Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry


"Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket. - Eric Hoffer (paraphrased)

Sen. Clinton is supposed to announce Saturday that she is suspending her campaign. That means she can still hold on to her record 18 million votes and delegates going into the Democrat Convention in Denver. Then what? It depends on how much more people learn about Sen. Barack Obama and whether there are any more big surprises out there.

It’s rather funny that Democrats and the media ranted and raved that Al Gore won the popular vote but lost according to Electoral College rules in 2000 but suddenly have done an about face ridiculing Clinton’s assertion that the weird Democrat rules (which the Clintons themselves pushed ironically) allowed Obama to accumulate more delegates with a narrower constituency and slightly fewer votes.

Remember the outrage at the suggestion that superdelegates could move to Clinton even if Obama won the popular vote and accumulated more primary and caucus delegates? Well, now the situation is reversed, and that’s why there has been such a push to get the super delegates to commit to Obama as early as possible, no matter how many beatings Clinton inflicted on Obama since Super Tuesday. The fix was in.

Oh, well … whoever said liberals were consistent in their arguments? It’s all relative to them depending on the situation, which is why it’s so difficult having a rational conversation with so many of them. They can turn on a dime, criticizing you for arguing a point they supported ten minutes before. That’s how Obama can talk about sitting down with supporters of terrorism without preconditions, declare that “little” countries like Iran are not serious threats to the U.S., then do a one-eighty 24 hours later and say he’s “always” said Iran was a grave threat, and and even promise to eliminate that threat when speaking to Jewish Group as he did yesterday before the American Israel Public Affairs Council (AIPAC).

I wonder what Iran’s president Mahmoud Amadinejad thought about that? He’s supporting Obama. Or did Obama send a signal through his campaign that it was simply campaign rhetoric as he did to Canadian officials when he criticized NAFTA.

The world seems to be celebrating the nomination of Obama and looking forward to his election in November. His supporters are diverse, ranging from hair-dressers in Mexico to Hamas and other terrorist leaders and organizations in the middle East.

In Mexico City, hairdresser Susan Mendoza's gushed after hearing Obama had clinched the nomination. "Bush was for the elite. Obama is of the people,” she said.

I guess she didn’t hear about the meeting in that San Francisco mansion where he was recorded pandering to the gathering of millionaires and the politically-collected by referring to Middle Americans as angry, bitter people who cling to their guns and religion and have antipathy against people who don’t look like them.

I’d love to know the names of the “common people” who were at the meeting?

The media has been trying to get Hillary Clinton out of the way for months and, after their successful agenda-driven reporting and her own missteps, the template now will be, “How do we help Obama appeal to middle America by making them believe he is just like them.”

It will be quite a challenge because, in spite of the circus atmosphere surrounding the never-ending campaign and, particularly, the primaries and caucuses over the last several months, Mr. Obama carries a lot of baggage and people will eventually start paying attention.

Even his most avid supporters still can’t tell you anything about him and what he’s done other than that he’s black, he’s young, he’s intelligent, he gives a good speech, and he’s going to bring “change”.

He could probably be caught on tape snorting cocaine or taking money from representatives of terrorist organizations and it still wouldn’t matter to his “true believer” followers.

BULLSEYE - Yesterday I wondered aloud what Obama might say after hearing his former pal Tony Rezek was found guilty on 16 charges and said he’d probably lament that, “this is not the man (he) thought he knew all those years.”

What he actually said later was, “This isn’t the Tony Rezko I knew …”

Can you see President Obama being woken up at 3 in the morning to learn Iran had launched a nuclear attack against Israel? “This isn’t the Mahmoud Amadinejad I knew …” just doesn’t seem to have quite the same ring.


( 27 comments — Leave a comment )
Jun. 6th, 2008 12:57 pm (UTC)
Election Rules ACK
I am so behind these days. It can be so hard to keep up.

Ah, let's see . . .

Damn Ed . . . one issue at a time . . .

While I am not behind any one yet . . .

the Gore vs shrub is not the same situation then the Clinton vs Obama one. First off it is the difference of an internal party election vs a General Election. The rules are different. Second, one can argue a long time and not get to the bottom of the Gore loss. Many still claim that the process was so flawed that no on e will ever know for certain what the real vote counts were. Truth be told, neither Gore nor the shrub had anything resembling a national mandate. Looking at a county by county map of the US one doesn't see great swaths of blue or red. The election only proved two things. The political direction of the country is split and the courts can rule on complex politics and force the election outcome. With that said, I think the rules the DNC has applied is bogus . . . and as for the popular vote, again the process was seriously flawed. Two of the major states had their delegates tinkered with, and one of th candidates (in accordance with DNC requests) did not even campaign in the state (not that I think that really would have mattered all that much – but still, we are not looking at apples and apples). The DNC needs to take a good hard look at their rules. For that matter so does the RNC. I still think they need to revise the system of the primaries.
Jun. 6th, 2008 02:48 pm (UTC)
Re: Election Rules ACK
My point is that the media and dems are intellectually dishonest. It's the principle, as they say. In a presidential election, we go by the RULES too. You could have stopped there. We are a federal republic. The people do not directly vote for the candidate. They vote for ELECTORS. States decide how to apportion those electors. Most are winner take all. There are two, I believe, that voted to apportion them. States can, in fact change their rules however they wish to select and assign delegates.

Political parties do the same. That's why there is a combination of primaries and caucuses. That's why some allow independents and opposing party members to vote. That's why some are winner take all and some are proportional.

The Democrats are the least democratic because they assign "super-delegates" to make sure "the people" don't get too crazy.

My point was to point out how the liberal media and the Democrat Party love to spin a story to support an outcome they wish to see. They have painted themselves into this corner through their own efforts to manipulate and control the process and their should be no complaints now, but of course that's asking too much.

The DNC is a fun party to watch. It should have been mandatory to watch the Democratic National Committee Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting last week. This is the kind of government these people want to give us.
Jun. 7th, 2008 02:52 am (UTC)
Re: Election Rules ACK
Ok so now that we have rehashed high school civics again - I think we can both accept that we both took civics...

The DNC rules are simply nuts. I ponder why anyone thought it was a good idea to set these rules this way, but oh well. And people wonder why I hold so much contempt for the two party system.

My point is that both parties are equally blatantly dishonest and I would put more faith in the so called hyper liberal media then I would in the RNC or the DNC.

Anyone in the US over the age of 18 that doesn't have a grasp of how the system is supposed to work in spite of at least four years of HS. Civic and whatever they decide to pick up in higher education... or even paying the LEAST amount of attention to the election coverage of any election in the US is just not trying. The only exception on this would be the convoluted mess that was the shrub / Gore election. That was a debacle worth watching. I can't believe they thought it would make a good movie. Sounds dreadful.

I am beside myself in anticipation of the craziness that will be the general election. I am just waiting for the fur to start flying. The lies will come think from both sides.
Jun. 7th, 2008 03:02 pm (UTC)
Re: Election Rules ACK
Again, you are dancing around the esence of my point.

I was not having a civics lesson. I was demonstrating the tendency of the libs and the media to speak out of both sides of their mouths.

The nomination process and the electoral process are first cousins. The electoral system was put into place to protect the interest of the states against "mob rule". The superdelegate system was designed to prevent the "mob" from having too big an influence in choosing a nominee.

That is simply a fact.

For people to support the rules when their favorite wins but whine and cry "foul" when said rules work against them is intellectual dishonesty.

That is a simple statement and one that is self-evident. It is also one that the people it describes will never admit too, and that's why I make the observations that I do, to expose them and ridicule them.

The movie you're talking about, from what I've read, is typical liberal tripe and drew an audience (they claim) of only 1 million hardcore anti Bush viewers. Just more revisionist history, boring, and poorly done as most of it is.

Edited at 2008-06-07 03:03 pm (UTC)
Jun. 8th, 2008 01:13 am (UTC)
Re: Election Rules ACK
Fact or not... most Americans that are NOT educated in the system seem so surprised when they find out that they are not voting for an actual candidate. All this and yet we never see delegates names or know anything about them. The electoral collage is antiquated and unnecessary in the current age. Oh well. It is here. Might as well deal with it. The two party system will die off LONG before it will.

"For people to support the rules when their favorite wins but whine and cry "foul" when said rules work against them is intellectual dishonesty." Yet both parties play that game all the time. Politics just seems to be that way. There is plenty of intellectual and even actual dishonesty at work in politics and in both parties for sure.
Both sides have had plenty of scandalous and downright illegal behavior. Neither has a monopoly on ethics or morality ... or was that moronity ( sic ).

I love that term... revisionist history... I hear it used a lot when people don't like researchers dredging up facts and retelling tales with new and supportable (or not ) details. Sure sometime the revised edition is bumpkiss - but many are not. I have not seen the movie and consider the issue pointless... about as pointless as the truth about the mythical gunman on the grassy knoll. It mattered at the time, but not so much any more. It is all Hollywood now. At any event, it is too easy to pick at. The election was so full of holes on both sides. I was one that did not get to vote that election; but I take full responsibility as to WHY I did not get to vote . . . not that it would have mattered.
Jun. 10th, 2008 06:18 pm (UTC)
Re: Election Rules ACK
I expect the electorate to not be educated. I do not expect to hear political reporters and pundits expressing their ignorance of basic civics like they did in 2000 when I heard several reporters and commentators say, "What the heck is this electoral college thing anyway?" or something to that effect.

Antiquated? Like the Constitution in general? It is what prevents radicals like the current leaders of the Democrat party from doing more damage quicker than they already do. The electoral college is designed to prevent mob rule , preserve the integrity of the states, and the possibility that heavily populated urban centers and states like New York and California from having too much influence in elections.

When asked by a woman what kind of government the founding fathers had given them, Benjamin Franklin responded something like, "A Republic, if you can keep it."

Both cry foul but the media takes the side of the liberal viewpoint virtually 100% of the time.

It is revisionist history when a bunch liberal hack writers tell a story that distorts the events that happened and portray one side as trying to steal an election. It was the Democrat party that screwed up the butterfly ballots. It was the news media that called the election for Bush before the Florida panhandle had closed despite the election being virtually tied. It was Gore who sent hoards of lawyers down to contest the election, demanding recounts only in selected counties where he thought he might have an advantage. It was the liberal Florida Supreme Court that kept extending the time limit to allow for additional recounts.

Recount after recount showed that the original results were valid, even the one done by the New York Times which was itching to find foul play.

I stand by earlier statements that when it comes to election day shenanigans, nothing compares to the Democrat political machines (and their enablers in the media) that control so many urban areas in this country.

Jun. 10th, 2008 06:20 pm (UTC)
Re: Election Rules ACK
Correction: The media called the election for Gore, of course, before the polls closed, probably suppressing Republican votes in the West.
Jun. 8th, 2008 01:15 am (UTC)
Re: Election Rules ACK
For some reason many / most of your replies are coming in twice
Jun. 6th, 2008 12:58 pm (UTC)
All hugs, all around
To be fair I don't think the DNC had a predisposition for Obama over Clinton. I think that either candidate would be a great with regards to the ability to deal with McCain. I sure hope that McCain can make a better round of appearances in the big debates. He came off feeble and lost in his speech the other night. . . . and what does it matter that Mahmoud Amadinejad supports him? His opinion means less to me then the shrub's. Of course he will back Obama, but to imply that his support smacks of some sort of complicency is a red herring. When there is an election between two people (which this is despite Bob Barr or Ralph Nader) the individual nasty thugs of the world will come down in support of one or the other. Why give them the credibility of paying even the slightest attention to their misguided opinion?

And what would be wrong with a world population that might actually LIKE or SUPPORT a POTUS? Africa has been a diplomatic backwater in the US for ages. Obama might address issues in Africa that maybe should have been addressed a long time ago. Who knows. And the rantings of various people in their support for the candidate of their choice is just useless. If a candidate want sot win an election they need to have the money to do it ( a big flaw in the system which could be fixed) and they have to court that money where it goes. We both know it. And the guns and religion bit – while a stupid comment ( and all candidates make stupid comments here and there) was laughable and was taken out of context by both the media and your post. It hurts some folks feelings because in some areas and in some respects it is true, and to the ones that think it was just a stupid joke it was ignored.. I am by no means an elitist, but I don't see how this is an elitist statement. I might have said far worse. Lets face it, the gun toting religious nuts are just not in his fan base. . . . and I happen to favor gun ownership ( as much as it pains me) and religious freedoms (as much as I feel they are frauds).
Jun. 6th, 2008 03:26 pm (UTC)
Re: All hugs, all around
No they did not. However, they had an intense dislike of their former "saviors", the Clintons. It wasn't until they smelled blood in the water that they, along with the media, turned on them. That's how cowardly and two-faced they are.

McCain is not a good speaker. That and the constant barrage of negativity I predicted to you when the media and New York Times helped him "win" the nomination (Remember? Constant "late-night" jokes about his age, etc., bad lighting, photographs of him in unflattering poses against glorious shots of Obama surrounded by adoring throngs looking like the "Second Coming", stories about his rich wife, etc.) and McCain's own poking of his own base in the eye could do him in.

He'd be considered a liberal democrat in any other election but Obama is undoubtedly the most liberal/leftist ever offered by the Democrat Party. His lack of accomplishments and far left agenda do not bother his followers, however, because they are either ideologues are drones caught up in the cult of personality.

Leftist and radicals support Obama because they agree with his political philosophy. Obama has been a friend of the Palestinian community in the past. Our enemies know he will be easier to manipulate. That is why he is trying to pretend he is tough now.

You don't judge a man by what he says running for office, dear Mike, but on his record and associations. There is more to come out but the media refuses to drink from that well unless dragged kicking and screaming to it. They don't want to do anything that casts doubt on their hero.

With everything we know about Obama NOW, do you seriously think voters in Iowa, etc. would have given him that insurmountable lead against Clinton? Would the media have hidden these same facts and associations against a conservative Republican?

You know any single Obama "scandal" would have sunk a Republican campaign.

The world sees the same full page color pictures of the young black man with the glowing smile against the American flags we do, hear the same glowing covering of his rhetorical skills and compassion for the poor, his promises of peace and healing. It's called propaganda. They're in love when an illusion.

Do they know he cut his teeth in one of the most corrupt counties in the United States, that he was influenced by the same leftist ideologies so many of them have or are trying to escape, that he belonged to a marxist-influenced, black-liberation Churh for 20 years, that he is so smart, the people he surrounded himself with are racist, hate-filled, shakedown artists all these years and didn't realize they were nasty people?

They don't care. It is American Idol on the global stage and popularity contests are fine but not in the dangerous world in which we live.

I am not about to go quietly into this dark night allowing the naive, misinformed, and uninformed people of this planet decide such a serious issue without throwing in my two cents and more.

Religious nuts not in his base? Oh, you mean white Christian religious nuts, don't you? The ones Obama described in his secret meeting in that San Fransisco mansion with those millionaires and elites. Certainly not the kinds of people who went to his church, people who hate Jews, the crystal-worshippers, Scientologists, Muslims, Wikkens, Witches and Warlocks, and other New Age types. Watch out Mike! Slips like that rarely get past me and I'm not one to censor myself ... very often. ;-)

Edited at 2008-06-06 03:28 pm (UTC)
Jun. 7th, 2008 03:14 am (UTC)
Re: All hugs, all around
I think the assessment of "blood in the water" and the "cowardly two-faced" claims are somewhat unfounded. Just as I grudgingly agree that the shrub may have actually won his election due to rules and court action, I think it safe to say that Obama won by the rules - flawed as they are. I don't like how the DNC played their game, but it was their game to play after all.

It is ALL propaganda. These guys (and gals) thrive on it. Once elected the office of the POTUS lives on it. The shrub and i gang are big players in the world of propaganda unlike any since maybe Ronnie boy.

I do not mean "White" anything. I religious nuts are religious nuts. I have an intense dislike for religious fanatics of all flavors. I find the likes of Pat Robertson and that bastard Louis Farrakhan to be equally disgusting. It was no slip. I have to tolerate religiously obsessed individuals as a fact of life. This is not to say I have anything against religious people. It is the obsessed and fanatical that get my ire up.

In the case of Obama, I am willing to let him speak for himself. I weed out the garbage issues and absurd scandals and listen to what these guys are saying. So far I am unimpressed by either of them. Obama is a great speaker. In the great popularity contest, McCain better brush up. Many people are swayed by good speakers; and neither of them have a monopoly on sense or policy.

Jun. 7th, 2008 03:37 pm (UTC)
Re: All hugs, all around
Your first sentence is grammatically correct but does nothing to disprove my point. Check the statements of people in the media themselves, who admit they were too hard of Clinton and too easy on Obama. Their excuse? He's just so so wonderful and it's hard to resist when someone like him is so inspiring and has such a terrific story to tell. You are disagreeing with something that is now common knowledge.

Yes, Obama played by the rules which is how he manage to limp across the finish line as the winner. He won the early caucuses by bringing in first-time voters, college students, anti-war activists, all who believed he was going to surrender in Iraq and was going to bring change. He shocked he Clinton camp by using the internet to pull in more money and concentrating on winning delegates instead of assuming he could win, like Clinton, because she was the front-runner and could win because she was "experienced" and was entitled.

George Bush has far done more for Africa than any president in U.S. history. Check the figures. Of course you don't hear about that from the mainstream media mush, if at all.

Obama's statement was recorded surreptitiously in a private conversation to millionaires and billionaires and political bigwigs and he has never recovered the vote of the people he was demeaning. He may yet do so if he can promise them enough freebies and only if they decide to sell out to the highest bidder. You say I "I took it out of context" (a common ploy) in my post, which makes me believe you didn't read it or just scanned it.

In fact, I may have been the only person in America who DID give the context, which was to explain what political strategy they could initiate to lure them into the Obama camp by telling them, "Obama's going to GIVE you this and that." I actually explained why he said it and that it was not just an unfortunate poor choice of words showing sympathy for people who were hurting.

You can look it up.

You said that, the gun toting religious nuts are just not in his fan base. If you weren't referring to "white" religious nuts, who were you referring to?

Equating some like Farrakhan and Pat Robinson (who obviously loves this country and just happens to believe in a strict interpretation of the Bible) as moral equivalents is truly unfortunate.

Garbage issues and absurd scandals? I suppose to many people, what someone says is more important than what they actually do, but not in most of the country where people are less concerned with looks, charm, promises, and glibness, and we will just have to see who has the final word.
Jun. 8th, 2008 01:38 am (UTC)
Re: All hugs, all around
Your second paragraph shows a level of shrewed campaigning on the part of the Obama team. I would credit his manager; and why have these people not learned the Dean lesson that web based fund raising is the way things are heading.

Robertson is disturbed. He is unbalanced. He is biggotted and hostile. Hardly an example of a "good Christian" Farrakhan is simply despicable. I could have used other names but these give the response I would look for. I don't see love of country to be justification for some of the bull I have personally listened to that man blather on about. Ross Perot loves America too, be he is also a crazy troll who shouldn't be leading anyone. Plenty of people love their country, that doesn't make them good, wise, or decent people in and of itself. I once knew a card carrying Klansman (in the Navy) that had a US flag and a Confederate flag tattooed in a cross on his chest. He swore he loved his countries ( sic ) and claimed to be VERY religious . . . but he was also a rather nasty bigoted, abusive thug.

Robertson is not morally on par with Farrakhan. I just intensly dislike him, his politics, his religious nastiness, his ego, his attitude, his absurdity, his fanaticism and etc. I was going to use Hagee as an example, but Robertson really gets my goat. Jerry Falwell even more so but he's gone now.

I get annoyed with most religious fanatics. I am happy to say that I hold my own when taking them on. Years of study and attempts at religious indoctrination have shored me up. Most of the arguments they use are easily dismantled . . . and I am not atheist . . . just opposed to fanatics and nuts. Wow. I digress.
Jun. 10th, 2008 06:41 pm (UTC)
Re: All hugs, all around
I'd have to have concrete evidence that anyone is "disturbed" before accepting it. Do you have a license to practice psychiatry? While I don't agree with Robertson on a host of issues, I can see the bases of his arguments and beliefs. They are rooted in a set of principles and laws and a historical and religious account you may or may not agree with, but he is just as free to interpret events as he sees fit as you are.

I have never seen a person like Robertson, or Falwell for that matter, express hatred of anyone. That they believe in salvation, an afterlife, and the difference between right and wrong, is no excuse for calling them nasty, egotistic, or hateful. They're preachers, for crying out loud! They just preach what they see in the Bible, and I'm sure there are things they wish weren't there.

I've always argued that "moral relativism" is simply an excuse to do whatever one wants without having to feel guilty. Moral relativists show there true side in saying they are free to decide what right and wrong is, but no one else is if it conflicts with their actual belief that there really is no such thing as right and wrong.

People like Farrakhan (and Wright and Pfleger) simply makes stuff up or utilize as fact things that have no basis in reality. They are the true purveyors of hate and bigotry and divisiveness and their black liberation theology is simply Marxism dressed up in a counterfeit of Christianity. That's not my opinion. You can read up on the subject yourself.
Jun. 10th, 2008 08:03 pm (UTC)
Re: All hugs, all around
"I have never seen a person like Robertson, or Falwell for that matter, express hatred of anyone."

The preach what's in the Bible... ! I'm afraid not... ! They have skewed and tortured view of the Bible. They are AS guilty of things like crazy religious interpretation as they accuse others of being. Maybe they don't see it as hatred, but some of it sounds like it to me. Just as Robertson claims, "Osama bin Laden may be one of the true disciples of the teaching of the Quran ... because he's following through literally word-for-word what it says"

and then there are these gems:

OK lets see...

Robertson called for the assassination of Hugo Chavez.

Robertson alleged that Planned Parenthood wanted to use MLK to promote "black genocide"

Robertson and Falwell blamed God and America for the attacks on 9/11

Robertson justifies his comments on Chavez with, "We have the Monroe Doctrine, we have other doctrines that we have announced."

Falwell has equally silly and not quite so tolerant and Christian things to say... this was just a quick search and only citing thing I actually heard him say on the tube myself. There are plenty more...

Mind you I do not need to read up on the "Farrakhan" crap as I already hold him in high contempt. He is a hateful person... Telling me he is essentially a Marxist doesn't change my opinion that he is a mean and nasty person. I do not quiver in fear at the mention of the word like many others. He is still a fanatical nut job.
Jun. 10th, 2008 10:06 pm (UTC)
Re: All hugs, all around
I remember the Chavez comment. I remember he later apologized and said his comment was "taken out of context" or something like that.

So, are you saying that thinking that it's okay to "take out" a ruthless dictator who is spreading terrorism, etc. is hateful speech? While I don't agree with his premise, I don't think it's that hateful to support the overthrow of ruthless dictators like Saddam Hussein, and other two-bit dictators like Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong, Il, and Hugo Chavez if it means saving hundreds of thousands and perhaps millions of lives.

I might call such strong words ill-advised but I suppose it depends on whose regime your living under.

Robertson actually suggested that part of the rationale behind Planned Parent was that there was support from some corners (The Ford Foundation, etc.) for aborting black babies and thereby reducing the number of blacks on welfare roles. I'm sure that there are people who support (government paid for) abortions for that reason. I don't believe that he ever mentioned MLK. Perhaps you're getting your info from Media Matters or some such watchdog group.

It is a shocking assertion but one which he no doubt believes is possible. Sounds like he is more concerned about the destruction of innocent life than taking shots at anyone, although you are free to spin it any way you wish. ;-)

Btw, MLK was a Republican. I would love to know what he's say about what has happened to his country today.

Yes, a lot of people have inferred that 9-11 was brought on us by fanatical Muslims who find our behavior, actions, beliefs, secularism, and especially our coarse and decadent lifestyles worthy of destruction. Isn't that what their apologists on the left have been saying since day one (except for the decadent part)?

You don't "blame" God for anything, btw. You just acknowledge that he "may" have allowed something to happen for a purpose.

Yes, the Monroe Doctrine, one of those relics from the 1800's. John Kennedy used that against the Russians, as I recall. How dare we tell Chavez to keep those terrorists, thugs, and communists out of this part of the world!

I am not so much worried about Farrakhan as I am about someone like Obama who apparently shares much of his ideology but has been trying to hide it. he went to a "Black Liberation Church" for twenty years, the media hid it as long as they kid, and no one will talk in the media about what these people stand for.

Did you read Obama's statement when he resigned from the church? He refused to say anything bad about them and has learned well from the Clintons because no one will DARE bring that up to him again. You can't bring up ANYTHING with Obama. It's not fair.
Jun. 11th, 2008 12:54 pm (UTC)
Re: All hugs, all around
I am saying that it is not in strict accordance with any teachings of any Christian Faith I have ever been aware of. Of course I did write a paper on inconsistencies in the Bible and Christian Faiths. There was a lot of "sanctioned killings" in the good book.

What I am saying is that as a man of the cloth he should not be condoning such behavior and supporting activities that are contrary to the stated law of his land and religion.

I only commented on information I HEARD him say in interviews. I did a media search to jog my memory. I ditched a lot of material that I simply did not remember. I haven't time these days to slog through the volumes of material I would need to write a complete dissertation on the subject... any subject for that matter.

I don't blame (any) god for anything.

The Monroe Doctrine had to do with the colonization of the Americas by Europeans. It had nothing to do with how some petty South American Tyrant wants to run his own country. In the case of Kennedy it was used with respect to a European Power (USSR) and their encroachment into a Caribbean Nation (Cuba). I do not recall Chavez being appointed by any European Power.

I really don't fear any of these guys. Obama is not the Antichrist. In fact his stated goals are so much closer to the "Christian" ideals I was brought up on that I find it odd that the Christian Right do not place him on a pedestal and march him to the White House on a path strewn with palm fronds (cough cough).

I would have been annoyed if he had said much negative about this church. It is all a bunch of mudslinging. There is too much of that.I think that his reverend showed him much less respect in his responses then Obama showed in his denouncing of the crazy old preacher. Truth is that Obama (be design or not) showed a great deal of restraint. We simply see these people and their reactions differently. I have always been told that I am too patient and forgiving where it comes to criticizing people and organizations. I guess I have been going easy on the shrub, too. I have been taking it easy on McCain too. I will perk up once the debate season starts.
Jun. 11th, 2008 01:45 pm (UTC)
Re: All hugs, all around
The Bible is awash with blood, that is for certain, as is all history. Everyone who spills it claims to be justified.

Pat Robertson, I believe, has a law degree and has always shown an interest in politics and current events. He even ran for president once, didn't he? Many many men of the cloth and women to express their political views. They are still citizens.

Some ridiculed Kennedy for using the Monroe Doctrine too. Chavez is indeed inviting Iran and Chinese influence into the Americas, much as Castro did (who said in 1959, I believe, that he was NOT a communist. *LOL* We'll say how that will play in time.

I have been reading between the lines (I have much experience in recognizing what people mean) of what Obama has been saying for some time. He wants a global poverty tax. He wants to TAKE from the "rich" to give to the "poor". He wants to change Washington but he's been playing the same old political games. He believes in collectivism instead of individualism. He wants to lower our standard of living. He wants to raise federal spending by $1 trillion in the first year. He demonizes everyone who produces anything good for this country. He is for an all-controlling, all-pervasive government as a "solution" to all our "woes" (Wake up people! You live in the greatest country that has ever existed at the greatest time in history). He is disingenuous in his speech. When he consorts with slime-balls, it is merely boneheaded. He puts his millions in tax-free investments but wants the rich to pay more. He is not the anti-Christ; is your typical liberal politician and most Christians, Jews, and Muslims, if they paid attention to the issues, would want no part of that. I could go on.

MUDSLINGING! When did broadcasting the words and actions of people someone supports and probably agrees with become mudslinging? Obama sat in that hate-spewing Church, a Church that put Louis Farrakhan on a pedestal, for almost 20 years, exposed his children to it, and we aren't supposed to be concerned? You know with every fiber in you that had this been ANY conservative/Republican politician, he'd have been hounded out of public office, probably been banned from working anywhere for life, by both the media and his peers. He didn't criticize it because he basically believes in what they preach, although he prefers to express it in more abstruse and less inciting speech.

That you are unable to recognize that makes me believe that you have been drinking the Kool Aid too. ;-)

Jun. 15th, 2008 05:51 pm (UTC)
Re: All hugs, all around
I love Kool Aid I've been drinking it all my life...

Not any one candidate's Kool Aid mind you. I don't really like ANY of them that much.
Jun. 16th, 2008 02:05 pm (UTC)
"Drink faster ... drink faster, faster, faster"
You don't have to like them; you just have to like what they're selling. ;-)

Did you know that Jim Jones' Peoples Temple preached a religious doctrine of interracial brotherhood, responsibility for the poor, and a socialist utopia, that he actually sat on the San Francisco Housing Authority, and had a lot of pull in Democratic circles.

Now you know why the term Kool Aid drinker is only applied to the "progressive" side.

I guess he wasn't the Jim Jones SF mayor George Moscone and others knew.
Jun. 16th, 2008 02:20 pm (UTC)
Re: "Drink faster ... drink faster, faster, faster"
Yes I did know that about Jim Jones. Note that he was simply a power hungry religious (pseudo- religious) nut job. Again, I can pull up some Right Wingers that are equally nutty...

I have had a curious interest in Jones since the Jonestown episode. It was a horrid event, but this was a (criminal) distorted individual, hardly representative of sane populations.
Jun. 16th, 2008 02:49 pm (UTC)
Re: "Drink faster ... drink faster, faster, faster"
Was he a criminal or deluded with his own self-importance or was he just insane? He was supposedly a little off, even as a child. Regardless, it goes to show the danger inherent in putting people with charisma, a simple message, and a way with words into positions of power without vetting them, doesn't it?

It's funny how some people keep making the same old mistakes ... but not really when you know what "true believers" are and where they come from.

The more things "change" the more they stay the same.

Jun. 11th, 2008 02:00 pm (UTC)
Re: All hugs, all around
I forgot one thing.

Because Pat Robertson utters an occasional comment in a current events setting in opposition to what he sees as murderous individuals and despicable activity, this bothers you to no end, but actual blatant hate speech aimed at whites, Jews, traditional Christians, people who accomplish things and improve their lot from THE PULPIT, with a high-fiving laughing congregation, which happens to have a candidate for the most powerful office in the world, is not something you think worthy of attention.

It boggles the mind!

I remember when Falwell created an UPROAR because he said Jews couldn't be "saved" unless they accepted Jesus Christ as their Savior. The same media that now excuses people like Wright, Pfleger, and Farrakhan, and have now thrown Israel under the bus, were then OUTRAGED. Why? You tell me. It isn't hard if you just think about it. ;-)
Jun. 6th, 2008 01:10 pm (UTC)
This and that - and guilt by association
. . . and on top of it all we hear over and over from the Clinton Camp how the media was so unfair and so tough on her. I don't see how they got much more of a hard time then anyone else.

A side note - Bill is not a very good EXPOTUS. He is coming off as an ego-maniacal fat head.

How can you continue to say no one is paying attention to Obama. He is getting plenty. He may not be getting a lot of scrutiny, but he is getting plenty of attention. He is a great speaker, but his nonspeak is the same nonspeak that all candidates attempt to spew out. He is just a very good and polished speaker. In the great beauty pageant that we call the General Election that might help him a lot. Baggage tends to follow ALL of these guys. It amazes me that you don't recognize that - or at least choose not to discuss it.

This is going to be an interesting election season . . . even more then I had thought at first. Sad that we ended up with these two. . . . and the spoilers.

Again - tell me how Obama has been implicated with the Tony Rezko case. I have a good friend that went to jail for robbing the same gas station three times in less then three weeks. I guess I am somehow to be found guilty by association with this idiot who was “not the person I knew” either?
Jun. 6th, 2008 04:19 pm (UTC)
Re: This and that - and guilt by association
. . . and on top of it all we hear over and over from the Clinton Camp how the media was so unfair and so tough on her. I don't see how they got much more of a hard time then anyone else.

Mike! This statement is unworthy of your intelligence. You know you didn't have the luxury of following the events of the past year as I did ... just say so. Read some of my earlier posts on the campaign.

They both got a pass until the "illegal immigrant driver's license" debate fiasco when Tim Russert finally succumbed to pressure and embarrassment from bloggers and viewers in general and began the assault against Hillary's vapid empty rhetoric, laundry list promises, and flip-flopping.

Remember the SNL routine about Obama being offered a pillow at a debate and Hillary's frustration.

The media have given Obama a pass from day one and have never stopped. He makes a speech or offers an explanation (then another, then a clarification) and the media bow and kiss his feet and say in unison "Story's over ... let's move on."

C'mon! Putting long ears and a cotton ball on a frog don't make it a rabbit.

Obama has not been "implicated" in the Rezko affair. The media has not chosen to investigate any of the dubious connections except to assure everyone there's nothing there. Again, the double standard. Anyone even suspected of wrong-doing who has had a relationship with the current administration is automatically portrayed as being possibly involved in some corrupt or illegal activity.

Obama received money (some illegally obtained although probably Obama was "unaware") from Rezko, helped provide state funds for Rezko projects, bought a $1.6 million mansion (after a $300,000 discount) with Rezko's help, bought a strip of property next door from Rezko's wife who "coincidentally" bought the lot on the same day and sold the 10 foot strip to Obama, etc.

There has been no investigation, nor mention, of Obama's past in machine-controlled Cook County, one of, if not the most, corrupt counties in the United States. Jeremiah Wright, Rashid Khalidi, Bill Ayres, Michael Pfleger, Louis Farrakhan, James Meeks, Sol Alinsky, Tony Rezko, and on and on, all poeple with connections to Obama directly or with relationships and influence with people close to Obama.

Guilt by association? Who said anyone's guilty? Don't pull that old liberal trick on me. It's about choices and judgement and raising suspicions about one's character and philosophy. I'm sure there are people you know who'd wonder about you having an objective free-thinker like me for a friend. ;-)

By the way. The Senate's attempt to cram that "Cap and Trade" bill was just scrapped. I sent e-mails and called my Senators' offices to alert them of my feelings and to let them know that, for me, this vote would be a "litmus test" along with other votes like illegal immigrant Amnesty, etc.

Maybe if enough people had contacted their representatives vowing their support, your comrades might have gotten something accomplished. I know you're just dying to contribute to that $45 trillion Gore, Obama, and their pals need to calm the seas and save the world. ;-)

Edited at 2008-06-06 04:21 pm (UTC)
Jun. 7th, 2008 03:47 am (UTC)
Re: This and that - and guilt by association
I HAVE read you post. I also watch news like an addict. I think there has been plenty of heat all around. McCain has been getting a free ride for a few weeks now, but we pretty much expected that after he cinched up the nomination. I simply disagree with you on that. I have been reading and or scanning your posts all along. While I think you're a swell guy (oh - thanks for the box. E never told me it was here. I found out when I saw pies! I hoe to watch Duck Soup this weekend) I do not agree with what I see as the weighted obvious spin you take the venting in. I don't always have time to debate the issues. Sorry. Life is crazy right now.
Jun. 7th, 2008 04:06 pm (UTC)
Re: This and that - and guilt by association
I was just telling you that I realize that you don't have the time I do to follow the rhythm of the reporting and to following some of the different accounts of what is going on.

McCain has not been getting a free ride. He is just not the story now, aside from the daily digs here and there. The template has be getting Obama nominated and getting Hillary to drop and to "save" the Democrat party.

No, I am not taking something out of context. This may be the first time in history that the media has been concerned and actively involved in helping one party to overcome its fractures and divisions.

You only have to see their news-persons, commentators, pundits, and anchors talking among themselves about what they have to do to beat McCain.

Historians will be amazed when they look back at this elections, assuming we are not a totally Fascist state by that point with only approved historians paid by the State.

My main purpose in writing my observations is not to debate, btw. Most people since college never really debate with me anyway, they simply call me names, tell me my facts are wrong, that they don't matter, that I fear-monger, etc.

It's so funny because all I do is write about what people say and do, in their own words, all documented from reliable sources, comment and, occasionally, ridicule and make fun of them. I have been an observer of the true spin machines in politics and the media for many years and I know them like the back of my hand.

It's not that hard. You really have to blind, deaf, and dumb not to know what's going on out there. *LOL*

( 27 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

August 2014


Powered by LiveJournal.com