See other (s)Elections Articles
Title: No, Obama Can't!
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.antiwar.com/avnery/?articleid=12963
Published: Jun 10, 2008
Author: Uri Avnery
Post Date: 2008-06-10 10:06:42 by christine
Keywords: None
Views: 1243
Comments: 44
After months of a tough and bitter race, a merciless struggle, Barack Obama has defeated his formidable opponent, Hillary Clinton. He has wrought a miracle: for the first time in history a black person has become a credible candidate for the presidency of the most powerful country in the world. And what was the first thing he did after his astounding victory? He ran to the conference of the Israel lobby, AIPAC, and made a speech that broke all records for obsequiousness and fawning. That is shocking enough. Even more shocking is the fact that nobody was shocked. It was a triumphalist conference. Even this powerful organization had never seen anything like it. Seven thousand Jewish functionaries from all over the United States came together to accept the obeisance of the entire Washington elite, which came to kowtow at their feet. All three presidential hopefuls made speeches, trying to outdo each other in flattery. Three hundred senators and members of Congress crowded the hallways. Everybody who wants to be elected or reelected to any office, indeed everybody who has any political ambitions at all, came to see and be seen. The Washington of AIPAC is like the Constantinople of the Byzantine emperors in its heyday. The world looked on and was filled with wonderment. The Israeli media was ecstatic. In all the world's capitals the events were followed closely and conclusions were drawn. All the Arab media reported on them extensively. Al-Jazeera devoted an hour to a discussion of the phenomenon. The most extreme conclusions of professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt were confirmed in their entirety. On the eve of their visit to Israel, this coming Thursday, the Israel lobby stood at the center of political life in the U.S. and the world at large. Why, actually? Why do the candidates for the American presidency believe that the Israel lobby is so absolutely essential to their being elected? The Jewish votes are important, of course, especially in several swing states that may decide the outcome. But African-Americans have more votes, and so do the Hispanics. Obama has brought to the political scene millions of new young voters. Numerically, the Arab-Muslim community in the U.S. is also not an insignificant factor. Some say that Jewish money speaks. The Jews are rich. Perhaps they donate more than others for political causes. But the myth about all-powerful Jewish money has an anti-Semitic ring. After all, other lobbies, and most decidedly the huge multinational corporations, have given considerable sums of money to Obama (as well as to his opponents). And Obama himself has proudly announced that hundreds of thousands of ordinary citizens have sent him small donations, which have amounted to tens of millions. True, it has been proven that the Jewish lobby can almost always block the election of a senator or a member of Congress who does not dance – and do so with fervor – to the Israeli tune. In some exemplary cases (which were indeed meant to be seen as examples) the lobby has defeated popular politicians by lending its political and financial clout to the election campaign of a practically unknown rival. But in a presidential race? The transparent fawning of Obama on the Israel lobby stands out more than similar efforts by the other candidates. Why? Because his dizzying success in the primaries was entirely due to his promise to bring about a change, to put an end to the rotten practices of Washington and to replace the old cynics with a young, brave person who does not compromise his principles. And lo and behold, the very first thing he does after securing the nomination of his party is to compromise his principles. And how! The outstanding thing that distinguishes him from both Hillary Clinton and John McCain is his uncompromising opposition to the war in Iraq from the very first moment. That was courageous. That was unpopular. That was totally opposed to the Israel lobby, all of whose branches were fervidly pushing George Bush to start the war that freed Israel from a hostile regime. And here comes Obama to crawl in the dust at the feet of AIPAC and go out of his way to justify a policy that completely negates his own ideas. OK, he promises to safeguard Israel's security at any cost. That is usual. OK, he threatens darkly against Iran, even though he promised to meet their leaders and settle all problems peacefully. OK, he promised to bring back our three captured soldiers (believing, mistakenly, that all three are held by Hezbollah – an error that shows, by the way, how sketchy is his knowledge of our affairs). But his declaration about Jerusalem breaks all bounds. It is no exaggeration to call it scandalous. No Palestinian, no Arab, no Muslim will make peace with Israel if the Haram-al-Sharif compound (also called the Temple Mount), one of the three holiest places of Islam and the most outstanding symbol of Palestinian nationalism, is not transferred to Palestinian sovereignty. That is one of the core issues of the conflict. On that very issue, the Camp David conference of 2000 broke up, even though the then prime minister, Ehud Barak, was willing to divide Jerusalem in some manner. Along comes Obama and retrieves from the junkyard the outworn slogan "Undivided Jerusalem, the Capital of Israel for all Eternity." Since Camp David, all Israeli governments have understood that this mantra constitutes an insurmountable obstacle to any peace process. It has disappeared – quietly, almost secretly – from the arsenal of official slogans. Only the Israeli (and American-Jewish) Right sticks to it, and for the same reason: to smother at birth any chance for a peace that would necessitate the dismantling of the settlements. In prior U.S. presidential races, the pandering candidates thought that it was enough to promise that the U.S. embassy would be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. After being elected, not one of the candidates ever did anything about this promise. All were persuaded by the State Department that it would harm basic American interests. Obama went much further. Quite possibly, this was only lip service and he was telling himself: OK, I must say this in order to get elected. After that, God is great. But even so, the fact cannot be ignored: the fear of AIPAC is so terrible that even this candidate, who promises change in all matters, does not dare. In this matter he accepts the worst old-style Washington routine. He is prepared to sacrifice the most basic American interests. After all, the U.S. has a vital interest in achieving an Israeli-Palestinian peace that will allow it to find ways to the hearts of the Arab masses from Iraq to Morocco. Obama has harmed his image in the Muslim world and mortgaged his future – if and when he is elected president. Sixty-five years ago, American Jewry stood by helplessly while Nazi Germany exterminated their brothers and sisters in Europe. They were unable to prevail on President Franklin Delano Roosevelt to do anything significant to stop the Holocaust. (And at that same time, many African-Americans did not dare to go near the polling stations for fear of dogs being set on them.) What has caused the dizzying ascent to power of the American Jewish establishment? Organizational talent? Money? Climbing the social ladder? Shame for their lack of zeal during the Holocaust? The more I think about this wondrous phenomenon, the stronger becomes my conviction (about which I have already written in the past) that what really matters is the similarity between the American enterprise and the Zionist one, both in the spiritual and the practical sphere. Israel is a small America, the USA is a huge Israel. The Mayflower passengers, much as the Zionists of the first and second aliya (immigration wave), fled from Europe, carrying in their hearts a messianic vision, either religious or utopian. (True, the early Zionists were mostly atheists, but religious traditions had a powerful influence on their vision.) The founders of American society were "pilgrims," the Zionists immigrants called themselves olim – short for olim beregel, pilgrims. Both sailed to a "promised land," believing themselves to be God's chosen people. Both suffered a great deal in their new country. Both saw themselves as "pioneers" who made the wilderness bloom, a "people without land in a land without people." Both completely ignored the rights of the indigenous people, whom they considered subhuman savages and murderers. Both saw the natural resistance of the local peoples as evidence of their innately murderous character, which justified even the worst atrocities. Both expelled the natives and took possession of their land as the most natural thing to do, settling on every hill and under every tree, with one hand on the plow and the Bible in the other. True, Israel did not commit anything approaching the genocide performed against the Native Americans, nor anything like the slavery that persisted for many generations in the U.S. But since the Americans have repressed these atrocities in their consciousness, there is nothing to prevent them from comparing themselves to the Israelis. It seems that in the unconscious mind of both nations there is a ferment of suppressed guilty feelings that express themselves in the denial of their past misdeeds, in aggressiveness and the worship of power. How is it that a man like Obama, the son of an African father, identifies so completely with the actions of former generations of American whites? It shows again the power of a myth to become rooted in the consciousness of a person, so that he identifies 100 percent with the imagined national narrative. To this may be added the unconscious urge to belong to the victors, if possible. Therefore, I do not accept without reservation the speculation: "Well, he must talk like this in order to get elected. Once in the White House, he will return to himself." I am not so sure about that. It may well turn out that these things have a surprisingly strong hold on his mental world. Of one thing I am certain: Obama's declarations at the AIPAC conference are very, very bad for peace. And what is bad for peace is bad for Israel, bad for the world, and bad for the Palestinian people. If he sticks to them once elected, he will be obliged to say, as far as peace between the two peoples of this country is concerned: "No, I can't!"
