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

[Vandiablo]

Cheap shot? A toast for you -- I raise my glass and bid you up yours, too!

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

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

That you have a hair-trigger insult-o-meter, is what I understand now.

Cheap shot?? ... run the tape ...

Occhi has labeled him a "crook"

You agree you said that, so no cheap shot there.

and wondered if he "has a spine"

Also true that you said that, though I'm to lazy to dig it up. So no cheap shot there, either.

So I'm guess what you consider a "cheap shot" from

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.

must be that I lumped you with conservatives, or at least with Ashock. This seems to be a sensitive issue with you. Perhaps if you didn't throw the same crap being flung by mindless conservatives, this wouldn't happen as frequently. (*) That's it, isn't it? You take pride in having informed opinions, and you don't like it when you get lumped with the mindless?? The two things I quoted you on appear to have no basis, at least no factual basis. I did not feel I was "throwing stones" at you so much as calling you out on what you've said.

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.

High marks for cynicism, but I don't buy it. When you direct this at a Democrat, it is indistinguishable from the Conservative Mud Machine** that screams "A Democrat is to be assumed a crook unless shown otherwise, in which case (s)he has a hidden anti-American agenda, or if none of that, is some combination of naive, stupid and weak." Your version looks like an abridged version.

I have seen enough elections now to know how this mud thing goes. The conservatives are scrambling for mud on Obama, they were so geared for Hillary that they weren't as prepared for Obama. The scramble for negative labels is happening at this moment. Pretty soon partisans will have repeated one or two labels often enough that it has "truthiness" to it, and every word or action by him will be put in that two-dimensional (that means "cartoon", kiddies) context. I'm just waiting to see what labels it will be this time.

-V

*I'm not talking about all conservatives. There are conservatives that are not mindless, or at least there used to be two of them. McCain was one. But it looks like somebody got to him, and he's now a Stepford*** candidate. The other was the columnist who died recently, you know, F. Scott Fitzgerald or somebody like that.

**There's a Liberal Mud Machine, too, but it is nowhere near as effective -- real mud is not used for various ecological reasons, it takes a while for voting and vote-counting to turn it on, it needs to be run by a member of the Brotherhood of Glop Flingers, and it only works when there's sunshine on its solar panels.

***There's an old reference, eh? And not a good one. Sorry. How about "and now he's Mr. Hand"?? More recent, but it doesn't quite fit. If it doesn't fit, I must quit.

Edit: I still run into Miss Spelling despite my efforts.

[Jester]

Okay. This has now deteriorated into ranting, so I think the time is now to stop it before it boils over entirely.

I leave it to our audience to determine who is "redefining" torture and who isn't. To assist, I leave the crowd with as many as I can find in a quick online search. (Google: definition torture, taking the first handful that offer a concise definition, whatever that may be.)

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/torture

http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/69MJXC

http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art....ekey=33912

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

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/torture

... and, for good measure, Senator John McCain, specifically against Giuliani's idea that there are a range of distinctions to be made about whether waterboarding is torture:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/26/us/polit...gin&oref=slogin

Judge for oneself.

Cheers, to the next.

-Jester

One more: http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html

[Vandiablo]

Thank you, Jester, for taking the time to make posts on these threads. Your opinions and mine are very similar and it's nice to have someone articulate, uh, articulate them.

I feel that my country, having now abused those in its charge, has sent the signal to anyone who captures any of our servicemen, or diplomats, or tourists, that it is justified to use torture on them. It was a short-sighted action that has done long-term damage.

I find your first link interesting in terms of this subthread:

1 a: anguish of body or mind : agony b: something that causes agony or pain
2: the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure

You are using definition 1. Occhi is using definition 2.

I might leave it at that, except we've had this sort of definition thing before. I think the term was "bomb" and Occhi informed us that anything that is a bomb has to be dropped from an airplane, things in cars that blow up are "explosive devices". That means of course that the British had planes when they attacked Fort McHenry in the War of 1812. Musta been a secret weapon. Of course, we all know that the real definition of bomb refers to a disagreement between a comic and an audience.

-V

[Vandiablo]

A straight message about love

Like Griselda and King Jim? I love them too!

ps: I love u 2 :wub:

Easy there, KJ -- straight man* here! -- not that close! Friend, Jim, Friend! Sit! Shake! Attaboy!

-V

*Can't you tell by my straight face?

[kandrathe]

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

As Pete said... "Absence of proof is not proof of absence." Would you have condemned Hitler after he wrote "Mein Kampf", but before he acted out his sick manifesto? Would you attribute the writings/preaching of Louis Farrakhan to anti-white violence? I'm sorry, but I can't "mind read" all the black on white violent offenders (even those who are caught) to determine their motivations. No, I don't know of any incidents where people marched out of TUCC after a Wright sermon and then violently targeted white people. There are plenty of folks whose hands are free of blood, yet inspire and promote a violent separatist world view. Jeremiah Wright, James Cone, Dwight Hopkins and Louis Farrakhan are such men, and they are the intelligentsia behind a movement whose goals are black supremacy and not equality.

In the black liberation theology taught by Wright, Cone and Hopkins, Jesus Christ is not for all men, but only for the oppressed: In the New Testament, Jesus is not for all, but for the oppressed, the poor and unwanted of society, and against oppressors ... Either God is for black people in their fight for liberation and against the white oppressors, or he is not [Cone]. In this respect black liberation theology is identical in content to all the ethnocentric heresies that preceded it. Christianity has no use for the nations, a "drop of the bucket" and "dust on the scales", in the words of Isaiah. It requires that individuals turn their back on their ethnicity to be reborn into Israel in the spirit. That is much easier for Americans than for the citizens of other nations, for Americans have no ethnicity. But the tribes of the world do not want to abandon their Gentile nature and as individuals join the New Israel. Instead they demand eternal life in their own Gentile flesh, that is, to be the "Chosen People".

Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community … Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal.-- Cone

I suggest you read up more on "Black Liberation Theology" and its goals. To me it is no different than any other racial hate mongering garbage which justifies violence in the name of "struggle".

[Quark]

Jeremiah Wright ... are such men, and they are the intelligentsia behind a movement whose goals are black supremacy and not equality.

Whelp, there's one guy who didn't follow my links.

[kandrathe]

Whelp, there's one guy who didn't follow my links.

I did Quark. But, your links are not gospel either. I'm looking at the continuity of data points regarding this man, Obama and his history, how Obama's voted and what he supports, Obama's mother and her beliefs, Obama's wife and her beliefs, Obama's brother and his beliefs, Obama's church and their theology.

I think he has been careful since entering national politics to distance himself from his roots.

[Quark]

I did Quark. But, your links are not gospel either. I'm looking at the continuity of data points regarding this man, Obama and his history, how Obama's voted and what he supports, Obama's mother and her beliefs, Obama's wife and her beliefs, Obama's brother and his beliefs, Obama's church and their theology.

I think he has been careful since entering national politics to distance himself from his roots.

Yeah, sure, my links don't factor in to what you think at all yet you refuse to actually supply any sort of rebuttal.

I'm not listening, I'm not listening is not a form of argument.

[Occhidiangela]

Thank you, Jester, for taking the time to make posts on these threads. Your opinions and mine are very similar and it's nice to have someone articulate, uh, articulate them.

I feel that my country, having now abused those in its charge, has sent the signal to anyone who captures any of our servicemen, or diplomats, or tourists, that it is justified to use torture on them. It was a short-sighted action that has done long-term damage.

I find your first link interesting in terms of this subthread:

You are using definition 1. Occhi is using definition 2.

I might leave it at that, except we've had this sort of definition thing before. I think the term was "bomb" and Occhi informed us that anything that is a bomb has to be dropped from an airplane, things in cars that blow up are "explosive devices". That means of course that the British had planes when they attacked Fort McHenry in the War of 1812. Musta been a secret weapon. Of course, we all know that the real definition of bomb refers to a disagreement between a comic and an audience.

-V

I am fully aware of McCain's outspoken position on the limitations of torture in interrogation, for starters, and that he was opposed to torture as a policy. This goes as far back as late 2005, from what I recall.

Consider his political motivation for doing so, as well as his personal motivation. Isolating the two strikes me as a narrow viewpoint. Now, let's see. Afghanistan, the war, started in 2001. Gitmo as a detention facility opened for business shortly thereafter. (IIRC early 2002, but it may have been started, conceptually, a bit earlier.) Am I to believe that John McCain, as well as each and every Senator and Representative on the various oversight committees, willfully looked the other way until it was politically convenient for them not to? How long did that take? Why? Could political advantage be a reason?

As to bombs, IIRC, we were discussing a difference between missiles and bombs, and I do not recall any point I made that a bomb cannot be something not dropped from an airplane. The commonly used remote control bombs in Iraq and Chechnya and elsewhere are referred to as Improvised Explosive Devices for a good and sufficient reason: they are a particular class of weapon for which there is a counter, or a set of ways to counter, that are not applicable to a simple gravity bomb, nor a laser or GPS guided bomb, or even a car bomb like the one used in Beirut against the Marine Barracks.

George Patton would have referred to them as booby traps.

As to your reference to 1812, we aren't having a conversation in 1812. Do you have a point, or do you refer to descendants of Africans in America as darkies, as they often did in 1812?

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

I did Quark. But, your links are not gospel either. I'm looking at the continuity of data points regarding this man, Obama and his history, how Obama's voted and what he supports, Obama's mother and her beliefs, Obama's wife and her beliefs, Obama's brother and his beliefs, Obama's church and their theology.

I think he has been careful since entering national politics to distance himself from his roots.

Well duh. Liberation theology doesn't play well in Peoria. He wants to play in a bigger sandbox. He, like any politician, is reinventing himself for a bigger role that he hopes to play.

Not news.

Occhi

[Jester]

I'll take that as a no.

Nice Godwin, though.

-Jester

[Thenryb]

I'll take that as a no.

Nice Godwin, though.

-Jester

Yeah, this thread has become long enough for a Godwin manifestation to emerge:)

[Jim]

Hi,

Have no fear "straight man" I'm a Navy man, I Might have had More Women than Hillary Rodham Clinton...although she did make this offical statement: NY Daily News: I'm not a Lesbian !!! :P

I will not say the same for Bill C...Woof, Woof :D

Remember Bill Clinton’s former lover, Gennifer Flowers? She wrote in her book “Passion & Betrayal” of Bill confessing to her that Hillary sleeps with more woman than he does.

Is Hillary a lesbian, having an affair with Huma Abedin?

The San Francisco Chronicle and LA Times have had tips sent in from lesbian lovers and other gay/lesbian/transgender “fun times” regarding the New York Senator. Google these word combinations: Hillary, lesbian studies, Hillary bisexual, Carole Migden, lesbian, San Francisco, gay pride, Hillary lesbian, Janet Reno…

Now about my Face/Avatar...hmmm...nah that's not what you meant, btw I can't see your face ;)

A straight message about love

Easy there, KJ -- straight man* here! -- not that close! Friend, Jim, Friend! Sit! Shake! Attaboy!

-V

*Can't you tell by my straight face?

ps: I still Love you -V [as a friend]:wub:

[kandrathe]

Well duh. Liberation theology doesn't play well in Peoria. He wants to play in a bigger sandbox. He, like any politician, is reinventing himself for a bigger role that he hopes to play.

Not news.

Occhi

So which Obama will express himself once he gets into the big chair in the oval office? The guy who used to work in Chicago and hang around with black separatist Marxists or the one we've seen lately?

[kandrathe]

I'll take that as a no.

Nice Godwin, though.

-Jester

Ok, let's reverse the homework assignment. Show me that his words are ignored by his flock as the rantings of crazy old uncle Jerry.

"However, Godwin's Law itself can be abused, as a distraction or diversion, that fallaciously miscasts an opponent's argument as hyperbole, especially if the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate. A 2005 Reason magazine article argued that Godwin's Law is often misused to ridicule even valid comparisons." -- Wikipedia

I think comparing a fiery bigoted orator who is calling for the destruction of the white enemy qualifies as an appropriate use.

[Jester]

Ok, let's reverse the homework assignment. Show me that his words are ignored by his flock as the rantings of crazy old uncle Jerry.

Which words? The words you have yet to provide?

I think comparing a fiery bigoted orator who is calling for the destruction of the white enemy qualifies as an appropriate use.

A) He calls for the destruction of the white enemy where?

B ) Nice try.

-Jester

[Quark]

A) He calls for the destruction of the white enemy where?

B ) Nice try.

-Jester

Doesn't matter. He believes it, thus it must be true. Since he believes it, we also are supposed to believe it without being given any evidence.

*Whistles* Here attack dogs, new target! Huckabee defended Wright.

[Lissa]

Doesn't matter. He believes it, thus it must be true. Since he believes it, we also are supposed to believe it without being given any evidence.

*Whistles* Here attack dogs, new target! Huckabee defended Wright.

No point Quark, everyone knows already that Huckabee is a kook and should never have gotten the delegates he got.

[kandrathe]

Which words? The words you have yet to provide?
A) He calls for the destruction of the white enemy where?

B ) Nice try.

-Jester

If the point of the discussion is to show who is the more obtuse, then I agree, you've won.

To explain very clearly so that you don't miss the connections... In my last post I cited James Cone, one of Jeremiah Wrights mentors, and an inspiration for his theology.

"Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community … Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal."-- James Cone

I've made the specific reference bold above. Rev. Wright cites Hopkins, Cone, Farrakhan and other even more controversial radicals in his works. I would grant you that the primary theme of Rev. Wright is black oppression, and not as much on the solution which are more clearly expounded upon within the philosophy of Liberation Theology.

Here is some Rev. Wright sermon text for you to mull over, and sugar coat to your taste.

The Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., pastor of Mr. Obama’s Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, gave the sermon at the school’s Andrew Rankin Memorial Chapel in Washington on Jan. 15, 2006.

”We’ve got more black men in prison than there are in college,” he began. “Racism is alive and well. Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run. No black man will ever be considered for president, no matter how hard you run Jesse [Jackson] and no black woman can ever be considered for anything outside what she can give with her body.”

Mr. Wright thundered on: “America is still the No. 1 killer in the world. . . . We are deeply involved in the importing of drugs, the exporting of guns, and the training of professional killers . . . We bombed Cambodia, Iraq and Nicaragua, killing women and children while trying to get public opinion turned against Castro and Ghadhafi . . . We put [Nelson] Mandela in prison and supported apartheid the whole 27 years he was there. We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God.”

His voice rising, Mr. Wright said, “We supported Zionism shamelessly while ignoring the Palestinians and branding anybody who spoke out against it as being anti-Semitic. . . . We care nothing about human life if the end justifies the means. . . .”

Concluding, Mr. Wright said: “We started the AIDS virus . . . We are only able to maintain our level of living by making sure that Third World people live in grinding poverty. . . .”

I don't believe you will be objective and see the connections, and I doubt you have a reflective bone in your body. I'm wasting my time on you. Radicalism can lead to extremism and it is hard to prove when an angry riot is inspired by fiery orators who fill their thoughts with the anti-American, anti-White thoughts. To me, there is no difference between the racists who chain a black man to be dragged to death behind a truck, and the Klansman who taught them that it was the right thing to do. And, by the way, I don't condone it in the words of Pat Robertson or the late Jerry Falwell either.

[Occhidiangela]

Cheap shot? A toast for you -- I raise my glass and bid you up yours, too!

I'll drink to that.

That you have a hair-trigger insult-o-meter, is what I understand now.

Why don't you learn how to read, or choose your tripe with more precision?

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",

You call me out, I will emerge, guns blazing. What are you crying about? You asked for it.

Cheap shot?? ... run the tape ...

I just did, but I note you chose not to run the tape.

Also true that you said that, though I'm to lazy to dig it up.

No, unwilling to run the tape. See above.

Perhaps if you didn't throw the same crap being flung by mindless conservatives, this wouldn't happen as frequently.

Since I don't, you are invited to take a long walk off of a short pier. I speak my own mind, thanks, and I do not care for you to insult me by claiming I do not.

That's two, Van. You are on a roll.

High marks for cynicism, but I don't buy it. When you direct this at a Democrat

It was directed at a politician. Obama is one such. You, Mr Sensitive, have chosen to assume it was his party that was important in my crack. That's your problem. You are talking to me: not Sean Hannity, not Michelle Malkin, not Dick Cheney, not Karl Rove, not Bill O'Reilly, not Rush Limbaugh, but me.

Get that through your thick skull.

If you do that, and clear the kneejerk, broad brushing cobwebs from your cranium, you may begin to grasp where I am coming from. I don't hold much hope, as you seem to have convinced yourself already otherwise. I hear people used to do that about blacks, shoes, and where to defecate. You are in such fine company.

Your attempt at mind reading sucks harder than a Hoover on a vinyl couch.

I have seen enough elections now to know how this mud thing goes.

Indeed, we have both been around long enough to see it play out.

The conservatives

Then take up your complaint with Them, whoever They are. When you are talking to me, talk to me.

Here's a nickel, go rent a clue, it will do you good.

EDIT: Tell ya what, I'll not bother posting here at the Lounge unless I am in a really good mood. That rarely happens anymore, so don't expect to see much.

EDIT II: More fun with politicians and mud slinging. James Carville. He is a master of political spin. So too is Karl Rove. That makes them both professional liars. Note how well paid they are for their efforts, and the status they accrue. What does this tell you about our system, Van?

An act of betrayal,” said James Carville, an adviser to Mrs. Clinton and a friend of Mr. Clinton. “Mr. Richardson’s endorsement came right around the anniversary of the day when Judas sold out for 30 pieces of silver, so I think the timing is appropriate, if ironic,” Mr. Carville said, referring to Holy Week.

Looks like the infamously Hispanic Governor of New Mexico (and a Dem I'd have voted for for President) was not grateful enough, not subservient enough to the great Clinton machine, so he gets some mud thrown at him.

It's a small toss, more and larger clods to follow -- but of course, I am referring to the political candidates.

It's the election season, where mud slinging is the varsity sport.

Occhi