[Obama's] pitch is that he can see America as few others can, and that this ability will enable him to pull a majority of the country together and get things done. "That's what we are doing with our speeches and that's to some degree what I think this campaign is about and what America is about ... People from diverse backgrounds and unlikely places finding a common culture and a common set of values and ideals that make them American." That is perhaps Obama's greatest talent: to weave compelling narratives about himself that seem to include everyone in a common epic. ... The punch line [of these stories] is generally the same: blacks and whites have more in common than you might think, and he knows it because he is it: black and white, together as one.I think it's fair to say that Obama would not be making this argument on his own behalf if he were a, er, "typical white person". Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at March 25, 2008 02:58 PM | Email This
barack isn't making this argument on his own behalf, others are.
what's your boy mccain up to these days? nary a word about him on this site. you are secretly considering voting for obama, aren't you? many intelligent conservatives recognize his appeal, are you one of them?
all of this obama talk on this site makes me think of those conservatives and ministers who lambast everyone for moral failings only to get caught with a hooker, drugs or a male masseuse.
it's okay if you decide to vote for a person born with the last 60 years and who doesn't advocate torture or tax cuts during a recession.
but don't even think about voting for hillary, even i won't do that.
http://www.slate.com//blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/2008/03/23/endorsing-obama.aspx
here's are some choice quotes:
"This endorsement may be of little note or consequence, except perhaps that it comes from an unlikely source: namely, a former constitutional legal counsel to two Republican presidents....
As a Republican, I strongly wish to preserve traditional marriage not as a suspicion or denigration of my homosexual friends but as recognition of the significance of the procreative family as a building block of society. As a Republican and as a Catholic, I believe life begins at conception, and it is important for every life to be given sustenance and encouragement. As a Republican, I strongly believe that the Supreme Court of the United States must be fully dedicated to the rule of law and to the employ of a consistent method of interpretation that keeps the court within its limited judicial role. As a Republican, I believe problems are best resolved closest to their source and that we should never arrogate to a higher level of government that which can be more effectively and efficiently resolved below. As a Republican and a constitutional lawyer, I believe religious freedom does not mean religious separation or mindless exclusion from the public square.
In various ways, Sen. Barack Obama and I may disagree on aspects of these important fundamentals, but I am convinced, based upon his public pronouncements and his personal writing, that on each of these questions he is not closed to understanding opposing points of view and, as best as it is humanly possible, he will respect and accommodate them.
No doubt some of my friends will see this as a matter of party or intellectual treachery. I regret that, and I respect their disagreement. But they will readily agree that as Republicans, we are first Americans. As Americans, we must voice our concerns for the well-being of our nation without partisanship when decisions that have been made endanger the body politic. Our president has involved our nation in a military engagement without sufficient justification or a clear objective. In so doing, he has incurred both tragic loss of life and extraordinary debt jeopardizing the economy and the well-being of the average American citizen. In pursuit of these fatally flawed purposes, the office of the presidency, which it was once my privilege to defend in public office formally, has been distorted beyond its constitutional assignment. Today, I do no more than raise the defense of that important office anew, but as private citizen.
Sept. 11 and the radical Islamic ideology that it represents is a continuing threat to our safety, and the next president must have the honesty to recognize that it, as author Paul Berman has written, "draws on totalitarian inspirations from 20th-century Europe and with its double roots, religious and modern, perversely intertwined. ... wields a lot more power, intellectually speaking, then naïve observers might suppose." Sen. Obama needs to address this extremist movement with the same clarity and honesty with which he has addressed the topic of race in America. Effective criticism of the incumbent for diverting us from this task is a good start, but it is incomplete without a forthright outline of a commitment to undertake, with international partners, the formation of a worldwide entity that will track, detain, prosecute, convict, punish, and thereby stem radical Islam's threat to civil order. I await Sen. Obama's more extended thinking upon this vital subject as he accepts the nomination of his party and engages Sen. McCain in the general campaign discussion to come."
Posted by: dinesh on March 25, 2008 03:33 PMAlso read Obama's "Dreams" book, (it's quite a bit better than the audacity one) and it makes it clear that he's spent his whole life arguing against racism against whites as well as blacks.
Posted by: St. on March 25, 2008 03:36 PM
CHANGE the subject from the racist Wright and HOPE nobody notices.
20 years of military experience allowed me the privilege of serving with commanding officers who were Black, Hispanic, Asian, Women, and White, and they were, and are, outstanding Americans. I had the same experience with the Non-commissioned Officers in my Units. These wonderful men and women became my mentors, friends, and colleagues. Race was acknowledged for what it was and set aside for more important things. These included accomplishment of our mission and taking care of our Soldiers who in turn took care of us.
I'm glad to see Mr Obama has figured what millions of our active Service men and women, and veterans, have known for years. Americans (no hyphen anything) working together towards a common goal.
What a concept!
Who the hell is the guy Dinesh? Are you ashamed to mention his name? Of course we do know he is a lawyer, so do you have anything to counter this strike against him? Why are you ashamed to mention his name?
Does this mystery man "Republican" lawyer travel with Obama on the campaign trail regularly? Did he ever get his party's nomination for Vice President in the last election like say Joe Lieberman?
Yeah. Didn't think so. * YAWN *
Posted by: pbj on March 25, 2008 04:09 PMThe old boy is as racist as they come.
And Barack, you don't have to be filthy to get respect. That you did and brag about it is a sorry testament to your fitness to be president.
I had such high hopes for him, too. He was going to be my choice over Huckabee if it came to it.
Posted by: swatter on March 25, 2008 04:31 PMI keep asking, and nobody in western Washington has the guts to answer:
There are many, many folks across America who voted for Kerry in 2004 and who'll vote for McCain in 2008.
How many people will vote for Bush in 2004 and Obama in 2008? Answer: Less than will fit in one Starbuck's coffeeshop.
Posted by: Larry on March 25, 2008 04:52 PMOdd that he insists on continuing his association with something like that in the face of the lie that he's "spent his whole life arguing against racism."
This guy's political career is over. It's just a matter of measuring him for his political coffin... no matter how great a read his work of fiction is.
Posted by: hinton on March 25, 2008 05:08 PMThat's what PBj claims he'll be doing.
Ragnar (aka the Ellen Craswell wing of the GOP) doesn't like McCain either.
To quote "I will vote for him even though he was not my 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th choice because to NOT vote for him would be to vote against every single thing I stand for."
There are many, many folks across America who voted for Kerry in 2004 and who'll vote for McCain in 2008
You forget McCain has flip-flopped more times than Romney and Kerry combined. Concervatives hate flip-floppers, or so they claimed in 2004.
Based on the voter turnouts in the early voting states (Super Tuesday and before) I'd say the Dem's have the edge. The contest was still in full swing up until then, the GOP still had several quality candidates left standing. Yet the turnouts for the Dem primary's was significantly higher.
After eight years of Bush leading us head first into this current economic cycle not to mention the now exposed information about the Iraq War, it might be time to put someone else in charge who's NOT going to continue to maintain Bush's mess?
May I remind you of the famous Reagan quote:
"Are you better off today than you were four years ago?"...for a good portion of America that answer might be no.
Again, life reflects Seinfeld
"The thing about eating the Black and White cookie, Elaine, is you want to get some black and some white in each bite. Nothing mixes better than vanilla and chocolate. And yet somehow racial harmony eludes us. If people would only look to the cookie all our problems would be solved. Look to the cookie, Elaine. Look to the cookie!"
- Jerry Seinfeld, Seinfeld episode no. 74, "The Dinner Party"
here's his bio (let's see yours):
About Doug Kmiec
* Douglas W. Kmiec is Caruso Family Chair and Professor of Constitutional Law, Pepperdine University. He served as head of the Office of Legal Counsel (U.S. Assistant Attorney General) for Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Former Dean of the law school at The Catholic University of America, Professor Kmiec was a member of the law faculty for nearly two decades at the University of Notre Dame.
larry:
your ignorance is reflected in your post. how would you know who i know? i am as anonymous to you as you are to me--you have been watching too much teevee and reading too many internets, as you presume a degree of familiarity and knowledge of which you are not worthy.
true conservatives voted for bush, jr.--despite his rapid expansion of the size of the federal govt., disregard for states' rights, authorization of torture in violation of our treaty obligations, inability to veto any spending bill brought by his party (regardless of its merits), and deception regarding the most sacred of acts--taking this country to war. if true conservatives voted for bush, they should be able to vote for a low-down, lying politician of any stripe. couldn't be worse than the worse president. ever.
Posted by: dinesh on March 25, 2008 05:38 PMYou still haven't pointed out why Conservatives will vote for Obama - unless you admit that Obama is "a low-down, lying politician", as you put it.
Do you always undermine your own points, or only in public?
Posted by: larry on March 25, 2008 05:43 PMwhy don't you tell me why the people i know aren't true conservatives? here's how you do it. start by identifying the people i know, then point out why they aren't true conservatives.
after you fail that exercise, try this one. define "true conservative" and explain how bush, jr. fits that definition. here, i'll help. small govt.? nope. lower taxes? nope (can't give credit for lower taxes when you bust the budget and increase the deficit). state's rights (heard of schiavo)? competence? (heckuva job brownie, rummy, scooter).
now that you've failed those 3, point out where i said i would explain why conservatives would vote for obama. i simply said many intelligent conservatives will vote for obama. i wouldn't presume to know all of their reasons. i have posted one conservative's reasons for doing so.
now, go back to your teevee and internets.
Posted by: dinesh on March 25, 2008 05:53 PMcorrection: post #15 should read "i simply said many intelligent conservatives recognize his appeal".
now, go back to failing exercises 1-3.
Posted by: dinesh on March 25, 2008 05:55 PMYour man is going down despite what you may think.
You guys mustered all the hate that you could offer in 2004, and Bush still won by 3 million votes (popular).
McCain's crossover votes (from Kerry) will more than make up for any Conservatives that stay home. Meanwhile, Obama won't get any crossover votes from Bush, and he'll cause some Dems to stay home, too. Obama needs over 50% to win, and he just ain't gonna get 'er done.
It's interesting how, up until this election season, you would NEVER have considered any Conservative to be intelligent. Now you're depending on them to win an election.
It's a pipe dream, and you're puffin' away.
Posted by: larry on March 25, 2008 06:03 PMAmerican culture, circa 2008...is...well...Black.
Black music permeates modern media. Black slang as well...in music, television, gaming.
And it's been coming for the past 20 years, ever since suburban kids started watching Iced T videos on cable.
We are rapidly becoming a "blacker" culture every day. Every one is hip. Everyone is cool.
Posted by: John Bailo on March 25, 2008 06:09 PMIt's all over but the caterwauling from Obama's acolytes at this point.
Posted by: Rick D. on March 25, 2008 06:10 PMagain, you appear to be confusing what i may think of some of the "conservatives" that post in these comments and what i think of other conservatives generally.
i know many intelligent people of all persuasions (not limited to party affiliation). intelligence, you see, is not limited to any particular group.
i see you haven't attempted exercises 1 - 3 to support the assumptions on which your post at #9 relied.
why not define "true conservative"? does mr. kmiec pass your test, or now that he endorses obama must he be cast out?
i don't suspect you'll answer on point.
Posted by: dinesh on March 25, 2008 06:12 PMI've been reading your hateful diatribes on this website for many years now, even if I never felt the need to chime in before. I have no rhyme nor reason to start a debate with you now.
I don't really care what you think. I'm not interested in proving you wrong nor proving myself right. My rationale will come to fruition on election day, when we'll both know who was correct about our next President.
It's flattering that you want to engage me in debate and discourse. But it's a complete waste of my time. By debating you I lend credence to your hate and your ignorance. I choose to recognize both, yet debate neither.
Have a nice life.
Posted by: Larry on March 25, 2008 06:20 PM"You know, no other person is responsible for what a person says except that person. And so, if they have a problem with what Ann Coulter says, blame Ann Coulter. You can't blame somebody else for what she said,"
Sean Hannity, responding to Ann Coulter's public use of the term "faggot" at CPAC's conference last year.
and how to explain this:
"I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen.'"
bush, jr. said only that the remarks were "inappropriate". he did not denounce and reject mr. falwell (and likely accepted his church's financing).
thoughts?
Posted by: dinesh on March 25, 2008 06:24 PMOh nonsense. Stop getting your talking points from America haters.
While the MSM and the democraps are continually talking down the economy, poll after poll after poll shows Americans saying they are pretty darn happy with their situation and they expect it to improve in the future.
Just TODAY the Wall Street Journal had an article written by "progressives"* that verifies just that.
" - Confusing 2008 with 1929. It's not even close. The overwhelming majority of Americans today are not on the brink of economic catastrophe, and Democrats should not treat them as if they are. In 2006, the median income of working-age husband-wife couples (ages 25-59) was $73,765. Eighty percent of Americans over 40 own a home, and while foreclosure rates have hit historic highs, it's still the case that relatively few homeowners are at risk of losing their homes over the next several years. "
"
- Confusing bad times with pessimism. Even during tough times, Americans are optimists and believers in the American Dream. They believe success or failure is within their control. Eighty percent believe you can start out poor and become rich in America. And while they are anxious over the current economic downturn and the broad changes brought about by globalization, they do not see themselves as victims, and are not comforted by politicians who recite a litany of their anxieties. "
" Most people think the economy is in poor shape and worry about potential misfortune. But this sour mood and their worries are tempered by a strong appraisal of their own financial situation and a low evaluation of personal risk. For example, only 15% think that it is at least somewhat likely that they could be laid off in the next year. Even in the most recent polls, over two-thirds of Americans describe their financial situation and standard of living as either good or excellent. "
*Of course with your penchant for dismissing anyone with whom you disagree, it will be merely a matter of moments before you rush to label them TOKEN PROGRESSIVES.
Posted by: Ragnar on March 25, 2008 06:30 PMDo they "own" a home? As in, 100% equity? Or are they indentured servants to the bank on a long term mortgage made up mostly of interest on a depreciating asset?
Back in the good old 1700s, you could be an indentured servant and get some land after 5 to 7 years. In America, it now takes 30 to 50 years to own a 100 x 400 plot! How is that progress?
Posted by: John Bailo on March 25, 2008 06:38 PMNormally, I start these things out by saying 'My Fellow Americans', not doing it this time. If the polls are any indication, I don't know who more than half of you are anymore. I do know something terrible has happened, and that you're really not fellow Americans any longer.
I'll cut right to the chase here: I quit.
Now before anyone gets all in a lather about me quitting to avoid impeachment, or to avoid prosecution, let me assure you: There's been no breaking of laws or impeachable offenses in this office.
The reason I'm quitting is simple. I'm fed up with you people. I'm fed up because you have no understanding of what's really going on in the world. Or of what's going on in this once-great
nation of ours. And the majority of you are too damned lazy to do your
homework and figure it out.
Let's start local. You've been sold a bill of goods by politicians and the news media. Polls show that the majority of you think the economy is in the tank. And that's despite record numbers of homeowners, including record numbers of MINORITY homeowners. And while we're mentioning minorities, I'll point out that minority business ownership is at an all-time high. Our unemployment rate is as low as it ever was during the Clinton administration. I've mentioned all those things before, but it doesn't sink in.
Despite the shock to our economy of 9/11, the stock market has rebounded to record levels and more Americans than ever are participating in these markets. Meanwhile, all you can do is whine about gas prices, and most of you are too damn stupid to realize that gas prices are high because there's increased demand in other parts of the world, and because a small handful of noisy idiots are more worried about polar bears and beachfront property than your economic security.
We face real threats in the world.
Don't give me this 'blood for oil' crap. If I were trading blood for oil I would've already seized Iraq 's oil fields and let the rest of the country go to hell. And don't give me this 'Bush Lied; People Died' crap either. If I were the liar you morons take me for, I could've easily had chemical weapons planted in Iraq so they could be 'discovered.' Instead, I owned up to the fact that the intelligence was faulty.
Let me remind you that the rest of the world thought Saddam had the goods, same as me. Let me also remind you that regime change in Iraq was official US policy before I came into office. Clinton established that policy. Bet you didn't know that, did you?
You idiots need to understand that we face a unique enemy. Back during the cold war, there were two major competing political and economic models squaring off. We won that war, but we did so because fundamentally, the Communists wanted to survive, just as we do. We were simply able to out spend and out-tech them.
That's not the case this time. The soldiers of our new enemy don't care if they survive. In fact, they want to die. That'd be fine, as long as they weren't also committed to taking as many of you with them as they can. But they are. They want to kill you, and the bastards are all over the globe. You should be grateful that they haven't gotten any more of us here in the United States since September 11. But you're not. That's because you've got no idea how hard a small number of intelligence, military, law enforcement, and homeland security people have worked to make sure of that. When this whole mess started, I warned you that this would be a long and difficult fight. I'm disappointed how many of you people think a long and difficult fight amounts to a single season of 'Survivor.'
Instead, you've grown impatient.
You're incapable of seeing things through the long lens of history, the way our enemies do. You think that wars should last a few months, a few years, tops.
Making matters worse, you actively support those who help the enemy. Every time you buy the New York Times, every time you send a donation to a cut-and-run Democrat's political campaign, well, you might just as well FedEx a grenade launcher to a Jihadist. It amounts to the same thing.
In this day and age, it's easy enough to find the truth. It's all over the Internet, it just isn't on the pages of the New York Times or on NBC News. But even if it were, I doubt you'd be any smarter. Most of you would rather watch American Idol.
I could say more about your expectations that the government will always be there to bail you out, even if you're too stupid to leave a city that's below sea level and has a Cat 5 hurricane approaching.
I could say more about your idiotic belief that government, not your own wallet, is where the money comes from. But I've come to the conclusion that were I to do so, it would sail right over your heads.
So, I quit. I'm going back to Crawford. I've got an energy-efficient house down there (Al Gore could only dream of) and the capability to be fully self-sufficient. No one ever heard of Crawford before I got elected, and as soon as I'm done here pretty much no one will ever hear of it again. Maybe I'll be lucky enough to die of old age before the last pillars of America fall.
Oh, and by the way, Cheney's quitting too.
That means Pelosi is your new President. You asked for it - you can have her. Watch what she does carefully, because I still have a glimmer of hope that there are just enough of you remaining who are smart enough to turn this thing around in 2008.
So that's it.
God bless what's left of America Some of you know what I mean. The rest of you - may kiss my a**!
Hmmm, last I heard neither of the two mentioned above were seeking the POTUS position...forgetting that, a one time use of a derrogatory term is now equivelent to 20 years of using denigrating language that Pastor Wright did?....I think even you see how weak that argument was.
onto the 2nd point.
You'd have a point if Bush was in the pews for 20 years and referred to Falwell as "Uncle"....short of that, all you have is "likely accepted his church's financing".
So Dinesh:
You're hooking your wagon to 2 talking head, political commentators, a dead guy and a lame duck president who isn't running in 2008?
Please tell me you can bring more to the table than that.
Posted by: Rick D. on March 25, 2008 06:56 PMRead the rest here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/23/us/23health.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
Could it be that the same factors that cause people to
generate more wealth (e.g., self-discipline) also
cause them to live longer?
Now why is it that this dynamic does not figgure into
the Gray Lady's analysis. Hmmmmmmmm.
OK now - why do I bring this up? The Study does not control for young males (notoriously self destructive in their habits) - who are the reason that women outlive men, on average. The fact that women outlive men is born out in the graph in the article, but if the data is corrected and relatively low earning young men are accounted for it would not fit with the story they wanted to write.
So it is with all of the rescue Obama articles I have read, they are cherry-picking awful selectively to slant the conclusion drawn in favor of their case.
If you don't like this example the NYT is full of examples I can take five minutes with and point out the same dynamic. This is taught in "journalism" schools and it is transparent now because the media is no longer controlled.
Posted by: JDH on March 25, 2008 07:26 PMNever heard of the guy. You have to write several paragraphs to try to hail him as some sort of modern day hero. And the funny thing is that most of what you write shows he has nothing in common with Obama.
Regardless, the Leiberman brand name has more more recognition amongst liberals than what's his name has amongst conservatives.
Next you'll be touting the endorsement of the guy that cleaned Reagan's toilet.
As was stated previously, conservatives may sit it out on McCain, but jumping on board with an America hater is the last thing we'd do. However, if you keep going on, you may just force some of us to vote AGAINST Obama.
Both will be a disaster in their own special ways. That could be why the McCain people aren't arrogantly making crap up about him like you liberals are for Obama. Conservatives are intelligent and when you constantly insult our intelligence, it pisses us off.
Posted by: pbj on March 25, 2008 08:10 PMYou said:
bush, jr. said only that the remarks were "inappropriate". he did not denounce and reject mr. falwell (and likely accepted his church's financing).
thoughts?
Yes, I do have some thoughts on this Dinesh. First off, please provide proof that Bush accepted money from Falwell's church. Saying "likely accepted" is simply hearsay, kind of like me saying "Dinesh likey offed Vince Foster". See how that works?
So you have not proven Bush accepted any money from Falwell's church. In contrast, we know that Obama gave at least $27,500 over the course of 2005 and 2006 alone.[1] So not only did Obama merely sit in the pews of the racist Rev Wright, he financed the bigot as well.
[1] "For Obama, charity really began in the U.S. Senate", Secter Bob April 25, 2007 Chicago Tribune
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0704250022apr25,1,5205040,full.story
Posted by: pbj on March 25, 2008 08:26 PMWow. Unc is an anti-semite too.
Posted by: pbj on March 25, 2008 09:17 PMHere's a guy who's lived a lot more black history than Obama ever will, spelling it out for Obama.
Posted by: Jeff B. on March 25, 2008 10:39 PMhttp://www.episcopalchurch.org/3654_26130_ENG_HTM.htm
John McCain is a member of the Episcopal Church USA. If Barack Obama is given blame (or credit) for the statements and associations of the Trinity United Church of Christ, to which he belongs, why doesn't the same thing apply to John McCain?
Please look at the link above, from the official Episcopal Church USA website. It is entitled "Letter to President Bush from Religious Leaders on World AIDS Day", and makes certain statements, attacks, and requests regarding the U.S. commitment to fight AIDS, especially with respect to sub-Saharan Africa.
But more importantly, look at who has signed the letter, and is promoted as supporters of the letter on the official Episcopal Church USA website:
Maureen T. Shea, Director of Government Relations, the Episcopal Church USA -- who is the official spokesperson for John McCain's denomination in dealing with government relations
Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Trinity United Church of Christ -- who is/was the pastor of Barack Obama's church
If the leadership of John McCain's own religious denomination will not repudiate their associations with Rev. Wright, then why should Barack Obama?
Why should Barack Obama be expected to leave his own church and join some other church, when nobody is calling upon John McCain to change his religion?
Posted by: Richard Pope on March 25, 2008 11:48 PMI have my own points, you calling Reagan an American hater? You commie bastard!! =P
it's still the case that relatively few homeowners are at risk of losing their homes over the next several years.
Not yet, but when people stop buying non-staple items other people loose their jobs. Hard to make those mortgage payments when your CEO gave himself a five million dollar raise while you giving you a pink slip.
For example, only 15% think that it is at least somewhat likely that they could be laid off in the next year.
Yeah, if 15% of Americans got laid off you would still be sticking your head in the sand saying everything is great.
Since you have such a strong background in economics Ragnar any guesses as to who's money is going to be eating up all those bad loans that deregulated banks made then turned around and sold as AAA rated (now junk) bonds? Could it be the US Taxpayer?
Of course with your penchant for dismissing anyone with whom you disagree
Ummmm, yeah. This coming from a man with 75% of his deranged postings contain one or all of the following words:
Marxist/Socialist/Liberal/Donner Party/ BAAAAAHrack (middle name fear bomb CENSORED) OBAAAAAHma
Maybe you should take a look back at the article where the economist who predicted every economic collapse of the later half century talked about the housing collapse we're in now way back in 2002!!
Besides the credit crisis has only hit the Housing Market....we still have plenty other lines of credit that are just starting to default...you know student loans, credit card debt, car payments. Just a matter of time.
Besides we're going to have a concrete shortage soon because President Bush is playing Cowboy Diplomacy one of the worlds biggest suppliers (Venezuela).
Did I mention how nice it was to see that Cheney took Johny McCain along with him on his fun trip to Saudi Arabia (where he begged OPEC for more oil). Will OPEC budge, they didn't for Dubya when he went down. Guess we'll have to wait and see who really wears the pants in the White House (the failed oilman, or the CEO who's old company just moved to Dubai).
Because Wright is a blithering idiot on the pulpit! For Obama to sit through all that BS for 20 years says he either believes all the crap Wright spews, or he stayed for political purposes. Either way he loses.
Posted by: zip on March 26, 2008 02:27 AMTake a look at how libs view teh Obamasiah meltdown
"For months, I've been predicting that conservatives would delicately prompt voters to see Barack Obama through the lens of race. They'd drop hints, they'd make roundabout arguments, they'd find a hundred subtle ways to encourage people to vote their prejudices, while denying vociferously that they were doing anything of the sort.
It turns out I was wrong. Not about whether they'd try to exploit racial prejudice (that was about as easy to predict as the rising of the sun), but about how they would do it. After some hesitation and baby steps, the conservative campaign against Barack Obama has finally begun. And there's nothing subtle about it.
When the controversy over Obama's former pastor Jeremiah Wright reached critical mass last week, it was the political equivalent of the green flag at a NASCAR race. The conservative strategists and talkers had been slowly circling the track, feet itchy on the accelerator, just waiting for the signal to floor it. But now, as The Politico reported in a story titled "GOP sees Rev. Wright as path to victory," the Republican strategists know exactly what must be done, starting with famed ad man Alex Castellanos:
"All the sudden you've got two dots, and two dots make a line," said Castellanos. "You start getting some sense of who he is, and it's not the Obama you thought. He's not the Tiger Woods of politics.""
A lot of emailers have been taking a look at the Obamas' tax returns from 2000 to 2006, just released by the campaign. Several are pointing out the couple's charitable contributions prior to Barack Obama's big book-related payday -- in 2002, the Obamas contributed $1,050 from an adjusted gross income of $259,394, and in 2001 they gave $1,470 from an adjusted gross income of $272,759. They contributed far more in Obama's big earning year, 2005, when they gave $77,315 on an adjusted gross income of $1,655,106.
Read more here:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=M2ZhODdkMGFhYmEwMDEwM2UwMWMwMzU1ZWZjYTY0OWQ=
Or better yet read teh book - Who Really Cares if you want to become informed regarding the compassion and empathy of the left.
Hell I gave more to charity when I was in college, with an income of less than $20,000/year than Mr and Mrs all concerned gave when their combined income was over a quarter million. These people sicken me.
Posted by: JDH on March 26, 2008 07:55 AM
Please elaborate how Obama's actions that run counter to his rhetoric are a "red herring" perpetuated by "Rovians"?
I love it, if it rains when the sun should have been out, Rove's fault.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 26, 2008 09:09 AMI would say from the comments on all the posts, plus Eric' posts, the general view of the SP audience would be yes, with Cato, (now) Dinesh, and myself as the main naysayers.
In thinking about it, for myself, I wouldn't necessarily naysay Shark's premise. I have been naysaying Ferroro's premise. I would grant Shark the argument that Barack being black has contributed to the campaign narrative and makes him different than the other candidates. To me, it isn't so much whether he is too black (Wright tie-in) or too white, what I do like about him is his mixed heritage and different view point on things because of his mixed heritage and upbringing in Hawaii, which is a big melting pot of races. So to me, what I would grant Shark the point and match on these threads is that Barack would not be the person he is today if he was white and from a normal middle-class, working family background. This does raise another question that was hit on a month or two ago about education of the candidates and how Presidents lately have been Ivy League trained. Huckabee and Paul were exceptions in this crowd that made some headway with regards to staying in the race. So, the real question is can someone who went to an average ho-hum universtity or didn't go to college ever become President? I think the answer here may be no. To me, Barack's education contributes a lot more to where he is at today, than whether he is black or not.
Posted by: tc on March 26, 2008 09:12 AMHave you ever lived or been to Hawaii?
melting pot... maybe. Racisms, it's everywhere and in your face.
I'm a diver and have been there "many" times. If your not part of the group, your not welcome.
My own impression of Hawaii is that there are differences, especially if you venture out from the main tourist areas. The rural areas are very rural and still reflect more of the older plantation mentality (rich plantations with poor workers living in shacks up dirt roads).
As far as racism, there is some, but not the traditional black/white or white/hispanic that you see on the mainland. From our friends, who lived there many years after his job was transferred to Pearl Harbor, they do talk about how white girls have to be really careful, and how many of the whites send their kids to private schools. They sent their youngest son, who was just starting High School, to public school in Kailua. It was some adjustment at first, but it was more newcomer adjustment vice racial.
Their church (New Hope, which is probably the mega-church for the islands) is a big melting pot with everyone very friendly. The native Hawaii mom's are moms to everyone, probably not unlike the black moms in a black-centric church.
So, I wouldn't disagree that the Islands are absent of racial tensions, but they are different from the US and more class-oriented (rich plantation types versus natives) than based on color of skin. There are also groups that are very open and welcoming (like the New Hope congregation).
Posted by: tc on March 26, 2008 09:43 AMSure, Reagan...but he graduated from a non-Ivy league school way back in 1932 and Johnson graduated from SW Texas State.
Others went the military route, Carter and McCain are both graduates of the US Naval Academy and Eisenhower is a West Point Grad.
The Ivy Leaguers seem to be in the majority here, as both Bushes went to Yale, the younger also went to Harvard. Nixon went to Duke, Ford went to U. Mich and later to Yale. JFK & Obama both went to Harvard. Clinton attended Wesley. (Just FYI, I'm counting law school as a grad degree)
That's over 50 years of Presidents plus the current PUSA contenders, before that you have Truman as the first President since 1896 not to have a college degree.
I'm going to agree with Army here. Even with my limited time in Hawaii it was clear the natives did not like outsiders.
Though I can imagine that anyone would feel resentful if your kids could no longer afford to live on the island of your ancestors. A good number of natives become homelss and camp out right on the beach much to the chagrin of the local Govt.
"The natives hate the whites & japs."
Maybe, but they love our money. ; )
This includes graduate school contact potential, along with undergraduate. Even though it isn't technically an Ivy League school, Hillary's undergraduate school is in the same boat (i.e., exclusive school with regard to other students one may come in contact with).
A parallel (outside of Politics) would be in the computer arena. If one goes to Stanford or MIT, they potentially come in contact with the venture capitalist and influencial alumni that opens doors to future opportunities.
With regards to Hawaii, I don't disagree that their are racial tensions between natives and the whites (and as Army Medic/Vet stated, Japanese descent), but I would still contend that this is a class issue more than soley a race issue. A large portion of the population does have Japanese as part of their heritage. My guess the Japanese that are the target is the tourist/money influencing Japanese who have bought up much of the real estate in the last 20-30 years and driven the price of real estate so high. My guess is there isn't racial tension with the Japanese and Japanese descendant families that have lived on the Islands for the last 50-100 years.
Posted by: tc on March 26, 2008 11:46 AMLOL, not sure they do right now.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 26, 2008 11:46 AMAn acquaintance of Obama's family compares her with another political wife, another lawyer as it happens, with a keen interest in making money.
"Michelle is very much like Cherie Blair. She is a middle-class girl who has discovered that money is nice and doesn't see that as a contradiction with having radical beliefs," he said.
The rewards have been significant. Despite the image she projects on the Newsweek cover, Michelle owns an impressive collection of diamond jewellery, designer outfits and £400-a-pair Jimmy Choo shoes.
Are your right-wing blogs going to start examining how much do Condi's outfits cost? She's was a fashion icon for a bit after she got Secretary of State position.
I would hope America has better things to care about than how much Presidential candidates outfits cost.
I understand you hate Sen. Obama but this is bordering on absurd.
Gallup Poll: Many Democrats Ready to Vote McCain if Their First Choice Doesn't Make It to November
RAGNAR!
I post articles that mirror my opinions... and usually they say it better and with more research than I can.
and start coming up with your own opinions?
You don't look around much, do you? I suggest you start with the Public Blog.
Posted by: Ragnar on March 26, 2008 12:41 PMSo you agree with the article by Pat Buchanan that you posted. You know the one where he said that Slavery was the greatest thing that ever happened to black people.
Maybe you should come down to my neighborhood sometime and wear that on a poster board. I'd like to see how long you last. =)
However, and I already know you will squeal, the fact remains that the descendants of blacks brought to America by slaveholders are far better off today than the descendants of those living in the third world that is Africa.
Furthermore, while white Americans were indeed slave-holders we also know that some Native Americans and free blacks also held slaves. Most Native American tribal groups practiced some form of slavery before the European introduction of African slavery into North America; but none exploited slave labor on a large scale. African sold each other as slaves, admittedly, not usually from their own tribe, but like the Native Americans, enemy combatants. The reason does not discount the fact that blacks themselves were indeed slave traders.
" In fact, Europeans often acted as junior partners to African rulers, merchants, and middlemen in the slave trade along the West African coast from the mid-15th century on. "
" Domestic slave ownership as well as domestic and international slave trades in western Africa preceded the late 15th-century origins of the Atlantic slave trade. Since most West African societies did not recognize private property in land, slaves functioned as one of the only profitable means of production individuals could own. "
And just really raise your short ire, my heritage is of Italian and Austrian peasants. My Dad, born in 1927 and Mom, born in 1929, were both 1st generation Americans.
I have no dog in your slavery fight.... except to combat lies and idiocy.
Why is President Bush making a mockery our anti-drug laws!?!?
Great Orators of the Democratic Party
• "One man with courage makes a majority."--attributed to Andrew Jackson
• "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."--Franklin D. Roosevelt
• "The buck stops here."--Harry S. Truman
• "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."--John F. Kennedy
• "You know, I think that, a minor blip, you know, if I said something that, you know, I say a lot of things--millions of words a day--so if I misspoke, that was just a misstatement."--Hillary Clinton
Let's Hope No One Calls Her at 3 A.M.
"I was sleep-deprived, and I misspoke."--Hillary Clinton, quoted in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, March 25
KUDOS and credit to the WSJ.com, Best of The Web Today, March 25, 2008 -- 3:30 p.m. EDT ... via my email!
Posted by: Ragnar on March 26, 2008 01:28 PMRag:
Probably the best thing you could do to "combat lies and idiocy" would be to just stop posting.
Do you really expect us to believe that anyone on this forum is going to make their choice for president based on what the candidate's pastor may have said in their sermons over the last 20 years?
Soros-backed Blogger Mocks McCain for un-'Presidential' Teeth
By Ken Shepherd | March 26, 2008 - 13:57 ET
(h/t Moe Lane/RedState)
Liberal blogger Molly Priesmeyer may have bitten off a bit more than she can chew with a blog mocking Republican presidential candidate John McCain for his false teeth. Of course, commenters on her blog have noted that McCain's teeth were smashed out by North Vietnamese tormentors, but Priesmeyer's entry at Minnesota Monitor remains online although it obviously is in poor taste:
If bloggers are saying one thing about John McCain this week it's that the 71-year-old has some serious grit. Of course, that grit comes in the form of McCain Mouth, a deformity that apparently causes teeth to look like a mess of yellowed and contorted Chiclets. Today, BuzzFeed.com has picked up on the mouth meme, turning McCain's piano-key chompers into an official phenomenon.
The consensus? "They're old." And, "He looks like Reverend Kane from Poltergeist II." And, "Dude has had a ton of plastic surgery, can't he afford a dentist?"
Hot Air's Ed Morrissey noted today that Minnesota Monitor is funded by left-wing megamillionaire George Soros:
Furthermore, wasn't it YOU, whizzer, saying the story was a non-event... yet here we are, 16..18 days later.... perhaps if the wrong Rev Wright hadn't the hubris and greed to sell DVDs of his hate...
Posted by: Ragnar on March 26, 2008 01:54 PMI'm sure that gives you great perspective into the mind of a black man in America. Did your parents have to drink at separate water fountains? Go to separate schools from their neighbors? Did they integrate and have to be escorted in by the National Guardsmen? Doubt it.
I have no dog in your slavery fight.... except to combat lies and idiocy.
Lies and idiocy, come on. Today you were linking to some BS about Sen. Obama's wife's shoes. I'm sure you will post more of the same idiocy. Does how much she paid for her shoes really matter this election? I could really care less about anybody's shoes unless they happened to be bought with misappropriated taxpayer dollars. Since your article did not say anything of the sort, what was the point of posting such idiocy?
Seems to me you are a perfect example of someone who goes looking for people to reinforce their pre-conceived hatred via the web (since you don't read the MSM) rather than looking at all sides of the issue. I'd be willing to change my position if someone here were to provide a valid and factual argument to the contrary. I suspect your not willing to change your beliefs if Jesus himself told you you were wrong.
Speaking of Jesus, might I suggest rereading your bible, maybe start with the New Testament...say John 8:1-11. =)
With your racist tendencies you have no authority to lecture me or anyone on anything. YOU read the Bible... and actually try to comprehend it this time. I'm certain many of us can recommend Bible Study classes for you.
~~
Here ya go cato and whizzer... FOAM ON:
From: Gary Bauer
Campaign for Working Families
Date: Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Democrats Getting Desperate
As Hillary Clinton was taking flak for "misspeaking" about surviving sniper fire in Bosnia, she attempted to deflect the media's attention by putting the focus back on Barack Obama's controversial former pastor, Jeremiah
Wright. During an interview with the Pittsburg Tribune-Review, Hillary said: "I think that given all we have heard and seen, he would not have been my pastor. You don't choose your family, but you choose what church you want to attend. You know, I spoke out against Don Imus, saying that hate speech was unacceptable in any setting, and I believe that. I just think you have to speak out against that. You certainly have to do that, if not explicitly, then implicitly by getting up and moving."
With those remarks, Hillary made it clear that she is not going to "go quietly into the night" or accept defeat gracefully. In fact, she intends to claw her way back to the top even if it means "breaking Obama's back," as one Democrat strategist said off-the-record.
Last night, ABC News quoted a leading Democrat as saying, "Her securing the nomination is certainly possible - but it will require exercising the 'Tonya Harding option.' Is that really what we Democrats want?"
For those who may not recall the reference, Tonya Harding was a championship ice-skater who hired a thug to attack competitor Nancy Kerrigan. In the end, neither Harding nor Kerrigan won, suggesting that the likely beneficiary of a brutal brawl between Clinton and Obama would be John McCain. Recent polling suggests that is a possible outcome right now.
Gallup just released an analysis of surveys conducted from March 7th through the 22nd. It found that 19% of Obama supporters would vote for John McCain if Clinton wins the nomination, while 28% of Clinton supporters would vote for McCain if Obama wins the nomination.
Meanwhile, Florida Democrat Rep. Tim Mahoney said last week, "If it (the nomination process) goes into the convention, don't be surprised if someone different is at the top of the ticket." Who did Mahoney suggest as the likely "compromise candidate" should the Democrat convention
deadlock? Al Gore.
And, if that were not strange enough, Senate Democrat Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) suggested in a cryptic interview with the Las Vegas Review that "things" were being done to resolve the Democrat contest before the August convention. Reid told a reporter that it would be "easy," and said, "I had a conversation with [Democrat National Party Chairman] Governor Dean today. Things are being done." Sounds like somebody is about to be made an offer they can't refuse!
Please feel free to pass on this "End of Day" update to interested friends and family members. ... we can assume that even includes lefty moonbats.
With your racist tendencies you have no authority to lecture me or anyone on anything. YOU read the Bible... and actually try to comprehend it this time. I'm certain many of us can recommend Bible Study classes for you.
~~
Here ya go cato and whizzer... FOAM ON:
From: Gary Bauer
Campaign for Working Families
Date: Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Democrats Getting Desperate
As Hillary Clinton was taking flak for "misspeaking" about surviving sniper fire in Bosnia, she attempted to deflect the media's attention by putting the focus back on Barack Obama's controversial former pastor, Jeremiah
Wright. During an interview with the Pittsburg Tribune-Review, Hillary said: "I think that given all we have heard and seen, he would not have been my pastor. You don't choose your family, but you choose what church you want to attend. You know, I spoke out against Don Imus, saying that hate speech was unacceptable in any setting, and I believe that. I just think you have to speak out against that. You certainly have to do that, if not explicitly, then implicitly by getting up and moving."
With those remarks, Hillary made it clear that she is not going to "go quietly into the night" or accept defeat gracefully. In fact, she intends to claw her way back to the top even if it means "breaking Obama's back," as one Democrat strategist said off-the-record.
Last night, ABC News quoted a leading Democrat as saying, "Her securing the nomination is certainly possible - but it will require exercising the 'Tonya Harding option.' Is that really what we Democrats want?"
For those who may not recall the reference, Tonya Harding was a championship ice-skater who hired a thug to attack competitor Nancy Kerrigan. In the end, neither Harding nor Kerrigan won, suggesting that the likely beneficiary of a brutal brawl between Clinton and Obama would be John McCain. Recent polling suggests that is a possible outcome right now.
Gallup just released an analysis of surveys conducted from March 7th through the 22nd. It found that 19% of Obama supporters would vote for John McCain if Clinton wins the nomination, while 28% of Clinton supporters would vote for McCain if Obama wins the nomination.
Meanwhile, Florida Democrat Rep. Tim Mahoney said last week, "If it (the nomination process) goes into the convention, don't be surprised if someone different is at the top of the ticket." Who did Mahoney suggest as the likely "compromise candidate" should the Democrat convention
deadlock? Al Gore.
And, if that were not strange enough, Senate Democrat Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) suggested in a cryptic interview with the Las Vegas Review that "things" were being done to resolve the Democrat contest before the August convention. Reid told a reporter that it would be "easy," and said, "I had a conversation with [Democrat National Party Chairman] Governor Dean today. Things are being done." Sounds like somebody is about to be made an offer they can't refuse!
Please feel free to pass on this "End of Day" update to interested friends and family members. ... we can assume that even includes lefty moonbats.
My family is Irish and while they were Irish gentry, my grandfather immigrated to Canada and then Montana (giving up his birth right) at the turn of the century looking for adventure, they did suffer at the hands of the British. Hos brother immigrated to California as a priest.
My family published the Tipperary newspaper, my great grandfather's health was broken in the geol. My grandmother took over and published the paper through the time of the Easter Uprising and for the years that followed, she suffered as well at eh hands of the British. they were imprisoned for standing up to the British "authorities" on principal. They used to hide the printing plates in the kids beds to prevent them being found out by the British or the black and tans. They came by their concern for the poor people of Ireland honestly, my entire family tree on that side can be traced back to, James McCormack, (nick named James the Guerrilla) who was imprisoned for activities in the rebellion of 1640 and was to have been guest of honor at a neck tie party. He befriended a British General and was freed and had his estate restored by the crown some time later. Many of my relatives have not been so blessed in the years since then and on up through the twentieth century.
Guess what Cato, this injustice continued well into the 20th Century, more than a half century after slavery was ended in the USA.
I am not going to recite the history of Erin for you, you can look it up on your own. By God if there is one of my relatives who is sitting around sniveling about what they are "owed," I'll be damned if I have ever heard of them.
Get the f' over it.
You referring my out-of-context remarks again, how funny is that. Don't you have anything better to use against me? =P
I have read the Bible, I must say it seemed to have some good stories with good intentions. Can't seem to understand why the people who follow it are full of hate towards others. Seems like they like the morals of Jesus' message, but only when it's useful or convenient.
Florida Democrat Rep. Tim Mahoney
So your going to take the word of one party member over the entire Democratic Party process? Doubt it. Who was it who screwed up the Florida date anyway? Oh yeah, the GOP led legislature.
Her shoes matter when she whines she can't pay her school loans and has no money to send her brats to college
His kids seem very well behaved to me. I seem to recall some waitress called Sharky's kid a brat on a blog and he went apes**t. You don't even know these kids and here you are insulting them. Do you have any morals Ragnar?
She is LYING
Is she lying about how college is expensive for all Americans? Do you even consider that she might be speaking as a metaphor?
My grandmother took over and published the paper through the time of the Easter Uprising and for the years that followed.
You are related to Irish terrorists. Dully noted for future discussions on terrorism.
Also, your family's suffering in Ireland circa 1916 is a long way from the suffering of blacks in America circa 1964. Seems to me the Irish were not put in chains and sold as a commodity on the open market. Oppressed yes, suffering, not remotely close. Nice try though. =)
I cannot name a single solitary ethnic group that has not suffered at some point.
How about WASP's? Oh wait, they suffer because due to Johhny going to Yale on a Legacy Admission he doesn't have the grades for a scholarship. Meanwhile the 3rd BMW is in need repairs so they can't afford the Country Club dues this month.
I'm sure that's some serious suffering. =)
~~
oh boo hoo... 'can't call the kids brats'... why yes I can!
It's really cute the way you mix and match the words to suit your convenience. Do use an anagram server to help?
Your comment, from which you lumber away like cow with its tail afire...and of which you are too coward to own, were absolutely taken in context. You didn't like the site or what the authors had to say so instead you denigrated their immutable characteristics. That makes you a backpeddling racist, cowardly, burning bovine.
February 26, 2008
What WAS Ken Hutcherson trying to say?
146. Oh look it's our good friend Jamal McCoy from "Zero Can't Win" posting on FreeRepublic.com, which is a known Republican site.
Lets see who is behind Stop-Obama.org? Oh wait we can't...it's blocked by this company. Wonder why?
Maybe because it's a site of made up personalties like Juanita Gonzales (token hispanic woman?), Jamal McCoy (token black guy?), Gregory Chang (token asian guy?), & Jeffrey Goldberg (token jewish guy?).
It's funny how they have one person who reflects every Democrat demographic yet they all have very generic names that turn up nothing when you look for them in Google. Looks like a load of BS to me, unlike SoundPolitics.com which fully discloses it's information. Props to Stefan. -Posted by: Cato on February 29, 2008 01:42 PM
Or... maybe it was your alter-ego burning bovine that tapped out that ugliness!
Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on March 26, 2008 04:15 PMI'm sure you can, but would you can Stephan's kid a brat? Doubt it.
Your comment, from which you lumber away like cow with its tail afire...and of which you are too coward to own, were absolutely taken in context.
I'm not lumbering away from anything, do tell me how calling fake people on a fake website token's is racist? Maybe you should stop toking your bong. =)
Looks like Sound Politics valiant effort to paint Sen. Obama as some sort of racist is failing. If anything Sen. Obama's speech dealing with "Race in America" made him even more popular.
We still have a long way till November, gives you plenty of time to keep trying.
In 1964 they were putting people in chains and selling them as commodities?
You presume that the Irish never experienced slavery but once again you are wrong.
You might actually read about it before you spout off about it:
"Banishment, however, did not solve the problem entirely, so James II encouraged selling the Irish as slaves to planters and settlers in the New World colonies. The first Irish slaves were sold to a settlement on the Amazon River In South America in 1612. It would probably be more accurate to say that the first "recorded" sale of Irish slaves was in 1612, because the English, who were noted for their meticulous record keeping, simply did not keep track of things Irish, whether it be goods or people, unless such was being shipped to England. The disappearance of a few hundred or a few thousand Irish was not a cause for alarm, but rather for rejoicing. Who cared what their names were anyway, they were gone."
Posted by: pbj on March 26, 2008 04:39 PMYou prefer WIKIPEDIA, so here is a reference for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servant
In addition to African slaves, Europeans, mostly Irish,[2] Scottish,[3] English, and Germans, were brought over in substantial numbers as indentured servants,[4] particularly in the British Thirteen Colonies.[5] Over half of all white immigrants to the English colonies of North America during the 17th and 18th centuries consisted of indentured servants.[6]
On the journey to America, people aboard the ship sailing were given a portion of food set to last 2 weeks, with no opportunity for more, and no care as to the lives of those who finished their rations early. Many passengers did not survive the trip to the new land. Some died of starvation, disease, or suicide. In Colonial North America, employers usually paid for European workers' passage across the Atlantic Ocean, reimbursing the shipowner who held their papers of indenture. In the process many families were broken apart. During the time living with their masters, their fellow indentured servants took the role of family. In return, laborers agreed to work for a specified number of years. The agreement could also be an exchange for professional training: after being the indentured servant of a blacksmith for several years, one would expect to work as a blacksmith on one's own account after the period of indenture was over. During the 17th century, most of the white labourers in Virginia came from England this way. Their masters were bound to feed, clothe, and lodge them. Ideally, an indentured servant's lot in the establishment would be no harder than that of a contemporary apprentice, who was similarly bound by contract and owed hard, unpaid labour while "serving his time." At the end of the allotted time, an indentured servant was to be given a new suit of clothes, tools, or money, and freed.
On the other hand, this ideal was not always a reality for indentured servants. Both male and female laborers could be subject to violence, occasionally even resulting in death. Female indentured servants in particular might be raped and/or sexually abused by their masters. Cases of successful prosecution for these crimes were very uncommon, as indentured servants were unlikely to have access to a magistrate, and social pressure to avoid such brutality could vary by geography and cultural norm. The situation was particularly difficult for indentured women, because in both low social class and sex, they were believed to be particularly prone to vice, making legal redress unusual.
Posted by: pbj on March 26, 2008 04:44 PM
I am sure Stefan will be happy to note that the WSJ checks with Sound Politics to get the pulse of America. His ad rates should go up!
Nice propaganda ploy, but the big lie won't work.
According to gallup:
If McCain vs. Obama, 28% of Clinton Backers Go for McCain
The Donner Party Democrat feast continues. * BURP*
Democrat Jim McDermott, Democrat David Bonnier and Democrat Mike Thompson all had the Iraqi Intelligence Service paying for their trip to Baghdad in which Democrat traitor McDermott demounced his nation on foreign soil right before the US was to go to war.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080326/D8VLDCNG0.html
US: Saddam Paid for Lawmakers' Iraq Trip
Mar 26, 7:01 PM (ET)
By MATT APUZZO
EXCERPT:
WASHINGTON (AP) - Saddam Hussein's intelligence agency secretly financed a trip to Iraq for three U.S. lawmakers during the run-up to the U.S.-led invasion, federal prosecutors said Wednesday.
An indictment unsealed in Detroit accuses Muthanna Al-Hanooti, a member of a Michigan nonprofit group, of arranging for three members of Congress to travel to Iraq in October 2002 at the behest of Saddam's regime. Prosecutors say Iraqi intelligence officials paid for the trip through an intermediary.
Posted by: pbj on March 26, 2008 04:58 PMNo, they were just being beaten and sprayed down with fire hoses for exercising their 1st Amendment rights.
i>You presume that the Irish never experienced slavery but once again you are wrong.
Looks like I was wrong. I did not know of Irish were sold as slaves.
The disappearance of a few hundred or a few thousand Irish was not a cause for alarm, but rather for rejoicing.
I'm sure they were, they got rid of a bunch of rebellious terrorists like your relatives. =)
Was slavery the best thing that ever happened to the Irish? Mr. Buchanan seems to imply that about Africans and you agreed, would you say the same about the Irish?
Cato, you're shooting blind, blasting any target you find. You got me confused with someone else. I never said that and I don't generally listen to anything Pat Buchanan has to say. I merely caught you spouting off something incorrect (once again) and had to correct you.
You're welcome.
Posted by: pbj on March 26, 2008 05:10 PMhttp://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/whtslav.htm
WHEN EUROPEANS WERE SLAVES: RESEARCH SUGGESTS WHITE SLAVERY WAS MUCH MORE COMMON THAN PREVIOUSLY BELIEVED
COLUMBUS, Ohio - A new study suggests that a million or more European Christians were enslaved by Muslims in North Africa between 1530 and 1780 - a far greater number than had ever been estimated before.
In a new book, Robert Davis, professor of history at Ohio State University, developed a unique methodology to calculate the number of white Christians who were enslaved along Africa's Barbary Coast, arriving at much higher slave population estimates than any previous studies had found.
Most other accounts of slavery along the Barbary coast didn't try to estimate the number of slaves, or only looked at the number of slaves in particular cities, Davis said. Most previously estimated slave counts have thus tended to be in the thousands, or at most in the tens of thousands. Davis, by contrast, has calculated that between 1 million and 1.25 million European Christians were captured and forced to work in North Africa from the 16th to 18th centuries.
Davis's new estimates appear in the book Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters: White Slavery in the Mediterranean, the Barbary Coast, and Italy, 1500-1800 (Palgrave Macmillan).
"One of the things that both the public and many scholars have tended to take as given is that slavery was always racial in nature - that only blacks have been slaves. But that is not true," Davis said. "We cannot think of slavery as something that only white people did to black people."
Posted by: pbj on March 26, 2008 05:15 PMWhy, he was right...Iraq was not an imminent threat. Iraq didn't have any WMD's, nor were they a threat to the US.
The Iraqi Govt. has been deposed, can you charge him for a "crime" paid for by a Govt. that no longer exists?
Even if McDermott goes, Ed Murray would just step up and take his spot. Then you'd have another openly gay representative in Congress. Looks like a loose-loose situation for the GOP.
Even Americans were not immune. For example, one American slave reported that 130 other American seamen had been enslaved by the Algerians in the Mediterranean and Atlantic just between 1785 and 1793.
Davis said the vast scope of slavery in North Africa has been ignored and minimized, in large part because it is on no one's agenda to discuss what happened.
The enslavement of Europeans doesn't fit the general theme of European world conquest and colonialism that is central to scholarship on the early modern era, he said. Many of the countries that were victims of slavery, such as France and Spain, would later conquer and colonize the areas of North Africa where their citizens were once held as slaves. Maybe because of this history, Western scholars have thought of the Europeans primarily as "evil colonialists" and not as the victims they sometimes were, Davis said.
Posted by: pbj on March 26, 2008 05:17 PMFunny, most Democrat didn't think so:
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source
"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 | Source
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 | Source
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 | Source
"The Iraqi Govt. has been deposed, can you charge him for a "crime" paid for by a Govt. that no longer exists?"
McDermot collaborated with an enemy. Would anyone who cooperated with Imperial Japan be untouchable? I think not. McDermott, the illegal wiretapping, traitor needs to be imprisoned.
Even if McDermott goes, Ed Murray would just step up and take his spot. Then you'd have another openly gay representative in Congress. Looks like a loose-loose situation for the GOP.
Posted by: pbj on March 26, 2008 05:22 PMWell, Barney Frank wouldn't be lonely on Saturday nights.
Posted by: pbj on March 26, 2008 05:24 PMSure, if you count all the Limbaugh crowd who voted for Hillary to stop Obama. I'd imagine they'd switch back quicker than they switched their party registration. =)
Besides, McCain still has to stand behind a great number Bush's failed domestic and international polices. Remember Reagan's advice..."are you better off than you were four years ago?".
You got me confused with someone else.
Oh yeah, your right. You are PBJ, the raving anti-Semite who can't do basic math and thinks that wearing Chinese made American Flag lapel pins are the be all end all of true American patriotism. Silly me.
No, I am PBJ, the one that exposed your fake link on the "Name that Party" thread which you went runing from like a schoolgirl who scraped her knee. I am the one who exposed your lie that USA today never mentioned Jim West as a Republican in the same thread.
I am PBJ that showed you have no clue about slavery, yet you spout off every chance you get.
Finally, I am PBJ that pointed out you are too stoned to even remember the name of people you are responding to.
And you are Cato, the ignorant anti-american racist apologist who has only red herrings and straw men to offer up. Wash that down with your liberal nutroots Kol-Aid and you will have a meal fit for a traitor such as yourself.
I see your a homophobe in addition to an anti-Semite. Doesn't your brother-in-law have a special word for people like you?
fake link on the "Name that Party" thread
Haha, fake link? Lay off the crack pipe. ;)
I am PBJ that showed you have no clue about slavery, yet you spout off every chance you get.
I stand corrected on Irish and white slaves. That doesn't prove anything. The Irish never had to drink in separate fountains or be led to school by a regiment of National Guardsmen.
I am PBJ that pointed out you are too stoned to even remember the name of people you are responding to.
It was a simple mistake. Lots of people gang up on me here. I can't imagine why. Occasionally it's becomes difficult to keep track of who posted what.
Cato, the ignorant anti-american racist apologist who has only red herrings and straw men to offer up.
That's a lot of buzzwords, you been taking lessons from Ragnar? Maybe that's the reason I got you two confused. =)
Oh please. Is that your excuse? You get to be the arbiter of what's real?
Yay! You excel at being a 4yr old... any child psychologist will tell you they will look you in the eye and and truly believe they did not eat the damned chocolate while their hands and faces are smeared with it.
Your cowardly little dance to avoid your own words is getting to be a caricature...
Be a man cato, for once in your life BE A MAN, admit you said vile ugly things and apologize.... and maybe we'll allow you to move on from your racism
Posted by: RagnarDanneskjold on March 26, 2008 07:03 PMLet's see, people claiming to be Journalists who post under fake names (they don't show up in Google, wonder why?) on an anonymous website. Hmmmm. Hard to be a "token" racist when we're talking about fake people.
Be a man cato, for once in your life BE A MAN, admit you said vile ugly things and apologize
Apologize for what? Calling fake people tokens? I don't think so.
history of the Irish in America
Since your so big on Irish History maybe you can answer the question I asked PBJ...Was slavery the best thing that ever happened to the Irish?
By Newt Gingrich
As promised last week, I'm responding to Senator Obama's recent speech from Philadelphia with a speech at the American Enterprise Institute today. You can read more about the speech here.
We just found out that C-SPAN 2 will be covering the speech, LIVE. You can watch it on your TV or at the c-span website, www.c-span.org.
I hope you can tune in.
Your friend,
Newt Gingrich
That's true, but McDermot opposed the Iraq War. Five years in, I don't see flowers at our feet or WMD's. Looks like he showed all those other folks who voted for the war.
McDermot collaborated with an enemy
He did by proxy...that's a quite a bit different. I'm not familiar with the laws surrounding this. Seems like if he received the trip via what appeared to be a legit non-profit group he would be off the hook. Especially after the massive vetting of non-profits by the FBI after 9/11.
McDermott, the illegal wiretapping, traitor needs to be imprisoned.
How is he a traitor? In the end he was right. You were duped along into the war along with the rest of the nitwits. He went, assessed the situation, and determined Bush intelligence information was false (which was discovered several years later).
By your definition every member of the NY Symphony Orchestra are traitors because they cooperated with the N. Korean Govt. (who we're technically still at war with) to have a musical concert there.
I doubt anything will happen to McDermott and he wins his seat again by an 80% margin.
Internet liberalism is a cauldron of hatred, as evidenced by reading HuffPo, Kos and HA...
The site is controversial, it is standing against your cults current golden boy and they have every right to expect and protect themselves from angry impotent cultists. People at Kos have bragged about sabataging other sites.
Furthermore, YOU don't write under your real name... that must make you a TOKEN coward. Post your real name here, racist-coward and let us 'google' it. Post your daddy's name, post your great aunt Freda's name, post your kids name... we'll do some searches. Oh gee, what do you want to bet that, A. you value your privacy too much to post them, and B. even if you did have the courage to post them a search would turn up NOTHING.... except maybe your address and phone number... Oh gee, now let me think, would cato, racist-coward want that public when he says unpopular, controversial things?
Really cato, racist-coward, having to repeatedly explain the obvious to you (clearly you're no 'quick grasp of the obvious' Dick Tracy) is getting tedious... still entertaining, but tedious.
February 26, 2008
What WAS Ken Hutcherson trying to say?
146. Oh look it's our good friend Jamal McCoy from "Zero Can't Win" posting on FreeRepublic.com, which is a known Republican site.
Lets see who is behind Stop-Obama.org? Oh wait we can't...it's blocked by this company. Wonder why?
Maybe because it's a site of made up personalties like Juanita Gonzales (token hispanic woman?), Jamal McCoy (token black guy?), Gregory Chang (token asian guy?), & Jeffrey Goldberg (token jewish guy?).
It's funny how they have one person who reflects every Democrat demographic yet they all have very generic names that turn up nothing when you look for them in Google. Looks like a load of BS to me, unlike SoundPolitics.com which fully discloses it's information. Props to Stefan. -Posted by: Cato on February 29, 2008 01:42 PM
Your cowardly little dance to avoid your own words is getting to be a caricature...
Be a man cato, for once in your life BE A MAN, admit you said vile ugly things and apologize.... and maybe we'll allow you to move on from your racism.
Posted by: RagnarDanneskjold on March 27, 2008 09:45 AMFurthermore, it's not only possible, but entirely plausible that the site was actually created by desperate Hillary supporters. Oh gee, would they want to hide that?
Posted by: RagnarDanneskjold on March 27, 2008 09:52 AMYes, the fake link in POST #48 in THIS THREAD
GO ahead and click your FAKE LINK.
Posted by: pbj on March 27, 2008 10:13 AMIt doesn't matter who it was created by. The "token" people who write for it are false.
Now Rangar, Here is the definition of "racism"...now tell me which aspect of the definition applies here?
The guy who set it up was working with Iraqi intelligence. McDermott was used as a tool. He is the Iraq version of Tokyo Rose.
Posted by: pbj on March 27, 2008 10:19 AMI have no interest in having any further conversation with you. Your reliance one nonsequeter after another may make an impression on and are probably only interesting to discuss by the breed of halfwits that populate a) the readership of the NYT, b) Hollywood, c)people who watch network television, CNN, or MSNBC d) contribute to the hate filled rhetoric on leftwing blogs, e) attend church services wherein sermons similar to those documented as being delivered by Jeremiah Wright etc.
Why not go where you will be appreciated you sub-moronic racist POS.
How is he a traitor? In the end he was right. You were duped along into the war along with the rest of the nitwits. He went, assessed the situation, and determined Bush intelligence information was false (which was discovered several years later).
I bet Benedict Arnold wishes he had you advocating for him.
"By your definition every member of the NY Symphony Orchestra are traitors because they cooperated with the N. Korean Govt. (who we're technically still at war with) to have a musical concert there."
What a terrible analogy. The NY Symphony Orchestra didn't appear on NK tv denouncing their country prior to an invasion. In all the time you have been posting here, this takes the cake as the dumbest, most ignorant analogy you have concocted.
I doubt anything will happen to McDermott and he wins his seat again by an 80% margin.
I disagree. He will win by 95% His district is populated with America hater, real life traitors.
Posted by: pbj on March 27, 2008 10:24 AMOooh fake link...looks more like I entered wrong. Why don't you go into the page HTML and find the text of the link. That will lead you to the page I put in.
I think the word your brother-in-law would use to describe you is Shoteh
by Michael Goldfarb
EXCERPT:
Last night came the news that Saddam Hussein's regime paid for a high-profile trip taken by three congressional Democrats to Baghdad in the fall of 2002. The visit, by Democratic Representatives David Bonior, Jim Thompson, and Jim McDermott, was brokered by Muthanna al Hanooti, a Michigan resident with close ties to the Iraqi regime. Hanooti is being prosecuted for spying on behalf of Saddam's regime.
Reacting to the latest news, Mike DeCesare, a spokesman for Jim McDermott, one of the three congressmen, said his boss wasn't aware that the money came from Saddam Hussein's regime when he accepted it. He told me the same thing in 2004, when I asked him about the $5,000 McDermott had accepted for his legal defense fund from Shakir al Khafaji, one of Saddam Hussein's biggest U.S. boosters before the war. Khafaji, who accompanied the congressmen and made the arrangements for their visit, had run "expatriate" conferences in Baghdad for Saddam as recently as 2000. He also provided $400,000 to former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter for Ritter's propaganda film on behalf of the former Iraqi regime. In an interview back in 2001, Ritter told me that Khafaji was "openly sympathetic" with Saddam Hussein.
All of this was public record -- available to the lawmakers with a Google or Nexis search. But they went anyway. Reacting to the news yesterday, Jim Thompson pleaded ignorance.
Posted by: pbj on March 27, 2008 10:27 AMOur little liberals are the BEST FREE ENTERTAINMENT...well, in the case of cato, racist coward, BEST FREE AMUSEMENT!
Be a man cato, for once in your life BE A MAN, admit you said vile ugly things and apologize.... and maybe we'll allow you to move on from your racism.
Posted by: RagnarDanneskjold on March 27, 2008 10:34 AM