Is Obama hurting the Democratic Party by not joining forces with Hilla

[Jim]

Hi,

I Support Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. aka "Barry" for President :wub:

and I approve this message :P

Like Griselda and King Jim?? I love them too!

ps: I love u 2 :wub:

[Quark]

Are we still harping on this?

Okay. Obama's clearly the only one who has ever been in any possible way connected to some scary religious figure.

Start barking up another tree, please.

[--Pete]

Hi,

No. Give me a single example of one of his "flock" doing anything of the sort.

Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

--Pete

[Jester]

Hi,
Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

--Pete

But you can't ask me to prove a negative. Without evidence, a claim is just so much hot air.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

But you can't ask me to prove a negative. Without evidence, a claim is just so much hot air.

-Jester

So for this hate monger, you want me to go dig through the crime files from West 95th Street Chicago area and look for the trends in the black on white violent crime? This seems like a much higher standard of proof than you would ask for if we were talking about any other purveyor of bigoted speech.

[kandrathe]

Are we still harping on this?

Okay. Obama's clearly the only one who has ever been in any possible way connected to some scary religious figure.

Start barking up another tree, please.

I'm not painting Obama with the Jeremiah Wright brush. I know that Barrack embraced him to gain "street cred" in his early work as a political activist in Chicago. If anything, I believe that Obama used Wright and TUCC. Obama is by far the leftist lefty according to his voting record we've ever seen in the Senate, but I do believe his political views are not part and parcel of Wright's or Farrakhan. However, it is worth scrutiny to see how far Obama's views are influenced by Black Liberation theology, and just what decade his perspectives are coming from. Is he trying like other socialists to bring back the 1960's or is he living in the now?

[Jester]

So for this hate monger, you want me to go dig through the crime files from West 95th Street Chicago area and look for the trends in the black on white violent crime? This seems like a much higher standard of proof than you would ask for if we were talking about any other purveyor of bigoted speech.

All I ask is that you provide some evidence that either something he said led to people commiting violent acts, or quote something he said which is obviously an incitement to violence. Either would do, but as far as I can tell, the evidence does not exist. He has controversial opinions, and many bizarre opinions, but I have not yet seen evidence of violent ones.

This is not a "higher standard of proof". This is actually an extremely low standard, since all it takes is a small example, either in words or in deeds. But you have not yet met this standard, or any standard, unless innuendo and supposition count these days.

-Jester

[Quark]

For what it's worth, I was just linked this and this in another thread. Not so black and white as FOX News wants to make it.

However, it is worth scrutiny to see how far Obama's views are influenced by Black Liberation theology, and just what decade his perspectives are coming from. Is he trying like other socialists to bring back the 1960's or is he living in the now?

His speech on Monday basically amounts to "don't blame the old thoughts, on either side, but it's time to move past them." Now, you could say he's trying to swindle us all and doesn't believe that, but unless there's some smoking gun on his own part, that's just being cynical for no good reason.

As for his policy beliefs, here is a good article on Obama's advisors. Their main guiding philosophy seems to be "don't rebuild it - fix it". As I argued elsewhere, it'd be nice to see a guy who argues for and passes only, say, 70% of what he wants. Rather than 100% that causes a backlash 4 years from now and a complete revoking. If his 70% works, maybe that 100% version will come in the future. If it doesn't - remove it.

[Quark]

I just wanted to emphasize this point that Quark made. Obama is currently sitting in the driver's seat for the campaign and only some very lopsided victories could even make it close. Thus, the whole question is structured poorly. The question should have been "Is Clinton hurting the Democratic Party by continuing to take shots at the democratic front-runner who is very likely going to win, regardless of what she does?" The Republican party has picked its nominee and is rallying around him, building up his presidential campaign while the Democratic party is wallowing in the dirt that Clinton has been slinging in a last-ditch effort to win the nomination at all costs. The cost, in this case, is the potential alienation of voters and undermining of the likely nominee.

To go back to this point, check this out.

As it happens, many people inside Clinton’s campaign live right here on Earth. One important Clinton adviser estimated to Politico privately that she has no more than a 10 percent chance of winning her race against Barack Obama, an appraisal that was echoed by other operatives.

There's two reasons this is still lauded as such a close match
1) Clinton really really wants to be president, and seems willing to do anything for that goal.
2) The media likes ratings.

In other news, Cleveland officials have decided to be ticked off. That whole "Republicans, go vote for Clinton so we don't get Obama" spiel? Yeah - it was against the law.

Elections workers will look for evidence that voters lied when they signed affidavits pledging allegiance to their new party.

[Occhidiangela]

You are correct, John McCain has been vocal and consistent in opposing torture. He also specifically defines waterboarding as torture, and my hat is off to him for that. The Straight Talk express may not have much steam left, but it's got at least that much.

How, then, he sleeps at night knowing he is the heir apparent to a man who has tried to dramatically extend such measures is a mystery to me.

-Jester

Afterthought: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/29/washingt...gewanted=1&_r=1

McCain's stated public position is clear, but his willingness to let Bush keep the power to decide on interrogation techniques is disturbing, given the man's past record with such things.

More specifically pertaining to waterboarding: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/washingt...nd-cong.html?hp

My, my, my, when have I ever read a bigger load of bollocks? Your Ivory Tower dewlling shreds any credibility you aspire to.

Waterboarding is a fused psychological and physical trick. It is one of the finest mind f___'s of all time. It is a standard training technique in the how and why of what to expect, and the problems of resisting, physical coercion. It was (and as far as I know, still is) routinely practiced on American servicemen by the Warner Springs Collective, as a training technique

The entire point is not to kill the subject, but to scare the lliving crap out of him to where his will to resist breaks, all the while not actually endangering his, or her, life.

According to the CIA director, it has been used on three people, with positive informational results. (Not sure how solid his veracity is on the topic, let's add a grain of salt.) Given that most professional interrogators are leary of using brute force to get useful information, I am inclined to believe he is at least within in the correct order of magnitude. I quite frankly don't know. I'll leave it at "Well, that's what he said, on the record."

Red McDaniel, in comparison to these whinging maggots who consider waterboarding something dire, rather than a brutally effective scare tactic, had bones broken by his interrogators, and teeth lost, at the delightful luxury spa known as the Hanoi Hilton. After six or seven years of what he and Jack Fellows sarcastically used to call "getting your ass beat" by the Vietnamese, he managed to return to life as something other than a victim, but indeed as a man in full.

Your obescience to the cult of the victim is appalling.

Is this your new religion?

All of the damnable fools who latch onto a controlled psychological ploy as some epitome of torture are acting as a Greek Chorus of useful idiots. Marx would be so proud of you. What next, do we need a bloody and violent revolution, a perpetuation of class warfare in the streets? Some folks soot to kill, rather than don a black t-shirt and whinge about some chimerical problem of injustice.

Why bother embodying Will Rogers's sarcastic observation: "I only know what you read in the papers?" All it shows is that you don't know much of anything. By latching onto symbols and force fed hype the way a shark latches onto chum, you demonstrate a step backward, down the intellectual food chain.

McCain is, or isn't, a qualified candidate for the Presidency. (I have my reservations, given that he got his clock cleaned by W in the 2000 GOP primary) but this horsecrap lamentation and garment rending over "torture" is freaking irrelevant to his qualifications to deal with the hardest job in the world. The practical overrules the purely moralistic as three is to one, to badly misquote Bonaparte.

Care to comment on the Chinese government's ban on live TV work at Tianamen Square for the Olympics, Jester, or the latest fun and games in Tibet?

You don't get to vote in November on who steps into the Oval Office next. Deal with it, and please try not to cry about that fact too much.

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

I think it's interesting how the conservatives are trying to find the proper mud to fling at him. Here at our non-partisan lounge, Occhi has labeled him a "crook" and wondered if he "has a spine", now we have a post that he's P.T. Barnum "on his white side". What label is going to stick, and be used all summer long?? We'll see.

-V

Up yours, Van. I voted for Barrack Obama in the Texas primary.

The way I see it, I have the audacity to hope that he can bring a better class of crook to Washington.

You got a problem with that?

just joined the Democratic party so that I could vote for Obama.

I've been registered Green, but voting with the democrats, for a long time. Obama's one of the first democrats that I would vote for other than grudgingly, though. I think one of the things about him is that he is bringing people either into the party or out to the polls who might otherwise not be out there supporting Clinton.

Welcome back to the set of people included in the set of those "having a clue." I voted for Kinky for Governor in 2006, and a lot of good that did. :P

Until the Greens can elect a significant number of Reps and Senators, the party is a complete farce, unlike the German Green party which actually had a bit of political leverage.

Just out of curiousity, are you going to make a Youtube video as the wargaming, geeky but sexy version of Obama girl?

Occhi

[Griselda]

My hope was always that the Greens would try to get some momentum at the local level, which they could then work on building into state and possibly national relevance. I did some volunteering for local Green candidates, for example, but found that even out here in Oregon they can't seem to win anything but nonpartisan seats for local offices. Nor does that seem to bother anybody in the party; they seem to be mostly focused on asking me for money and holding conventions to select a presidential candidate.

So, I wasn't too impressed with the Greens, even though my politics are probably more in line with theirs than with the Dems. Also, I really don't see a way out of the two-party system here in the US, as much as I'd prefer a system that had room at the table for more points of view. So, I'm going to try to be practical rather than a hopeless idealist for a chance (gasp! must be old age creeping in :lol:).

Obama's message of unity and hopefulness really resonates with me, enough that I can overlook areas where our politics aren't exactly in sync. The US needs a leader that can do something to combat the cynicism that is politics as usual, and Obama's the first guy I've seen in a long time who's even trying to do that.

He made an unannounced visit to my town yesterday, too. I wasn't at the right place at the right time to catch him, unfortunately.

Oh, and Occhi, would you kiss your mother with that mouth?

[roguebanshee]

My, my, my, when have I ever read a bigger load of bollocks? Your Ivory Tower dewlling shreds any credibility you aspire to.

Waterboarding is a fused psychological and physical trick. It is one of the finest mind f___'s of all time. It is a standard training technique in the how and why of what to expect, and the problems of resisting, physical coercion. It was (and as far as I know, still is) routinely practiced on American servicemen by the Warner Springs Collective, as a training technique

The entire point is not to kill the subject, but to scare the lliving crap out of him to where his will to resist breaks, all the while not actually endangering his, or her, life.

I hope you're not trying to argue that intentionally trying to induce a mental breakdown is not a form of torture. Because that's what your post reads like to me.

[Jester]

(Edit: I am not going to continue to answer posts so littered with Ad Hominems. If you enjoy discussing things with me, try to restrict yourself to dismissing me as an ignorant, wishy-washy, ivory tower, clueless, naive, socialist know-nothing who-should-keep-his-nose-out-of-the-US'-business maybe two or three times a post. After that, it starts to get tiresome. If that's actually what I am, why not let me hang myself rather than trying to sell me rope every bloody time?)

Waterboarding is torture. No, this is not my "new religion". Did I have an old religion?

-Jester

Tip 'o the hat: It does rather help convince people you're not a know-nothing when you can actually spell "know-nothing". D'oh, nice catch.

[Vandiablo]

Occhi - I usually respect your opinion, but not when ...

Up yours, Van.

not when your viewpoint is so gerbil.

[Occhidiangela]

Obama's message of unity and hopefulness really resonates with me, enough that I can overlook areas where our politics aren't exactly in sync. The US needs a leader that can do something to combat the cynicism that is politics as usual, and Obama's the first guy I've seen in a long time who's even trying to do that.

Why you presume Obama will be able to do that if he is able to win the election could use a little elaboration. Right now, he's engaged in a sales job: he is the product. There is an immense difference between being able to get elected, and having what it takes to be a good president.

W ought to be a shining example of that, as was Bill Clinton.

He made an unannounced visit to my town yesterday, too. I wasn't at the right place at the right time to catch him, unfortunately.

His visit to Corpus Christi was a fine example of what a load of rotters politicians are.

Oh, and Occhi, would you kiss your mother with that mouth?

I have, and will continue to do so. It is a multi purpose device. It adapts to whatever situation is to hand.

No one trick ponies in this corral.

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

(Edit: I am not going to continue to answer posts so littered with Ad Hominems. If you enjoy discussing things with me, try to restrict yourself to dismissing me as an ignorant, wishy-washy, ivory tower, clueless, naive, socialist no-nothing who-should-keep-his-nose-out-of-the-US'-business maybe two or three times a post. After that, it starts to get tiresome. If that's actually what I am, why not let me hang myself rather than trying to sell me rope every bloody time?)

When someone I admire vomits forth unthinking tripe, it sometimes gets my goat.

I think you meant know nothing, not no nothing, FWIW.

Yes, I admit, my post was a bit acid in response to that.

Waterboarding is torture. No, this is not my "new religion". Did I have an old religion?
-Jester

Your opinion, worth about what I wiped off of my shoe yesterday.

I don't think you have an old religion, but am willing to admit I don't know either way.

Are you willing to admit you don't know much about the dirty deeds that have to be done to keep the lid on the darker side of human nature for centuries?

Orwell has an infamous passage (perhaps merely attributed to him) about why you can sleep safely at night due to rough men being willing to do violence on your behalf.

Think upon that. They are not doing it in your name, and in the main, as I noted above, professional interrogators are leary of brute coercion as a means for inducing information gathering, which is why it isn't common practice.

If KSM was waterboarded, as the CIA director publicly acknowledged, then as far as I am concerned, good.

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

Occhi - I usually respect your opinion, but not when ...
not when your viewpoint is so gerbil.

Have it your way, Van, but I note who cast the first stone.

Prepare for counter-battery fire when so doing.

Somedays the rapier, some days the sledge hammer.

think it's interesting how the conservatives are trying to find the proper mud to fling at him. Here at our non-partisan lounge, Occhi has labeled him a "crook" and wondered if he "has a spine", now we have a post that he's P.T. Barnum "on his white side". What label is going to stick, and be used all summer long?? We'll see.

If you thought I was going to let that pass, the cheap shot that it was, you need to understand something.

A career politician is to be assumed a crook unless shown otherwise. It comes with the badge. The question is a matter of degree, not kind.

Like I said, Obama bringing a new, or better, class of crook is his primary appeal. Whether or not it represents an improvement is anyone's guess.

Occhi

[Jester]

Yes, I admit, my post was a bit acid in response to that.

Your opinion, worth about what I wiped off of my shoe yesterday.

This is not just my opinion, proferred in a vacuum. John McCain seems to be pretty convinced, and he seems like the kind of person who'd know.

What definition of "torture" are you considering that excludes this? Because, unless you're making the argument that "one of the finest mind___'s of all time" doesn't constitute severe mental pain or suffering, it seems to fit into any definition I've ever seen, except the absurdly self-serving ones the US has been coming up with recently, specifically engineered to exclude the kinds of torture they'd like to use.

Are you willing to admit you don't know much about the dirty deeds that have to be done to keep the lid on the darker side of human nature for centuries?

Are you saying that I would be surprised at the things that have historically been done to people? That I haven't learned the horrors we've inflicted on each other? If that is the case, then no, I'm not "willing to admit" (a specious formulation, similar to "did you enjoy beating your wife?") that.

Or are you implying that there was some point at which the valiant Jack Bauers of history really did save the world through torture? If that's the argument, then no, I don't really "know much about" that. What would be an example? Usually when societies degenerate to using torture, their purposes are about as virtuous as their methods.

Orwell has an infamous passage (perhaps merely attributed to him) about why you can sleep safely at night due to rough men being willing to do violence on your behalf.

Attributed. The closest it gets is a critique of trendy liberal pacifism, where he says something kind of similar. But if you think Orwell would be defending this foolish war and the unlawful imprisonment and torture of suspects in the name of "fighting terrorism," then I don't think you understand much about George Orwell.

Although one might quote Orwell on this topic for other reasons, notably what it does to a nation when torture is dressed up in fancy language to make it more acceptable.

Think upon that. They are not doing it in your name, and in the main, as I noted above, professional interrogators are leary of brute coercion as a means for inducing information gathering, which is why it isn't common practice.

Well they should be. It is neither ethical nor sensible. Panicked people tell whatever lies they need to stop the overwhelming sensation of imminent drowning.

If KSM was waterboarded, as the CIA director publicly acknowledged, then as far as I am concerned, good.

Fine. Then as far as I'm concerned, and as far as John McCain is concerned, you are condoning torture. If you can sleep with that, good on you. As you rightly point out, it is not being done in my name. It is being done in yours.

-Jester

[Occhidiangela]

This is not just my opinion, proferred in a vacuum. John McCain seems to be pretty convinced, and he seems like the kind of person who'd know.

He's also smart enough to know the distinctions, and degrees.

What definition of "torture" are you considering that excludes this?

And why do you have to play with definitions in order to include this method into your broad definition? Why is that so important to you? I see a clumsy artist with a broad brush.

Because, unless you're making the argument that "one of the finest mind___'s of all time" doesn't constitute severe mental pain or suffering,

That isn't torturre, unless you go out of your way to redefine it as such. Funny, that it is so often in the

POLITICAL

realm that words are strained and redefined for a

POLITICAL

purpose. You are as bad as the Bush crowd with this, and you won't even recognize it.

it seems to fit into any definition I've ever seen, except the absurdly self-serving ones the US has been coming up with recently, specifically engineered to exclude the kinds of torture they'd like to use.

Who is "the US" who you are talking about? Are all us nigrahs down heah in the lowah foaty eigh lookin' so much alike that you caint tell the difference between us?

You might have a care and pay attention to just who is for, and who is not, as it is a matter of considerable disagreement down here in the lowah 48.

Are you saying that I would be surprised at the things that have historically been done to people? That I haven't learned the horrors we've inflicted on each other? If that is the case, then no, I'm not "willing to admit" (a specious formulation, similar to "did you enjoy beating your wife?") that.

Can you tell me why the year 2008 shoudl be any different from 1961 or 1950, or 1973?

Human beings haven't changed a bit, some people only pretend that they have.

By all means, play the same games Bush plays, monkey around with definitions regardless of what is going on. A criminal mastermind, KSM, is being given the stick. And damned well he should. What isn't happening is some daily waterboarding regimen for any and all who got dragged into the box.

Is there any reason that KSM should be treated with kindness? We are dealing with one of Hoffer's True Believers there.

But please, do go on. Shrill adherence to principle is a useful point of view for esoteric mental musing, or hypotheticals designed to test logic.

Now, if three people (or let's guess thirty, I suspect the director was being less than frank) have been waterboarded in the past five years, and there have been over a thousand through the gates of Gitmo, I still want to know where your broad brush arrives at some sort of meaningful position.

All I can see is another adherent to this great gnashing of teeth: you confuse mind games with torture, which is physical abuse and body breaking, and had been that simple a thing until the political rhetoric of recent vintage leapt into redefinitions.

Your hands are as dirty (rhetoricaly) as the Bush gang's. Congratulations. You can take your arbitrary reclassification and go fish.

Am I happy that the state of play has arrived as it has? Not in the least. Too many pages to go into that.

Or are you implying that there was some point at which the valiant Jack Bauers of history really did save the world through torture? If that's the argument, then no, I don't really "know much about" that. What would be an example? Usually when societies degenerate to using torture, their purposes are about as virtuous as their methods.

Your Jack Bauer tripe you may eat for breakfast, Mister Strawman. That is not my position, but you of course use that standard canard to apply a sound byte to my position, which you cannot pigeon hole. God knows, you'd like to try.

Attributed. The closest it gets is a critique of trendy liberal pacifism, where he says something kind of similar. But if you think Orwell would be defending this foolish war and the unlawful imprisonment and torture of suspects in the name of "fighting terrorism," then I don't think you understand much about George Orwell.

Did I say Orwell would defend this war?

No.

You did.

Go argue with yourself, if you like.

Although one might quote Orwell on this topic for other reasons, notably what it does to a nation when torture is dressed up in fancy language to make it more acceptable.

Fancy language?

If you want to call the over emotive horsecrap that has erupted, in critcism of, and in support of, W's various takes and mistakes as "fancy language," you had better look at that glass house before you toss a pebble. See your Jack Bauer horsecrap above for a single example.

Well they should be. It is neither ethical nor sensible. Panicked people tell whatever lies they need to stop the overwhelming sensation of imminent drowning.

No kidding?

Now, tell me how much that has to do with ripping teeth out of people, breaking their bones, on a whim, or beating them to death?

See also the rope treatment.

Your emotional desire to conflate that trick, which is a brutal HEY JESTER, I HAVE REPEATED MYSELF HERE, AS I AGAIN I CALL IT BRUTAL, ARE YOU ACTUALLY READING WHAT I WRITE? (and a mighty effective one, one surmises) with the physical body breaking people like McCain, Stockdale, McDaniel, and hundreds of others put up with.

Fine. Then as far as I'm concerned, and as far as John McCain is concerned, you are condoning torture.

As far as I am concerned, you make the argument of an idiot if you cannot decipher that the matter of degree isn't of interest. My position is that KSM, and the handfull of animals like him who are ever caught, do not deserve any extension of courtesy by anyone who catches them. They are beyond outlaw. The bulk of people rounded up are not in his league. Funny, the bulk are not treated like that.

Think on that.

Or, pretend it's all the same, because it is convenient for you to do so.

Nor can I find anything to respect in your pretense that sleep deprivation is torture. It's another fine mind hump that I got to experience, thankfully for a very short period of time, in a controlled training environment.

The shortcoming of your position is its emotional, politics driven base, rooted in a lazy desire to pretend that one thing is identical to another.

Gee, let's hear another song in the same key.

Spanking a child with a couple of smacks across the buttocks is the same as beating him and breaking bones, ITS ALL CHILD ABUSE.

I've been exposed to new age crap for long enough to recongnize it for what it is: rubbish.

Nuts hooked up to the car battery, hands and limbe broken or removed, no, that is not the same as water boarding. You don't win a prize. Are you so eager to leap on that little sound byte that you can't tell the difference?

The fact that there are degrees of coercion matters, just as degrees of punishment matter in jurisprudence.

The death penalty is not the same as a three year jail sentence, but both are PUNISHMENT!

OH Horror!

So too with your "it's all as horrible as the rest, since I call it torture." Are you feeling faint yet?

f you can sleep with that, good on you. As you rightly point out, it is not being done in my name. It is being done in yours.

If it were a common place, which is the insinuation that is too often made, I'd feel differently about it.

I cannot respect your position of the excluded middle, nor your pretense that it is all the same.

While it is distasteful for me to use such academic asshattery for terminology, I figured I'd serve you some of the tripe you wished to have for dinner here.

Happy?

I do make exception for special cases. KSM is a special case.

So did Abe Lincoln, when he curbed certain Constitutional provisions. Are you sorry we ended slavery down here Jester, by killing half a million of one another? Lincoln violated strict principle to do so. Damnit, Jester, the US really screwed up on that one.

Is there a danger that handling special cases may lead to worse?

Hell yes.

That's what bugs me.

You shoot the rabid dog, but do you then get in the habit of shooting all dogs? From the above, we see that friend Jester would pretend the answer to that is yes, being blinded by an emotional, political desire and a handy, politically convenient, label.

But we both know it does not necessarily follow.

Occhi