See other (s)Elections Articles
Title: OBAMA GETTING HIGH ON THE DOWN LOW
Source:
YOU TUBE
URL Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVeFVtcdSYY
Published: Jan 30, 2008
Author: HOUNDDAWG Q. SCHWARTZ
Post Date: 2008-01-30 23:36:37 by HOUNDDAWG
Keywords: None
Views: 2267
Comments: 122
Poster Comment: The "respectable" media ignores this the same way they ignored Clinton's "bimbo eruptions" before he was elected.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-81) not displayed.
.
.
.
#82. To: buckeye (#81)
So you won't give Obama any credit for having spoken out forcefully against the Iraq war in 2002, even naming Wolfowitz and Perle by name (now that was really an unpopular thing to do)? Because in your opinion, he was following the orders of CFR?
'He will make Cheney look like Gandhi.' Iraq is quickly moving into the past. We must keep our eyes on the future. Obama has discussed invading Pakistan, and he has talked of sending billions of dollars in US aid to Africa. He has also talked about using US troops under UN command in Africa. These are future areas of conflict, and Obama has left himself wide open to movement in that area. He also has our stay in Iraq covered, because he has declined to give a time line for withdrawal.
$18 billion dollars a month is in the past? McCain is talking about 100 years of war!
'He will make Cheney look like Gandhi.' You're focused on what you want to hear. Obama may be out of office before his popular talk of withdrawal happens. Meanwhile, he may have us embroiled in Pakistan and Africa, which are both of great strategic value. If all you care about is the Iraq war, Obama may be of some help to you. If you care about stopping the use of America's political, industrial, and military force as a tool for achieving global government, you will run as far away from supporting Obama as you can. In the long run, wars and domestic tyranny are how global government will be achieved.
And you think McCain and Hillary, especially McCain, will keep us out of other wars? McCain has repeatedly promised us 100 years of wars. I think Obama's comments once about striking terrorists in Pakistan was a mistake. He hasn't repeated it to my knowledge. Barack Obama Prefers Cooperation Abroad WASHINGTON (AP) — Based on his Senate history, Barack Obama as president would likely push to expand human rights and reduce poverty abroad using cooperation rather than confrontation. If foreign events permit. ... "While his efforts on the committee don't always get headlines, he's worked across the aisle on critical issues like nuclear nonproliferation, pressing (then-U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay) Khalilzad for a commitment for no permanent bases in Iraq, stopping the genocide in Darfur, and bringing war criminals to justice," said Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor. But critics say Obama's brief experience in the Senate leaves voters in the dark about how he would handle foreign policy. They also attack some of his positions as naive, including his expressed willingness to meet leaders of Iran, Syria, Cuba, Venezuela and North Korea in his first year of office. ... Confronting claims he's light on foreign policy experience, the senator has surrounded himself with well-known foreign policy advisers, including several who served in the Clinton administration: former national security adviser Tony Lake, former Navy Secretary Richard Danzig and Susan Rice, who was assistant secretary of state for African affairs. Obama's chief foreign policy adviser on the campaign is Denis McDonough, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. McDonough took the job after Mark Lippert, a Navy reservist, was called to serve in Iraq. When not campaigning, the senator often used full committee hearings to express his opposition to the Iraq war or his concern about the Bush administration's policy toward Iran.
'He will make Cheney look like Gandhi.' I have never suggested that. None of us are required to give any of these puppets our mandate.
First you're assuming he means what he's saying. I wouldn't do that with a CFR-affiliated candidate. Obama, in Oct of 2002, as a young man, just turned 41, early into his political career spoke out vociferously against the war. He had the foresight and the political courage to say to the old establishment politicians that it was a mistake when virtually no one else said a mumbling word. What did that gain him politically at that moment? McCain is CFR ... do you disbelieve him when he says we'll be there a hundred years? he has also said that he would not give a timetable for our departure from Iraq. He supports a plan to immediately begin troop withdrawal from Iraq at a pace of one or two brigades a month, to be completed by the end of 2008. It's right there on his website. Which other candidate has been more specific?
Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot
Do you disbelieve Obama when he says we should use our military, presumably under UN command, to prevent genocide in Africa?
Yes, it's Hillary who won't give a timeline for withdrawing our troops.
'He will make Cheney look like Gandhi.' Are you referring to this? Obama: If U.S. troops good for Iraq, why not Africa? by Mike Dorning Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said last night that fears of widespread sectarian and ethnic conflict in Iraq following a U.S. troop drawdown are not sufficient reason to justify the continued deployment of a large U.S. millitary force there. The Illinois senator argued that logic, used by some supporters of the war in Iraq, was inconsistent with the U.S. military posture toward countries in the midst of genodical conflict, such as Congo and Sudan. "Well, look, if that’s the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces, then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now — where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic strife — which we haven’t done,” Obama said in an interview with The Associated Press. “We would be deploying unilaterally and occupying the Sudan, which we haven’t done. Those of us who care about Darfur don’t think it would be a good idea,” he said. Obama acknowledged it is likely there would be increased bloodshed if U.S. forces left Iraq. “Nobody is proposing we leave precipitously. There are still going to be U.S. forces in the region that could intercede, with an international force, on an emergency basis,” Obama said between stops on the first of two days scheduled on the New Hampshire campaign trail. “There’s no doubt there are risks of increased bloodshed in Iraq without a continuing U.S. presence there.” The greater risk is staying in Iraq, Obama said. “It is my assessment that those risks are even greater if we continue to occupy Iraq and serve as a magnet for not only terrorist activity but also irresponsible behavior by Iraqi factions,” he said.
'He will make Cheney look like Gandhi.' What does he mean, robin? He has said we should work to stop genocide in Africa. This will be under UN command. That's American troops fighting in blue helmets and taking orders from non-American commanders.
'He will make Cheney look like Gandhi.' That's clear. We would do it using the UN. American troops fighting in blue helmets, taking orders from non-American commanders.
He said it would not be a good idea to deploy troops.
'He will make Cheney look like Gandhi.' Unilaterally. That's diplomatic speak for "without multilateral agreement." The easiest way to secure multilateral agreements, especially if they favor progress toward global government, is in the UN.
What makes me think you guys are not going to apologize? Don't you want to wait for the second examiner's results? We may find that the results say more about the examiners' politics than Larry Sinclair. For instance, suppose the examiner is a closet homophobe conservo who is concerned more about alienating the establishment and possibly the future prez than at sustaining the assertions of someone he personally despises. After all, one former polygraph expert-turned critic calls polygraph "A mechanical Charlie McCarthy" and claims that it's most effective when people refuse to take it! Here is something to consider: "The dirty little secret behind the polygraph is that the "test" depends on trickery, not science. The person being "tested" is not supposed to know that while the polygraph operator declares that all questions must be answered truthfully, warning that the slightest hint of deception will be detected, he secretly assumes that denials in response to certain questions -- called "control" questions -- will be less than truthful. An example of a commonly used control question is, "Did you ever lie to get out of trouble?" The polygrapher steers the examinee into a denial by warning, for example, that anyone who would do so is the same kind of person who would commit the kind of behavior that is under investigation and then lie about it. But secretly, it is assumed that everyone has lied to get out of trouble. The polygraph pens don't do a special dance when a person lies. The polygrapher scores the test by comparing physiological responses (breathing, blood pressure, heart, and perspiration rates) to these probable-lie control questions with reactions to relevant questions such as, "Did you ever commit an act of espionage against the United States?" (commonly asked in security screening). If the former reactions are greater, the examinee passes; if the latter are greater, he fails. If responses to both "control" and relevant questions are about the same, the result is deemed inconclusive. The test also includes irrelevant questions such as, "Are the lights on in this room?" The polygrapher falsely explains that such questions provide a "baseline for truth," because the true answer is obvious. But in reality, they are not scored at all! They merely serve as buffers between pairs of relevant and "control" questions. The simplistic methodology used in polygraph testing has no grounding in the scientific method: it is no more scientific than astrology or tarot cards. Government agencies value it because people who don't realize it's a fraud sometimes make damaging admissions. But as a result of reliance on this voodoo science, the truthful are often falsely branded as liars while the deceptive pass through." Although I know these things, I don't know that Larry Sinclair does, or how truthfully he answered the so called control questions, or how much of the so called "deception" was based on those as opposed to the actual test which he may have passed with flying colors. Polygraphs are supposed to have a follow up report detailing the reasons for pass, fail, or inconclusive results. The absence of a detailed report but this advanced leak, possibly to intimidate the other examiner and skew his results may say more about the examiner than Larry Sinclair. Do you think that some asshole who is afraid of being dropped from the federal speakers' luncheon circuit would engage in deception if he deemed it necessary to protect his credentials? It will be interesting to see if the other examiner will be influenced by the fact that the first to blab his results is a "Former President of the American Polygraph Association". Perhaps that was the intention of this examiner who jumped the gun and it is he, more so than Sinclair who has a hidden agenda. If anything, the fact that Sinclair was willing to test at all says more than any "interpretation" by a state worshiper whose livelihood depends on selling snake oil. Update: I (Mr. Maschke) have posted to YouTube the following commentary on why -- pass or fail -- Mr. Sinclair's polygraph results will be evidence of nothing: So, before demanding an apology perhaps the first examiner should explain how he knows that the second examiner will "confirm his results" and "Did the deception he "found" have to do with the control questions to which he expected Sinclair, and in fact all examinees to lie?" And, before you declare Obama the victim perhaps since you seem to put so much faith in a polygraph, (in fact a preliminary and ambiguous leak that serves your needs and possibly the examiner's as well) you should insist that Obama submit to a polygraph! ("Oh no, we don't want that!", aristeides and iconoclast cry!) If anything, the two examiners now have considerable motivation to agree, lest they only cancel each other and further discredit their chosen "profession". The first examiner had to know that when he leaked this stuff, and he has only succeeded in impeaching his own professionalism as a result. The test could have been useful if Sinclair took it and Obama was asked but refused. But now someone has unilaterally defeated the whole line of inquiry and allowed Obama an escape chute, (while ostensibly protecting their polygraph racket) and this examiner cannot claim ignorance of that fact or innocence for his actions.
I see I was right. (I happen not to have much faith in polygraphs myself. But I'm not the one who first made the claim on this thread that Sinclair had passed his polygraph test. That's why I thought an apology was in order.)
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
A truly unusual and unique pairing of words More slippery deception from you? Don't you ever tire of that? Okay, I'll play the game and ferret you out one more time: If your post (which is the equivalent of raising a skeptical eyebrow) were to be expounded upon and you were foolish enough to get caught defending political pragmatism at this point in history, you would very quickly drown in moral quicksand. Of course you know that which is why you stopped after 8 words. Now, either my "unusual and unique pairing of words" can be fairly and openly criticized or they cannot. Well, which is it, Mr. Pragmatic And Slippery? it is my position that pragmatism is responsible for the worst things that we see today, and are a poor substitute for moral absolutes. So, iconoclast, do you A) agree with this, or B) disagree with this. Your truthful or slippery and pragmatic answer will make my case either way.
Well, I'm not going to read the thread to find out who that was if in fact anyone made that assertion. And, if the opposite result had been leaked would you apologize and say, "Gee I guess I was wrong about Obama!"? No, you had your skepticism about polygraph in ready reserve just in case. So, it would appear that Obama isn't the only one who will deny this at all costs, "and by any means necessary." I understand his reasons, but yours are a mystery to me. How can you possibly believe that he or any other politician, particularly a DEM or a PUB, particularly one from Cook County, particularly one who has already metamorphosed from a Palestinian sympathizer to "Israel's newest and bestest buddy" is incapable of self serving dishonesty and therefore incapable of illicit drug use and sexual encounters? Why would you assume that he is a victim and that is the more likely scenario rather than the possibility that Sinclair is telling the truth? Can you tell by looking at someone if they are totally honest, have an absence of narcissistic tendencies and are totally hetero in their orientation? Or, do you know Obama personally and are willing to vouch for his character? If the answer to either question is no, then, are you simply failing to reveal your own political agenda and pragmatic methods in support of same?
If there were anything behind Sinclair's claims, one of Obama's opponents -- a Hillary supporter, a McCain supporter, somebody -- would have made that very clear by now. And letting this charge just sit out there is something very characteristic of the games the Clinton people pull.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
That does not logically follow for two reasons. First, McCain and Clinton both have considerable dirty laundry and if they open that book then they invite retaliation and examination of their secrets. And, Why should they go negative (especially after Hillary was booed by Democrats for that recently) when they can simply sit and wait and hope that Sinclair torpedoes Obama for them while they stay on the sidelines keeping their skirts nicely starched and clean? And, "followers" of McCain and Hillary aren't likely to have any more proof than you or I. But, let's suppose that a gay prostitute-Hillary supporter does have proof. How would it benefit Hillary to come forward and say, "I'm gay trade and I support Hillary, and I also went South on Obama!"? Are homosexual prostitutes incapable of lying, or would that individual simply be asking for the same savage treatment that's being heaped on Larry Sinclair now? If someone did that, would you and others who support 'Racky be any more likely to believe him than you do Sinclair? If not, then why would you even suggest this as a way to strengthen the case against Obama, when you'd be among the first to attack such a source? You need to step back and take a breather. You're getting frantic and it shows.
Frantic? Because of the testimony of one extremely untrustworthy source?
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
I see that you edited your post with the above remark. So, Hillary can't win (with you) unless she comes to Obama's defense? The last time she defended someone accused of sexual misconduct she wound up with (something on a blue dress and) egg on her face. And what obligation does she have to defend her opponent, when the charges may again be proven true?
No, because you are suggesting that polygraph proves something while simultaneously waiting to attack it, and then suggesting that if another Hillary or McCain "supporter" supported Sinclair's charges that would strengthen the case against Obama when we both know that you'd attack such a source as readily as you're attacking Sinclair now! And, in your frantic search for purchase on that rocky precipice you don't even see that you're contradicting yourself.
I've been making calm, short posts. Before you accuse somebody else of being frantic, I suggest you look at your own long posts. If somebody here is frantic, it's not me.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
If somebody here is frantic, it's not me. My posts are filled with logical points that you cannot refute except with contradictory posts that are necessarily brief because you have no defense.
If you attach so much importance to the testimony of one extremely untrustworthy witness, unsupported, as far as I know, by any other testimony, evidence, or witness, I'm not going to waste my breath trying any further to show you your error. I will just observe once more that my prediction that there would be no apologies has turned out to be accurate.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Ari... If not frantic, would in denial be apt?
In denial? Do you believe this Franklin guy?
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Ari... I did'nt even read it. Just sat down, read your post and HAD to zing you. I will read it tho.
A truly unusual and unique pairing of words More slippery deception from you? I have never seen those two words used together. Totally impossible.
I'm removing this post because I'm not certain that I get the meaning of Cynicom's post.
????????????????????????????
Sorry. The words "totally impossible" threw me for a sec. Then, I realized that you were not involved in this exchange and were merely making an observation. (right?)
Indeed... There is no way any intelligent person would attempt to attach the two words. totally impossible.
There is no way any intelligent person would attempt to attach the two words. totally impossible. So, it's your position that "pragmatism" is always a good thing, and cannot and is not ever abused? Very well. I won't argue that point. Suffice to say that I don't agree with that, and it would be a simple matter to prove my point. But, I'd love to hear why you feel the way you do. Unfortunately, (I believe that) there is no way for you to defend it but with sarcasm, and vaingloriously using yourself as an example of intelligence. Is it possible that you're only comfortable with cliches with which you are familiar, and you confuse your own calcified memories with a benchmark for intelligence? Or, are you "intelligent enough" to explain why the two words in conjunction are unworkable?
Good heavens no.... I am a pragmatist but there is no such thing as immoral pragmatism. That is like saying, "you have immoral blindness". I may be immoral and blind but one cannot connect the two.
I re-read your post. A or B Damned if I know for sure. On a second reading I think it was sarcastic(?). But it was so drenched in filth that the sarcasm was lost. So accept a conditional apology. And take heed for future posts.
Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot
If my use of the phrase isn't enough then here it is used by Stefan Molyneux: "The immoral pragmatism involved in making a living by corrupting the young is so ghastly that it can only be sustained by completely separating theory from practice. When you want to keep doing bad things, you must separate your self-justifying theories from your empirical actions, otherwise your guilt and self-hatred will arise and compel you to change your behaviour. You must numb your conscience by repeating over and over that morality has nothing to do with practicality – but only because the practicality that you have chosen is completely immoral." link And, from the book AUSCHWITZ-A New History by Laurence Rees: "Rees determines that a terrible immoral pragmatism characterized many of the decisions that determined what happened at Auschwitz. Thus the story of the camp becomes a morality tale, too, in which evil is shown to proceed in a series of deft, almost noiseless incremental steps until it produces the overwhelming horror of the industrial scale slaughter that was inflicted in the gas chambers of Auschwitz." link And BTW, blindness is a morally neutral state. Pragmatism is not by definition or as a necessity morally neutral, despite your obvious unfamiliarity with this fact. And, Checkmate!
And BTW, blindness is a morally neutral state. Moral or immoral cannot be subscribed to blindness any more than it can be used to describe pragmatism. Neutral means nothing as it has no descriptive value whatsoever. You may well have immoral behavior as it defines substantive human value. You have feet but they are not moral or immoral. By the way the person you quote is someone I have never heard of. So you have your opinion, I have mine and I am familiar with a lot of things.
I see you chose to reply with a total bullshit non sequitur instead of an apology. Obviously, I'm aware that pragmatism can be morally neutral which is why I qualified, modified and otherwise specified what I meant with the addition of the word "immoral" only to be told by you that "it's against the law to put those words together" or some such nonsense. (But, you already know this, and you're trying to avoid admitting your error by tossing up grammatical fairie dust, hoping to make your escape in the blinding cloud) Now, a gentleman would admit that he learned something from all of this, and I've been quite civil considering that you blindsided me, and considering that you were wrong.
U.S. conservative pundit Pat Buchanan, imagining presidential hopeful John McCain in the White House.
#83. To: robin (#82)
#84. To: buckeye (#83)
U.S. conservative pundit Pat Buchanan, imagining presidential hopeful John McCain in the White House.
#85. To: robin (#84)
#86. To: buckeye (#85)
U.S. conservative pundit Pat Buchanan, imagining presidential hopeful John McCain in the White House.
#87. To: robin (#86)
And you think McCain and Hillary, especially McCain, will keep us out of other wars?
#88. To: buckeye (#66)
#89. To: iconoclast (#88)
#90. To: iconoclast, buckeye (#88)
U.S. conservative pundit Pat Buchanan, imagining presidential hopeful John McCain in the White House.
#91. To: buckeye (#89)
U.S. conservative pundit Pat Buchanan, imagining presidential hopeful John McCain in the White House.
#92. To: robin (#91)
#93. To: buckeye (#92)
"Well, look, if that’s the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces, then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now — where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic strife — which we haven’t done,” Obama said in an interview with The Associated Press.
“We would be deploying unilaterally and occupying the Sudan, which we haven’t done. Those of us who care about Darfur don’t think it would be a good idea,”
he said.
U.S. conservative pundit Pat Buchanan, imagining presidential hopeful John McCain in the White House.
#94. To: robin (#93)
#95. To: buckeye (#94)
U.S. conservative pundit Pat Buchanan, imagining presidential hopeful John McCain in the White House.
#96. To: robin (#95)
#97. To: aristeides (#63)
Larry Sinclair Polygraph Test Indicates "Deception" In Obama Claims.
#98. To: HOUNDDAWG (#97)
What makes me think you guys are not going to apologize?
#99. To: iconoclast (#62)
immoral pragmatism
#100. To: aristeides (#98)
But I'm not the one who first made the claim on this thread that Sinclair had passed his polygraph test.
#101. To: HOUNDDAWG (#100)
(Edited)
#102. To: aristeides (#101)
If there were anything behind Sinclair's claims, one of Obama's opponents -- a Hillary supporter, a McCain supporter, somebody -- would have made that very clear by now.
#103. To: HOUNDDAWG (#102)
#104. To: aristeides (#101)
And letting this charge just sit out there is something very characteristic of the games the Clinton people pull.
#105. To: aristeides (#103)
Frantic? Because of the testimony of one extremely untrustworthy source?
#106. To: HOUNDDAWG (#105)
#107. To: aristeides (#106)
I've been making calm, short posts. Before you accuse somebody else of being frantic, I suggest you look at your own long posts.
#108. To: HOUNDDAWG (#107)
(Edited)
#109. To: aristeides (#106)
If somebody here is frantic, it's not me.
#110. To: Cynicom (#109)
#111. To: aristeides (#110)
#112. To: HOUNDDAWG (#99)
immoral pragmatism
#113. To: Cynicom, aristeides (#109)
(Edited)
#114. To: HOUNDDAWG (#113)
#115. To: Cynicom (#114)
#116. To: HOUNDDAWG (#115)
Then, I realized that you were not involved in this exchange and were merely making an observation. (right?)
#117. To: Cynicom (#116)
Indeed...
#118. To: HOUNDDAWG (#117)
So, it's your position that "pragmatism" is always a good thing, and cannot and is not ever abused?
#119. To: HOUNDDAWG (#99)
Your truthful or slippery and pragmatic answer will make my case either way.
#120. To: Cynicom (#118)
(Edited)
I am a pragmatist but there is no such thing as immoral pragmatism. That is like saying, "you have immoral blindness". I may be immoral and blind but one cannot connect the two
#121. To: HOUNDDAWG (#120)
And BTW, blindness is a morally neutral state. Pragmatism is not by definition or as a necessity morally neutral, despite your obvious unfamiliarity with this fact.
#122. To: Cynicom (#121)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest