See other (s)Elections Articles
Title: Jim Webb, Iron Intellectual
Source:
The Trail
URL Source: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the- ... im_webb_iron_intellectual.html
Published: Jun 6, 2008
Author: Alec MacGillis
Post Date: 2008-06-06 19:33:05 by a vast rightwing conspirator
Keywords: None
Views: 2574
Comments: 219
By Alec MacGillis Both men, of course, have been mentioned as possible running mates for Obama -- and, in the eyes of the veep-obsessed press, that made the event into an audition of sorts. There's no doubt that Webb is tough. He's stood up to President Bush at a White House reception and has a concealed-carry gun license. But he also sees himself as a serious, free-thinking intellectual. He has a bevy of fairly well-regarded books under his belt and prides himself on writing his own stump material. If yesterday's joint appearance was any indication, far from canceling out Obama's Ivy League pedigree, an Obama-Webb ticket could be one of the most literary pairings ever to take the field. Whereas Kaine served up a fairly conventional Democratic rallying cry, Webb embarked on a meditation on American history and self-conception over the past forty years. He noted that it was the 40th anniversary not only of Bobby Kennedy's assassination but also of his own swearing into the Marine Corps. He took the audience back to that "tumultuous year" -- the assassinations, the Tet offensive, the riots in which "the African American sections in many American cities had erupted with frequent violence" and the Democratic convention in Chicago. Webb said he was giving the history tour "because we all know that the United States of 2008 is also a troubled and divided place in a quiet but equally disturbing way." "The tumult of those earlier years," he went on, "convinced me and others that we needed to learn our love our country more deeply for all its ugly flaws, because it required us to sit back and reconsider the beliefs and values that had once been handed to us as our national legacy. We went through an intellectual challenge in justifying America's uniqueness on fresh grounds and this caused us to believe all the more strongly that ... that this was the moral beacon of the world, that for all or problems we had the will to solve them, the patience to undergo the painful debates that might identify solutions ... and the constitutional system that will provide remedies and thus hold us together as a people." "He is man of great intellect," said Webb. He then drove home the praise by punctuating the final sentence of his introduction with a loud fist pound on the podium.
Barack Obama
Jim Webb, Iron Intellectual
Lost in the hubbub over Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton's secret rendezvous at Sen. Dianne Feinstein's house last night were some of the intriguing ramifications of Obama's previous appointment, a rally at the Nissan Pavilion in the Northern Virginia exurbs that was also attended by Sen. Jim Webb and Gov. Tim Kaine.
This was particularly true for Webb, who, unlike Kaine, was making his first appearance in the role of an Obama booster, having stayed neutral throughout the primaries. One thing quickly became clear, as the red-haired senator introduced the presumptive nominee: those pushing for Webb because they think he will bring muscular, regular-guy credentials -- Marine hero in Vietnam, former Navy secretary, Scots-Irish roots -- may need to think again.
After a bit more in this vein, Webb got around to introducing Obama -- whom he praised, before all else, not for his toughness or determination, the qualities one might expect the ex-Marine to highlight, but for his brains.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-129) not displayed.
.
.
.
#130. To: buckeye (#118)
OKharma
Is that a vegetable?
It's coming from (I believe) fertile knee-jerk lands.
Are you are saying you would rather not vote for someone you dislike even if it means allowing a far worse person to assume the office and continuing the neocon destruction of America? Sorry, I'm not that idealistic. I tend to be more pragmatic. Idealism is what allowed the communitarian neocons (commies) to take control and slowly decimate our nation. I think a good example of where I stand is what the conservatives (true conservatives) were saying in 2004 - you may not like who you vote for but to not vote or note vote for the lesser of two evils will end up hurting Americans far worse. IS IT TIME TO BRING BACK GRIDLOCK? In an editorial page column for Investor’s Business Daily (11/26/03, p. A14), Bruce Bartlett, a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, advocates the defeat of George Bush and the election of a Democrat to the White House in 2004 as a way of restoring fiscal soundness to the U.S. government’s policies. "On Jan. 23, 1996, Bill Clinton told the nation, ‘The era of big government is over.’ If so, it sure didn’t last very long. Today, the era of big government is back with a vengeance, ushered in by a massive new prescription drug entitlement, a pork-laden energy bill of grotesque proportions…." GOP CONTROL OF WHITE HOUSE AND CONGRESS HAS MOVED U.S. LEFT "What few people, including myself, ever thought would happen was that this new era of big government would be implemented by Republicans controlling both Congress and the White House. It makes me long for the good old days of gridlock." BILL CLINTON AND GOP CONGRESS LEFT A $200 BILLION BUDGET SURPLUS "In his new book, ‘In an Uncertain World,’ former Treasury Secretary Bob Rubin extols the Clinton administration’s fiscal record. He correctly notes that the federal budget deficit was close to $300 billion when Clinton took office and had a surplus of more than a $200 billion when he left. … "[I]it was the combination of the two – a Democratic White House and a Republican Congress – that was really responsible for the budgetary turnaround. Each side was checked from enacting new spending programs. The result was that the budget was virtually on automatic pilot for most of the Clinton administration. "[A] number of economic conservatives suggested in 2000 that the best electoral outcome for growth and the stock market would be Al Gore as president with the GOP retaining control of Congress. "As financial columnist Daniel Kadlec wrote: ‘The Dow has fared best when one party has controlled the White House and the other has controlled Congress, the optimum formula being a Democratic president and a Republican Congress. That combo has produced Dow gains, excluding dividends, of 10.7% a year.’ … "The only people who really oppose gridlock are political scientists and party activists, who decry it as a barrier to ‘getting things done.’ A new book by Brookings Institution scholar Sarah Binder, ‘Stalemate,’ lays out the case against gridlock on these grounds. "The problem is that getting things done is usually a bad thing. All of our nation’s entitlement programs, for example, were enacted when one party controlled all the elected bodies of the federal government. Social Security came under Franklin Roosevelt and a Democratic Congress in the 1930s, Medicare under Lyndon Johnson and a Democratic Congress in the 1960s, and now a prescription drug entitlement under George Bush and a Republican Congress. Our grandchildren’s grandchildren will be paying higher taxes for this latest elderly vote-buying scheme when everyone who supported it is long dead. "The simplest way of restoring gridlock would be to elect a Democrat as president next year."
Oops....sorry for the duplicate.
*lol*
Inadequacies in respect to what? Are you saying he has a worse record for someone of his background or experience, or that by now he should of remade the U.S. Senate in the time he has been there? You like to draw people down a rhetorical corridor to try to take them out with your handy dandy rhetorical dead fall trap. You do it well, but I am a ferret, and don't follow such paths well. Sorry about that. ;-) I am willing to give this man his chance to lead and unite this nation in 'the fierce urgency of now,' as he calls this time and place in our history he is running for president in. He is the only candidate who is where I am concerning the war in Iraq, and I'll take that leadership over experience any day. Most of the country turned against Iraq a couple of years ago. Democrats are overwhelmingly opposed. They didn’t want someone who had acquiesced or collaborated in its genesis and conduct. This is going to be a big part of what shoots down McCain for a second time in his life when he loses this November, his cheerleader act in supporting this war and because this administration will be a kiss of death to him. One of many he will suffer that will add up to a badly lost election.
Good point about the lesson learned from Allen's fall. Webb is no Thomas Jefferson that's for sure but I think he's probably smarter and less corrupted than the majority of political punks on Capitol Hill with the exception of Dr. Ron Paul, of course. Jt - at this point in time America is on its knees due to the paucity of even a few good men in Congresss. I'd love to have only perfection serving in Congress - like Dr. Paul - but the reality is that America is fortunate to have a 1 or 2 imperfect but not a complete failure politicians, like Webb, as well. Otherwise we're looking at 100% scoundrels in office.
Lets watch him closely, scrapper2. The water in DeeCee changes the hearts and souls of the best of men/women.
Assuming you are correct and he does win--and whether it is him or McCain America and Americans will lose--I hope you are prepared to eat tons of crow. He will no more unite the people of this country than Bush has other than maybe to unite against him. But if either of the establishment's selected candidates, Obama or McCain "win" America is on her last trip around the bowl. It won't make a lot of difference which one of those traitors win since they are both just front men for the people who actually run things. Press Let Rip At Obama Spokesman Over Exclusion From Secret Meeting Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. The question to you, a man who is an advocate for Obama, is this; what legislation has he put forward that places America first? (third attempt)
What makes McCain bite the dust in Novemeber is his pitiful useless self and the fact that he cannot attract campaign donations because everyone in the know realizes McCain has L-O-S-E-R written all over himself. The pubbies are throwing this election. They know Junior's actions have made winning the WH an impossibility so short of running no one, they offer up McCain to the electorate because his ego is so big and his brain is so small that he does not realize what the pubbie party machinery has decided. Four years of Hillary or Obama and the pubbies know they are back in the WH for the next 8-16 years.
Reminds me of an old saying... If you hang around an open septic tank long enough, you're eventually going to start smelling like shit.
I shall not vote for evil, lesser or otherwise.
I am not an advocate for Obama. I am an advocate for America. Here is the posting that lists some of the things Obama has supported, voted for.
We have the best Congress money can buy. Founding Fathers rejected term limits based on the assumption that we would have CITIZEN LEGISLATORS that would serve the country for a "season" and then return home to a normal life. They erred terribly in judging that generations to come would act in the interest of country not in self. Consequently we have lifetime professional politicians that will do anything to maintime a dying grasp on power. Even to 100 years of age. What a sad commentary for this country. The Fathers would be dismayed, disgusted and ashamed.
Exactly right Critter. The place is a swamp after all.
And what on that list places America first, and why?
hehehehe...wise saying...needs repeating...
Yes. I won't vote for anyone or promote anyone who takes an oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution" and then votes for things which rip it into shreds. Homey don't play dat.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Founding Fathers rejected term limits based on the assumption that we would have CITIZEN LEGISLATORS that would serve the country for a "season" and then return home to a normal life. They erred terribly in judging that generations to come would act in the interest of country not in self. Consequently we have lifetime professional politicians that will do anything to maintime a dying grasp on power. Even to 100 years of age. What a sad commentary for this country. The Fathers would be dismayed, disgusted and ashamed. Truer words cannot be spoken. You nailed it. I would only add that in addition to self-serving corrupt dead enders in office, have you noticed that federal politicians over the past 20 years are also stupider than politicians of the past? Is this because they are products of our failing public school system? I mean, consider the intellectual deficits of Junior, and Al Gork, and Kerry, and Boxer, and Pelosi and Byrd, and the rest. My gosh. Scary.
Scum rises to the top on swill.
I won't waste my time. If you can't or won't accept that some of that legislation puts America/Americans first, then you allow your "label" preferences (conservative vs. liberal) to override that ability to objectively view things. That type of thinking is what allowed the neocons to take control of our country and virtually destroy it. I am not a conservative... I am not a liberal... I am a Christian American and that removes the Hegelian affect with respect to my decisions. That is what American's need to understand if our country is to be saved.
I don't know if anyone is completely immune to that.
I'm Scots-Irish. My people weren't entirely welcomed by aristocratic plantation masters in the low country (or Yankee traders on the coasts), so we made our way to the vast mountain ghetto they consigned us to on the frontier. There many of us yet remain. ;^) As such, we have much in common with our black brethren. We understand social marginalization and the poverty that can result from it. We have experienced first hand together the systematic exploitation and plunder of the poor by the rich and well-connected in this country. We have both been used as political pawns and burned in turn by the elite pirates who own the Republican Party (and have always owned the Republican Party). And we share a longing for a righting of the balance, for real freedom and for justice. An Obama-Webb ticket will mark, for the first time, a coming together in common cause of these two great American cultural powerhouses, oft rivals at the bottom of the heap, now joined into one dynamic political force with awesome potentialities for transforming this nation into something more closely akin to its promise. , please point to a piece of legislation the Anointed One has put forward that places America First? Judge Him by His Laws By Charles Peters Friday, January 4, 2008; A21 People who complain that Barack Obama lacks experience must be unaware of his legislative achievements. One reason these accomplishments are unfamiliar is that the media have not devoted enough attention to Obama's bills and the effort required to pass them, ignoring impressive, hard evidence of his character and ability. Since most of Obama's legislation was enacted in Illinois, most of the evidence is found there -- and it has been largely ignored by the media in a kind of Washington snobbery that assumes state legislatures are not to be taken seriously. (Another factor is reporters' fascination with the horse race at the expense of substance that they assume is boring, a fascination that despite being ridiculed for years continues to dominate political journalism.) I am a rarity among Washington journalists in that I have served in a state legislature. I know from my time in the West Virginia legislature that the challenges faced by reform-minded state representatives are no less, if indeed not more, formidable than those encountered in Congress. For me, at least, trying to deal with those challenges involved as much drama as any election. And the "heart and soul" bill, the one for which a legislator gives everything he or she has to get passed, has long told me more than anything else about a person's character and ability. Consider a bill into which Obama clearly put his heart and soul. The problem he wanted to address was that too many confessions, rather than being voluntary, were coerced -- by beating the daylights out of the accused. Obama proposed requiring that interrogations and confessions be videotaped. This seemed likely to stop the beatings, but the bill itself aroused immediate opposition. There were Republicans who were automatically tough on crime and Democrats who feared being thought soft on crime. There were death penalty abolitionists, some of whom worried that Obama's bill, by preventing the execution of innocents, would deprive them of their best argument. Vigorous opposition came from the police, too many of whom had become accustomed to using muscle to "solve" crimes. And the incoming governor, Rod Blagojevich, announced that he was against it. Obama had his work cut out for him. He responded with an all-out campaign of cajolery. It had not been easy for a Harvard man to become a regular guy to his colleagues. Obama had managed to do so by playing basketball and poker with them and, most of all, by listening to their concerns. Even Republicans came to respect him. One Republican state senator, Kirk Dillard, has said that "Barack had a way both intellectually and in demeanor that defused skeptics." The police proved to be Obama's toughest opponent. Legislators tend to quail when cops say things like, "This means we won't be able to protect your children." The police tried to limit the videotaping to confessions, but Obama, knowing that the beatings were most likely to occur during questioning, fought - - successfully -- to keep interrogations included in the required videotaping. By showing officers that he shared many of their concerns, even going so far as to help pass other legislation they wanted, he was able to quiet the fears of many. Obama proved persuasive enough that the bill passed both houses of the legislature, the Senate by an incredible 35 to 0. Then he talked Blagojevich into signing the bill, making Illinois the first state to require such videotaping. Obama didn't stop there. He played a major role in passing many other bills, including the state's first earned-income tax credit to help the working poor and the first ethics and campaign finance law in 25 years (a law a Post story said made Illinois "one of the best in the nation on campaign finance disclosure"). Obama's commitment to ethics continued in the U.S. Senate, where he co-authored the new lobbying reform law that, among its hard-to-sell provisions, requires lawmakers to disclose the names of lobbyists who "bundle" contributions for them. Taken together, these accomplishments demonstrate that Obama has what Dillard, the Republican state senator, calls a "unique" ability "to deal with extremely complex issues, to reach across the aisle and to deal with diverse people." In other words, Obama's campaign claim that he can persuade us to rise above what divides us is not just rhetoric. I do not think that a candidate's legislative record is the only measure of presidential potential, simply that Obama's is revealing enough to merit far more attention than it has received. Indeed, the media have been equally delinquent in reporting the legislative achievements of Hillary Clinton and John Edwards, both of whom spent years in the U.S. Senate. The media should compare their legislative records to Obama's, devoting special attention to their heart-and-soul bills and how effective each was in actually making law. Charles Peters, the founding editor of the Washington Monthly, is president of Understanding Government, a foundation devoted to better government through better reporting.
Check out my blog, America, the Bushieful.
Well it is obvious one of them is going to win, the elite have made sure of that. So is there a lesser of evils running? I don't know, but I do know Obama has been pushed since day one by the MSM and I think his stance on the issues, which can change daily, are worse than McCain's.
God is always good!
Yeah, he had to know which cocks to suck to make it to the top.
God is always good!
With Obama and McKooK put forth by the "system", we have a choice, whether to be shot or hung. The lesser of two evils if you may. Either "choice" seems to lead to a predestined end.
All this for a simple question? Are you white?
Thats like asking a cranky olde woman with 12 kids if she is virgin??????????
wtf does it take for people to learn that there is no such thing as a good or better "establisment whore"? When Obama and McCain both take their orders from people behind the scenes and whose orders will not change depending on who the gullible sheeple vote for America is screwed. And I should vote for Obama, why? Sorry, I am not eat up with white guilt to cause me to vote for a flaming Marxist just because he is black. The fact that he is a Marxist and hates whitey disqualifies him for me.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Have the Obama apostles taken their cultism to a new level? I've asked some basis Joe Friday-type questions here only to receive a avalanche of BS. Pardon me while I put a 200 watt bulb in the overhead interrogation lamp.
You don't vote for the lesser of two evils and another bush gets in you can only blame yourself for the loss of our rights, liberty, unnecessary wars, corruption and destruction of our economy. When it comes to Marixsts, the neocon atheist Ashkenazim Jews are the Marxsts. But go ahead and spend time in your fantasy world where everything appears to be perfect. I'll take the lesser of two evils everytime because that is all you're going to get as long as we have only two parties. You live in a dream state and those of us who refuse to see America destroyed will be pragmatic and try to keep America from being completely destroyed. Don't understand the Hegelian dialectic or communitarianism do you? What a shame. "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"
Why is that important?
Obama proposed requiring that interrogations and confessions be videotaped. From your #153. So..... Lookey here to what he ACTUALLY DID VOTE ON: 1/26/05: Obama voted to confirm Condoleezza Rice for Secretary of State. Rice was largely responsible for 9/11, the Iraq War, threats of war against Iran, Syria, Venezuela and other nations, and for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent victims in unnecessary wars of her making. Roll call 2 2/01/05: Obama was part of a unanimous consent agreement not to filibuster the nomination of lawless torturer Alberto Gonzales as chief law enforcement officer of the United States (U.S. Attorney General). No roll call is available to view but the unanimous consent is noted in Thomas.loc.gov 2/10/05: Obama voted for an act known by liberals as The Class Action Extreme UnFairness Act of 2005 (S 5) that makes it much more difficult, if not impossible, for victims to seek and obtain damages in class action suits filed against wrongdoers who have harmed multiple victims. Roll call 9 2/15/05: Obama voted to confirm Michael Chertoff, a proponent of water-board torture, an individual connected to the financing of 9/11 and the man behind the round-up of thousands of people of Middle-Eastern descent following 9/11. By confirming him, Obama, in effect, endorsed terrorist attacks on America, water-board torture and racism. One consequence of Obama's' vote to confirm Chertoff was the Katrina disaster. Roll call 10. (In May, 2005, Obama voted to give Chertoff the authority to waive all laws with no judicial review and no relief. See below.) 4/21/05: Obama voted to make John "Death Squad" Negroponte the National Intelligence Director. In Central America, John Negroponte was connected to death squads that murdered nuns and children in sizable quantities. He is suspected of instigating death squads while in Iraq, resulting in the current insurgency. Instead of calling for Negroponte's prosecution, Obama rewarded him by making him National Intelligence Director. On 4/17/05, the California Democratic Party unanimously passed a resolution discussing the death squads and calling on Senators to reject the nomination of John Negroponte. Roll call 107 4/21/05: Obama voted for HR 1268, war appropriations in the amount of approximately $81 billion. Much of this funding went to Blackwater USA and Halliburton and disappeared. Roll call 109 5/10/05: Obama voted to give the Secretary of Homeland Security the power to waive all laws (inclusive of murder, kidnapping and rape and all other heinous crimes) with no judicial review and no relief, and essentially to eliminate the ability of refugees to seek political asylum in the United States. This bill was was a combination of two bills (HR1268/HR418), both of which were harmful to life and freedom. HR 1268 was an appropriations bill which gave profits to contractors who benefited from wars. HR 418 presumed to override Articles I, II and III of the U.S. Constitution. This bill allowed Chertoff legally to commit any crime he wanted to commit in New Orleans, and elsewhere, with one result being the Katrina disaster. It also set up the basis for a Nazi-style national ID Card, similar to the ones issued by Hitler's Regime. Obama voted for all this in Roll Call 117
Are you white? I reject such shallow pigmentation-based self-identification. "White"-ness is irrelevant. Some of the worst foes and oppressors of my people have been pale complected, so to call myself "white" would be to falsely imply a shared community with a whole host of "white" tyrants and criminals, from Roman Caesars and Popes to English Kings and Aristocrats to Yankee Corporate Pirates and their Henchmen. These pale-faced killers and thieves have been my peoples' bain for millennia and we have fought them for millennia. So why would I want to falsely imply a bond with them based on mere skin color? Shared skin color is not nearly enough to bind me or my people to such as these. On the other hand, if you share my people's eternal emnity towards these pernicious predators, and want to be free of them and their murderous oppressions, then you are my people, whatever your skin color might be.
Check out my blog, America, the Bushieful.
and there you have it. will that be spun?
I didn't ask what you accept or reject; or what you consider relevant or irrelevant. I did ask you if you are white. So......are you white?
Reply Trace Private Reply Edit 1Associated Press, "Research finds Cheney, Obama distant cousins," October 17, 2007.
#131. To: nobody (#130)
#132. To: buckeye (#131)
#133. To: James Deffenbach (#117)
#134. To: All (#129)
#135. To: nobody (#132)
#136. To: Jethro Tull (#92)
"So to question his legislative inadequacies is bull shit?"
"Only those who dare to fail greatly can ever achieve greatly." Robert F. Kennedy
#137. To: Jethro Tull (#127)
It makes complete sense that Webb would sign on to Hate Speech legislation, given that George Allen's use of the word Macaca got him selected. To erode the 1st as he has done, tells me all I need to know about him.
#138. To: scrapper2 (#137)
#139. To: Ferret Mike (#123)
But whether you want it to happen or not Barack Obama is going to get a chance when he wins in November to prove he can deliver.
Lord Acton
#140. To: Ferret Mike (#136)
#141. To: Ferret Mike (#136)
This is going to be a big part of what shoots down McCain for a second time in his life when he loses this November, his cheerleader act in supporting this war and because this administration will be a kiss of death to him. One of many he will suffer that will add up to a badly lost election.
#142. To: Jethro Tull (#138)
The water in DeeCee changes the hearts and souls of the best of men/women.
#143. To: Jethro Tull (#140)
#144. To: scrapper2 (#137)
Otherwise we're looking at 100% scoundrels in office.
#145. To: Critter (#142)
#146. To: bush_is_a_moonie (#143)
#147. To: Critter (#142)
Reminds me of an old saying... If you hang around an open septic tank long enough, you're eventually going to start smelling like shit.
#148. To: Jethro Tull (#127)
It makes complete sense that Webb would sign on to Hate Speech legislation, given that George Allen's use of the word Macaca got him selected. To erode the 1st as he has done, tells me all I need to know about him.
Lord Acton
#149. To: Cynicom (#144)
We have the best Congress money can buy.
#150. To: scrapper2 (#149)
federal politicians over the past 20 years are also stupider than politicians of the past?
#151. To: Jethro Tull (#146)
#152. To: bush_is_a_moonie (#151)
I am a Christian American and that removes the Hegelian affect with respect to my decisions.
#153. To: Jethro Tull (#125)
(Edited)
And to you, my white (you are white, right?) friend who has never lived in a ghetto, nor will you now
#154. To: James Deffenbach (#51)
A rational person would not vote for any one of the three and most certainly wouldn't spend hours on end talking about how wonderful one or the other of the traitors is.
#155. To: Arator (#153)
Obama had his work cut out for him.
#156. To: RickyJ (#154)
#157. To: Arator (#153)
#158. To: Jethro Tull (#157)
Are you white?
#159. To: bush_is_a_moonie (#133)
Are you are saying you would rather not vote for someone you dislike even if it means allowing a far worse person to assume the office and continuing the neocon destruction of America?
Lord Acton
#160. To: Cynicom (#158)
#161. To: James Deffenbach (#159)
#162. To: Jethro Tull (#157)
Are you white?
#163. To: Arator, bush_is_a_moonie, Ferret Mike, O'PILES (#153)
Consider a bill into which Obama clearly put his heart and soul. The problem he wanted to address was that too many confessions, rather than being voluntary, were coerced -- by beating the daylights out of the accused.
#164. To: Jethro Tull (#157)
(Edited)
All this for a simple question?
#165. To: Jethro Tull (#163)
#166. To: Arator, Cynicom, Joe Friday (#164)
I reject such shallow pigmentation-based self-identification. "White"-ness is irrelevant.
#167. To: Arator, Ferret MIke, Vast, bush_is_a_moonie, PILES (#164)
More Obama legislative achievements.
#143. To: iconoclast (#142) Your thoughts on Obama's 2nd Amendment position?
The U.S. Senate Debated:
Voted: Supporting concealed carry for citizens10 Banning many common semi-automatic firearms11 Disallowing self-defense in towns where guns are banned12 Imposing one handgun a month restrictions13 Requiring lock up your safety trigger locks14 Protecting gun dealers from frivolous lawsuits15 Outlawing gun confiscations during a national emergency16 Squelching the free speech rights of gun owners17 Restricting the interstate sales of firearms18 Repealing the gun ban in Washington, DC19
2Ibid.
3O.Kay Henderson, "Three leading Democrats talk about gun control," Radio Iowa News, April 22, 2007.
4James Oliphant and Michael J. Higgins, "Court to hear gun case," Chicago Tribune, November 20, 2007.
5Illinois State Senate, vote on SB 2165 (41-16), May 25, 2004.
6Obama says, "National legislation will prevent other states' flawed concealed-weapons laws from threatening the safety of Illinois residents." David Mendell, "Democratic hopefuls vary a bit on death penalty," Chicago Tribune, February 20, 2004.
7See the Gun Owners of America fact sheet at http://www.gunowners.org/fs0404.htm.
8John Chase, "Keyes, Obama are far apart on guns; Views on assault weapons at odds," Chicago Tribune, September 15, 2004.
9Senators Chuck Schumer and John Kerry had both cosponsored S. 1431 in 2003, a bill that would have banned any semi-auto shotgun that also contained a pistol grip, which the bill defined as "a grip, a thumbhole stock, or any other characteristic that can function as a grip." According to that definition, just about any semi-automatic shotgun would be banned.
10See supra note 6.
11About the so-called "assault weapons" ban, Obama says, "I believe we need to renew -- not roll back -- this common sense gun law." See supra note 8.
12See supra note 5.
13As a state senator, "Obama regularly supported gun-control measures, including a ban on semiautomatic 'assault weapons' and a limit on handgun purchases to one a month." "Obama Record May be Gold Mine for Critics," Associated Press, January 17, 2007.
14On July 28, 2005, Senator Obama voted for a provision requiring gun dealers to include the sale of a lock-up-your-safety device with every handgun sold. The amendment, offered by Sen. Herb Kohl (D-WI), passed by a vote of 70-30. The provision amended the gun makers' protection act (S. 397).
15On July 29, 2005, Senator Obama voted against S. 397, a bill that was designed to put an end to the frivolous lawsuits that were threatening to put many gun dealers out of business. While an argument could be made that a pro-gun Senator might vote against this bill because it contained a lock-up- your-safety provision (see supra note 14), the fact that Obama voted in favor of that trigger lock amendment (but against the overall bill) indicates his real animus against helping gun dealers protect themselves from the anti- gun lawsuits that were aimed at driving them into bankruptcy.
16On July 13, 2006, Sen. Obama voted for Emergency Powers language that saw only 16 of the most ardent anti-gun senators vote against it. The amendment provides that no money can be used by federal agents to confiscate firearms during a declared state of emergency. The amendment was added to the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill (HR 5441).
17On January 18, 2007, Senator Obama voted against a pro-gun amendment to strike language in S. 1 that would infringe upon the free speech rights of groups like Gun Owners of America. The amendment, which passed, struck requirements that would have required GOA to monitor and report on its communications with its members, and could easily have led to government demands for GOA's membership list (a.k.a. registration).
18Obama has frequently made statements which indicate that he would restrict the interstate sale of firearms. For example, he told the NAACP that, "We've got to make sure that unscrupulous gun dealers aren't loading up vans and dumping guns in our communities, because we know they're not made in our communities. There aren't any gun manufacturers here, right here in the middle of Detroit." Senator Barack Obama, at the NAACP Presidential Primary Forum, July 12, 2007.
19See supra note 4.
#168. To: Jethro Tull (#166) (Edited)
Are you asking about my skin pigmentation? Yes, like most Scots-Irish folk (and other people who hale from northern climes), I am melanin-deficient. But then, you knew that. Why are you badgering me about it? What underlies your apparent obsession with my skin pigmentation?
So......are you white?
Check out my blog, America, the Bushieful.
#169. To: Jethro Tull (#166)
Best if Arator never goes to Asia as there are about 3 billion people of "color" that prefer their own race. But now that does not mean they are racists. Also white people constitute only about 8 per cent of the worlds population, making them an endangered specie.
#170. To: bush_is_a_moonie (#161)
Yes, it is guaranteed that between McCain and Obama another Bush will get in. I am not so effin' stupid that I think any establishment whore will go against what their masters tell them. Bush did what he was told to do and so will McCain or Obama. The only real difference between them is their skin color and that isn't enough difference to vote for, or against, either of them. What makes them worth voting against is that they are both in thrall to people behind the scenes who actually run things but then some of us had their game figured out a long time ago. Unfortunately some never do learn their game.
You don't vote for the lesser of two evils and another bush gets in
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton
.
.
.
Comments (171 - 219) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest