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: 2885
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
#1. To: HOUNDDAWG (#0)
Why are Ron Paul supporters working so hard to defame Obama? By now, many of you have seen the laughable claims of this man: www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVeFVtcdSYY READ: Toothless crackhead alert! “Mr. Sinclair” has given zero proof and absolutely few details about his life to support any sort of credibility. There appears to be substantial proof, however, that this is originating and/or being perpetuated from the Ron Paul support base What proof? Do you ask? The first blog to report this “story”, and subsequently, a statement from “Larry Sinclair” was the blog anndavis.blogspot.com. Ron Paul Supporter. Subsequently, “Larry Sinclair” appeared on the Jeff Rense show. rense.com. A conspiracy theory radio show that lends credence to such stories as “Monica Lewinski was an Israeli Operative, sent to bring down the Clinton White House.” Jeff Rense is a Ron Paul supporter. The viral nature of the spread of this video, and the subsequent conspiracy theories about mainstream media suppression are trademarks of the Paul supporters, and their “Truther” cause. Note the other blogs in the blogosphere that are lending credibility to these claims: We Saw That is a Ron Paul supporter. (*snip*) GodlikeProductions itself is a site full of Ron Paul supporters. The initial user to post this on Digg, “DeepFriedFetus“, is a Ron Paul supporter. These are the sites which link to and/or attempt to lend credibility to “Mr. Sinclair’s” ridiculous charges. Every single one of the blogs pushing this video as credible are Ron Paul supporters. So, I believe the real news story here is: why are Ron Paul’s supporters so invested in this story? You’re seriously disgracing your candidate. Now, fuck off. UPDATE: “Larry” is now directing threats at me for slander lawsuits. DO NOTE that I am not implicating Ron Paul himself or the Ron Paul campaign in anything. I am simply documenting, through links on these sites, that every site out there that is pressing this issue has identified themselves as Ron Paul supporters. Bring it on, Larry. Bring it on! This entry was written by Dear Murray and posted on January 29, 2008 at 12:03 am and filed under American Politics and Paranoia.
"Moishe, look who's trying to teach us marketing."
Hey, if ya' have to take a polygraph to be a Gestapo tazer hunter, than you should have to take one to be POTUS and have control over WWIII. A psych eval as well.
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition "Corporation: An entity created for the legal protection of its human parasites, whose sole purpose is profit and self-perpetuation." © IndieTx Bwahahahahaha ... we've a super bitch commie, an insane ex-POW, a cross- dresser, a pro-gay marriage flip-flopping socialist mormon tycoon, a slick preacher wannabe Pope, an ambulance chasing pettifogger, and a cocaine smoking crack-head muslim running for Pres., and you wanna spoil that ???
"Give us liberty and give them death" ... noone222 1-10-08
if this was a sex fantasy from a chicago fag ron paul supporter dont you think obama would have sued the living shit out of him for stating on the WORLD WIDE WEB that he gave obama a coke high blowjob in 1999 or at least sent out a assasin to shut him the hell up on a permanent basis ? use your headfor something other then soaking up lsd or the lame streammedias daily doseofbullshit for gods sakes
Fox News Channel is the television version of Free Republic
If it was for real don't you think the odious Clintons would be on it like two hounds on a hambone?
Republicans (Democrats for that matter) ....... HAD ENOUGH?
We know those Swift Boat charges against John Kerry were false. Did he ever sue anybody over them? Did John McCain ever sue anybody for those false rumors about him Bush supporters spread in 2000?
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.
Wow. This is going to come as news to the moderator there. I thought she ran off all the "Paultards" as she no doubt would call them.
“I would give no thought of what the world might say of me, if I could only transmit to posterity the reputation of an honest man.” - Sam Houston
Well ........... maybe just the male dog, while the bitch looks the other way.
Republicans (Democrats for that matter) ....... HAD ENOUGH?
I thought that was humorous too.
"Moishe, look who's trying to teach us marketing."
Can't you just feel the anger from Murray at the "Ron Paul supporter"?
"Moishe, look who's trying to teach us marketing."
I vote this one be called "Swift Brown and Serve."
"Moishe, look who's trying to teach us marketing."
No. I believe these claims about Obama are truthful, but the Clintons don't dare go nego on anyone because they'd open the door on so many ugly rumors about them.
I can believe he did it, but not with this guy. I am more inclined to believe this man is just telling us something he saw Obama do. Obama could find better looking playmates.
Vast Ron Paul Conspiracy (VRPC)
Our last hope for peace More better?
Our last hope for peace telling us something he saw Obama do. Obama could find better looking playmates. Well, sure if he held open auditions. But, if he decided at that time and place to smoke some rock and get a BJ, well, I don't believe the average brutha on the down low is all that particular.
More better? I was remiss !
"Give us liberty and give them death" ... noone222 1-10-08
Someone needs to hell Goldie this. I think she would flip out.
God is always good!
...slip.LOLOL
Our last hope for peace Well when you think of Goldie you can't help but think about hell.
God is always good!
LOLOL Sweet, the 2nd Ron Paul radio ad that I've heard here in the Twin Cities. I had heard the first one 10 times, I bet...
Our last hope for peace LOL! If all the other sites supports Ron the way Goldi does he is sooooooo screwed! He better carry an Uzi with him at all times.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡
Maybe "Ron Paul supporter" is a euphemism?
"Moishe, look who's trying to teach us marketing."
If Goldi is supposed to be one of his supporters, it must be the "euphiest," ahaha.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. wow, we're listed. who is this Dear Murray guy, do you know?
The only solution to this mess is to dig a hole big enough to nudge them all in and cover quickly
Good job! lolol
Our last hope for peace i know! although being in the same company as LP as a RP supporter?
The only solution to this mess is to dig a hole big enough to nudge them all in and cover quickly
Sounds like a drive by dum bass, but still! I would say that El Pee is pretty lean without Ron Paul supporters that bang away over there...Ron Paul is by far the only acceptable Conservative candidate in the race.
Our last hope for peace Dunno. They all look the same to me.
"Moishe, look who's trying to teach us marketing."
Well gang, Larry Sinclair took a 4 hour polygraph examination, and it included drug screening to verify that he didn't chemically alter his stress/physiological responses before the test. Does this sound like bullshit, now? HAH! OBAMA'S ON DA DOWN LOW, OBAMA'S ON DA DOWN LOW, OBAMA'S ON DA DOWN LOW, OBAMA'S ON DA DOWN LOW, OBAMA'S ON DA DOWN LOW, OBAMA'S ON DA DOWN LOW, OBAMA'S........ Checkit! Larry's telling the truth! HAH! "The only things I like better than receiving a stuffed brown paper bag from grateful constituents and the party faithful is smoking a fact rock while getting a "beej" from a sweet bird (a swallow in fact) for whom performing the act isn't simply obligatory (like my wife) but pleasurable! Smokin' rocks in, smokin' rocks out!!"__Barack Obama
WhiteHouse Poll 1. Do you Believe that Barack Obama had Gay Sex and did drugs with Larry Sinclair? Hell Yes! 60% No, politicians wouldn't do stuff like that! 39%
The results aren't in yet other than the elimination of drugs being used to control responses. Yet, I get the feeling they will be positive in favor of Sinclair. Many of these neo-con puppets are fags.
Yet, I get the feeling they will be positive in favor of Sinclair. Many of these neo-con puppets are fags. And, some pragmatically minded married men who enjoy the occasional beejay from gay males don't consider themselves gay. (If only the little woman could do it as well and crave it the way my little friend here so obviously does!) "It's no different than summer camp, and I never dun nuthin' to a man that I wouldn't do to a woman" is how they rationalize it. I've always taken the position that if people were to bust in on 'em they wouldn't say, "Oh, look! There's a straight guy getting knobbed by a gay person!" ;) More than likely they'd say, "Hey them two fags is goin' at it!"
Most of my life I gave little thought to what fags do to each other. However, as an adult I am vehemently opposed to queers having even the slightest impact upon my way of life. I am sick of listening to their whining bullshit, don't want them to have any ability to "paddle" kids in school, promote their sick fucking lifestyle to children, or pay the increased insurance premiums required to address their AIDS treatment. A lot of nice people wishing to be fair think that a live and let live philosophy would best address the homosexual rights issue, while I think a live and let die philosophy would be more appropriate.
And the men who loan money to governments, so called, for the purpose of enabling the latter to rob, enslave, and murder their people, are among the greatest villains that the world has ever seen. And they as much deserve to be hunted and killed (if they cannot otherwise be got rid of) as any slave traders, robbers, or pirates that ever lived. ... Lysander Spooner
Excuse me while I go take a shower.
Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot
No, politicians wouldn't do stuff like that! 39% The technical analyst in me hesitates to point out that that is the value-neutral ratio...
As we meandered our way through the ever busy Bree Street, Harry could not help observing how filthy downtown Johannesburg had become. I had made the same disturbing observation myself the day I arrived, but had been reluctant to accept the disturbing fact that decay of public infrastructure seems to be the story in areas of the city inhabited by blacks. Predominantly black areas have become an eyesore. The beautiful lawns and flowerbeds I noticed in some areas three years earlier now tell sad stories of degradation. Some of them have become open-air urinals.
Not if it's cold.
As we meandered our way through the ever busy Bree Street, Harry could not help observing how filthy downtown Johannesburg had become. I had made the same disturbing observation myself the day I arrived, but had been reluctant to accept the disturbing fact that decay of public infrastructure seems to be the story in areas of the city inhabited by blacks. Predominantly black areas have become an eyesore. The beautiful lawns and flowerbeds I noticed in some areas three years earlier now tell sad stories of degradation. Some of them have become open-air urinals.
Now that I've finally noticed where you're comin' from (tip, short, succinct tag lines have more impact), I think I'd rather have dinner at Obama's house than yours. Keep 'em in their place, eh? Never mind their track record or accomplishments?
Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot
My dear iconoclast. Elites like Obama wouldn't use your kind as lawn jockeys for their homes, never mind serving you a dinner.
Very serious question for your view. Viewing Obama and his candidacy have you considered the possibility he might be being used? That is not a smart aleck question or a trap, just an honest question. Some of us here have been discussing this for awhile and I will not question your view.
I guess an old golf partner and attorney of mine just hasn't made it into your definition of "elitist", but Obama doesn't strike as me as a much different type.
Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot
Never occurred to me for a moment. By whom, pray tell. BTW, whoever made the choice sure did a hell of job, no?
Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot
Well Sir, take a day or two and give it some thought. It is strictly a civil intellectual discussion.
I'm astonished! /sarc
Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot
No, your friend would miss the cut. To be an elitist one would either be a politician or a man who pushes politicians in front of the masses for the national 4 year presidential ritual. Obama is the flavor of the month; an empty vessel willing to be filled by those in power to be used as an offering to those without power. I can't think of one president in my lifetime who has changed the nation or my personal standing for the better. What I have and what I am is in spite of their gobs of socialism. The problem now is that the snowball is rolling down the hill at warp speed and government will soon be so large that personal options will be thought of as historical relics. Such thought shouldn't be welcomed by rational thinkers.
Astonished by what?
By whom, pray tell? A simple and sincere question. What is your problem with such?
Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot
You say the thought never occurred to you. That sort of prohibits any input from you. You might think about it.
We have elections every two years. Don't be too hasty at cutting your throat, you're a pretty nice guy at heart. I heard this same nonsense from el Rushbo, et al., in '92 (i.e. the red flag and hammer and sickle would be flying over the White House in the bat of an eye. Incidentally, though not nuts about Poppy, I never had a thought of voting for Bubba). Take a deep breath.
Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot
You say the thought never occurred to you. That sort of prohibits any input from you. You might think about it. It's input that is being requested of you. Now I place myself humbly beneath you (ref. your previous attempt at a sarcastic put down). So, I beg you now to reveal the "secrets" of the private inner sanctum discussions. Or, just STFU.
Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot
Sorry to see vulgar language used here. You have a pleasant evening.
Rush helped usher in more collectivism with Shrub than Bubba ever imagined he could do. Then again, I think they're working together. The real challenge is to recognize similar patterns in the current political situation. Supporting Obama because he sounds good is just giving the CFR a mandate. Just by refusing to vote you are saying "no."
Ah, at your pompous, no answer best. :-) Adios.
Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot
I think I'll save that for the next time someone brings up Obama's "present" votes. ;-)
Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot
Obama might surprise us, but he has gotten where he is today on his CFR connections. That should send chills down our spines.
Just perhaps your Father should have spent less time on political correctness and more on teaching of social manners. That lack has been liberally demonstrated.
Time is going to sort this argument out, I think. The two of you have plenty of common ground, even if you don't agree on everything.
Winter onset asthma is limiting my deep breaths, but I'll work with what I got :) I still have no clue what the man has done, only what he plans on doing (a continued redistribution of wealth). The 4-year dance I was referring to was on the presidential level. Now, on Obama's plus side, if he can make the Klinton's disappear, that's a plus.
The fact that you apparently look upon any system-approved selectee favorably while accepting the manufactured image without suspicion or skepticism would indicate that you're either hopelessly maladjusted or tragically naive. There is no third possibility. And, your attempts to elevate him with the shameless use of white guilt is proof of your immoral pragmatism, and America has suffered quite enough because of that, thank very much.
Which CFR member or members told Obama that war in Iraq was a dumb idea and why didn't they (apparently) tell the rest of the CFR politicians (who are legion)?
Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot
A truly unusual and unique pairing of words.
Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot
Larry Sinclair Polygraph Test Indicates "Deception" In Obama Claims. What makes me think you guys are not going to apologize?
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.
Good post, ari. Wouldn't it be refreshing to see some honest to goodness criticism of Barack's record and/or public statements instead of the repetition of Clinton/Rove patented smear tactics?
Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot
Keep 'em in their place, eh? Just NIMBY. Never mind their track record or accomplishments? For blacks as a group it's mostly an optical illusion. Those accomplishments can only happen at all in a predominately white society. But there are two black men I would consider voting for. Unfortunately they'd never want the job.
As we meandered our way through the ever busy Bree Street, Harry could not help observing how filthy downtown Johannesburg had become. I had made the same disturbing observation myself the day I arrived, but had been reluctant to accept the disturbing fact that decay of public infrastructure seems to be the story in areas of the city inhabited by blacks. Predominantly black areas have become an eyesore. The beautiful lawns and flowerbeds I noticed in some areas three years earlier now tell sad stories of degradation. Some of them have become open-air urinals.
First you're assuming he means what he's saying. I wouldn't do that with a CFR-affiliated candidate. Second, you're assuming that he hasn't talked out of both sides of his mouth on this issue (he has). Just like the NAFTA commentary recently where he criticized Hillary for supporting it, but basically said we couldn't abolish it, he has also said that he would not give a timetable for our departure from Iraq. In other words, he's just like all the others.
What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income – to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Before we invaded and bombed Iraq, when it was not popular to do so, Obama spoke out against the war in Iraq. Delivered on Wednesday, October 2, 2002 by Barack Obama, Illinois State Senator, at the first high-profile Chicago anti-Iraq war rall en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech I know I've posted this before, I apologize if you have already read it.
'He will make Cheney look like Gandhi.' Actually, Zbig Brzezinski was saying that it was a dumb idea from the start. I remember him saying it on CNN a few weeks after the invasion started. Not that many politicians may have acted on that belief, but, according to Lincoln Chafee, most Democrats in Congress privately shared it.
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.
The globalists take a very longterm view of our political systems. They know that war is very unpopular. For example, Woodrow Wilson was swept into his second, fateful term, on the slogan "he kept us out of war." Just because a candidate affiliated with the globalists expresses an opinion that appears contrary to a single, unique goal that has already been realized, does not mean that they disagree with the underlying principles of moving the planet toward global government. We take the Iraq war very seriously, but it is just another brick in the wall to the globalists. The real problems are twofold:
If all you care about is the Iraq war, this might be significant.
Who was the last president that you supported? Calvin Coolidge?
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.
The Iraq war is not all that I care about. Brzezinski has been making other sensible suggestions, like the desirability of negotiating with Iran, and of establishing a peace in Israel/Palestine. You can read all about it in his book The Choice.
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.
Why do I need to support anyone for President when they are each being selected by sworn enemies of the Republic?
Then why didn't Hillary oppose the war in 2002 like Obama?
'He will make Cheney look like Gandhi.' Yeah, sure, we're supposed to take seriously someone who thinks Ike and JFK were selected by sworn enemies of the Republic.
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.
How would that be relevant? For those who follow the Hegelian dialectic, each juncture in history is an opportunity. There will always be more chances to shape the future. They can afford to take a very long view.
I don't see the relevance of that remark to this discussion.
If this is true, then why didn't the other CFR liberal candidate Hillary take this position in 2002?
'He will make Cheney look like Gandhi.' She's losing the election, isn't she?
Yes, so if the CFR is so farsighted and in total control of all the candidates then how could they not have warned her to not support the war.
'He will make Cheney look like Gandhi.' They don't need any single candidate (clearly they have many, including Obama/McCain/Hillary/Romney/Huckabee/Edwards and so forth), and the Iraq war could have been started at a different time.
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.
DailyPaul.com needs no explanation.
The Pirate Bay is a torrent site that appears to have every word Ron Paul has ever said available for download.
RumorMillNews is a Ron Paul supporter.
Know the Lies is a Ron Paul supporter.
Freedom4um is a Ron Paul supporter which links directly to Ron Paul’s Official Site.
St0ckman.blogspot.com is a Ron Paul supporter.
Mrsircy.blogspot.com is a Ron Paul supporter.
Bloh.balder.org which is in Finnish or trekkie or something is a Ron Paul supporter.
Libertypost.org is a Ron Paul supporter.
TheLastDaysBulletin is a Ron Paul supporter.
ThePowerHourNews is a Ron Paul supporter AND fundraiser.
A URL, Gay08.com redirects to the YouTube video. Wisely, the domain was registered with private registration. The first reference to the URL is listed on the GodlikeProductions.com message board by a user named TroyDungeon, who is a Ron Paul supporter:
#2. To: HOUNDDAWG, LODWICK, CHRISTINE, NOONE222 (#0)
"There is no 'legitimate' Corporation by virtue of it's very legal definition and purpose."
-- IndieTx
#3. To: IndieTX (#2)
Hey, if ya' have to take a polygraph to be a Gestapo tazer hunter, than you should have to take one to be POTUS and have control over WWIII. A psych eval as well.
#4. To: Tauzero, *Ron Paul for President 2008* (#1)
(Edited)
#5. To: HOUNDDAWG (#0)
The "respectable" media ignores this the same way they ignored Clinton's "bimbo eruptions" before he was elected.
#6. To: freepatriot32 (#4)
#7. To: Tauzero (#1)
Libertypost.org is a Ron Paul supporter.
#8. To: All (#5)
If it was for real don't you think the odious Clintons would be on it like two hounds on a hambone?
#9. To: Sam Houston (#7)
#10. To: freepatriot32 (#4)
#11. To: aristeides (#6)
We know those Swift Boat charges against John Kerry were false.
#12. To: iconoclast (#5)
If it was for real don't you think the odious Clintons would be on it like two hounds on a hambone?
#13. To: HOUNDDAWG (#12)
".I believe these claims about Obama are truthful.."
#14. To: Tauzero (#1)
What North American Union? ~~~~~ Have you seen THIS yet? Pass it around...
#15. To: noone222 (#3)
a cocaine smoking bisexual crack-head muslim
What North American Union? ~~~~~ Have you seen THIS yet? Pass it around...
#16. To: castletrash (#13)
I can believe he did it, but not with this guy. I am more inclined to believe this man is just
#17. To: FOH (#15)
a cocaine smoking bisexual crack-head muslim
#18. To: Tauzero (#1)
Libertypost.org is a Ron Paul supporter.
#19. To: RickyJ (#18)
Someone needs to hell Goldie this.
What North American Union? ~~~~~ Have you seen THIS yet? Pass it around...
#20. To: FOH (#19)
#21. To: RickyJ (#20)
Well when you think of Goldie you can't help but think about hell.
What North American Union? ~~~~~ Have you seen THIS yet? Pass it around...
#22. To: Tauzero (#1)
" Libertypost.org is a Ron Paul supporter."
Lord Acton
#23. To: HOUNDDAWG (#0)
#24. To: James Deffenbach (#22)
If all the other sites supports Ron the way Goldi does he is sooooooo screwed!
#25. To: Tauzero (#24)
Maybe "Ron Paul supporter" is a euphemism?
Lord Acton
#26. To: Tauzero (#1)
We Saw That is a Ron Paul supporter. DailyPaul.com needs no explanation. The Pirate Bay is a torrent site that appears to have every word Ron Paul has ever said available for download. RumorMillNews is a Ron Paul supporter. Know the Lies is a Ron Paul supporter. Freedom4um is a Ron Paul supporter which links directly to Ron Paul’s Official Site. St0ckman.blogspot.com is a Ron Paul supporter. Mrsircy.blogspot.com is a Ron Paul supporter. Bloh.balder.org which is in Finnish or trekkie or something is a Ron Paul supporter. Libertypost.org is a Ron Paul supporter. TheLastDaysBulletin is a Ron Paul supporter. ThePowerHourNews is a Ron Paul supporter AND fundraiser. A URL, Gay08.com redirects to the YouTube video. Wisely, the domain was registered with private registration. The first reference to the URL is listed on the GodlikeProductions.com message board by a user named TroyDungeon, who is a Ron Paul supporter:
#27. To: christine (#26)
What North American Union? ~~~~~ Have you seen THIS yet? Pass it around...
#28. To: FOH (#27)
#29. To: christine (#28)
What North American Union? ~~~~~ Have you seen THIS yet? Pass it around...
#30. To: christine (#26)
who is this Dear Murray guy, do you know?
#31. To: All, Tauzero, noone222, freepatriot32, iconoclast, aristeides, castletrash, ghostdogtxn, (#0)
ghostdogtxn wrote: "This video is bullshit and smacks of Clinton dirty tricks. Of course, it's convenient to blame it on Ron Paul folks instead, right Hillary?"
#32. To: All (#31)
#33. To: HOUNDDAWG (#31)
#34. To: noone222 (#33)
The results aren't in yet other than the elimination of drugs being used to control responses.
#35. To: HOUNDDAWG (#34)
#36. To: HOUNDDAWG, All, Tauzero, noone222, freepatriot32, iconoclast, aristeides, castletrash, ghostdogtxn, (#31)
#37. To: HOUNDDAWG (#32)
Hell Yes! 60%
#38. To: iconoclast (#36)
Excuse me while I go take a shower.
#39. To: Tauzero (#38)
Predominantly black areas have become an eyesore. The beautiful lawns and flowerbeds I noticed in some areas three years earlier now tell sad stories of degradation. Some of them have become open-air urinals.
#40. To: iconoclast (#39)
Now that I've finally noticed where you're comin' from (tip, short, succinct tag lines have more impact), I think I'd rather have dinner at Obama's house than yours.
#41. To: iconoclast (#39)
Keep 'em in their place, eh? Never mind their track record or accomplishments?
#42. To: Jethro Tull (#40)
My dear iconoclast. Elites like Obama wouldn't use your kind as lawn jockeys for their homes, never mind serving you a dinner.
#43. To: Cynicom (#41)
Viewing Obama and his candidacy have you considered the possibility he might be being used?
#44. To: iconoclast (#43)
Never occurred to me for a moment.
#45. To: Cynicom (#41)
Some of us here have been discussing this for awhile and I will not question your view.
#46. To: iconoclast (#42)
#47. To: iconoclast (#45)
I'm astonished! /sarc
#48. To: Cynicom (#43)
Viewing Obama and his candidacy have you considered the possibility he might be being used?
#49. To: iconoclast (#48)
A simple and sincere question.
#50. To: Jethro Tull (#46)
The problem now is that the snowball is rolling down the hill at warp speed and government will soon be so large that personal options will be thought of as historical relics.
#51. To: Cynicom (#49)
A simple and sincere question.
#52. To: iconoclast (#51)
Or, just STFU.
#53. To: iconoclast, robin, Cynicom (#50)
i.e. the red flag and hammer and sickle would be flying over the White House in the bat of an eye.
Bush Clinton Bush Clinton Administration
Chuck Baldwin: The Bush-Clinton Dynasty.
Obama's wife is CFR. He's CFR. He's got Zbigniew Brzezinski on the team. (Did you know that possibly a half million Indonesians were killed with the joint British-US backed Islamic operations against communists in the 1960s? Zbig was involved, learning to play chess on the grand chessboard.)
#54. To: Cynicom (#52)
Sorry to see vulgar language used here.
#55. To: buckeye (#53)
Supporting Obama because he sounds good is just giving the CFR a mandate. Just by refusing to vote you are saying "no."
#56. To: iconoclast (#55)
#57. To: iconoclast (#54)
Ah, at your pompous, no answer best. :-)
#58. To: Cynicom, iconoclast (#57)
#59. To: iconoclast (#50)
#60. To: iconoclast, Jethro Tull, auzero, noone222, freepatriot32, iconoclast, aristeides, castletrash, ghostdogtxn (#36)
Excuse me while I go take a shower.
#61. To: buckeye (#53)
Obama's wife is CFR. He's CFR.
#62. To: HOUNDDAWG (#60)
immoral pragmatism
#63. To: HOUNDDAWG (#60)
#64. To: aristeides (#63)
Larry Sinclair Polygraph Test Indicates "Deception" In Obama Claims.
#65. To: iconoclast (#39)
#66. To: iconoclast (#61)
Which CFR member or members told Obama that war in Iraq was a dumb idea and why didn't they (apparently) tell the rest of the CFR politicians (who are legion)?
#67. To: buckeye (#66)
(Edited)
I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.
U.S. conservative pundit Pat Buchanan, imagining presidential hopeful John McCain in the White House.
#68. To: iconoclast (#61)
Which CFR member or members told Obama that war in Iraq was a dumb idea and why didn't they (apparently) tell the rest of the CFR politicians (who are legion)?
#69. To: robin (#67)
Before we invaded and bombed Iraq, when it was not popular to do so, Obama spoke out against the war in Iraq.
I find it impossible to support anyone appearing to be the lesser of two CFR evils.
#70. To: aristeides (#68)
Actually, Zbig Brzezinski was saying that it was a dumb idea from the start.
#71. To: buckeye (#69)
I find it impossible to support anyone appearing to be the lesser of two CFR evils.
#72. To: buckeye (#70)
(Edited)
If all you care about is the Iraq war, this might be significant.
#73. To: aristeides (#71)
#74. To: buckeye (#69)
U.S. conservative pundit Pat Buchanan, imagining presidential hopeful John McCain in the White House.
#75. To: buckeye (#73)
#76. To: robin (#74)
#77. To: aristeides (#75)
#78. To: buckeye (#76)
The globalists take a very longterm view of our political systems. They know that war is very unpopular.
U.S. conservative pundit Pat Buchanan, imagining presidential hopeful John McCain in the White House.
#79. To: robin (#78)
#80. To: buckeye (#79)
U.S. conservative pundit Pat Buchanan, imagining presidential hopeful John McCain in the White House.
#81. To: robin (#80)
#82. To: buckeye (#81)
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