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: christine, all (#0)
If he sticks to them once elected, he will be obliged to say, as far as peace between the two peoples of this country is concerned: "No, I can't!" Well there you have it. It wasn't long ago that a tiny band of Obama lap dancers left this forum for a more serene pasture because we said he'd do exactly this; capitulate ti AIPAC. As it turned out, we were right and they were wrong.
The lie in that, perpetrated by the Zionists, is that they were helpless when in actuality they, the Zionist leadership, were complicit and collaborating with the Nazis to the betrayal of their own people. Lenni Brenner documented that pretty well in his book "51 Documents" which shows in the documents of the Turd Reich just how complicit the Ziopigs were in betraying their own people for temporal advantage. Others who have commented on this and added to the picture were Alfred Lillienthal - a Jewish Historian, and others. That this is kept buried is a measure of how much the ziopigs fear World Jewry at large learning the extent and degree of the collaboration and betrayal. Now the ziopigs are engaged in one of the great and heinous acts of genocide to which the unrighteous flee - to again murder and kill wantonly as they exercise a final solution upon the people of Palestine. That OH'Bummer would go running fawningly and placating to his Zionist "Massuhs" is an indication of what OH'Bummer is really about.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
Bump.
Someone misheard the lyrics. It's Kyrie Eleison, not Carry a Laser.
Keisha Brown, 21, from Chicago, whose mother has a nightgown with a picture of Obama on it, said, “Everything will be different now.”
That which kills us makes us stronger. (Jewish version.)
Keisha Brown, 21, from Chicago, whose mother has a nightgown with a picture of Obama on it, said, “Everything will be different now.”
Don't ping me to stuff like this utter garbage. Thanks.
Barack Obama has unequivocally proven to the world that you don't have to be white to be a true ZIONIST.
Obama is bought and paid for His chief financial supporters are the billionaire Pritzker family (Zionist Jews out of Chicago). Abram Nicholas Pritzker founded the Hyatt hotel chain. The Pritker family is one of the wealthiest in the USA. They’ve owned Braniff Airlines, Royal Caribbean Cruises, and so forth. Obama’s primary bank is Penny Pritzker (Zionist Russian-Ukranian Jew) who is one of the richest women in the USA. Pritzker is a treasurer for the “Real Estate Roundtable,” an AIPAC offshoot in Washington that lobbies for legislation to help commercial landlords. Almost all members of this “Roundtable” are Zionist Jews. Since the days of the Rothschilds, when powerful Jews team up to influence a nation, they form a cabal they call a “Roundtable” (their word, not mine). For example, the Jewish bankers that financed World War I and Bolshevism cooperated through an organization they called the “Roundtable.” Thus, when Obama went home to Illinois on February 12, he was met at the airport by 7,300 anti-war protesters who shouted and held signs that read, "Cut the Funding." Obama immediately departed to attend a personal fundraiser hosted for him by Chicago billionaire Penny Pritzker. Source: http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/fairenough/trib30.html
nah, he's not an elitist. ;)
Don't ping me to stuff like this utter garbage. Thanks. What makes it utter garbage? That it is contrary to your preferred fantasy? The point I am trying to get through to you, only because I think you a good person and worth the effort, is that you are attached to one who would betray your trust, and seems to already be working toward that point. It is fine to be loyal and to grant your trust and that is not a fault. However, pardon the pun, I think you need to consider a little discriminating. Just because OH'Bummer is NOT Hitlery or McNuts does not ipso facto make him worthy. Certainly he is not anti-war. Certainly he does not have our best interests at heart. And his meeting with Hitlery at Diane Frankenfeinstein's out of the way D.C. compound on the eve of the nearby Bilderberg meeting does not engender confidence. What kind of battering ram is needed to get through your self imposed blinders?
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
sacramento.craigslist.org/pol/713750654.html OBAMA ZIONIST SHILL WHO ATTENDED THE SECRET BILDERBERG MEETING (SACRAMENTO) Reply to: comm-713750654@craigslist.org Date: 2008-06-09, 12:32PM PDT The US vs. Obama, McCain, and AIPAC By Mazin Qumsiyeh, Ph.D. Online Journal Contributing Writer Jun 6, 2008 Some one million Arab and Muslim Americans, including some in my own family, voted for Obama in the primaries. I was not one of them and I will likely vote for a third party candidate in November. I believe Obama is a shrewd politician who knew his political weaknesses (his contacts with Muslims, his middle name, his friendship with Chicago Arab community leaders, etc.), knew his strengths (coalition building, motivational speaker, intelligence), but most importantly knew how to manipulate the US political system. Thus he shunned most special interests but worked closely with the Zionist lobby very early when he decided to run for national office. In the past three years, he did not shy from supporting Israeli war crimes in Lebanon in 2006; Israeli collective punishment of the Palestinians; Israeli extrajudicial executions; Israeli settlement activities; maintenance of US occupation forces in the Middle East (although like Israel with Gaza, it will be redeployment not withdrawal), and most recently a strong stance against Iran to serve Israeli interests. Obama excluded advisers who may want him to ask Israel to obey International law and hired the services of people like Dennis Ross who was and remains an employee of an Israeli lobby group (WINEP). Rabbi Michael Lerner explained: "Jewish voters are only 2 percent of the U.S. population, but they are mostly concentrated in the states with the highest number of delegate and electoral votes (New York, California, Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Illinois), they contribute financially to politicians disproportionately to their percentage of the voters, and they are often in key roles as opinion shapers in the communities in which they work or live." Shlomo Shamir wrote in an analysis in Haaretz (in Hebrew not English version) that establishment Jews in the US supported Obama financially as a replacement to the aging black leaders, such as Jesse Jackson, which were not trusted. A compliant US media quickly marginalized and did away with candidates who got the lowest scores on "friendliness to Israel " (e.g. Ron Paul, Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich). Those with the highest scores were elevated in a media that are populated heavily by those to whom Israeli interests are number one (e.g. Wolf Blitzer was Washington Bureau Chief for the ultra-right Zionist, 'Jerusalem Post,' and before that he was an employee of and a staff writer for AIPAC before becoming an exalted CNN anchor. [See 'Territory of Lies'] The fact that Obama spoke to AIPAC the day after clinching the nomination is in itself telling about the power of lobbies. For many US citizens, the political system in the US had become a theater play with predictable script and changing actors but well-known gatekeepers in the form of special interest lobbies. Script-writers/gatekeepers will not allow anything beyond differences in tactics of advancing the "white man's burden" of "civilizing" and "improving" the world. That is why candidates will not question why US troops are stationed in 140 countries (no other country has such an empire). That is why they will insure a continuous flow of billions of our taxes to Israel and many more billions to support conflicts perceived to help Israel (e.g., Iraq and Iran ). That is why candidates will not seriously address slavery, genocide of Native Americans, support of brutal foreign dictators, genocide in Iraq and Vietnam , mass terrorism as in Hiroshima and Nagasaki , growing economic injustice, global warming etc. That is also why we will not have proportional representation or instant runoff elections. The pathetic "stimulus package" (with minor variations) will give some $600 tax rebates to 117 million Americans so that "they can spend it" and supposedly stimulate the sagging economy. Yet, gatekeepers will ensure no discussion of the real minefield of the future economy: the trillions in private debts (corporate and individual), the nine trillion in government debt, the multi-trillion dollar mortgage debacle involving large scale fraud, the scandal of a raided/depleted Social Security safety net, the collapse of the fiat currency otherwise known as the US dollar, and an unchecked “free market” system that even Alan Greenspan argued cannot be sustainable without checks and controls on corporate greed. Cleared candidates for presidential elections will never have to answer any really difficult questions about these matters or about the equally important legal and social matters. When was a candidate really challenged about the violations of the US Constitution and of international agreements signed by the US (violations that they implicitly or explicitly supported)? Gatekeepers make sure that cleared candidates are not challenged on taking legal action (including impeachment) against a corrupt administration that: 1) Violated domestic laws and International treaties that are part of US law. 2) Violated the constitution by eliminating habeas corpus and engaging in warrantless spying on US citizens and sought retroactive immunity for companies that helped and immunities for officials who did this. 3) Engaged in massive lies and distortions (now attested to by members of the inner circle including Paul O’Neill, Richard Clark, and most recently Scott McClellan). 4) Engaged in massive corruption and favoritism. Examples in the justice Department firing of US attorney and in Zionist Michael Chertoff awarding no bid contracts to Israeli companies for US-Mexico border security while denying them to US consortiums. Ron Paul articulated that the Republican Party of today bears no resemblance to the party of Abraham Lincoln ( Lincoln for example was against the war with Mexico ). But the media gatekeepers did not give Paul much airtime or exposure. Dennis Kucinich was similarly shunned, especially since both he and Paul realize the danger of the “special relationship” with apartheid Israel . The US with 6 percent of the world population spends nearly the same amount as all other countries combined on the war machine. With military industries, bases, and other outlets spread in just about every congressional district in the US , it is politically impossible to tackle this issue with logic. When the Soviet Union collapsed of its own weight, the scriptwriters found it convenient to latch onto the newly invented “threat of Islamic terrorism." Billionaires like the Zionist Haim Saban (the largest single contributor to the Democratic Party) invest abroad more than in the US . Rupert Murdoch is buying European media. Halliburton relocated its headquarters to Dubai (the same Halliburton which bilked taxpayers of billions supposedly to rebuild Iraq and ended up with no completed projects in Iraq ). There are literally hundreds of other examples. So what can be done beyond voting for the lesser of two evils and ignoring the role of special interests in vetting candidates for national offices? We must remember that real social change occurs from grassroots movements. We all know that that is what achieved civil rights, women's rights, labor rights, ending the genocidal war on Vietnam , ending the support for Apartheid South Africa , etc. We all know that freedom is never freely given; that it must be demanded. Even the simplest things would help like leafleting and speaking out at all candidates' appearances, challenging a supine media, or using your $600 tax rebate for activism. The alternative is far too disastrous and is becoming clearer every year above the constant din of all the talking heads in the corporate media. Mazin Qumsiyeh is on the board of Peace Action Education Fund and is author of “Sharing the Land of Canaan .” FOR MORE INFO OR TO SEE FREE DOCUMENTARYS GO TO Http://NewWorldOrderExposed.com * Location: SACRAMENTO * it's NOT ok to contact this poster with services or other commercial interests PostingID: 713750654 Copyright © 2008 craigslist, inc.
loudobbs.tv.cnn.com/ CNN Poll June 10, 2008 Do you believe Senator Obama or Senator McCain has a clue about how to lower gasoline prices? Yes 13% 619 No 87% 4002 Total Votes: 4621 This is not a scientific poll
I'm sure they have a clue. Just as I am sure they will not act on it.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
Just as I am sure they will not act on it. You are correct. This was a trick question.
The artificial gasoline shortage and oil run up is just that - artificial and contrived. To end it one would only need to declare a national emergency, uncap Gull Island, and provide massive emergency funding to rapidly build additional refineries. One very telling datum is that the Bush Junta has been setting on, and will not approve, the permits for independent Texas refineries, who have applied for permits - some of them years ago. That alone tells us that the oil and gas run up is intentional and the government criminals are part of it.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
To end it one would only need to declare a national emergency, uncap Gull Island, and provide massive emergency funding to rapidly build additional refineries. One very telling datum is that the Bush Junta has been setting on, and will not approve, the permits for independent Texas refineries, who have applied for permits - some of them years ago. That alone tells us that the oil and gas run up is intentional and the government criminals are part of it. Bush & Company is only interested in adding more $$$$ to his/their Family Trust(s).
I'm not a fan of Obama, but I am very very happy he defeated Hillary NAFTA GATT IRAQ Clinton. For that alone I'm happy for the guy.
Of one thing I am certain: Obama's declarations at the AIPAC conference are very, very bad for peace. And what is bad for peace is bad for Israel, bad for the world, and bad for the Palestinian people.
#2. To: christine, Ferret Mike, Arator, aristeides (#0)
... Sixty-five years ago, American Jewry stood by helplessly while Nazi Germany exterminated their brothers and sisters in Europe. ...
#3. To: Original_Intent (#2)
#4. To: christine (#0)
Why, actually? Why do the candidates for the American presidency believe that the Israel lobby is so absolutely essential to their being elected?
#5. To: Original_Intent (#2)
The lie in that, perpetrated by the Zionists, is that they were helpless when in actuality they, the Zionist leadership, were complicit and collaborating with the Nazis to the betrayal of their own people.
#6. To: Original_Intent (#2)
(Edited)
"That OH'Bummer would go running fawningly and placating to his Zionist "Massuhs" is an indication of what OH'Bummer is really about."
"Only those who dare to fail greatly can ever achieve greatly." Robert F. Kennedy
#7. To: Original_Intent (#2)
#8. To: Original_Intent (#2)
That OH'Bummer would go running fawningly and placating to his Zionist "Massuhs" is an indication of what OH'Bummer is really about.
#9. To: TwentyTwelve (#8)
Thus, when Obama went home to Illinois on February 12, he was met at the airport by 7,300 anti-war protesters who shouted and held signs that read, "Cut the Funding." Obama immediately departed to attend a personal fundraiser hosted for him by Chicago billionaire Penny Pritzker.
#10. To: Ferret Mike (#6)
"That OH'Bummer would go running fawningly and placating to his Zionist "Massuhs" is an indication of what OH'Bummer is really about."
#11. To: Original_Intent, Ferret Mike (#10)
#12. To: Original_Intent (#10)
#13. To: TwentyTwelve (#12)
#14. To: Original_Intent (#13)
I'm sure they have a clue.
#15. To: TwentyTwelve (#14)
#16. To: Original_Intent (#15)
The artificial gasoline shortage and oil run up is just that - artificial and contrived.
#17. To: Jethro Tull (#1)
 | Gold and silver are REAL money, paper is but a promise. |
#18. To: Elliott Jackalope, all (#17)
I hear you Elliott, but I don't for a second think the Clinton's are about to ride off into the sunset and play the role of vanquished combatants. Bill is a seething psycho capable of anything, same for Hillary. Call me a skeptic, but the coronation of Obama, to me at least, won't sound the death knell for NAFTA GATT IRAQ. If Obama is anything he is an acolyte of global government, so lets prepare for more, not less, interdependence via agreements, etc. My effort to learn about Obama isn't a personal vendetta. It's an effort to expose a person who I consider part of the problem. Is McCain better? No. Neither are acceptable, but that they are the last two standing this primary season makes sense. For decades, the Elite have trapped us into a "lesser of two evils" voting dilemma. Now they comfortable enough to offer us two lessors, and watch us squabble over their minor differences. I've never been more sure that voting abstinence is the only reasonable choice availabe to a civic minded guy like me :)
#19. To: Jethro Tull (#18)
Skeptic is not the appropriate word to describe Obummer. You are a "REALIST"...one who sweeps aside all the false oratory, all the MSM hype and sees what is real, not fantasy. One who is not a pessimist looking for the negative, not an optimist with stars in your eyes, but a realist, you see what is factual and true, all on your own.
Call me a skeptic,
#20. To: Cynicom, Elliott Jackalope, christine, all (#19)
Realistic is a better choice of words. BTW, this very article was posted at the collective and it has received 10 views and zero comments to date. At least three of those views were from me, curious as to how such critical Obama material would be discussed in the land of tranquility. As I suspected it was ignored by folks who, once upon a time, posed as open minded. I'm not angry about that, it's just sad.
#21. To: TwentyTwelve (#7)
lolol
Barack Obama has unequivocally proven to the world that you don't have to be white to be a true ZIONIST.
I shall not vote for evil, lesser or otherwise.
#22. To: Ferret Mike (#6)
Mike... We accept your opinions and viewpoints without recrimination. Friends may differ but they suffer the likes and dislikes of others.
#23. To: wbales (#21)
I have been trying to have someone of the O'Piles tell me which half of Obama is it that is swindling the white guilters. The guilters see ONLY black but I suspect the white half is laffing his butt off at their gullibility and lack of self esteem.
#24. To: Original_Intent (#10)
I could ask you the same thing. I am not going to change my mind on supporting Barack Obama. You see, I am not interested in fantasies; but many in here are. Not to mention, battering rams don't work on me.
"That it is contrary to your preferred fantasy?"
"Only those who dare to fail greatly can ever achieve greatly." Robert F. Kennedy
#25. To: Cynicom (#22)
This story is about a friend of mine who does excellent oil painting and is a Saturday Market vendor. It might explain to you a wee bit why I am a wee bit angry this week. Black man hurt in violent beating You have to have callouses on your ears to listen to some of the mindless, in the gutter racism in this forum, but I have not much been in the mood for it this week.
"Friends may differ but they suffer the likes and dislikes of others."
"Only those who dare to fail greatly can ever achieve greatly." Robert F. Kennedy
#26. To: Ferret Mike (#24)
I could ask you the same thing. I am not going to change my mind on supporting Barack Obama. You see, I am not interested in fantasies; but many in here are. Not to mention, battering rams don't work on me. Perhaps a "battering ram" was the wrong metaphor. What I am attempting to accomplish is to cause you, of your own volition, to engage your analytical awareness. You seem perfectly capable of thinking critically as regards the Chimperor but, from my perspective, are willingly suspending that critical capability in your support of someone who has so many outpoints. Why specifically do you support Obama? What specifically has he said that causes you to grant your trust? How do you know he speaks truly? Based upon all the evidence available how can you still assert that he is not as tied in to the incipient Police State as the other two selectees? How do you rationalize for yourself the simple self apparent fact that Ron Paul, Mike Gravel, and Dennis Kucinich were minimized, derided, misrepresented, and blacked out in the Press and yet Obama is given fawning "celebrity" coverage? How does that that fit into your reality? You are a, still barely, free individual with the inherent right to know your own mind and to know the truth. How do you reconcile all of the apparent, observing the obvious, datums which contradict the official reality you accept with the reality that is? The false paradigm of right and left, Democan and Republicrat IS a manufactured reality and you already have at your disposal the information to know that. You are an intelligent individual and cannot help but know that whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. So, what is right about Barack Obama?
"That it is contrary to your preferred fantasy?"
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
#27. To: Ferret Mike (#25) (Edited)
This story is about a friend of mine who does excellent oil painting and is a Saturday Market vendor. It might explain to you a wee bit why I am a wee bit angry this week. Black man hurt in violent beating You have to have callouses on your ears to listen to some of the mindless, in the gutter racism in this forum, but I have not much been in the mood for it this week. So? My father suffered such insults as "Blanket Ass" (and worse). My grandfather grew up in Denver at a time when "Indian" was a fighting word and had to defend his family's honor every day of his growing up. It was so severe that he would not admit to being Indian to anyone except family. I saw my father almost go across a counter at a short order cook over a derogatory comment about his brother. Racisim is not pretty and is quite insanely irrational. Racisim and xenophobia exists and it is still as irrational now as it was in the 1890's. However, how does the racism of one make less weighty the data tying Barack Obama to the Plutocratic/Zionist elite? Those are datums independent of any individual's irrational personal issues. There is data and there are opinions. When the data paints a particular picture that is where I go because I desire to know the truth regardless of the prejudices of others. Other's prejudices are irrelevant in determining whether there is truth in Barack Obama's ties to the elite and the phoney two party sham.
"Friends may differ but they suffer the likes and dislikes of others."
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
#28. To: Ferret Mike (#25)
A lot more whites are murdered, robbed, and assaulted by blacks than vice- versa. Or does black on white violence just not bother you?
Black man hurt in violent beating
#29. To: Ferret Mike (#24) (Edited)
If the Obama-AIPAC lovefest didn't make you rethink your support, probably nothing will. What if Obama picks Wesley Clark as his running mate? freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=82026 Clark makes McCain look like Gandhi.
I am not going to change my mind on supporting Barack Obama.
#30. To: Elliott Jackalope (#17)
That's the one and only silver lining to the Obama cloud. His defeat of Hillary, and her refusal to concede until the bitter end, has hopefully destroyed the Clinton's chances of ever getting anywhere near the White House again.
I'm not a fan of Obama, but I am very very happy he defeated Hillary NAFTA GATT IRAQ Clinton. For that alone I'm happy for the guy.
#31. To: Rupert_Pupkin, Ferret Mike (#28)
A lot more whites are murdered, robbed, and assaulted by blacks than vice- versa. Or does black on white violence just not bother you? Oh, no. Whites are always in the wrong and blacks are always in the right. It was just those white bigoted racist pigs fault that they made the poor innocent downtrodden black thugs kill them and take their money in self defense. Of course that does not explain Mexican on Black crime in L.A. but that is an irrelevant detail.
Black man hurt in violent beating
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
#32. To: Jethro Tull (#1)
being always right, and shouting down others as a pack, has left the forum less full. Peopled by grumpy old men who tolerate no other opinions. Yeah we chased everybody off! Lets all pat ourselves on the back ! (shame) :(
As it turned out, we were right and they were wrong.
#33. To: castletrash (#32)
It's a rough world. If you going to enter the fray of ideas then you have to have the courage to defend what you believe in. You also have to be even more courageous to be right. You have to be willing to acknowledge an unpalatable truth. If you want to join a cacophony of agreement on what you are told to believe there is always "Free" Republic or Daily Kos.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
#34. To: castletrash (#32)
It is a shame, but the Cult of Obama wouldn't let fact get in the way of retreat. That many were partisan Ds, with multiple sock puppets (designed to drive away those they deemed politically unclean) was a low, cheap tactic.
#35. To: Original_Intent (#33)
AMEN!
If you want to join a cacophony of agreement on what you are told to believe there is always "Free" Republic or Daily Kos.
Remember...G-d saved more animals than people on the ark. www.siameserescue.org
#36. To: Original_Intent Jethro Tull (#33)
I joined for a diversity of opinion, you have become what you deride. By the way I wasn't defending Obama, ask any of your friends here. I was one of the first to cry shill and point out his connections. I just liked it better when threads consisted of more than an article and two guys saying me too.
a cacophony of agreement
#37. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#28)
Not even close. Not even in the same ballpark. Almost negligible by comparison.
A lot more whites are murdered, robbed, and assaulted by blacks than vice- versa.
I shall not vote for evil, lesser or otherwise.
#38. To: castletrash, Ferret Mike, aristeides, Arator (#36)
better when threads consisted of more than an article and two guys saying me too. To some degree me too. However, that which is true is still true regardless of whether someone agrees or not. My point would be that agreeing with a true statement is not me-tooism it is agreeing with the truth. Conversely disagreeing with something that is true because it is at variance with one's preferred ideological viewpoint is not a virtue. That which is true is still true. So, if the OH'Bummerphiles cannot confront uncomfortable truths because it disagrees with what they would prefer to believe it is to their detriment, not mine, not yours, and no one else's. However, when their desire to become enraptured with a PsyOps fantasy affects others disagreement, strong disagreement, is not only not bad it is a duty of anyone who values truth.
I just liked it
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
#39. To: Ferret Mike, Jethro Tull, Peppa, Christine (#25)
Mike... Racist speech is in the eye of the reader, no one else. Use of the term racist is just one step removed from the classical intimidation by using the term..anti semetic. There is no way anyone can prove otherwise, therefore usage of such terms is meaningless and the user is depending on a crutch for their argument. I am a pure racist by my term, not yours, in that I prefer my own race, not any race of color. I am a world minority, as the white race is rapidly dwindling in percentage each year. The person you support for president used many words to describe his own feelings concerning small town America. We are all aware of them, we did not need an analysis by anyone. What he said was put in direct context by Andrea Mitchell on live TV the other day when she spoke her version of small town America. I do not consider Obama nor Mitchell "racists", they were merely stating their bias and prejudice about the same culture which they dislike. There is nothing illegal about what they said, they spoke their own truth. To my mind it is far too easy to brandish the term "racist" as we are ALL racist, bar none.
You have to have callouses on your ears to listen to some of the mindless, in the gutter racism in this forum, but I have not much been in the mood for it this week.
#40. To: Original_Intent jethro Tull aristeides, Arator (#38)
we are talking politics here, right? Obamaphiles and all? Who's truth sweetie? I submit to you that none here are high enough in TPTB to know any "truth".We all have conclusions drawn largely from the same set of "facts". Some still hold more hope than others, who put you in charge of crushing it? Present your opinion, discuss, talk amongst yourselves, be a forum.
it is a duty of anyone who values truth.
.
.
.
Comments (41 - 44) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest