the Republican party look worse than Michael Moore or Howard Dean have ever done for the Dems.

Just shows that you pander to the popularity contest of the day. Kinda like Obama wearing a lapel pin of late when he normally doesn't or when Hillary slams a shot at a bar.

0

freshair 7 years, 3 months ago

And you disagree with what portion of that brilliant analysis?

0

freshair 7 years, 3 months ago

"Some of the reaction to the Clintons, whose once-universal support among African-Americans has crashed, is due to the immense stake black Americans have come to invest in the Obama candidacy. But some of this is something else, something more sinister.

Bill and Hillary Clinton are not playing a race card. Rather, the liberal media and some black journalists with sentimental, emotional or ideological investments in Obama are playing the intimidation card.

They are setting limits around what may and may not be said about Obama. They are seeking to censor robust adversarial speech where Barack is concerned, by branding as racists "playing the race card" any who make Barack run the same paces as anyone else.

The Clintons are today victims of a double standard that has long been employed against conservatives.

Even African-Americans critical of Obama are feeling the lash. In Saturday's Washington Post article, "Black Community Is Increasingly Protective of Obama," reporter Darryl Fears writes, "Standing in the path of Obama's campaign has been dangerous" for prominent blacks."

0

Matthew Stoddard 7 years, 3 months ago

seeuski- Can't say I know any of you as my neighbors, personally, now can I? If you were my neighbor, or if you've actually read my posts right here in this thread, I prefer Matt when being personally addressed...same as Barack Obama seems to prefer that way of being addressed except in formal circumstances.

Not my fault you don't see the hypocrisy of what freshair says when called on being an instigator of the politics of fear. Has to purposely go out of the way to put a name in print, in a way only those trying to speak down upon a person will do (isn't that how a mother addresses a child when they've done something wrong?), then trying to explain it as being "proper," while forgoing that same way of being "proper" as a rule due to "not leading a rigid lifestyle" and "keepin it real." Maybe someone should worry more about "getting real" instead.

0

seeuski 7 years, 3 months ago

when reading the early blogs one can see that Freshair was attacked for what? Not stating Obama's name the way you see fit. I think every voter will cast their votes as to their own preferences regardless of how Obama is refered to by anyone.

P.S. I thought you lived here in Steamboat and I will refer to you the way I see your name here not as you see fit. It seems there is a control issue going down here. Very condescending. Take a chill pill and cast your vote.see ya matthew.

0

weallnutz 7 years, 3 months ago

you know what is sad....in a country of the most successful people in the world, year after year we have a bunch of dingbats as the final choices for president. Its always the lesser of two evils, I don't like McCain, but I like him a heck of a lot better than Hillary or Obama....someday maybe we'll have a Real choice, and no those 3rd party guys aren't the answer, at least none of them yet

0

freshair 7 years, 3 months ago

seeuski....anything appearing under the byline 'kielbasa' is to be taken for exactly what it is and nothing else....the 'brain' droppings of a severely maladjusted psyche. Were I a health professional, I would recommend this individual seek professional help in working out his obvious problems which scream out to the reader following the thread.

As I've stated before, Obama doesn't have a snowball's chance in Hell of getting elected. How any major party could nominate someone who has lost every big multi-ethnic state primary is beyond belief. But we are speaking here of a party, the Democrats, controlled by Far Left special interest groups, who like any bunch of fanatics, think Islamo-terrorists, will gladly go down in flames rather than abandon the first Black major party candidate. For the Jihadis it's dying for their belief and for the Lefties running the Democrats, it's going to be losing the election to maintain their Liberal-Left 'street cred'. Anyone who thinks Obama has a chance of being elected is either on a regular diet of 'happy' pills or your common run-of-the-mill clueless, naive and brainwahed naif. Several of whom regularly deposit their laughable excuses for commentary on this same forum.

0

Matthew Stoddard 7 years, 3 months ago

seeuski- I actually live in Silver Spur and not the city direct. What I said is that I don't know YOU to be my neighbor...just an anonymous person, who might or might not live in Steamboat.

And work on your own condescending tone: when a person says, "Call me __" it's condescending not to address them as such, as is what people who think they're conservatives tend to do, in order to try and assuage some inner inferiority complex while acting as if being condescending is only bad if others do it. They'll accuse other's of drinking the Kool-Aid, but never admit to doing the same while reciting Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh word for word, thinking it's their own thoughts. Nice try, seeuski. Maybe one day, you'll actually convince yourself of what you say. Maybe.

0

nikobesti 7 years, 3 months ago

Everyone knows that if you don't wear a flag pin you hate America and everything it stands for. You also beat puppies with a canvas sack full of undernourished kittens. It's a proven fact.

I wear two flag pins, just in case one falls off.

0

weallnutz 7 years, 3 months ago

not wearing a flag pin makes no statement at all, refusing to wear a flag pin makes a statement. Not attending church makes no statment, listing your pastor as one of the most influential people in your life when your pastor is a racist pig makes a statement. Keeping your mouth shut makes no statement, saying you've never been proud of your country makes a strong statement. Ignore all the signs if you want, you did when you elected our sherriff.

0

Matthew Stoddard 7 years, 3 months ago

Weallnutz- Do we know if the flag pins all made in the USA or assembled/painted/etc. in another country? Would all of Congress' pins come from here?

http://www.pinscentral.com/xq/asp/qx/aboutus.htm

or

http://www.worldflags101.com/about.aspx

What kind of statement would that send?

0

seeuski 7 years, 3 months ago

Well I think enough back and forth with K%#%*asa.

On the original topic, the media is reporting that Hillary has some big time dirt on B. Hussein Obama and is waiting for the right moment. Hmmm wonder what is next that will be blamed on the likes of Hannity, Coulter etc.etc. It's curious how factual info on a candidate is called smearing and the left had no problem with the 10,000 books written or falsified documents smearing lies about Bush (remember Dan Rather)or half baked movies by the likes of Moore that are touted as gospel by the koolaide drinkers. How about a left wing media that played the Abu Gahraib photos every day for well over a month causing(as reported by an insurgent leader who has recently seen the light and joined the coalition in Iraq)an increase in terrorist recruites that killed our soldiers just to hurt the Bush administration. I think it matters weather the next President is proud enough to sport the flag on his lapel.

0

contrarian 7 years, 3 months ago

GOP Stunned By Loss in Mississippi http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/gop_stunned_by_loss_in_mississ.html

In a major blow to national Republicans, a Mississippi congressional seat that once voted for President Bush by a twenty-five point margin elected a Democrat on Tuesday...The results came despite national Republican efforts aimed at winning the seat. Senators Thad Cochran and Roger Wicker, former Senator Trent Lott and Governor Haley Barbour campaigned hard for Davis. On Monday, perhaps as an unfortunate measure of how Republican the district really is, Vice President Dick Cheney held a rally for Davis...The loss has already shaken establishment Republicans in Washington. After losing special elections in Illinois and Louisiana, the House GOP conference already expects a bad year for their party.

0

another_local 7 years, 3 months ago

It makes no difference what a candidate is "for" if they don't have the political chops to get it done. Carter is the example of a decent and very intelligent president widely considered a failure for being incapable of executing his good ideas. I expect a 4 year term of inaction if Obama is elected.

In order to move forward (read "change" for those of you in love with the word) you first have to get in motion.

0

seeuski 7 years, 3 months ago

Democrat led Congress approval ratings at new lows!

WASHINGTON, May 14 (UPI) -- The approval rating of the U.S. Congress dropped to near-record levels and is lower than U.S. President George Bush's mark, a Gallup poll indicates.

The telephone survey of 1,017 U.S. adults indicates 18 percent of those interviewed May 8-11 approve of the current Congress. The score matches record lows from similar Gallup polls in August 2007 and March 1992.

Gallup said Wednesday the reason for the low approval rating is because "rank-and-file Democrats are providing no support cushion for the Democratic-controlled institution."

The same poll indicated approval ratings of Bush hover around his record lows, with 29 percent of respondents voicing support for the president.

Gallup reported a sampling error of 3 percentage points.

0

contrarian 7 years, 3 months ago

Why GOP's Mississippi House loss resonates http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24613179/

WASHINGTON - Stunning? Only if you haven't been paying attention in recent weeks.

Sickening? Yes, if you are a Republican.

That about sums up Tuesday night in Mississippi's First Congressional district.

In a special election, Democrat Travis Childers defeated Republican Greg Davis in a district which had long been a GOP stronghold and where only three years ago, George W. Bush had won 62 percent of the vote.

Republicans ran ads linking Childers to Democratic presidential contender Sen. Barack Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Obama gloated a bit on the campaign trail in Michigan Wednesday. "Look, they (the Republicans) just lost yesterday in the heart of Mississippi:. this is a hardcore Republican seat. And they lost it by eight points."

The Republicans, he said, "did everything they could, you know they ran ads with my face on it, and they said, 'look at this former liberal,' his former pastor said offensive things, I mean they were trying to do every trick in the book to try to scare folks in Mississippi. And it didn't work."

0

Matthew Stoddard 7 years, 3 months ago

"Well I think enough back and forth with K%#%*asa."

And that proves there is no contesting that pu-ski is driving on the same Hypocrite Highway as the rest of so-called conservatives.

And you missed this poll, evidently:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/congressional_ballot/generic_congressional_ballot

Take special note of the little blue column to the top right of the page, where Dems in congress were in higher favor over Republicans each month for the past year. D'oh! Looks like they all suck, no matter the party. Tough luck there, "neighbor."

0

freshair 7 years, 3 months ago

A living lie

By Thomas Sowell

An e-mail from a reader said that, while Hillary Clinton tells lies, Barack Obama is himself a lie. That is becoming painfully apparent with each new revelation of how drastically his carefully crafted image this election year contrasts with what he has actually been saying and doing for many years.

Senator Obama's election year image is that of a man who can bring the country together, overcoming differences of party or race, as well as solving our international problems by talking with Iran and other countries with which we are at odds, and performing other miscellaneous miracles as needed.

There is, of course, not a speck of evidence that Obama has ever transcended party differences in the United States Senate. Voting records analyzed by the National Journal show him to be the farthest left of anyone in the Senate. Nor has he sponsored any significant bipartisan legislation - nor any other significant legislation, for that matter.

Senator Obama is all talk - glib talk, exciting talk, confident talk, but still just talk.

Some of his recent talk in San Francisco has stirred up controversy because it revealed yet another blatant contradiction between Barack Obama's public image and his reality.

Speaking privately to supporters in heavily left-liberal San Francisco, Obama let down his hair and described working class people in Pennsylvania as so "bitter" that they "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them."

Like so much that Obama has said and done over the years, this is standard stuff on the far left, where guns and religion are regarded as signs of psychological dysfunction - and where opinions different from those of the left are ascribed to emotions ("bitter" in this case), rather than to arguments that need to be answered.

0

freshair 7 years, 3 months ago

A Living Lie (cont)

Like so many others on the left, Obama rejects "stereotypes" when they are stereotypes he doesn't like but blithely throws around his own stereotypes about "a typical white person" or "bitter" gun-toting, religious and racist working class people.

In politics, the clearer a statement is, the more certain it is to be followed by a "clarification," when people react adversely to what was plainly said.

Obama and his supporters were still busy "clarifying" Jeremiah Wright's very plain statements when it suddenly became necessary to "clarify" Senator Obama's own statements in San Francisco.

People who have been cheering whistle-blowers for years have suddenly denounced the person who blew the whistle on what Obama said in private that is so contradictory to what he has been saying in public.

However inconsistent Obama's words, his behavior has been remarkably consistent over the years. He has sought out and joined with the radical, anti-Western left, whether Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers of the terrorist Weatherman underground or pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli Rashid Khalidi.

Obama is also part of a long tradition on the left of being for the working class in the abstract, or as people potentially useful for the purposes of the left, but having disdain or contempt for them as human beings.

Karl Marx said, "The working class is revolutionary or it is nothing." In other words, they mattered only in so far as they were willing to carry out the Marxist agenda.

Fabian socialist George Bernard Shaw included the working class among the "detestable" people who "have no right to live." He added: "I should despair if I did not know that they will all die presently, and that there is no need on earth why they should be replaced by people like themselves."

Similar statements on the left go back as far as Rousseau in the 18th century and come forward into our own times.

It is understandable that young people are so strongly attracted to Obama. Youth is another name for inexperience - and experience is what is most needed when dealing with skillful and charismatic demagogues.

Those of us old enough to have seen the type again and again over the years can no longer find them exciting. Instead, they are as tedious as they are dangerous.

0

Matthew Stoddard 7 years, 3 months ago

Wow! A Town Hall columnist quote! How biased of you! LOL!!! That makes all the difference in the world!

0

Matthew Stoddard 7 years, 3 months ago

Here- I'll even post this one for you:

"John McCain is Bob Dole minus the charm, conservatism and youth. Like McCain, pollsters assured us that Dole was the most "electable" Republican. Unlike McCain, Dole didn't lie all the time while claiming to engage in Straight Talk.

Of course, I might lie constantly too, if I were seeking the Republican presidential nomination after enthusiastically promoting amnesty for illegal aliens, Social Security credit for illegal aliens, criminal trials for terrorists, stem-cell research on human embryos, crackpot global warming legislation and free speech-crushing campaign-finance laws.

I might lie too, if I had opposed the Bush tax cuts, a marriage amendment to the Constitution, waterboarding terrorists and drilling in Alaska.

And I might lie if I had called the ads of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth "dishonest and dishonorable."

McCain angrily denounces the suggestion that his "comprehensive immigration reform" constituted "amnesty" -- on the ludicrous grounds that it included a small fine. Even the guy who graduated fifth from the bottom of his class at the U.S. Naval Academy didn't fall for this a few years ago.

In 2003, McCain told The Tucson Citizen that "amnesty has to be an important part" of any immigration reform. He also rolled out the old chestnut about America's need for illegals, who do "jobs that American workers simply won't do."

McCain's amnesty bill would have immediately granted millions of newly legalized immigrants Social Security benefits. He even supported allowing work performed as an illegal to count toward Social Security benefits as recently as a vote in 2006 -- now adamantly denied by Mr. Straight Talk.

McCain keeps boasting that he was "the only one" of the Republican presidential candidates who supported the surge in Iraq.

What is he talking about? All Republicans supported the surge -- including Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani. The only ones who didn't support it were McCain pals like Sen. Chuck Hagel. Indeed, the surge is the first part of the war on terrorism that caused McCain to break from Hagel in order to support the president.

True, McCain voted for the war. So did Hillary Clinton. Like her, he then immediately started attacking every other aspect of the war on terrorism. (The only difference was, he threw in frequent references to his experience as a POW, which currently outnumber John Kerry's references to being a Vietnam vet.)"

cont'd...

0

Matthew Stoddard 7 years, 3 months ago

cont'd from above...

"Thus, McCain joined with the Democrats in demanding O.J. trials for terrorists at Guantanamo, including his demand that the terrorists have full access to the intelligence files being used to prosecute them.

These days, McCain gives swashbuckling speeches about the terrorists who "will follow us home." But he still opposes dripping water down their noses. He was a POW, you know. Also a member of the Keating 5 scandal, which you probably don't know, and won't -- until he becomes the Republican nominee.

Though McCain was far from the only Republican to support the surge, he does have the distinction of being the only Republican who voted against the Bush tax cuts. (Also the little lamented Sen. Lincoln Chafee, who later left the Republican Party.) Now McCain claims he opposed the tax cuts because they didn't include enough spending cuts. But that wasn't what he said at the time.

To the contrary, in 2001, McCain said he was voting against Bush's tax cuts based on the idiotic talking point of the Democrats. "I cannot in good conscience," McCain said, "support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us at the expense of middle-class Americans who need tax relief."

McCain started and fanned the vicious anti-Bush myth that, before the 2000 South Carolina primary, the Bush campaign made phone calls to voters calling McCain a "liar, cheat and a fraud" and accusing him of having an illegitimate black child.

On the thin reed of a hearsay account, McCain immediately blamed the calls on Bush. "I'm calling on my good friend George Bush," McCain said, "to stop this now. He comes from a better family. He knows better than this.

Bush denied that his campaign had anything to do with the alleged calls and, in a stunningly magnanimous act, ordered his campaign to release the script of the calls being made in South Carolina.

Bush asked McCain to do the same for his calls implying that Bush was an anti-Catholic bigot, but McCain refused. Instead, McCain responded with a campaign commercial calling Bush a liar on the order of Bill Clinton:

MCCAIN: His ad twists the truth like Clinton. We're all pretty tired of that.

ANNOUNCER: Do we really want another politician in the White House America can't trust?"

cont'd...

0

424now 7 years, 3 months ago

Well simply put I oppose Obama and I am a very typical white person at times bitter often gun-toting, God fearing, Anti-religious and Anti-racist working class kind of person.

I suppose you could stereotype me.

0

Matthew Stoddard 7 years, 3 months ago

cont'd from above...

"After massive investigations by the Los Angeles Times and investigative reporter Byron York, among others, it turned out that neither of the alleged calls had ever been made by the Bush campaign -- nor, it appeared, by anyone else. There was no evidence that any such calls had ever been made, which is unheard of when hundreds of thousands of "robo-calls" are being left on answering machines across the state.

And yet, to this day, the media weep with McCain over Bush's underhanded tactics in the 2000 South Carolina primary.

In fact, the most vicious attack in the 2000 South Carolina primary came from McCain -- and not against his opponent.

Seeking even more favorable press from The New York Times, McCain launched an unprovoked attack against the Rev. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, calling them "agents of intolerance." Unlike the phantom "black love child" calls, there's documentary evidence of this smear campaign.

To ensure he would get full media coverage for that little gem, McCain alerted the networks in advance that he planned to attack their favorite whipping boys. Newspaper editors across the country stood in awe of McCain's raw bravery. The New York Times praised him in an editorial that said the Republican Party "has for too long been tied to the cramped ideology of the Falwells and the Robertsons."

Though McCain generally votes pro-life -- as his Arizona constituency requires -- he embraces the loony lingo of the pro-abortion set, repeatedly assuring his pals in the media that he opposes the repeal of Roe v. Wade because it would force women to undergo "illegal and dangerous operations."

Come to think of it, Dole is a million times better than McCain. Why not run him again?"

And where did this gem come from???

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/AnnCoulter/2008/01/24/straight_talk_express_takes_scenic_route_to_truth

0

424now 7 years, 3 months ago

So....Matt

Who would you reccomend the average voter of concience look to in this upcoming election?

0

freshair 7 years, 3 months ago

He also writes for the NYTimes, Wash Post and Wall Street Journal, among others. But it's all in keeping with your pathetic attempts to ignore the message and smear the messenger. One of the best reasons I can think of for opposing Obama is that he is supported by psychopaths like yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Sowell

0

Matthew Stoddard 7 years, 3 months ago

Not sure. I've settled on voting for a 3rd Party candidate, but not which one. freshair put up a Town Hall columnist against Obama like it was some massive epiphany. All I did was the exact same thing, from the same site's other columnist as it pertained to Sidney.

0

freshair 7 years, 3 months ago

He also writes for the NYTimes, Wash Post and Wall Street Journal, among others. But it's all in keeping with your pathetic attempts to ignore the message and smear the messenger. One of the best reasons I can think of for opposing Obama is that he is supported by psychopaths like yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Sowe...

0

Matthew Stoddard 7 years, 3 months ago

Supported by psychopaths like me...and where did I ever say I was supporting Obama? Could have sworn I've never said I was voting for Obama, let alone Hillary or Sidney.

A little smearing the messenger about a message not delivered of your own, eh? How "psychopathic" of you.

0

freshair 7 years, 3 months ago

Give it a break. Come on out of the closet and declare what is perfectly obvious to anyone who can read the English language..You're a typical whacko Lefty. Trust me, you'll feel better. Confession is good for the soul. Your dog will love you and all those near and dear will appreciate the honesty.

0

424now 7 years, 3 months ago

Well Matt,

The apathy and disillusion of fringe Republicans like yourself are the main reason I suspect Obama fever will sweep a completely ill-equipped pretty boy into the office of president of these United States.

May God have mercy on our souls.

0

Hammer 7 years, 3 months ago

freshair, you are an interesting individual. You spew twisted and inflammatory analysis of every subject you approach, and use insults and recycled propaganda in a never-ending desperate attempt to defend yourself. And I believe you truly enjoy it! Perhaps you are not in a life position to be taken seriously by your peers, and use these forums to inflate your damaged ego. Whatever the situation, I would just like to say that I agree with you on one point; John McCain will be the next president. And that is due not strictly to his superior political savvy, but also to the self-destructive nature of the contemporary democratic party. My original post was meant to imply that a persons name and social connections do not dictate who I vote for, but instead political views and ambitions that I feel are going to help myself, my family, and all others that the American political process touches. Not one of the current candidates possess a perfect mix of these views and values, and one probably never will. That is the nature of politics. There are people who believe a Clinton or Obama presidency would be a good fit for their needs and personal political outlook. Contrary to your rhetoric, this does not make them 'stupid', but instead displays the great American tenet of FREEDOM of choice. I suggest you argue your views more tactfully, and perhaps you will be taken more seriously by a greater number of people.
I will not post again, but will be happy to read your next insulting comment. Have fun!

0

spukomy 7 years, 3 months ago

freshair, You hit it out of the park with that Sowell piece. Obama should really decide where he stands on the 2nd Ammendment. He should also try to figure out how he gave over $27,000 to a Church's Pastor he didn't agree with (for 20 years). Maybe he should listen more to MLK than the racist Rev. Wright.

0

freshair 7 years, 3 months ago

Hammer...your first response to me was 'freshair, you are completely out of your mind.... but I refuse to be a prejudiced, superiority complexed, know it all, American twit.'

Now you are complaining because I answered you in the same insulting tone? Grow up, get some Real Life experiences and learn to quit whining when you receive the same treatment you deal out.

0

nikobesti 7 years, 3 months ago

Seeuski: OMG! Let me see if I got this right. The disgrace to this country that happened at Abu Grahaib is not the fault of the Bush Administration, who approved these torture techniques. These human rights violations are not the fault of the military commanders at Abu Grahaib. The soldiers that actually carried out these atrocities are also not to blame. It's the fault of the "liberal media" for doing their job and covering the story. That makes perfect sense.

0

nikobesti 7 years, 3 months ago

...and the increase in terrorist recruites that are killing our soldiers is not because we're occupying a country. It's not because we're detaining their sons and husbands and fathers and torturing them. Al Qaeda is not getting stronger because of Bush's polices and actions. There are more terrorists because of the liberal US media.

Good Lord you are twisted. I'm always amazed that someone can be that blind.

Forget Obama's unity. Some of you need to be left far behind.

0

weallnutz 7 years, 3 months ago

nikobesti, is the fact that we were attacked 8 times in 6 years leading up to 9/11 and not once since Bush's fault? I'm sure the complaceny shown by your hero Clinton through the 90's had nothing to do Al Qaeda's power or 9/11. But you're right we should withdraw from their back yard....then they wont come to ours,....oh wait that didn't work last time. They hate us because we aren't Muslim!! they hated us before we "Occupied" a terroist state and the way the middle east is now, they will hate us until we denounce all religions and worship ALLAH, perhaps that is what we should do? Or maybe just maybe with a taste of freedom and free thinking leaders they will find a better way. Your narrow views are what should be left behind, you don't support your country or its leaders....LEAVE!

0

Joe_Mama 7 years, 3 months ago

Joe thinks " See what organized religion does ?"

0

nikobesti 7 years, 3 months ago

weallnutz, give this issue some critical thought, please. You're telling me a young Iraqi man would strap bombs to himself and blow himself up because some people half way across the world don't practice the same religion as he does? Nope. It's more than that. Yes, SOME Muslims don't like the US and don't like Americans. Dislike is not enough to force someone into terrorism. However, our foreign policy mistakes that DIRECLTY AFFECT people like him are enough to push someone from dislike to radical hatred. Turning a blind eye towards the Israel government's human rights violations, detaining and torturing Muslims, occupying a Middle Eastern country, now THOSE are the kinds of things that increase the rate at which terrorists are recruited.

Please. Are you trying to contend Iraq is not a breeding ground for terrorism since this debacle began? Or are you actually agreeing with seeuski's ridiculous assertion that it's the media's fault for creating terrorists by covering the atrocities at Abu Ghraib?!? Instead of putting any amount of blame on the authorizers and directors of torture, you blame the left? That had to be the single stupidest statement I've read in a long time.

One more thing. Please spare me with your Dick Cheney "if you don't support your country or its leaders, leave" BS. It's my duty as a patriot to stand up for what I believe in and voice my opinion. So you would have supported the US segregation policies of the past? You supported not letting women vote? "Yes sir, whatever you say, Mr. President sir. Slavery was just fine and Americans had no right to question our government about that policy." So when Obama is the next president, will you shut up or leave? I hope it's the later:.

0

Hadleyburg_Press 7 years, 3 months ago

nikobesti, You forgot to blame the Jews. Do that and your indoctrination will be complete my young Jihadi.

0

Joe_Mama 7 years, 3 months ago

Joe was never a Clinton fan.

However, maybe wealnutz should ask Ramzi Yousef what he thinks about Clinton's "complaceny" [sic].

0

seeuski 7 years, 3 months ago

nikobetsi, I new it was just a matter of time until you would blame the victims so here is a link with the names of some of the Israeli victims killed by the terrorists.

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Palestinian+terror+since+2000/Victims+of+Palestinian+Violence+and+Terrorism+sinc.htm

And here is alink to Hamas's charter so you can see for yourself the imposibility of negotiating.

http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm

Have great day.

0

seeuski 7 years, 3 months ago

niko,

Your'e post: "One more thing. Please spare me with your Dick Cheney "if you don't support your country or its leaders, leave" BS. It's my duty as a patriot to stand up for what I believe in and voice my opinion. So you would have supported the US segregation policies of the past? You supported not letting women vote? "Yes sir, whatever you say, Mr. President sir. Slavery was just fine and Americans had no right to question our government about that policy." So when Obama is the next president, will you shut up or leave? I hope it's the later:."

Who is the patriot you are refering to here?

0

nikobesti 7 years, 3 months ago

seeuski: I'm looking back, but I just can't figure out when I said no Israelis were ever killed by terrorists. Oh, that's right. I NEVER DID. And when did I defend Hamas? Could you at least please read my posts and respond to them, not some figments of your imagination? I fully support protecting innocent Israelis, just as I support protecting the lives and rights of innocent Palestinians. How can it be bad when Palestinians kill innocent Israelis but okay when Israelis kill innocent Palestinians? (I'm not contending that Israelis are just as bad, but can't you see how our foreign policy is inconsistent? Can't you see how maybe our government would be seen as hypocritical?)

I'm all for kicking terrorist butt. There is no way to deal with many of the Al Qaeda types except for killing them. However, we must look at our policies and examine how they might be hurting us as a nation. I believe those policies I mentioned are creating more AQ types and putting Americans in more danger.

And I do consider myself a patriot. I love this country and much that it (used to) stand for. I honor important principles such as every American having the right to a trial. Principles like not torturing other human beings. Principles like freedom from my government spying on me without a warrant. Are those principles not important to you, seeuski? You can stand aside and watch Bush shred our constitution and the very ideals that make this nation great, but I'm not going to. Am I not a patriot when I speak out against discarding these important American principles?

0

Hadleyburg_Press 7 years, 3 months ago

nikobesti, I would never ask you to be quiet or leave this country unless you took up arms or advocated violence against her. You have made some reasonable comments that are backed by what appears to be, in my humble opinion, a poor understanding of history, foreign policy, alliances, and the will of the radical islamic movement. So be it. You may very well be a patriot and perhaps someday that patriotism will be tested.

0

nikobesti 7 years, 3 months ago

HP: Well cool, at least I backed them up with something! I have respect for anyone's opinion as long as they can explain to me how they've clearly thought it out. Which is why I have little tolerance for a claim that our media is at fault for creating more terrorists by covering the atrocities at Abu Ghraib.

I am always open to schooling. I'd be interested in hearing about how I misunderstand "the radical islamic movement." I am fully aware of the brainwashing and indoctrination that goes on in much of the Middle East, and concede that this will continue regardless of our policies. But to fully accept this indoctrination, a subject must witness something that reinforces what these radicals are preaching. Currently, these radical clerics have to do nothing more than point outside the mosque for proof.

0

Joe_Mama 7 years, 3 months ago

"Joe's imaginary friend is better than Ahmed's or Billy-Bob's !"

"No it isn't !"

"Yes, it is !"

"I'll blow you up if you don't believe the way I do !"

"I'll send my army to invade the wrong country !"

"My holy book says that is my land!"

"So, we have a different holy book !"

"My imaginary friend........."

...and so on, ad nausem.......

0

seeuski 7 years, 3 months ago

niko, Many people see things differently as I do, then you, as far as the conflict between the Arabs in the Middle East against the Jews in Israel. That is why I have put the link to the Hamas charter up here several times in this blog. You either have not read it or don't believe the words from the horses mouth. Israel has done more than should be expected of a country for peace and has paid the price dearly every time. The Wye River debacle in Clintons last effort where Barak, Israels Prime Minister, offered more than was expected and Arafat turned it down and ordered a renewed Intifada. And in 2005 when Israel forcefully expelled the Jewish settlers from Gaza and turned it over to Palestinian control where today missiles are launched indiscriminantly across the border to kill as many as possible.

As far as my statement about the regurgetative reporting and showing daily, nightly and Saturdays too, of the Abu Ghraib photos for the better part of 2 months during the height of the conflict, if you want to say that the Al Qaida in Iraq didn't use that as a tool for firing up more hatred and bringing more insurgents into the arena then fine I won't convince you otherwise. I am saying that is what was reported as having been the case by ex Sunni fighters who have since defected to the side of the Iraqi military recently. I witnessed our media use those photos incessently to bash Bush over the head to the detriment of our efforts in Iraq and I believe it caused the war to last longer and for our soldiers to suffer more casualties than necessary.

Nothing personal but we are going to disagree forever on these subjects and there comes a time to move on.

0

Joe_Mama 7 years, 3 months ago

"My holy book says my imaginary friend bequeathed this land to me !"

"My holy book says you are all heretics !"

0

Joe_Mama 7 years, 3 months ago

How about, just for the sake of argument, Sen. McCain's hypocrisy...........Rod Parsley......ever heard of this looney ? How about John Hagee ? How about good 'ol Pat Robertson, who Sen. McCain got all buddy-buddy with (even though he blamed 9/11 on Americans) ?

0

424now 7 years, 3 months ago

Let me preface with "I have only met a very few Palestinians in my life. The ones I have known were Americanized though and decent enough. I have known a good number more Jewish people also decent enough" In the interest of divination of information, http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33506 http://www.science.co.il/History-Palestine.asp http://www.science.co.il/Israel-history.asp In short the Palestinians are the Jordanians who through an act of Anglo-management got booted off the beach. After the end of WWII the allies divvied up the British colony of Jordan. In the only really fertile area for hundreds of miles we drop the remnants of the European Jews decimated by the Nazi final solution. We tell the local Jordanians "to bad, so sad, now move!" This really torque's the tension meter up. The Muslim Arabs had occupied the area for centuries. Now you see it, now you don't! America-cadabra! So, then some very intolerant people from all over the Arab world decided to try some Arabian management. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War Well that backfired! Now we have a frustrated and contemptuous population full of radically extreme Muslims looking to save face. There is nothing more vindictive and difficult than a publicly embarrassed human. They found they will not be able to overwhelm the fresh new Israeli nation. Those Jews are deadly serious and tough as nails! The Arabs seek to bring about Israel's destruction by inflaming the regions anti-Israeli Arab population into action through rhetoric and back room direction. Hey! If I had Mossad gunning for me I would hide in back rooms too! The Arab governments do this while publicly keeping their hands out of the dirt with the use of popular peoples groups. This is where I wanted to post a link to Monte Pythons "the Peoples Front" skit from "Life of Brian" but it just isn't PG enough for this public forum. you can you tube it if you don't know what I am referring to. The Israeli's feel they have the right to beach front villas due to an ancient settlement the was positioned in the area The Jordanians "oops" I mean Palestinians had a more recent claim to the land. I guess possession is 9/10th's of the law here and here alone. I always wondered how they decided on the location for the repatriation and ultimate autonomy of the Jewish state. Did they have to place them where they (the Jewish people) wanted to go? Why not on American soil? If you are going to give something away shouldn't it be yours in the first place? Oh wait; we took this land by force now didn't we? If we have a manifest destiny then I guess the Jews can too. Um; but not the Palestinians? http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/israel.htm I always thought it would be like moving everyone out of the Boat and telling them they can't go to the Mountain anymore. Even better they can't move to far away either.

0

424now 7 years, 3 months ago

The Iraeli/Palestinian issue is a small part of the reasoning behind our need to complete the invasion, occupation and eventual installation of a Democration Nation in Iraq.

0

nikobesti 7 years, 3 months ago

Well seeuski, we're not too far apart, actually. I agree 100% that Al Qaeda used Abu Ghraib to recruit terrorists. This is the point I made several times in my posts. However, this is the huge difference: You blame the MEDIA for doing their job and covering it. I blame the PERPETRATORS of the torture. How can you blame these atrocities on the messenger and excuse the administrators?

In the spirit of "moving on" I'll check out your links when I have some time and I'll surely let you know what I think. Frankly, I should read that thread of 700 some posts about Praying for Jerusalem, but it was pretty daunting so I never got started. Maybe when I'm bored at work next week:.

0

weallnutz 7 years, 3 months ago

"Put some thought and reasoning into why and Iraqi man would strap explosives to himself and hurt Americans". Alright, I thought about it, maybe for the same reason Palestinian militants do it, for the same reason Hamas does it, for the same reason 19 were willing to fly them selves into building to kill our fellow country men...wait all that has been going on way before Iraq. There is a difference between arguing over political opinions and accusing your own country of being to blame for the deaths of your fellow country men, be they civilian or military. The Arab world is awash with dictators and leaders hell bent on the desctruction of all non-muslims, they have motivated suicide killers for decades, don't give me the crap that the only thing that drives a dishearted terroist to homocide bombings in the actions of this country, the torture of prisoners, or the "misled" foreign policies. Read the Koran, read Mohammed's preaching, if they follow their spiritual leader as it is widely translated, death is the only cure for non-believers. Should the Jews have looked to themselves as to why Hitler hated them? Disagree with your country, disagree with its policies, but blame your government fo the acts of criminals is BS. Its not society's fault there are serial killers, its not a store's fault that they get shoplifted from, and its not your country's fault that those insolent bastards are trying to kill you, and me, and your family. Its not our fault that parades and celebrations erupted over the Arab world after 9/11, its only our choice of how to deal with it. Disagree with those choices if you want, but don't blame your country for the deaths of your brothers and sisters

0

id04sp 7 years, 3 months ago

I'd just like to point out that everybody who posted in this thread has just as much experience with foreign policy, national defense (more in some cases), and changing society as does Barack Obama. His results would be just about the same as any of us four years from now . . . not much of anything will be different because we have no power to change the real problems -- PEOPLE!

How many people do you know who are gettin' away with sumpin in their personal lives that impacts some other person? It's like the women who took the money from Alpine Bank; so far it doesn't look like they were using it to support widows and orphans. Even something as small as dealing in cash that never gets reported to the IRS, or hiring an illegal worker to clean your house and not paying into social security, hurts other people who have to pick up the financial load you are avoiding.

Anything that any of the candidates has said makes no more difference than watching an infomercial on how to clean your colon. Barack Obama may have 25% of the voters behind him because of what he is saying, but it reminds me of something a woman once told me, many years ago; "Tell me that you love me, even if it's only for tonight."

Feeling good about words may last a day or two, but they don't mean a thing when you have to start writing out the checks to pay bills, and carry out the trash, and buy gasoline to get to work. Barack Obama will have to face the same realities if he gets the job, and when he does, he won't know what to do, and he won't be able to hire anyone to tell him what to do to make his dreams come true, BECAUSE . . .

If there was a way to cure what ails this country, SOMEBODY would have already done it. We know HOW to do it. We just can't get people to DO it. It is now, and always has been, a matter of personal responsibility for each and every one of us. That's why it won't make any difference who gets elected. Somewhere along the line, people got the idea that "freedom" means "no need to account to anybody else for what I do." That's why we are where we are today.

There was a show on TV the other night that proposed the theory that Rome fell because everyone had lead poisoning, and it made them crazy. It made a lot of sense. They ate and drank from lead containers and used the metal in many different ways that caused it to be ingested.

I wonder what they'll figure out about us in 1000 years?

0

424now 7 years, 3 months ago

id,

I logged in and jumped to this thread scrolled down to the end read the last line and new it was you.

You may be right but I have a feelin things will change. I know that ain't much but it is what I am gonna hold to as I walk this earth.

0

seeuski 7 years, 3 months ago

424now, No one dropped the jews anywhere. The ones who were fortunate enough to survive the nazi murderers and made it to Eretz Israel lived only to fight off the terrorist Arabs who were indoctrinated by the collaboration between Goerbels(or whatever his nazi name was) and Haj Amin Husseini. The Nazis and the Arabs were planning to continue the destruction of the Jews in the middle east in the same manor as was taking place in Europe. The USA had nothing to do with the slicing and dicing of the area, only the British. Please spare me with the idea that Muslims occupied the area for however long you dream. Jews have always lived in Israel and Jeruselam. Islam was born in 632AD or about. How the hell is it then that all of the history of the old testament including archeological finds indicate that Hebrews occupied the land of Israel for centuries? I have been there and seen it. The historical revisionism that is being perpetuated here is pitiful.

0

Joe_Mama 7 years, 3 months ago

"My imaginary friend gave this land to me !"

"Wrong, MY imaginary friend gave it to me!"

0

Joe_Mama 7 years, 3 months ago

Seems silly, doesn't it ? ...........Tragic is more like it.

0

nikobesti 7 years, 3 months ago

weallnutz : Terrorism is definitely not all our government's fault and it's not all Bush's fault either. But you can't pretend like we live in some vacuum. Actions by one country affect others. It's not blasphemy to dig deeper to figure out the root causes of terrorism. That's not a bad, thing regardless of what conclusions it leads to. You seem to argue "Muslims are simply evil and that's why the hate us" as your reason for terrorism. It's not that simple. As I've said before, some people/governments will hate us regardless of what we do, but that's not the entire picture. Why not at least understand what things we do create more enemies and which policies could improve our standing in the world? We might think about this and determine that we're going to do some of the same things anyway, that the tradeoffs are worth it. That's fine, but there's nothing wrong from learning a few things.

Yes, there will always be evil in this world and it's not our fault. But that doesn't mean we're all connected in the world and one country's policies affects others. That's the reality we live in and we should recognize and examine these relationships.

0

Joe_Mama 7 years, 3 months ago

weallnutz says "Read the Koran, read Mohammed's preaching, if they follow their spiritual leader as it is widely translated, death is the only cure for non-believers."

Joe would point out this passage as support for his idea that belief in imaginary friends causes much of that particular area's strife:

Deuteronomy 6:15 "(For the LORD thy God is a jealous God among you) lest the anger of the LORD thy God be kindled against thee, and destroy thee from off the face of the earth."

Essentially, if you worship the wrong god, God will get jealous and kill you.

Another one, just to hammer home the point:

Deuteronomy 7:16 "And thou shalt consume all the people which the LORD thy God shall deliver thee; thine eye shall have no pity upon them : neither shalt thou serve their gods; for that will be a snare unto thee."

This means God commands his people to "consume all the people which the Lord thy God shall deliver thee; thine eye shall have no pity on them."

Try to tell me that a major cause of all this crap isn't differing opinions of different folk's imaginary friends.

It's nonsense, and people are dying because of it.

The sooner people wake up and have a little more understanding and compassion for their fellow man, the better existence on this planet will be.

0

hippiehunter 7 years, 3 months ago

I would just like to ask everyone here how Obama's lack of experience will somehow destroy America. The past eight years have shown us just how much prosperity experience has brought the American people. We are deeply, deeply in debt; we are in the middle of an unnecessary and costly war; 70% of Americans believe we are heading toward a recession; and pretty much every other country on the face of the earth hates us. We should not care about experience, we should care about skill. Obama has shown that he has much more skill at making friends (at least within the U.S.) than either of the other two candidates.

I also tire of the constant use of the Wright controversy. The logic behind this argument seems to be that if you are associated with someone, you agree with every word that comes out of their mouth. Well, I can tell you that I disagree with quite a bit of the views of some of my best friends, such as one playa46 (username), who I have known about four years. Considering that I am only a high school freshman, that is a fairly large chunk of my life. According to the "Wright logic", I do not believe in evolution, I think that a god is watching over me because it makes me feel good at night, I think that all people have a soul, and that they are the most important beings on the planet. I can tell you, with the help of some pretty competent knowledge of my own mind and opinions, that none of the statements in the previous sentence are true. Evidently, the logic just doesn't work out. So, please guys, stop bringing up Wright; it got boring the day after the controversy began.

0

424now 7 years, 3 months ago

HH,

"How Obama's lack of experience will somehow destroy America?"

He has vowed to turn tail and run from the nation of Iraq. He has vowed to disavow them from any further protection. This will bring about the fall of Iraq. This will allow Iran to essentially double its current area and oil reserves. They will claim this in the name of piece. Exterminating any locals who stand in their way. This will put all the high quality oil in the middle east under the thumb of a country that is ruled by radical religion.

Please review this thread for my argument on that issue.

http://www.steamboatpilot.com/forums/open/reader_forum/499/

0

424now 7 years, 3 months ago

seeuski,

My choice of words may have been a little general in meaning. You have a point. There have always been a Jewish presence in the region, at least throughout recorded history. However minimal their numbers were they were there.

http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/fd807e46661e3689852570d00069e918/a682cabf739febaa052565e8006d907c!OpenDocument

0

424now 7 years, 3 months ago

I wonder if you could shed some light on when the Jewish people established their heritage. Please refer to quantifiable information that can be corroborated with other historical information.

So far, I have found,

Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonian and Sumerian references to the ruling parties in the area back to 3000 BC. With references to an Israeli state developing around 500 BC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Middle_East

0

spukomy 7 years, 3 months ago

HH, I understand why Obama's supporters also want the Rev. Wright story to go away. But this is the church that he went to for 20 years, where he got married, where he gave a lot of $. It's a question of judgement. Why doesn't he embrace his Pastor?

0

Joe_Mama 7 years, 3 months ago

Joe guesses this is just going to continue to be a forum for right wing haters and closet racists to bash Obama, since no one wants to respond to Joe's earlier post regarding McCain's association with the Rev.'s Parsely, Hagee and Robertson.

So here's a little truth for you folks.

Fact : McCain doesn't want to talk with Iran because the unpopular president of Iran has referred to Israel in unflattering terms? During the cold war, we engaged in diplomacy with the U.S.S.R. even though they called us "capitalist dogs."

Fact : Sen. MCain has mismanaged his campaign funds to the point of bankruptcy.

Fact: Sen. McCain accuses Sen. Obama of being an " appeaser", even though he admitted he would hold talks with Hamas. Seems a little disingenuous to Joe.

Fact: Sen. McCain supports the Bush war in Iraq, suggesting that we may have to stay there for "100 years", although now he says he supports troop withdrawals after the heat came down on him for his previous statement. I guess he wants to "turn tail and run" as well, eh 424?

Fact : Sen. McCain finished near the bottom of his class at the Naval Academy, ignores warnings during the Vietnam police action regarding SAMs, gets shot down as a result, and somehow equates being a POW as a qualification for being president.

Fact : Sen. McCain's wife refuses to turn over her tax returns, but Bill Clinton is required to turn over his.

Fact: After being released from the POW prison,, he endlessly cheats on his wife, then eventually marries a homewrecking millionaire, and uses her families wealth and influence to get elected to the Senate, leaving his old family behind.

Fact: He doesn't even get through his first term before the scandals start flying, and the the S&L, Keating Five business is brought to light, of which McCain is neck deep.

Fact: As a matter of public government record: McCain made at least 32 tapes of propaganda for the Vietnamese Government.

Experience does not mean good judgment, evidenced by McCain's support for the failed policies of the current administration.

OK, right wing fearmongerers, start to froth and type !

0

Joe_Mama 7 years, 3 months ago

Joe has just a little more that exposes Sen. McCain's hypocrisy:

Fact : Sen McCain voted against nearly every effort to increase funding for healthcare and disability benefits for wounded soldiers

Fact : Se. McCain voted against the interests of disabled American veterans 80 percent of the time.

Fact : Se. McCain received a D+ voting grade from the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (when Obama got a B+, and Clinton, to her lasting credit, an A-)

Fact : Sen McShame consistently voted against expanding mental healthcare and readjustment counseling for service members returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, efforts to expand treatment for injured veterans, and proposals to lower co-payments and enrollment fees veterans must pay to obtain prescription drugs.

0

Joe_Mama 7 years, 3 months ago

Joe sometimes wonders if anyone on these forums do ANY research before they start spouting "talking points".

0

Joe_Mama 7 years, 3 months ago

Joe wonders if he should point out McCain's chief political advisor, Charlie Black's, habit of lobbying for some of the world's worst dictators.

Among Mr. Black's esteemed clients:

Ferdinand Marcos, who executed thousands of his own citizens in the Philippines.....

Zaire's Mobuto, who publicly hanged his opponents and looted his country's vast mineral wealth...

Rebel leader Jonas Savimbi, a mass murderer, who covered Angola with landmines........

0

Joe_Mama 7 years, 3 months ago

"My imaginary friend gave me this desolate, worthless strip of desert!"

"No, my imaginary friend gave it to me ! "

0

another_local 7 years, 3 months ago

Joe, what is the deal with referring to yourself in the third person? Are you "blog" using another name?

0

hippiehunter 7 years, 3 months ago

424,

"Turn tail and run from the nation of Iraq"? I wouldn't exactly call his strategy "running". To put it frankly, any intelligent leader knows a $hithole when they see one, and what Obama is smelling is akin to one of the portable toilets that were used by one of the Rainbow family during their pleasant little stay in our community. Iraq is a complete mess; our nation never should have been there and it most certainly shouldn't be there now. A decent commander would probably tell you that in a situation such as this, when no benefit is to be made, the best solution would be withdrawal from said $hithole. This may sound a bit cold, but we have enough problems in the U.S. right now to be worrying about the Oil Wars. Obama seems to realize this. He also seems to realize that he is an instrument of the people, not the other way around. If 70% of Americans want to pull out, then our leader should probably listen to them; this is America's war after all, and if America doesn't want to be involved with it, then it shouldn't be.

0

hippiehunter 7 years, 3 months ago

BTW 424,

I personally think that having the biggest oil reserves in the world in the hands of an evil dictator might just be good for the U.S. It might finally ween us off this poisonous and vile fuel, and start us taking alternative fuel sources seriously.

0

424now 7 years, 3 months ago

I agree that any way we can find to advance the use of clean alternative energy solutions is to be seriously considered and acted upon with vigor. However,

"Having the biggest oil reserves in the world in the hands of an evil dictator" will never be anywhere near a sane solution. That is like saying, "lets give radical religion more money to spend on weapons to insure all us infidels get wiped off the face of the earth."

Organized radical religion is the enemy here. It must be eradicated in order for tolerance to gain a firm hold in the global socio political mindset. The only way to do this is through our continued presence in the region.

I can see that you will continue to defend the idea of withdrawal from Iraq regardless of the resulting chaos that will ensue. You have decided that stabilizing the region with our presence isn't worth the effort.

I simply put forward that it is. Similar to the presence we have in the DMZ on the Korean no mans land, akin to our presence in Europe. It is a stabilizing factor.

We have never been able to be everywhere we are needed. We do tend to get to some in a timely fashion.

0

424now 7 years, 3 months ago

Hey Joe!

I haven't addressed McCain's Religious affiliations for the same reason I have ignored the Anglophobic reverend Left.

I will stick to his lack of experience and his statement he will pull all the troops out of Iraq.

0

Joe_Mama 7 years, 3 months ago

424, my friend,

Would this be the same lack of experience George W. had or the same that Ronald Reagen had ? They are the same.

Why would the only challenge you have for the next president of our country be the same ?

Please explain to me WHY it would be "wrong" to pull our troops out of a no win situation that this stupid ba$tard has gotten us into ?

Have you no consideration for the suffering mothers, fathers, and - not to mention- the SOLDIERS that have become victims of this idiot's - and his handlers - failed policies ?

Sorry, that was a little over the top....... nevertheless

Please explain how then eradication of organized religion would help us ? ? Besides the obvious reasons, which I have postulated numerous times in these forums, which I seem to get attacked regularly for, please tell me how we expect folks to stop being stupid ?

The reality, as an adult human, is that.........we misfired invading Iraq.........We only strengthen those who would do harm to us..............Obama is the ONLY candidate with the conjojes to admit it................

It's this simple.....right wing folks love our country in a different way, like a 3 year old, " mommy is always right"..... Whereas liberals love our country in an adult manner, we take the good with the bad, and we hope to make things better...........

0

424now 7 years, 3 months ago

Hey Joe!

I have to disagree on the W and President Reagan thing there. President Reagan was believable and likable. W is more of an idiot in idiots clothing. Now, their puppet masters are the same if that is what you mean but the men two totally different animals.

The next president has a daunting task ahead of him. We must stabilize Iraq. Shepard in a new democracy with a free market economy.

This is where I usually hear "and how long do think we should be there?" to which I plainly reply "Until the job is done." This is our approach to the Korean DMZ and our installations in Japan and Europe. Why would we differ our approach now? We are already there. The boots are on the ground. Lets solidify our hold and set up shop.

Remember the idiot is the public face the puppet masters chose because they didn't have a better choice. The choice we have here is Republican or Democrat.

Obama will do as you desire and remove our troops in large numbers quickly. The people on the ground in the Iraqi Police department and their fledgling and frightened national defense troops will watch as helicopters fade into the horizon and Iran comes pouring over the boarder. This is in my humble opinion a foolish tactic on our part.

I have never stated the Organized Religion is be attacked.

Radical Religion is another story! What most of the Anti-Religion crowd denounce in Religion is in fact Radical Religion. The crusades were Radical Religious acts. A Jihad is a Radical Religious act.

No man has the right to speak for God. I have yet to meet any man qualified or authorized to do so.

Any Religion that states that unbelievers are to be eliminated is a Radical Religion and worthy of eradication.

If in fact the invasion was a misfire then your proposition is that we withdraw in supplication uttering apologies on the way out? Do you think that retreat will not embolden or as you put it, "strengthen those who would do harm to us"

My mommy was a closet Democrat. God bless her reactionary emotionalistic soul.

I consider myself a good Republican do you find my views to be juvenile or "like a 3 year old" blindly following a parent?

Joe,

I consider you posts to be not only amusing but well thought out. Occasionally we differ, this is good. Keeps the ol' fang and claw sharp.

I respectfully submit that the revelation of your liberal stance has come as blow. Ouch!

0

freshair 7 years, 3 months ago

'How can it be bad when Palestinians kill innocent Israelis but okay when Israelis kill innocent Palestinians?'

niko...equating those who INTENTIONALLY KILL CIVILIANS, as do the arabs who also intentionally use civilian areas as cover for their attacks, with the Israelis who must fight against an enemy that uses such tactics, is the height of(pick what fits)either, stupidity, naivite or general ignorance and cluelessness on the Israeli-arab conflict.

0

nikobesti 7 years, 3 months ago

freshair: Israel knows very well their attacks will kill innocent civilians, yet the do them anyway. They decide the collateral damage is justified if their target is killed. That is INTENTIONAL. Sure, the objective is not to kill innocents, like it is for suicide bombers, but it should be condemned nonetheless. Maybe if your family was killed because a terrorist lived nearby you might feel differently. Some of their actions violate international law. All sides should play by the same rules, freshair.

0

Hadleyburg_Press 7 years, 3 months ago

nikobesti, Is not the terrorist at fault for purposely launching katyusha and Qassam rockets from residential areas? Are they not the ones that are putting their civilians at risk? Do you think that just maybe they want some of the civilians to be killed by retaliatory fire so that they have images of dead children to show the world? Nifty, if not grotesque, propaganda mechanisim wouldn't you say? It sure seems to be working on you now doesn't it...

0

freshair 7 years, 3 months ago

niko... the choice for Israel in fighting an enemy which purposely uses civilians for cover is either to never retaliate or to retaliate taking all possible means to minimize civilian casualties. If you think the israelis can defend themselves against these arab terror gangs without ever causing civilian casualties, you are very, very naive, clueless and/or ignorant of the conditions which they must contend with. In reality, as over 90% of the gazans voted for Hamas and support them in all their objectives, including the destruction of the state of Israel, they are all sworn enemies of the Jews and would the opportunity arise, very few of the arabs, if any, would refrain from a chance to maim or kill Israelis.

0

colobob 7 years, 3 months ago

Seems strange that so many would place the nations economy ahead of national security. While no sane person is in favor of war, were in one. Given the ideology of the religious fanatics with whom this country is engaged there is no real choice but to finish what was started. The two Dem. candidates would in effect "cut & run" if elected, a consequence that would dwarf the economic concerns that face this country. McCain by his own admission may not be on top of all the economic issues but he is way ahead of his counterparts when it comes to military logistics and national security matters. He at least would attempt keep the war in the Middle East, both Clinton and Obama by pulling out would allow this war to follow us home. National security should be any Americans first concern and McCain is the only candidate that addresses the issue realistically and head on. Of course we could always talk our enemy to death. Then we can hope that we are no longer considered infadels by these Muslum extremists who will not rest until the religion and the rule of Islam is the only one tolerated on this planet. If for no other reason than for the security of our nation, of the three, McCain is the best and only choice. Our economic future although important has to take a back seat to our safety at home. God Bless our men and women serving this country, past, present, and in the future!

0

nikobesti 7 years, 3 months ago

HP: Yes, the terrorists are to blame. So punish them. That doesn't mean it's okay to kill innocent civilians. Sure, that could be the Palestinians' game plan and yes it is a grotesque one. I agree they've painted Israel into a corner and they don't have many options. But IMO, Israel has used excessive force on several situations. Amnesty International agrees. I do think Israel is generally the "good guy." All I'm saying is that they shouldn't get a free pass because they're the good guy. You can say "look at how many innocent people Palestinian terrorists have killed." True. But in the conflict with Hezbollah in '06 about 1,000 Lebanese - most civilians - died in the conflict, while 161 Israelis, mainly soldiers, were killed (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5276626.stm). I'm not about to excuse 1,000 deaths because there were bad guys in their mists. They can do a better job. It's a shame that we've come to accept and excuse killing innocent people.

0

nikobesti 7 years, 3 months ago

Freshair: Your bigoted response doesn't surprise me. You wrote: "In reality, as over 90% of the gazans voted for Hamas and support them in all their objectives, including the destruction of the state of Israel, they are all sworn enemies of the Jews and would the opportunity arise, very few of the arabs, if any, would refrain from a chance to maim or kill Israelis."

Translation: All Palestinians/"Arabs" are evil; there are no innocent civilians. They all deserve to die.

You are sick.

0

Hadleyburg_Press 7 years, 3 months ago

nikobesti, I generally agree with your reasonable statements. I find the targeted assasinations that inflict harm on civilians distasteful, but I also realize that in war there will be collateral damage. I also find the ongoing development of new settlements to be a severe disharmonious error on Israel's part. I also agree with Joe_Mama that the whole issue is awash in religious zealotry that has critically retarded secular peace initiatives. History, it seems, has created a boil on the face of the earth that probably will not be lanced in my lifetime. The irony of the situation is that if the Israelis did not show restraint in how they engaged in warfare this issue would have been resolved long ago. In ancient, and even modern times, if the vanquished were all slaughtered you generally had peace moving forward. Thus is the structured brutality and paradox of (human) nature as it relates to warfare in my opinion.

0

Hadleyburg_Press 7 years, 3 months ago

nikobesti, In retrospect do you support the allied carpet bombing of places like Hamburg and Dresden in WWII? Incendiary bombs were used to start fire storms that killed more people (civilians mostly) than in Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. We also did the same to Tokyo and other Japanese cities before we dropped the big ones. I won't even ask you how you feel about the use of those atomic weapons. Point being, war is never sterile. So if a just or unjust Israel used the tactics that history provides for winning, or even the tactics that groups like the militant wing of Hamas uses, I'ld be willing to bet the region would become less beligerant in the long run.

0

Hadleyburg_Press 7 years, 3 months ago

Let's not forget those that were massacred at Malmady during the Battle of the Bulge. Dachau and Auschwitz comes to mind as well. Baton et al

0

424now 7 years, 3 months ago

1985

I was nineteen years old.

I stood in the main yard of Dachau.

I spent three hours inside the camp on a tour. Several of us from the 1st ID took the tour.

They have a statue there in the main yard that is disturbing to say the least. It is a kind of people tree. I had the feeling it was meant to convey the relief the souls felt as they drifted away from that evil place.

The ovens were so small.

I will never forget the feeling of compression I had standing in the rooms with bunks ten inches between them from floor to ceiling. They had pictures on the wall of people packed in there filling the building from floor to ceiling.

There was a disturbing smell to the place.

God rest the victims of the wicked and may God bless those who defend the weak. It is not enough to decry the actions of the wicked.

Be the one to help simply because you are present and able.

0

freshair 7 years, 3 months ago

no, nikoworsti, I am not sick. But I have spent a LOT of time in not only Israel but throughout the arab and non-arab muslim world AND I know very well the extent of the genocidal hatred which most, yes, I mean MOST, muslims harbor toward Israel specifically and Jews in general. Not to mention their pathological intolerance towards all non-muslim belief systems. I can say with full con fidence that there are very few arabs in either the West Bank or Gaza who do not support Hamas or Fatah or Islamic Jihad either financially or through family membership in these groups.

To fully understand what is happening there one must possess a full understanding of the history of the region and Islamic culture and theology. You obviously fall short on all of those required points.

Of course, if you are an arab or have family or close personal connections with arabs, then your feelings and 'opinions' are understandable. Still wrong but understandable.

0

nikobesti 7 years, 3 months ago

HP, you certainly have some tough questions about war and raised a great point about how the worst atrocities can often bring a swift resolution and peace. I realize war is ugly and I'm not a pacifist. I guess I cling to the belief that we can play nice in war, which could very well be some unachievable oxymoron. There is some line which should not be crossed. Problem is, that line is different for everybody.

But it's natural and acceptable to have some rules for war. Humankind has wrestled with this issue for a long time and has created some world-wide pacts such as the Geneva Conventions, UN Charter and Hague Conventions, etc. There have always been some things that are just unacceptable, even in the midst of the most inhumane wars. I believe the world should be kept to these standards, and think we should do our best to abide by them, not discard them because they're too difficult or because the other side is the "bad guys."

For the sake of discussion, do you believe some laws should be followed in war? Which ones do you agree with or disagree with? Genocide? Torture? Use of chemical or biological weapons? These might not be the same as using excessive force and killing too many innocent people, but they're all on the same scale. These are interesting questions and I certainly don't have the answers. But like I said, I do agree with some international standards, which EVERYONE must be accountable to.

0

nikobesti 7 years, 3 months ago

foulair: Thank you for confirming that my translation was spot-on.

Your assertions that somehow you are neutral on this topic and I must be a Muslim fanatic are ludicrous. (I have several Muslim friends-some "jack Muslims," some not, but no relatives; I'm agnostic). Fact is, I've lived in a Muslim community as well, and the experience led me to quite a different understanding than yours. Don't try to tell me your perception is God's truth and mine is wrong. I'm sorry your experiences turned you into a bigot, or confirmed your racism. Usually these things can open your mind and increase your tolerance.

Anyway, it doesn't matter whether you think "most" Muslims are evil: ALL humans have basic rights, even the ones you hate.

0

seeuski 7 years, 3 months ago

freshair, Good job fishing out the truth behind the anti Israel rantings of niko...... whatever. Now I know where the slant (how Israel should walk on eggshells while the terrorist Arabs kill with impunity)is coming from.

Thanks

0

seeuski 7 years, 3 months ago

freshair, I read your post and nowhere in it do you indicate a hatred of arabs or muslims, just the intolerance they have towards"infidels"like us.

It is sad when someone twists ones words around to make things seem as they aren't.

NBC news just did that to President Bush this week but I should not accuse the media of bias again.

0

seeuski 7 years, 3 months ago

Yea, Just a little bit of sarcasm, I was castigated earlier in this blog for stating that the left wing media is slanted and abusive.

0

nikobesti 7 years, 3 months ago

Here's a definition of bigotry I just dug up online: "prejudice and/or discrimination against one or all members of a particular group based on negative perceptions of their beliefs and practices or on negative group stereotypes." I believe there is plenty of evidence in freshair's posts to clearly indicate negative stereotyping. I've also had many experiences with Muslims and find that his blanket assertions about Arabs and Muslims are not valid. (And don't even get me started on his posts about blacks, several of which were deleted by the Pilot).

I agree many Muslims in the Middle East have unfavorable views of Israel. I'm not excusing this hatred, but I don't think it takes a genius to take a look at history and understand why. Besides, last I heard, Jews weren't too fond of Muslims either (for good reason, of course). I don't see freshair labeling them with terms like "genocidal hatred," or "pathological intolerance." If anyone used those terms about Jews, it would pretty clearly be anti-Semitism in my book. What about yours? Are you consistent, or is stereotyping "bad guys" not bigotry?

Listen, many Islamic communities have A LOT of work to do culturally/religiously. I strongly disagree with many of their beliefs and practices and have NEVER defended these actions. I respect the principle that they want to keep their cultural free from western "corruption," but unfortunately I disagree with many of those traditions they want to maintain. Their treatment of women, repression of freedoms, etc really spark my ire. But these problems largely lie with the hegemony. These destructive policies have more to do with keeping power than with religion. Islamic nations need to give more participation/power to minority groups and women. A more representative government would do some good.

0

424now 7 years, 3 months ago

Seeu,

Yep, as is the the right, It is the independants that try to play nice and look where that got them.

niko,

Lately regular ol' run of the mill Muslims have hopped the fence into the Radical Islam playground. We need to stamp out Radical Religion....PERIOD.

0

seeuski 7 years, 3 months ago

nikobesti, Why you don't accept the words from the horses mouth when it comes to the desire Islam has to bring sharia law to all the lands of the earth is beyond me. It is the same kind of cheek turning that led to 9/11, Bin Laden had been promising this kind of destruction all during the 90's and finally had declared formal jihad against the US in 1996. Had Clinton not dealt with the terrorist attacks during his administration as criminal acts and had realized they were acts of war we would not have the troubles we have today and most likely the 9/11 attacks would have been preempted. I have also posted the link to the Hamas charter twice on this blog. I have spent hours in the past reading suras from the Koran, I have watched and listened for decades what the Arabs/Muslims have said about Israel, Jews and Infidels. I have had friendly conversations with Muslims about world events and religious beliefs. I have read many books written by experts and listened to what former converted terrorists (http://www.shoebat.com/)have to say about the brainwashing they received from childhood about Jews and others. Just look at the terrible cartoons about shahids, martyred terrorist killers, that the Palestinians use to indoctrinate their children, some of which has recently been reported by some of our media(not the left wing biased). I do take exception to your insinuations that the Jews in Israel are overly aggressive when fighting back after terrorist attacks or responding to the Hezbollah crossing into Israel from Lebanon and killing several Israeli soldiers and taking others hostage. By invading Lebanon to go after these thugs is somehow overkill and that the Jews killed 1,000 innocents. You would do yourself some good by remembering events that the media did report on, tactics that Hezbollah used including, setting up rocket posts next to UN peacekeepers and villagers homes causeing deaths, falsifying photos that showed Israeli fighter jets shooting rockets at villages etc. etc. How about the false claim from 2005 that Israel massacred hundreds of Palestinians in the West Bank and bulldozed them over in buildings. The UN came in and after a massive investigation found that the Israeli account and numbers were accurate and the Palestinians, as usual, were lying for propeganda. Can you comment on the Wye River accords where Arrafat, after Barak surprised him with the most generous offer of 95% of requested territory and 1/2 of Jerusalem, ran back to the West Bank and set forth the Intifada. Why did he turn it down? Why did the Arabs turn down a seperate state that was offered by the league of Nations? Why don't you hear the Israelis say loud and often that they want peace and want to live side by side with their Arab neighbors?

Just because you say it over and over again doesn't make it so, Israel is not the aggressor or the hater or the innocent killers.

0

seeuski 7 years, 3 months ago

424, So which of the main stream media(ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, MSNBC, CNBC, CNN, PBS,) is right wing and slants stories by editing out words or presenting falsified documents?

And which independants are you talking about?

0

seeuski 7 years, 3 months ago

" ITIC response Responding to critics, the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center at the Center for Special Studies, a private research group headed by Reuven Erlich, a retired IDF colonel, organized a team of military intelligence experts and compiled a report in conjunction with lawyers from the Israeli army and Foreign Ministry. The 300-page report includes declassified photographs, documents, video images and prisoner interrogations and was translated by the American Jewish Congress who passed it to the New York Times, which had it published. It says that Hezbollah operated from civilian areas to deter the IDF and gain a propaganda advantage. The report also says that Hezbollah has been preparing for such an engagement for years, embedding its fighters and their weapons in the Shiite villages of southern Lebanon. Some cases the report documents include:

Guerrillas stashing weapons in hundreds of private homes and mosques, having fighters transporting missiles closely follow ambulances, and firing rockets near UN monitoring posts. Hizbullah bases, weapons and ammunition stores hidden within civilian population centers in south Beirut, southern Lebanon and the Bekaa Valley. A truck with a multi-barreled missile launcher, presumably from Hezbollah, parking in a street, sandwiched between residential buildings In a Lebanese village, rockets are seen being fired from a launcher on the back of a truck. The truck then drives a short distance and disappears inside a building. Lebanese residents' comments of the activities of Hezbollah within civilian communities Interrogations with Muhammad Srour, a young Hezbollah fighter, revealed: He had initially received training in Iran and was undergoing further training in eastern Lebanon's Bekaa Valley when the war broke out. While transporting missiles, hidden in cloth, in and around a Lebanese village, he held a white flag. Hussein Suleiman, a Hezbollah fighter, explains how he had set up a rocket-firing position on the front porch of a house on the outskirts of a Lebanese town. Maher Kourani, a Hezbollah fighter, said group members had worn civilian clothes, tried never to show their weapons, and traveled in ordinary civilian cars. Other than two villages, Erlich said that over all, Hezbollah did not coerce Lebanese villagers from leaving. He says instead that "Hezbollah was operating inside a supportive population, and cynically used them to further its own goals."[11]

In Lebanon, a Hezbollah official denied the study's allegations, saying its military units were based outside towns and villages and had come into populated areas only when circumstances required it. "We tried to avoid having to fight among civilian areas, but when Israeli troops entered villages, we were automatically forced to fight them from inside these villages to defend it," said the official."

0

Joe_Mama 7 years, 3 months ago

Seems to Joe that religion is at the core of all these issues.

0

nikobesti 7 years, 3 months ago

424 now, you say "run of the mill Muslims have hopped the fence into the Radical Islam playground." Any evidence to back that up? I doubt it. Because I have some figures that indicate the opposite. You need to pry your eyes away from the fear mongers at Fox News and look at some credible information.

Let's take a look at some data, shall we? Pay attention freshair, this is for you too. This 2005 survey showed "Declining Support for Terrorism" amongst Muslims: http://pewresearch.org/pubs/26/where-terrorism-finds-support-in-the-muslim-world. They surveyed Muslims in 6 countries and found that respondents' support for suicide bombing and violence against civilians dropped from 2002. Support for suicide bombing against Westerners in Iraq dropped from 2004. Support for Osama bin Laden has declined in four of the six countries. Google "survey muslim support for terrorism" and tell me what you see there.

Where's the fence hopping into the "Radical Islam playground," 424? You and freshy and seeuski can go on and on laying down your blanket assertions about how all/most/90% of Muslims are bad, but numbers don't support those claims.

Let me conclude by saying these numbers are still WAY TOO HIGH. No way will you find this kind of support for terrorism in other communities. As I've said, many Islamic communities need to pull their heads out of their ***es. But your stereotypes are largely unfounded.

0

nikobesti 7 years, 3 months ago

sigh It's a real challenge having a discussion with you seeuski. Where I have I said Hamas were a bunch of great guys? Where have I said Israel is the aggressor? You keep posting the same stuff, regardless of what I'm saying. I agree with you on these points. I know many of these guys are unsavory characters. That doesn't mean I'm going to sign on to a genocide of Muslims like some of you seem to be advocating.

0

freshair 7 years, 3 months ago

niko, if you lived in a muslim community without discovering the extent of their REAL feelings towards Jews specifically, and non-muslims in general, then your 'experience' was of the most trivial and superficial kind. As is your understanding of Islamic culture and theology. You really are a nitwit, one of many in this country today, who, as I have posted previously in quoting from Syed Mirza, are the perfect dupes and useful idiots for the deception and deceit which are standard operating procedure for Muslim interest groups in the West today. I won't bother responding to any more of your delusional comments.

0

freshair 7 years, 3 months ago

Anyone doubting the overwhelming support for the arab/muslim terror gangs need only refer to every poll taken by arabs/muslims on this subject which show a range of 70% and upwards of muslims voiced support for these groups. And of course the recent election of Hamas in which over 90% of gaza arabs voted for Hamas.

0

seeuski 7 years, 3 months ago

niko,

Here is just some of what you write as quoted, you always seem to make an accusation towards Israel but then kind of preface that. You just won't except that Israel has been the victim and that Hezbollah and Hamas are part of a larger scheme which employs huge amounts of propaganda.

nikobesti wrote: "But IMO, Israel has used excessive force on several situations. Amnesty International agrees. I do think Israel is generally the "good guy." All I'm saying is that they shouldn't get a free pass because they're the good guy. You can say "look at how many innocent people Palestinian terrorists have killed." True. But in the conflict with Hezbollah in '06 about 1,000 Lebanese - most civilians - died in the conflict, while 161 Israelis, mainly soldiers, were killed (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5...). I'm not about to excuse 1,000 deaths because there were bad guys in their mists. They can do a better job. It's a shame that we've come to accept and excuse killing innocent people."

yuck, Quoting the likes of pro Arab Amnesty International and the lies of the BBC. They had an internal coup and firings a few years ago because of false reporting. I new you would hate FOX news (FOX news lies, Fox news lies) because they do report currant affairs without a one sided slant and that ussually opens ones eyes to more truthful info. If you can't handle the truth then change the channel.

0

424now 7 years, 3 months ago

Once again thread I wish to preface my comments with, this is my opinion...

Oh niko,

Perhaps I could have clarified by saying most run of the mill (meaning average and reasonably sophisticated through domestication and dwelling within city limits of major development in the middle eastern region) Muslims in the region have jumped the fence into the Radical Islam playground (meaning that they condone any offensive action that in there eyes brings punishment to America and her allies) for the threat they see forming against what they consider to be Islam.

They should be afraid. Radical religion belongs in the past. We are a planet slowly converging on a global awareness. Religious murder can not be tolerated. A tolerant coexistence between Christians and Muslims and the rest of the religious peoples of the world needs to come to pass. The only way this happens is through accountability. A revealing light needs to shine on all the corners of the earth.

In the same way media has brought the intolerable actions of our own soldiers at Abu Garabe into the light of day. All atrocities need to be revealed.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/001688.php

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/08/AR2007020802337.html

and its not just the Radical Muslims,

http://listverse.com/religion/8-atrocities-committed-in-the-name-of-religion/

http://www.religioustolerance.org/curr_war.htm

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/001688.php

0

424now 7 years, 3 months ago

Seeu,

Most of the right wing media that you will find is typically minimized by the major media outlets which tends to leave talk radio and the internet and the ocasion cable show.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft%3A*%3AIE-Address&rlz=1I7GGLR&q=right+wing+american+tv+shows

0

424now 7 years, 3 months ago

On this point yes. I am sure there will be those where we don't. It the nature of opinions.

0

Joe_Mama 7 years, 3 months ago

Are you folks freakin' kidding Joe ?

It's just this sort of "imaginary friend vs. imaginary friend" crap that is causing such hardship for already disenfranchised folks in the middle east. Get a clue and realize that RELIGION is at the core of all these problems !

Fools.

0

seeuski 7 years, 3 months ago

Which religion?

Who is threatening death at the end of a sword unless one submits?

Which is at the root of all global frictions?

Which preaches martyrdom to it's children?

If joe-mama wants to cause "CHANGE" then joe-mama should preach to those who fit the description of the answer to the above and not to us who dream of peace.

0

Joe_Mama 7 years, 2 months ago

Joe realizes seeuski must have never read the old testament part of the drivel called the "bible", which is the only part Jews accept.

Would seeuski like some guidance in understanding some of the violence included in that book before he or she makes comments implying that christians are peaceful ?

0

Joe_Mama 7 years, 2 months ago

Joe is reminded of the words written by one of the more astute members of our "founding fathers".

Whenever we read ... the cruel and tortuous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we call it the word of a demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize humankind. And, for my own part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel. -- Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason

0

seeuski 7 years, 2 months ago

Loe-mama must have a horse in the faith race since he wants all to bury their heads in the sand and act politically correct towards the only Abrahamic faith that has the goal of forcing its brand of faith on the entire globe at the end of a sword. Anyone can on a daily basis find somewhere around the globe an event in which Islamic raiders are subjecting innocent "Infidels" to death by sword. ie. recently in the Phillipines Christian high school girls on their way home from school were attacked and beheaded by Islamic terrorists. The terrible attrocities in Africa are also Islamic raiders. So on and so on. Why mama thinks that if Jews and Christians just stopped following their faithful routines, if they even practice, would cause the Islamists to leave us alone is beyond belief. I also sense a deep hatred of those that have a faith from this mama that tends towards anger. As Three Dog Night sang: Try a little tenderness joe mama, you might like it.

0

Matthew Stoddard 7 years, 2 months ago

Three Dog Night? How about a less obscure version of "Try a Little Tenderness" like Otis' version or even The Commitments version?

As much as I love Three Dog Night, their version isn't one of the top versions any longer, if it ever really was.

Other than that...this thread is still going???

0

Joe_Mama 7 years, 2 months ago

Anger ? More like being fed up with the way religious apologists are always trying to further their deluded little agenda, quite often at the point of a gun.....

It is Joe's opinion, which seeuski could see if he or her would read Joe's previous posts, rather than just vomiting out thoughtlessly what he or she thinks he or she already knows, that organized religion is the root cause of all the those problems.

Since seeuski seems to be in denial, Joe would guide seeuski to Ex. 23:27.........there's a little christian "tenderness" for you.

0

Joe_Mama 7 years, 2 months ago

Which is more violent, the bible or the quran ? Is there a way to objectively answer such a question?

Well, it wouldn't be easy. But it is possible to compare the amount of cruelty and violence in the two books.

Here is a summary of the highlighted verses in the SAB and SAQ. Number of Cruel or Violent Passages Bible 885 Quran 512

So the Bible has more cruel or violent passages as the Quran. But the Bible is a much bigger book. How do they compare when size is taken into account?

Violence and Cruelty    Total verses    Percent

Bible 885 31173 2.84 Quran 512 6236 8.21

When expressed as a percentage of cruel or violent verses , the Quran has nearly three times that of the Bible. (8.21 vs. 2.84%)* Of course this analysis does not consider the extent of the cruelty in the marked passages. And that is an important consideration. Is Numbers 31:14-18, for example, more cruel than Quran 5:34? That is something that each person must decide.

A good argument could be made that either book is the most violent and cruel book ever written. The award would go to one or the other, for neither has any close competitors. It is frightening to think that more than half of the world's population believes in one or the other.

Joe thanks his friend Steve Wells for actually doing the math.

0

seeuski 7 years, 2 months ago

joe lives by the numbers of passages and fantasy he reads and beleives. I go by the current day evidence of violence around the world and the acts commited in the name of allah.

seeuski thinks joe reads too many violent books.

joe should stop reading his violent books and read more tender books.

Theres some tenderness for ya joe.

0

Joe_Mama 7 years, 2 months ago

Which is why Joe denounces the bible and quran, and any other fantasy work of literature that exhorts the deluded to kill each other in the name of their respective imaginary friend.

Joe thinks once the human race gets past it's fear and superstition, we'll have a much better place to live.

If we don't murder each other first.

0

seeuski 7 years, 2 months ago

joe should try denouncing the quran where it is worshipped and see what happens to him and then denounce the bible where it is worhipped and then compare results. Pretty soon joe will have to concede that one group acts on its fantasies and the others are tolerating of ones rights to free speech.

It is sad that joe should compare equally the reactions and actions of the differing followers of faith and turn a blind eye on the realities we all face, even people of no faith like joe, that there is one faith that will kill all of us as we are infidels.

0

424now 7 years, 2 months ago

Hey Joe!

Most religions at one time exhorted the faithful into violent defense, offense and actively forced conversion as a matter of survival.

Today most religions don't as a matter of continued relevance within our current mass media society.

Oh denouncer of all things imaginary friend friendly,

Which do you see bringing about a peaceful coexistence, A forced abolition of all the imaginary friends or A civilized tolerance of an individuals choice to call on these varied imaginary friends.

Freedom http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1pMey...

Matt,

Did you say Commitments? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65GfSt...

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.