Obama for Duce?
March 31st, 2008 at 09:00am Mark Noonan
Well, Mussolini made the trains run on time - and at least one San Franciscan is convinced that Obama will make the bus run on time:
Obama fever has overtaken San Francisco. Undeterred by the conspiracy theories, hatred, and vitriol spewed by Obama’s 20-year “like an uncle to me” pastor, Jeremiah Wright, local liberals are in thrall to their perceived savior. They seem to think that every problem, no matter how trivial, can be solved by Saint Obama.
As a case in point, an elderly man I was chatting with yesterday at a city bus stop about MUNI delays (a time-honored tradition in San Francisco) concluded by stating, “I hope Obama gets elected so these things will be fixed.” So, along with ending poverty and creating world peace, Obama’s going to make the buses run on time.
Playing devil’s advocate, I responded, “He’s not the Second Coming, you know,” to which the man responded, “yes, but neither is she, or he,” referring to Hillary Clinton and John McCain. “But no politician is,” I answered, “and this is a local issue, anyway.” “I’m just sick of this world, he said”, sighing, “and Obama can fix it.”
Given that the bus arrived seconds later, perhaps he was onto something.
You liberals out there do realise that Obama is just a rather conventional liberal as well as being a product of the notoriously corrupt Chicago Democratic machine, aren’t you? These are not the usual ingredients for a person who will actually change things…but, I guess it doesn’t matter. After all, the guy who thinks that Obama will fix all problems is probably one of those convinced that Chimpy McSmirk BusHitler lied us into Iraq for oil/Haliburton/Likud/what have you.
Back in 2004, I often noted the Democrats’ disconnect from reality, and I think it has only gotten worse. We do live in an Age of Lies, and I think that some people are so far gone in them - and so comfortable holding them - that there is not much we can do for them. We just have to work our way around them - and our primary task in 2008 is to beat Obama (should he gain the nomination) without pushing these people off the deep end. They’re already convinced that 2000 and 2004 were stolen by EEEVIL Republican conspiracies, and if they feel another election has been stolen from them, there’s no telling what these poor fools might do. Best thing for us to do - win big in November; so big that even a lefty who thinks Obama will make the trains run on time understands he was beaten fair and square.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Democrats, Kook Left
115 Comments Add your own
1. hermie | March 31st, 2008 at 9:46 am
Obama couldn’t fix the looming disaster with the Chicago Transit Authority and Metra service…Just how does this guy think that the Great Obama will fix San Francisco’s problems?
Wasn’t it the next day after David Dinkins became NYC mayor that the MSM was gushing about how much better things were now… That even the air smelled better?
That’s the Great Obama…Just electing him will make air pollution go away, the Earth stop warming, the tulips to bud and the rainbows to last longer.
2. Aaron | March 31st, 2008 at 9:51 am
Yeah, go out and pick an old loon from a San Francisco bus and pretend that represents the typical Obama supporter.
Do you know how many totally freaky wackjob mouthbreathers we could find among Bush supporters? They’d be a fairly representative sample of die-hard Bushies. Hell - there’s quite a few of them right here on B4victory.
3. Aaron | March 31st, 2008 at 10:17 am
By the time these primaries are finished, some 15 million Americans - including a large number of independents and more than a few Republicans - will have voted for Barack Obama. This is by far the largest number of votes ever received by a candidate of either party in a primary campaign.
And in the general election this fall, I bet Obama will shatter all previous records for number of votes, easily exceeding 50 million. Anybody care to take me up on that bet?
Of course, all of those 50+ million Americans are just idiots on a bus who think Obama is the second coming.
4. OhioOrrin | March 31st, 2008 at 10:25 am
“notoriously corrupt Chicago Democratic machine” said Mark.
(fingers in ears, eyes closed in reverance, click feets together 3 times & repeat)…
“May only goodness & light follow Obama all his days”
continue this mantra until mark goes away…
5. DBM | March 31st, 2008 at 10:35 am
Engage the Obama candidacy not as a caricature of what you *want* to run against, but what he actually is. He’s not a muslim terrorist because of where he went to grade school, nor is he a white-hating black radical because of something his pastor said. And he’s not Mussolini because of what an addled old man in San Francisco thinks.
I challenge you to engage in this political cycle both honorably and objectively. There are plenty of honest intellectual and philosophic grounds on which to oppose a Obama presidency. Yes, it would be much easier for the Republicans to run against a corrupt black militant who’s probably an Al Qaeda mole. But that’s not what Obama is, and if that sort of discourse ends up deciding the 2008 elections, we’ll all be worse for it.
6. hermie | March 31st, 2008 at 10:50 am
Obama was a do-nothing, see-nothing, hear-nothing legislator in Illinois.
As a so-called agent of ‘Change’ where was he when there was corruption? Where was he when it came to tough decisions on the financial plight of Illinois and the burdens on taxpayers?
Most likely…voting ‘Present’
7. Diana Powe | March 31st, 2008 at 10:55 am
This is a remarkably inane post with an even more remakably inane headline. It is especially ironic coming from the epicenter of the George W. Bush Cult of Personality whose website used to be entitled Blogs For Bush: The White House of the Blogosphere. Some people are apparently quite impervious to embarrassment.
8. SteaM | March 31st, 2008 at 11:14 am
Mark,
Must thou judge so?
Remember, judge not lest ye be judged.
Interesting, I have not seen any evidence of him being convicted of a crime. Nor have I even seen any vague evidence that would lead me to conclude even a slight possibility of a crime commited here. Care to prove your case?
You should follow that gut feeling if you guess it doesn’t matter. It doesn’t. Because there’s no unusual set of ingredients that are, as you would lead us to believe, the recipe which makes up Obama. The supposed corruptness and evil and racism just is not there. It’s made up. You have Barack Derangment Syndrome.
Look, ok, let’s be fair and say that Bush took us into this war based on very flimsy evidence (which we now know was mostly untrue or not solid enough for us to lose so many troops and trillions of dollars with the result being a more unstable middle east and more terrorism around the world) for basic reasons. He probably wanted revenge for his father’s near assassination attempt. Or it was simply because he honestly felt that Saddam was behind 9/11. But even that we know is not true. So even if Bush didn’t lie… what do you call it when someone believes things which are not true? Naive? Misinformed? Either way, it was a clumsy knee-jerk reaction and we all went with it because we were pissed off that we were attacked on 9/11.
Well! I can agree with you there Noonan. I feel the same way about the 28%ers who still back Bush no matter how badly he runs this country into the ground. What is wrong with you people anyways? What is the deal with you conservatives anyways?
I feel like Yoda. I just want to tell you, Luke, that you must not let your hate overwhelm you and cloud your judgement. You are obsessed with defeating Obama so much that you have forgotten what that defeat would mean. Think about how badly the Republicans have run things. Think about how sweet it would be to have a candidate that could turn us around so we can start healing and making progress. Do you think John McCain can do that? I think he’s slightly better than Bush but is that enough?
I want to mirror the comment you throw at us all the time. That is, if you do not like things in this country (in terms of the prospects of an Obama presidency or in the very least a change from the Bush ways) then leave. Go ruin some other country. I happen to love this one and want to see if prosper and be respected in the world community once again.
9. William Teach | March 31st, 2008 at 11:44 am
Too late. Most of them have already lost it.
10. William Teach | March 31st, 2008 at 11:49 am
PS: notice the libs still can’t defend Obama? They just deflect to Bush.
11. Almiranta | March 31st, 2008 at 11:56 am
Mark, doncha just love the way the Lemming Left insists that those who don’t cherish a bone-deep hatred for Bush are Bush-bots? Somehow all the objective critiques of various Bush positions which have appeared here, both on thread posts and commentary posts, are simply dismissed.
But this is the way the Leftist mind works—it is all or nothing. They can’t see Bush as just a guy, trying to do his best in the toughest job in the world, having some successes and some failures and some compromises—no, they have to demonize him, loathe him, dismiss him as the epitome of evil.
Just a few months ago, Hillary was the hope for the future for the Dems. She had never made a mistake, never had a misstep, never been anything but the most wonderful and most ideal candidate ever running for office.
Then a new Flavor of the Month appeared, and all of a sudden these same folks are down on Hillary almost as if she had turned out to be Bush’s long-lost sister, and now the hopes and dreams and aspirations of the Left are pinned on Mister Perfection Himself.
And he’s perfect, he’s wonderful, he can do anything/everything. Does he attend and support a racist and anti-American church? Since those are deeply held Leftist values, the attitudes can’t be condemned, so the Left has to try to deflect these criticisms by calling those who noticed, and didn’t like, the proof that Obama feels this way a list of names. Does he make, himself, racist comments? The Lemming Left lines up, jostling each other out of the way to excuse/explain these comments. Does his wife echo the vile sentiments of the Rev. Wright? The radicals swarm to defend her.
I call this either/or syndrome “simpleminded”. It’s the determination to reduce everything to the simplest possible level. But it demands absolute and total blindness to any and every thing that could possibly tarnish the brilliance of the newly Chosen One, the One who will fix everything, accomplish all that anyone could possibly ask.
And in the meantime they live in ignorance of the way the rest of the world works—the fact that we can find Bush to be a good man and a good president while at the same time acknowledging his weaknesses and disagreeing with him on various issues. We can find McCain to be less than a perfect candidate but still find him to be the best person in the race.
And in the meantime we see that the newly crowned Emperor Obama has no clothes. We see that he has never done anything, has never accomplished anything but build a Cult of Personality, has achieved his current prominence by mouthing platitudes, has presented “plans” for the country that are so irresponsible and so impractical that they would be disasters if implemented, lives in a house partially financed by a crook who got the money from a shady Iranian player…..is flawed, connected with corruption, and is simply unqualified.
Who knows? Maybe in ten years or so, years in which he actually FUNCTIONS as a Senator instead of gaining the position and then starting a Presidential campaign, years in which he learns how the nation is governed, learns how the legislative process works, makes political affiliations based on mutual efforts to accomplish things—maybe he will gain the experience and knowledge it will take to be an effective president.
12. Aaron | March 31st, 2008 at 11:59 am
hermie -
“Obama was a do-nothing, see-nothing, hear-nothing legislator in Illinois… where was he when there was corruption?”
From the wikipedia bio of Barack Obama:
From this WaPo article on Obama’s legislative career:
I would stack up Barack Obama’s achievements at the state level with just about any presidential candidate. You ignorantly dismiss Obama for not doing anything about corruption in Chicago when in fact he pushed through the toughest ethics reform IL has seen to date - and did that in a state legislature dominated by Republicans.
While criticizing Obama for not doing enough to clean up corruption in Chicago, you embrace John McCain, one of the original “Keating Five” to be censured for influence peddling during the S&L crisis that eventually cost tax-payers over $400 billion in govt bailouts, and cost many elderly their entire retirement savings. Furthering this obvious double standard, you somehow think Obama was supposed to have waved a magic wand and eliminated corruption from Chicago, while ignoring the fact that Texas politics remained very corrupt after GW Bush’s 5 years as governor. If you are to ridicule Obama’s ethics reform efforts, please tell how me one thing Bush did to clean up Texas corruption.
“Most likely…voting ‘Present’”
This is a misleading canard. The “present” votes have to do with the way the IL Senate works. As opposed to the US Senate, in Illinois it takes a majority of the total existing legislators to pass a bill - not merely a majority of the legislators present at the vote. Therefore, a vote of “present” has exactly the same effect as a “No” vote. The “present” vote is often used by legislators of both parties to shoot down a particular piece of legislation, while at the same time signaling that a reformed version of the bill may get a “Yes” vote. This is a long accepted and perfectly legitimate strategy in the IL Senate. Other Republican lawmakers from IL who went on to political careers at the national level also had large numbers of “present” votes.
Any more misleading and unfounded smears you’d like me to address?
13. Almiranta | March 31st, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Aaron seems determined to prove my point—that Obama generates adulation more than support.
I came back to this thread to post a comment from Aaron from another thread: “…Obama is the man. He is Abraham Lincoln and MLK rolled into one.”
And I find him quoting from, of all things, Wikipedia.
Aaron, do you know how “information” gets on Wikipedia? You act as if this is an objective analysis of Obama’s career. Maybe you should learn a little about how anyone can plant anything on Wikipedia, and stop being so gullible.
But then you might have to actually analyze candidates on their merits and/or lack of same, and stop being such a groupie.
14. SteaM | March 31st, 2008 at 12:12 pm
Wait…. What did Obama do that was illegal and when and what was it he said that was racist? No one can seem to answer that.
15. SteaM | March 31st, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Amiranta,
Yes, we are not stupid. We know that wikipedia can be edited by anyone. Would you care to find a link to a valid trusted site that can dispute what Aaron has posted about Obama?
You need to prove your case a little more. At this point you are just saying things that equate to “obama is bad” or “obama is wrong”. You need to be specific if you are going to get anywhere with this debate.
I can give you proof why I think Bush is a bad president. I can give you proof that Bush has not protected the Constitution just as much as I can give you proof that Obama was a senior lecturer of Constitutional Law. Although not exactly the same thing as a professor it can be considered that and is by the school. Here is the school’s statement:
http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html
So who do you trust to protect the Constitution more than someone who used to teach it?
16. TiredofLibBullShit | March 31st, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Airin:
“Yeah, go out and pick an old loon from a San Francisco bus and pretend that represents the typical Obama supporter.”
Uh, this man is the perfect example of the liberal left. The liberal left firmly believes that the federal government is the solution for EVERYTHING!!!
No matter how trivial, regardless of the scope of the problem….TA DA! THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to the rescue.
Amazing, they still want more federal government involvement when it’s the federal government’s involvment that is the root cause of the problem to begin with.
Democrat was once used as a derrogatory term meaning - “one who appeals to the ignorant masses”.
It still applies.
17. TiredofLibBullShit | March 31st, 2008 at 12:25 pm
“So who do you trust to protect the Constitution more than someone who used to teach it?”
I know several instances that those who teach it, means absolutely nothing. They themselves have no clue as to its meaning or intent.
You really want to go there?
18. SteaM | March 31st, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Do I really want to go there? Yes and Yes. Because you are just using a general blanket statement to suggest that a few of the (what, thousands?) of Constitutional Professors in this country there are some that have no clue about its meaning. Cherry picking and making a general statement does nothing to prove what I think you suggesting which is that Obama knows nothing about the Constitution. Yet, you cannot prove that. Can you?
Can you back up anything you say?
19. SteaM | March 31st, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Almiranta,
You are like a child who has been caught in a lie and reacts by frantically trying to justify it until she digs herself into a hole and looks like an ass. I shouldn’t say that since I do not know you personally and you might not be like that at all. It just appears that way to me.
20. Joe | March 31st, 2008 at 12:38 pm
RE: #15
Would you care to find a link to a valid trusted site that can dispute what Aaron has posted about Obama?
steaM, no. They don’t need to dispute anything. All they have to do is SAY that he is corrupt or racist.
Look at post #1, 6, 10, 11. They don’t have to prove anything, but them Teach lobs this out…
“PS: notice the libs still can’t defend Obama? They just deflect to Bush”
Teach… what is there to defend? We throw out facts and proof, you people just scoff at it. Why do we bring up Bush? Umm… because he is the current President from which the next President will be judged? Because you people here back Bush at every turn regardless of how foolish that is?
Mark, this post… you really are taking one comment from one guy in SF to say that every Democrat believes Obama will make everything better. Not a very smart or scientific survey.
But let me ask you…. let’s just assume for a second that a President Obama really does bring parties and differences together. Assume that he does turn out to be a fantastic President for whatever reason that is. Would you ever back him or admit that he did a good job? My assumption is no. Those 20%-ers that still think Bush is doing a marvelous job will still say that Obama did an awful job.
21. Aaron | March 31st, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Almiranta -
“Aaron seems determined to prove my point—that Obama generates adulation more than support. I came back to this thread to post a comment from Aaron from another thread: “…Obama is the man. He is Abraham Lincoln and MLK rolled into one.”
Wrong again Almiranta. I never wrote that quote you have mistakenly attributed to me. Go look at the poster again. The one you are referring to is post #1 on this thread.
22. bignewf | March 31st, 2008 at 1:01 pm
“Best thing for us to do - win big in November”
Ya!, good luck with that. Not gonna happen.
23. DBM | March 31st, 2008 at 1:05 pm
to “TiredofLibBullShit”
Lest you think University of Chicago law school is a hotbed of liberal law philosophy, it is not.
Like its econ department, UoC law school is arguably the leading conservative academic thinktank. (Alumni include Robert Bork, Micheal McConnell, Douglas Ginsburg, John Ashcroft…)
And this is important: Obama is well respected by the faculty as both gifted and open-minded.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-oped0314obamamar14,0,7185898.story?page=1
That was his reputation in the Illinois senate as well.
I think if you’d research the man and not the caricature you’re trying to create, you may just like what you see. There are many conservatives who are coming to that same conclusion:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/2008/03/23/endorsing-obama.aspx
24. Aaron | March 31st, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Almiranter again -
“Aaron, do you know how “information” gets on Wikipedia? You act as if this is an objective analysis of Obama’s career. Maybe you should learn a little about how anyone can plant anything on Wikipedia, and stop being so gullible.
Yes, we all understand how wikipedia works. And most thinking adults understand that it is not always to be trusted as a definitive source of information. But it often provides a good overview for a general introduction to a topic - ie, what bills were sponsored by which Senator.
Are you seriously trying to deny that the ethics reform bill pushed thru the Republican IL state Senate by Obama actually didn’t happen because it appears on wikipedia? Well, maybe you’d like to show us that this never happened by quoting your own trusted independent sources - like the Flat Earth Society, perhaps?
By your reasoning, if a wikipedia article states that the sky is blue, or that the earth goes around the sun, then those facts must be invented spin?
The paragraph I quoted from wikipedia didn’t give an “evaluation” of Barack’s overall career in the IL state Senate - it merely ticked off the facts of what he did there and which bills he sponsored. These facts are annotated to other sources at the end of the article. In addition, the section I quoted from wiki was corroborated by an report I linked to in the Washington Post - a paper that has generally slanted towards Hillary and McCain.
Again, do you have a source that contradicts that Obama passed ethics reform legislation while in IL Senate?
25. SteaM | March 31st, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Wow, that Slate article is important in this discussion.
About the author:
I encourage everyone to read that. It’s an interesting perspective and very refreshing.
26. SteaM | March 31st, 2008 at 2:13 pm
From CNN today:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/31/obamas.godfather.ap/index.html
27. js | March 31st, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Obama wrota a book called the Audacity of Hope; Reclaiming the American Dream.
In it, he stated that he dreamt of becoming the next Malcolm X, the leader of the nation of Islam. Now, he states he is a Christian. He also stated that religions in America must dismiss its Judeo Christian heritage. In following Wright, he gave his tacit approval of Wrights sermons, theology, and teachings. Those teachings supported Louis Fakkaran, the new leader of the Nation of Islam.
Its pretty clear, the truth is not being presented to us. Obama rejects that racism played any part of Trinity Church, yet no Christian Church has upheld a black code of ethics, a white code of ethics, a hispanic code of ethics, or any other ethics besides Christian ethics. Christian churches dont need anything else, and the Trinity Church does, draw your own conclusions.
In Islam, there are specific rules about lying. One of those rules state you can lie to advance the cause of Islam. Its irrefutably a part and parcel of the Koran and the Haddith, and inseparable from Islam.
Imam Abu Hammid Ghazali says: “Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible.”
It is not possible for a muslim to become the POTUS. If this is the concensus in Islam, then telling the truth could not achieve thier goal. Then, it is permitted to lie. Obama’s liberal point of view on abortion is not Christian. Any means may be used to kill the infidel nation, the USA, under Islam. Abortion killed 45 million of our children so far, Islam is ecstatic about that. It makes us weaker in thier eyes, because they outlaw abortion.
The only way to turn America away from our roots is from within. In Obama, we have a tool to do just that.
28. Aaron | March 31st, 2008 at 2:47 pm
js -
You of course have actually read “Audacity of Hope”, and are not just parroting second-hand Rightwing spin of the book - right?
riiiiiight.
29. SteaM | March 31st, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Did you read the book you refer to, js?
30. SteaM | March 31st, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Aaron, you beat me to it. That was also going to be my asumption.
31. David B. Schmidt | March 31st, 2008 at 2:57 pm
SteaM,
Ever hear of the second amendment? It comes right after the first and for the most part your “Constitutional Professor” has no concept of its meaning and intention shown by his previous actions and somewhat vaguely detailed (if that is possible) on his website.
Later we can talk about this gem of a stance.
and a few of his other hard-left stances.
both retrieved from…
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/17/politics/main2369157.shtml
32. Casper | March 31st, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Aaron and SteaM,
Not only did js not read “The Audacity of Hope”, he probably didn’t write post 27. It was probably a cut and paste from another right wing site.
33. Pain | March 31st, 2008 at 3:19 pm
We, Ourselves are concerned at the facile nature that the Shi’a concept of al Taqiyya is mentioned as interpreted by a Sunni cleric will cause confusion among non Muslims. Imam Ghazali continues in the ihya ulum al-din, The Revival of Religious Sciences that regarding al taqiyya:
Speech is a means to ends. If a praiseworthy end can be achieved by both truth and falsehood, then lying is forbidden. If a praiseworthy end can be achieved only by lying, then it is permissible provided that the achievement of the intended goal is permissible. Lying is mandatory if the intended goal is mandatory, for example, if lying would protect the life of a Muslim. So if telling the truth entails revealing the location of a Muslim hiding from a tyrant, then lying is mandatory, although lying should be avoided if possible. [One should try to avoid lying] because one should not open the door of lying to the soul, as it may be tempted to lie in unnecessary situations, and lying is a priori impermissible except in extreme circumstances.
The evidence for the exception in the case of extreme circumstances is the narration of Um Kulthuum who said, “I’ve never heard the Messenger of God صلى الله عليه و سلم permit any degree of lying except in three circumstances: reconciliation, war and one spouse to another.”
We are hopeful that the words of Imam Ghazali were intended to be displayed in their full context and not pared to give the appearance of unrighteousness.
Qu’ul cuda praedex nihil!
34. SteaM | March 31st, 2008 at 3:25 pm
http://www.google.com/search?q=“Obama+regularly+supported+gun-control+measures,+including+a+ban+on+semiautomatic+“assault+weapons”+and+a+limit+on+handgun+purchases+to+one+a+month.&hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&filter=0
35. Pain | March 31st, 2008 at 3:30 pm
js cut and pasted his post from answering-islam.de
We, Ourselves take serious offense at the misuse of the Imam’s writings by such an unlearned man.
36. Kahn | March 31st, 2008 at 3:36 pm
Steam and Aaron - did YOU read Obama’s book?
37. hermie | March 31st, 2008 at 3:42 pm
In the post the reference to Wikipedia didn’t specify which bills he sponsored, it just mentioned ‘As a state legislator, Obama gained bipartisan support for legislation reforming ethics and health care laws.’ There was nothing that said which bills he might have been associated with actuaklly got passed.
Oh, and BTW…A standard practice in the Il Senate is where the President of the Senate can have a member’s name put on a piece of legislation as the presenter,whether or not the legislator actually wrote or contributed to the legislation.
38. SteaM | March 31st, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Kahn,
No. I have not read any of Obama’s books.
39. FmrMarine | March 31st, 2008 at 5:28 pm
JS
>>>Its pretty clear, the truth is not being presented to us. Obama rejects that racism played any part of Trinity Church, yet no Christian Church has upheld a black code of ethics,<<<
They CANT run from this…….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAYe7MT5BxM
or this…..
http://youtube.com/watch?v=khuu-RhOBDU
or this………
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTBiWxN4BlM
or this……….
Trinity United Church of Christ
About Us
We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian… Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain “true to our native land,” the mother continent, the cradle of civilization. God has superintended our pilgrimage through the days of slavery, the days of segregation, and the long night of racism. It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a Black worship service and ministries which address the Black Community.
Trinity United Church of Christ adopted the Black Value System written by the Manford Byrd Recognition Committee chaired by Vallmer Jordan in 1981. We believe in the following 12 precepts and covenantal statements. These Black Ethics must be taught and exemplified in homes, churches, nurseries and schools, wherever Blacks are gathered. They must reflect on the following concepts:
1. Commitment to God
2. Commitment to the Black Community
3. Commitment to the Black Family
4. Dedication to the Pursuit of Education
5. Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence
6. Adherence to the Black Work Ethic
7. Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect
8. Disavowal of the Pursuit of “Middleclassness”
9. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the Black Community
10. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting Black Institutions
11. Pledge allegiance to all Black leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Value System
12. Personal commitment to embracement of the Black Value System.
40. FmrMarine | March 31st, 2008 at 5:34 pm
JS
The marxists here have their fingers in their ears, eyes closed, screaming
“LA LA LA I CANT HEAR YOU”
The donks have no choice but to back a black man who is a lightweight empty suit,
or one of the most corrupt machines in American history.
Not much of a choice,
if I were a donk, I would take earbama over the klintoons.
Thank GOD Im not and dont.
41. Joe | March 31st, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Marine,
You clowns keep claiming he is so corrupt and such a racist. Yet none of you have pointed to anything that he has said that is racist nor have you pointed to anything he has done that is corrupt.
So obviously you are nothing but an empty suit who just doesn’t like him because of his church.
42. Almiranta | March 31st, 2008 at 5:48 pm
If you can make a point without lying about what I say, make it.
I have never said anything “..that equate to “obama is bad” or “obama is wrong”.
I have repeatedly commented on his intelligence, his charm, his speaking skills…and since that’s all he’s shown us, that’s all I know about from firsthand experience.
What he has SAID is that he has been a parishoner, for two decades, of a church which we have recently learned (”we” being most of America…) is based on what is called “Liberation Theology” and which stresses topics such as ongoing resentment and distrust of white Americans, and of America in general.
I have read excerpts from his books, and no, I have not read the books in their entireties. Haven’t had time, yet, but if he is the nominee I certainly will.
The combination of his church support, his decision to allow this church and its teachings mold the spiritual life of his young children, his own pronouncements on race, have all made me question certain things about him. Serious things, such as his true agenda for the country, his true feelings about white people and about race relations in general, such as his commitment to the United States of America.
I have seen him speak, and have found nothing but platitudes, a passion for “change” which certainly appears to be based on a bleak vision of America in which pretty much any old change HAS to be an improvement (supported by his wife’s statement that she never, in her entire adult life, found ANYthing in America to be proud of till it looked like it might elect a black man as President) and programs which depend on taking assets away from productive Americans and giving them to others.
As one who takes this country and its future very seriously, I feel that I not only have the right but I have the duty to examine each and every candidate for the position of this country’s leadership, and I have to apply my own criteria to each of them. It is my choice to find important certain things such as dedication to the United States of America and its Constitution as its rule of law, such as a firm stance against racism and different treatment of people based on their race, such as experience and maturity, such as views on the proper role of the Federal Government, such as whether the person feels the Constitution must be followed as written or can and should be a fluid and constantly shifting mere guideline, such as views on capitalism vs. socialism, such as philosophy of the proper use of the military and on national security—-significant, to me, ISSUES.
Unlike you rabid Dems, I don’t need to find or invent some EMOTIONAL reason to question a person’s qualifications. As a matter of fact, the primary questions I have raised about Obama have stemmed from the emotion-based hysteria surrounding his ascent to political power, and I have pointed out the lack of true substance and the dependence on how he makes his fan club FEEL.
I know how upsetting it is for you guys to know that a lot of people think you are silly. Tough. Get used to it. You can, and probably will, have a hissy fit every time I or anyone else takes a hard look at any of your candidates. But then you give every indication of proudly representing the Hissy Fit Faction of the Democrat Party, so no one is really surprised.
Holding a poltiical position is, in and of itself, not silly. But swooning over a man just because he is charismatic, and engaging in all-out attacks on those who question his underlying principles, ethics, and positions, is beyond silly.
You can claim all you want to that Bush is a criminal or has done terrible things, and you can choose to believe selected opinions which support yours. Fine. But as there are other, conflicting, opinions from other, disagreeing, lawyers and scholars, and as I have done independent research into many of the things you (plural you) have alleged over the years and not agreed with your assessments, your claims are nothing but your opinions.
I also note that the rabid Left has adopted much of the language previously used to describe them, such as “mouthbreathers” and “BDS” and so on. That’s OK, too, but just be aware that we notice things like this.
I suggest that if you want to discusss ISSUES and not PERSONALITIES, this blog would be an excellent place to do that. We conservatives had been trying to do this for years, and have had to resort to off-blog discussions to do so because of the influx of hyper-emotional and semi-hysterical attacks and hyperbole.
43. Almiranta | March 31st, 2008 at 5:51 pm
You seem terribly impressed that Obama taught constitutional law, yet totally unfazed by the fact that his proposed solutions to what he thinks are America’s problems seem to be very unconstitutional.
If you, or he, can find anything in the Constitution of the United States of America supporting the intrusion of the Federal Government into health care, please let us know. Ditto for trying to remove the right to bear arms. Just to point out the two most glaring examples of counter-Constitutional proposals backed by this scholar.
44. SteaM | March 31st, 2008 at 6:01 pm
Almiranta,
You keep talkin’ “feel” and “emotion” and debating the “issues”.
Yet you go on long rants full of emotion, projections, and your own feelings without and facts to back up what you are saying.
So let the facts speak for themselves. …and start presenting some facts rather than just your feelings.
Maybe its been a while since you’ve had to be on the defensive since your party is actually in trouble this time.
45. William Teach | March 31st, 2008 at 6:03 pm
Come on, Almiranta, you know the Left thinks that the Constitution is not Law, but a living, breathing document that means whatever they can get a judge to say it means.
46. FmrMarine | March 31st, 2008 at 6:48 pm
once again;
steambath
Your tired MORONIC statements day after day “show me the statements” ya de ya are beyond ignorant.
You full well know if this were another candidate he or she would be toast.
A 20 year relationship with wright, and an intimate, and active MEMBERSHIP in this organization does not distance him from their beliefs.
Any more than sammy the bull distance from the mafia by stating, no one heard me admit to murder.
berry husein obama was an active participant of this cult. That makes him part and party to their beliefs.
47. DBM | March 31st, 2008 at 6:50 pm
Almiranta,
The constitution generally specifies the limitations upon each arm of government, and upon the federal government upon the people. In its original form at least, it is a black list — a list of things that the federal government can’t do.
To therefore propose that Obama’s healthcare plan is unconstitutional infers that somewhere in the constitution is a specific clause or amendment forbidding the federal government from imposing a healthcare plan. Where might that be?
And I assert that if you find a clause that can be bent to that interpretation, you’ll greatly displease the “original intent” or “constructionist” crowd.
And as far as gun control goes, yes, there’s admittedly firmer constitutional ground because of the second amendment. But I think even the constructionist argument is limited here too. I’m curious: Do you really think that the founding fathers would have objected to some of the urban gun control laws on constitutional grounds?
What I generally find in constitutional arguments is that your political bias (mine included) steer you towards the most convenient constitutional theory. But that kind of situationalist selection of philosophy can quickly get you into intellectual quagmire.
For example, on the conservative side those against gun control and abortion adopt a “original intent” or “constructionist” argument. But in the same breath, conservatives use the 14th amendment to provide the basis for giving corporations most of the governmental protection they have today. Yet, the original intent of the 14th amendment was to give freed slaves rights. Shouldn’t that really gnaw at a constructionist?
And this intellectual slipperiness isn’t contained to conservatives. There’s a fair amount of similarly creative arguments from the left to create rights where there are none.
But I just find that its the conservatives that more frequently shield themselves with arguments based on the constitution. And the hypocrisy bothers me.
Like for example, when someone simultaneously says that Obama’s healthcare plan and gun control stances are unconstitutional. You can either claim that one or the other is unconstitutional, but I can’t see an honest intellectual opinion where you can claim both.
48. kimberly4victory | March 31st, 2008 at 6:50 pm
I don’t think SteaM read Almiranta’s excellent post.
49. justlistent2yourself | March 31st, 2008 at 7:30 pm
Steam– just listen to yourself. Almiranta, just stated fact coherently about Obama and the hysterical devotion from the liberal left. Do you really think that he respects this Nation? How come he cannot even respect our national anthem and put his hand over his heart. Who can be in attendance of a church for 20 years and not condone the tenants of said church?.. give me a break will you.
50. Dasein Libsbane | March 31st, 2008 at 7:52 pm
DBM’s Constitutional assessment is inaccurate prima fascia; the Constitution as written was not and is not now a “list of things that the federal government can’t do” it is a legal document that specifically spells out what the functions and limitations of the government as applicable to the nature and function of a civilization. To challenge that some thing or another is allowable in absence of “specific clause or amendment forbidding the federal government” is desperate ignorance of the form and function of the Constitution.
The framers did, and the Courts have upheld that unless the Constitution specifies a thing that thing cannot be the jurisdiction of the entity espousing control over the activity. Simply stated, the Federal Government (liberals) have circumvented the intent of the constitution by claiming authority for such things as Nation Speed limits, war on drugs, war on poverty, national scholastic standards, et al, as being the jurisdiction of Congress under the Interstate Commerce Clause. Using this logic, the Courts have had to apply the Interstate clause to a tortuous logical engagement to uphold the right of Congress to intervene in what would be generously considered State’s Rights.
UnConstitutional, therefore is not in the interpretation that language specifically prohibits but in the application of the Constitution to the legislation to determine if the legislation meets the standard of the Constitution and if the legislation is allowable under the Constitution (see: Marbury v. Madison).
Strict gun prohibition laws and compelling healthcare legislation are not mutually exclusive nor are either part and parcel of the other to the Constitutionality of one implies the Constitutionality or unConstitutionality of the other.
51. Dasein Libsbane | March 31st, 2008 at 7:56 pm
Oh, and Constitution is a proper noun; capitalize it.
52. js | March 31st, 2008 at 8:43 pm
“I’ve never heard the Messenger of God صلى الله عليه و سلم permit any degree of lying except in three circumstances: reconciliation, war and one spouse to another.”
We are hopeful that the words of Imam Ghazali were intended to be displayed in their full context and not pared to give the appearance of unrighteousness
“except in three circumstances: reconciliation, war and one spouse to another.””
“war”
war…
what is dar ul’harb?
the house of war? who is in that house? all non muslim nations, not under sharia…muslim nations under sharia are in the house of submission (they like to tell you the house of peace), or dar ul’islam
war is a continuous state in dar ul’harb, and no peace is allowed, only temporary hudna, so the muslem may gain strenght to fight again when he is at a disadvantage, but in no case can hudna be a permanent peace…
so yes, the imam was correct, in that we are at war with islam, and have been for about 1400 years (no, we did not declair war on islam, islam declaired war on all non muslims, it is the example of mohammad)
in war, it is allowed to lie, so yes, everything I posted is true
53. SteaM | March 31st, 2008 at 8:43 pm
Hey,
I’m just a little disturbed by the amount of attacks toward Senator Barrack Obama that no one seems to be able to provide one single link to one single credible Web site or document.
I just want someone here who is attacking Barack Obama to provide me with 1. The instance where he said something racist and 2. The instance/s where he committed a crime and was convicted of it.
I understand your concerns about gun laws (he’s not going to take away your guns) and I understand your concerns in terms of his church’s former pastor’s opinions (which those you are talking about are not the opinions of barack).
What else are you concerned about? These things are really not areas where you have much of a leg to stand on. He’s not taking your guns away, he is not a racist, he is not anti-American, he is not unpatriotic etc etc. That is all silly and to be fair I think it is pretty baseless.
I am 30. I grew up in a Christian Conservative Reagan Southern Baptist white family. I bought into it hook line and siker for the first 18 years of my life. I hated Bill CLinton when I was in high school because I listened and held onto every word that Rush Limbaugh had to say. I listened to him everyday before work and while at work. My boss, a big fan.
I was born in a the a red state, in a red city, and grew up in another red city in that same red state.
So, I know exactly where you ar eall coming from.
I bought it back then but I’m sorry… I just don’t buy it anymore.
Ok, go back to telling me I am not reading what people are telling me. Go back to going round in circles labeling Barack Obama things he is not. Go back to defending the party that has run us into the ground.
But please (sarcasm on) do not give me evidence that Barack has said something racist or broken a law. If you cannot do that, which you cannot, then let it go. Discuss his policies. We might get somewhere then.
54. js | March 31st, 2008 at 8:47 pm
wll hey steaM
i been wishin you had the sense God gave a cockroach, but it still hasnt happened
55. js | March 31st, 2008 at 8:55 pm
Al-Muhajiroun, an Islamist newspaper in London, published an article on January 27, 2001, which declared:
Upon the establishment of the Islamic State, the whole world will potentially be Dar ul Harb since the foreign policy of the Islamic state is aimed at conquering the world… Once the Islamic State is established anyone in Dar ul Harb will have no sanctity for his life or wealth hence, a Muslim in such circumstances can then go into Dar ul Harb and take the wealth from the people unless there is a treaty with that state. If there is no treaty, individual Muslims can even go to Dar ul Harb and take women to keep as slaves.
http://www.islamreview.com/articles/humanrights.shtml
56. Casper | March 31st, 2008 at 8:55 pm
SteaM,
“I just want someone here who is attacking Barack Obama to provide me with 1. The instance where he said something racist and 2. The instance/s where he committed a crime and was convicted of it.”
They can’t. They don’t have any evidence. All they have is their hate.
57. js | March 31st, 2008 at 8:59 pm
so, why is it that Obama wants to be elected president, but refuses to honor our flag? why did he endorse the “black ethics” which includes statements like “We are an African people, and remain “true to our native land,” the mother continent”?
if he isnt “AMERICAN” and committed to AMERICA, why does he want to be PRESIDENT?
one word, one word is the entire answer;
POWER
58. js | March 31st, 2008 at 9:01 pm
strange as it seems, you stooges have been presented with dozens over the last 3 months
ya, ill call ya stooges because ya act like stooges, not because you are TV Stars….
59. SteaM | March 31st, 2008 at 9:01 pm
haha, where did all the random Islamic stuff come into this conversation anyways?
It’s a fact that Barack is Christian and not Muslim. So it can’t be that.
I’m confused on that one, js. Please explain.
Oh and hey, I never said I was smarter than a cockroach. I just call it like I see it.
60. js | March 31st, 2008 at 9:02 pm
Obama’s Lies
ten lies
http://www.anonymousliberal.com/2007/04/obamas-lies.html
61. js | March 31st, 2008 at 9:03 pm
multiple lies on film here;
Lieutenants command platoons. Captains command companies.
The U.S. Army would not, under any circumstance, split up a rifle platoon and ship half of them to Iraq and the other half to Afghanistan. They train to work as a team. This simply would not occur, ever.
There has never been a shortage of weapons or ammunition for U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan. On occasion, American forces (especially Special Forces) have used Soviet weapon designs, but they have done so by choice, not necessity
http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/255488.php
62. js | March 31st, 2008 at 9:05 pm
“I’m confused on that one”
thats putting it mildly.
try reading the thread to catch more meaning
if your comprehension is as reliable as your ignorance, then maybe you will figure it out
63. js | March 31st, 2008 at 9:06 pm
even a kid can tell ya the truth about OBAMA:
http://creativeyouth.net/obamaliespeopledie.html
OBAMA: PRO-WAR, PRO-TYRANNY, ANTI-CHOICE, AND
A RECORD OF LYING TO EVERYONE
Ignore His Right-Wing Voting Record and Believe his Words
64. js | March 31st, 2008 at 9:08 pm
Even More Lies From Obama
http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/2008/03/31/even-more-lies-from-obama/
65. js | March 31st, 2008 at 9:10 pm
and lies and lies, and more lies;
Contrary to Obama’s claims in speeches in January at American University and in Selma last year, the Kennedy family did not provide the funding for a September 1959 airlift of 81 Kenyan students to the United States that included Obama’s father. According to historical records and interviews with participants, the Kennedys were first approached for support for the program nearly a year later, in July 1960. The family responded with a $100,000 donation, most of which went to pay for a second airlift in September 1960.
Obama spokesman Bill Burton acknowledged yesterday that the senator from Illinois had erred in crediting the Kennedy family with a role in his father’s arrival in the United States. He said the Kennedy involvement in the Kenya student program apparently “started 48 years ago, not 49 years ago as Obama has mistakenly suggested in the past.”
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/john-stephenson/2008/03/30/more-obama-lies-media-will-ignore
66. js | March 31st, 2008 at 9:15 pm
This latest was in an interview scheduled to be aired today on the popular daytime show “The View.” Obama, after saying that if Wright had not resigned he would have left the church he attended for 20 years, blithely gave an explanation why:
“Had the reverend not retired, and had he not acknowledged that what he had said had deeply offended people and were inappropriate and mischaracterized what I believe is the greatness of this country, for all its flaws, then I wouldn’t have felt comfortable staying at the church,” Obama said Thursday during a taping of the ABC talk show, “The View.” The interview will be broadcast Friday.
Oh really? Did Wright actually “acknowledge” that he had offended people and his remarks were “inappropriate?”
Tom McGuire:
So, when did Wright acknowledge that what he had said was deeply offensive and inappropriate? The AP story recounts some of Wright’s controversial comments but oddly omits to mention his apology, as does all other news coverage with which I am familiar.
And I am strangely certain that a Wright apology would have made the news - unless he never made it publicly. So what are we supposed to believe - that Wright apologized to Obama, who is now apologizing to the rest of us on Wright’s behalf? For heaven’s sake, this really does show that Obama is made of Presidential stuff - maybe he can do an Apology Tour, just as Bill Clinton did.
This is a kind of self serving lie that advances Obama’s narrative of Wright really not being a bad sort of fellow, just a little exciteable due to the racism he experienced as a young man. But it is a falsehood to say that Wright has ever apologized or regretted his remarks and certainly he has never let it be known that he considered them “inappropriate.”
One might also ask why it took Obama 20 years of listening to this hateful rhetoric to even consider leaving the Church. It couldn’t be because he’s running for president now, could it?
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/03/more_obama_lies_about_rev_wrig.html
67. js | March 31st, 2008 at 9:16 pm
well, if you only needed one, take your pick
any stooge can find them on the internet, the issue is that you liberal boys are not just “any stooge”, eh? Not even the run of the mill kind, not smart enough for that…..
68. js | March 31st, 2008 at 9:19 pm
its a crime in its own right to think this liar could or should be our leader
get someone with integrity for cryin out loud, if Obama is the best this nation can present the world with,
WE ARE IN TROUBLE!!
69. Freedom1 | March 31st, 2008 at 9:28 pm
52. js | March 31st, 2008 at 8:43 pm
Exactly, JS. Excellent post!
These clueless leftists are going to get us killed by covering and apologizing for Islam.
This is a great video that everyone should see by Pat Condell: “The Religion of Fear” (YouTube Video)
“One of our favorite Brits sums up life in Orwellian Europe, where peace means violence and tolerance means censorship.” - via ROP.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3_qelW5qp4
70. Canadian Observer | March 31st, 2008 at 10:03 pm
Wow!! The hysterical tone and the amount of fear coming from the neocon ranks makes it clear that they think Obama will be the next President.
JS is beside himself, and it is evident that deep in her heart Almiranta is regretting her conversion to the neocon ideals and would dearly love to return to the Liberal fold.
71. Aaron | March 31st, 2008 at 10:07 pm
hmmmmm
who is the bigger loon? That wacko guy on the bus in SF, or this wacko “js”? I’d say it’s a toss up.
cuckoo, cuckoo
72. js | March 31st, 2008 at 10:08 pm
thats not fear CO
its courage
and its not about neocons or liberals
its about the truth
Obama doesnt belong in the white house, and the democrats are fools to present him as such.
73. js | March 31st, 2008 at 10:09 pm
71. Aaron
impressive, just darned impressive post aaron
now i know where the term mental midget is supposed to be applied
thanks for exposing yourself to us
but no thanks
74. What? | April 1st, 2008 at 12:11 am
Almiranta writes,
If you, or he, can find anything in the Constitution of the United States of America supporting the intrusion of the Federal Government into health care, please let us know.
Well, how about the tax and spend clause in Article I Section 8?
“Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.”
The Federal Government has used this power to provide us with numerous other social welfare programs. Food stamps and social security come to mind. Are these programs also unconstitutional?
Question: Have you read the Constitution or are you going by word of mouth intepretations of it?
75. Tractatus | April 1st, 2008 at 12:29 am
Almiranta,
You keep talkin’ “feel” and “emotion” and debating the “issues”.
Yet you go on long rants full of emotion, projections, and your own feelings without any facts to back up what you are saying.
That’s the beauty of it, though. Whenever ‘Ranty goes on her screeching tirades about what she thinks liberals are like, she is–rather blatantly–describing herself. It is the picture perfect definition of projection: Attributing her own unliked characteristics to other people.
They can’t. They don’t have any evidence. All they have is their hate.
One might say they have some sort of Derangement Syndrome.
76. Mark Noonan | April 1st, 2008 at 3:02 am
SteaM,
Did I accuse Obama of any crime? No - but he is what he is, and amongst the many things which make up Obama, the very, very corrupt Democratic machine in Chicago has played its aliquot part. Now, maybe Obama has risen entirely above that - there is a first time for everything, and this would include the theoretical possibility of a Chicago Democrat having no skeletons in his closet. Not likely, but it could happen - and maybe Obama is it. On the other hand, I wouldn’t bet any actual money on such a theory, if I were you.
Am I obsessed with beating Obama? No. But he must be beaten because he would be an unmitigated disaster as President. Jimmy Carter, multiplied many times. He has no real world experience. He has no solid gronding in history. He has zero military experience. I cannot discerne any principle Obama would sacrifice his career for. A President Obama - well meaning, it goes without saying - would stagger from disaster to disaster, never comprehending why reality doesn’t match his leftwing theory.
And, yes, I know you think that President Bush has been a disaster - the two schools of liberal/left thought on President Bush are “fool” or “demon”, you seem to be in the “fool” line of thinking. The truth of the matter is that he is one of the smartest men we’ve ever had in the White, as well as being someone of rare honesty and sublime moral courage. I know you think such a view downright bizarre, but I ask you to consider the fact that President Bush has run rings around the left for 8 years and has had, at worst, only a couple glancing blows landed on him. Even now, just off a nadir of unpopularity, President Bush still makes the left - in the form of the Democratic part - dance to his tune. I like John McCain, but I don’t think he has President Bush’s ability to ram common sense through the fog of liberal dimwittery out there.
And I’m going to miss him once he’s out - and you will, too, though you’ll be a long time recognising it. We’re going to miss the clarity and decisiveness of a man who does what he thinks is right and doens’t give a damn what people say about him. McCain has a fairly tough political skin, but President Bush has had salt poured into raw wounds, and has come out of it smiling - meanwhile, HillBama can’t take a stubbed poltiical toe without falling apart.
77. zed | April 1st, 2008 at 7:23 am
We need about 100,000 Americans to go before a judge and publicly declare
that their middle names are their legal names for all public purposes.
And they should also declare themselves as supporters of the Hussein
for Imam–whoops I mean president coalition. Hussein will be the
first Muslim president. Free Burkhas for everybody! Hussein’s first
act will be to replace the flag with the red crescent. Hussein has
always hated that other flag with every fiber of his being. Which is
why he won’t pledge to it and won’t wear a flag lapel pin. But Hussein
will proudly salute a flag representative of a non European religion!
When Hussein takes office every child will be required to attend a
Madras just as Hussein did when he was a child. It is so good to be
able to use a candidate’s middle name and talk about his formative
years and his education. Because if you couldn’t that would mean
that the candidate is ashamed of what he was and what he has become.
Welcome to a pork free world with no ham or pizza. You must not offer a pork chop
to Hussein. You must not put pork grease on your hands or your money
and certainly not hallowed ground. No pork anywhere!
Alice Jones, tinfoil hat wearing saucer nut recently came out of the closet and
revealed that she is a radical Muslim and a supporter of Hussein for
for president. Alice, who had previously grown famous for taking Klan money
for bringing up black people exclusively in conjunction with disease, violence,
and/or poverty, surprised everyone by endorsing a black candidate for president.
—coming to you from under the straight talk express.
****Hussein ‘08 !!!*****
78. Canadian Observer | April 1st, 2008 at 10:11 am
77. zed | April 1st, 2008 at 7:23 am
I would like to believe that your post was a satire piece for April Fool’s Day; if not, I would run, not walk, to the nearest mental health facility.
79. DBM | April 1st, 2008 at 10:41 am
Lieutenants command platoons. Captains command companies.
The U.S. Army would not, under any circumstance, split up a rifle platoon and ship half of them to Iraq and the other half to Afghanistan. They train to work as a team. This simply would not occur, ever.
There has never been a shortage of weapons or ammunition for U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan. On occasion, American forces (especially Special Forces) have used Soviet weapon designs, but they have done so by choice, not necessity
I’m surprised you’re still citing this. Obama’s version of events have been borne out.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/from-the-fact-3.html
Nevertheless - to head off an exchange of quibbles and gotchas - wasn’t Obama’s central point that the military is now stretched thin, and the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan are suffering for it? And that was a very predictable outcome given the poor planning and execution of the war in Iraq?
Look, last week John McCain spoke about Iran’s training of Al Qaeda. Did he lie? Or did he just misspeak?
For the remainder of the campaign, we can all swarm over everything the candidates say and conflate any apparent mistake into something sinister. But if we do that, we risk getting distracted by the real issues. In this instance, it’s whether our troops are adequately outfitted and trained, and what we can do about that. And if true, was it strategic lack of judgment that caused it? If so, do either of the candidates - based on what they’ve said and done - show any proclivity towards repeating that error rather than avoiding it.
80. Joe | April 1st, 2008 at 10:52 am
zed, that has to be a farce, right?
if not… my middle name is Anthony. Does that mean I support the Maffia?
81. DBM | April 1st, 2008 at 11:33 am
DBM’s Constitutional assessment is inaccurate prima fascia; the Constitution as written was not and is not now a “list of things that the federal government can’t do” it is a legal document that specifically spells out what the functions and limitations of the government as applicable to the nature and function of a civilization.
Yes, my summarization was clumsy. The Constitution is more than a “list of things that the federal goverment can’t do”. I fully recognize that the Constitution sets the functional boundaries of each arm of the government. But within the original Bill of Rights, the Constitution also proscribes limitations of the Federal Government upon the rights of the people. It was that part that I clumsily represented as a whole. I apologize.
But wait a second. Didn’t “the courts” also uphold the expansion of the Federal Government? Sure, the Federal Government exerted the initial grab for control, but didn’t the courts allow it? And didn’t they do so within the defined Judicial-Executive delimitations of the Constitution? Or are you saying that it was done illegally?
And was it really “Federal Government (liberals)” that expanded the power and scope of Federal authority? Seems to me most of that momentum begun generations before liberalism came to mean what it does now.
Look, you’re not going to get any argument from me that the Federal Government is too large, too invasive upon rights, and has clearly grown beyond the imaginations of the founders. I don’t want the Fed applying educational standards in my local school district, and I don’t want them listening to my phone calls either.
But again, my central point was the hypocritical application of “Constitutional arguments” to fit the notion of what the advocate really wants. Conservatives tend to strong proponents of State’s Rights until a state legalizes gay marriage, or a state court rules the wrong way in a recount ruling.
And if you’re going to peel back Stare decisis all the way back to Marbury and Madison, I’d claim a need to be consistent there too. Don’t like national speed limits? Well, that means you shouldn’t like the federal level funding that built the roads on which those speed limits are posted. And the same license that gives the Fed power to wage the “War on Poverty” is the same that gives it power to wage the “War on Terrorism”. Use the Constitution argument to undermine the Fed’s authority for one undermines it for the other.
82. Aaron | April 1st, 2008 at 11:46 am
wow - the Wingbats have really come out of their belfry now!
Didn’t Mark’s post start out with the intention of framing all of Obama’s supporters as loony? Well, one look thru the posters on this thread will quickly reveal who the real nutcases are supporting.
83. Capitalist Infidel | April 1st, 2008 at 11:50 am
DBM, that could be the most stupid post I’ve ever read! Gay marriage? It was legislated by the courts not the people. Are all liberals this freakin stupid?
And the recount? Well, that was again the courts trying to circumvent the people……you know who that is don’t you?……the legislature.
I’m afraid if liberals are this uneducated there really isn’t any hope.
84. SteaM | April 1st, 2008 at 11:52 am
So you are speculating, and to use Obama’s favorite word “hope”, you are also hoping that Obama is corrupt and incompetent. At the same time you are admitting that Bush’s presidency has been a disastor yet you still “hope” and speculate that he is really a super guy and we’ll all miss him when he is gone. I wonder if you are one of those people who thinks that 20 or 50 or 100 years from now historians will praise his presidency.
So, Mark, there you are. You know that Bush has been a disastor yet you somehow don’t care. You still <3 him 4evar.
We don’t really have good evidence to show that Obama is corrupt or any of the other number of things you have accused him of. Yet you are just sure it must be true.
WTF? I mean sure, Bush could be very smart. But I’d tend to think he lives in a different reality than we do. Therefore his desicions and his views are tainted by this alternate reality. That is all irrelevant anyways. Smart or dumb or a total evil jerk or a saint with a freakin halo… he’s still what he is.
And Obama is what he is… or at least, he is what we hope he is based on what we know and what he tells us through his amazing speechs and his books.
What we do know for sure is we now know George W. Bush very well.
So, my challenge to you is to reconsider your position on Barack Obama and try not to assume he is all of these things you paint him to be. You know you don’t like it when people do that with President George W. Bush.
Attacking a man based on what his pastor said is pretty low and really distracts us from the real issues. What has Obama said with his own mouth using his own mind? What words have come off his own lips?
What do you agree with or disagree with?
And let’s do the same with John McCain because if he has a chance to win I want to know who he is. Or who he will be as President John McCain.
85. What? | April 1st, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Libsbane writes:
“Simply stated, the Federal Government (liberals) have circumvented the intent of the constitution by claiming authority for such things as Nation Speed limits, war on drugs, war on poverty, national scholastic standards, et al, as being the jurisdiction of Congress under the Interstate Commerce Clause.”
Um not quite,
National speed limits are well within the ambit of the Federal givernment’s interstate commerce power. It could also use tax and spend to compell states to set speed limits. However, it has chosen not to do either as there is no longer a national speed limit.
The government provides welfare (SSI, foodstamps etc) through the tax and spend clause.
The war on drugs is a combination of the interstate commerce clause, the Federal government’s jurisdiction over its borders, and the tax and spend clause.
National scholastic standards are also enforced using conditional spending. That is the whole scheme of No Child Left Behind.
That brings me to your assertion only liberals expand the reach of the Federal government. No Child Left Behind was Bush’s idea. The war on drugs was a Reagan/Bush the first idea.
86. Canadian Observer | April 1st, 2008 at 12:45 pm
I wonder if you are one of those people who thinks that 20 or 50 or 100 years from now historians will praise his presidency.
84. SteaM | April 1st, 2008 at 11:52 am
I nominate James Allegro to write up GWB’s legacy, SteaM. He may be the only person left who would be willing to do the job.
Who can forget his monotonous mantra:
“God bless President George W. Bush, the greatest president in american history.”
We haven’t heard from him in awhile; wonder if the love fest with the decider guy is over.
87. DBM | April 1st, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Yeah, I’m stupid at times, but maybe not here. Aren’t you being too narrow in your scope of State’s Rights? State Government consists of all its elements, not just its legislature. In the states (mine at least), all *three* arms (executive, legislative, and judicial) are all popularly elected.
When it comes to Constitutional standards, are you saying it’s okay for any Federal authority to usurp state’s rights in overruling state courts, but not when its overruling its legislature?
And in the case of Massachusetts, it was originally the state Supreme Court who granted the right of same sex marriage. Subsequently, the state legislature has tried - and failed - to deny the practice through both legislative and constitutional efforts. So haven’t the “people” spoken? And if so, I assume you’re okay with the people of Massachusetts exerting their state’s rights?
I’m afraid if liberals are this uneducated there really isn’t any hope.
I’m uneducated, so please refresh my memory on the recount. The Florida legislature was involved how?
It seems you’re arguing that in Florida the courts were overruling the will of “the people”. But aren’t the state courts the constitutionally defined place where “the people” take their appeal for redress? In the case of Florida, the executive branch and their proxies ruled one way, and counties and blocs of voters appealed to the courts. Based on your political leanings, you didn’t want that to happen, but I claim that if the situation were reversed, you’d be making use of the same courts you decry. And I wouldn’t fight your right to do so.
And here is the final irony. The man that was placed in the White House as a result of the recount ruling has done all he can to erode both State’s Rights and the “will of the people” as spoken through US Congress. Don’t like legislation that was passed? Selectively execute it with a “signing statement”. Just last week, the US Supreme Court slapped down an executive order to Texas.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0326/p02s02-usju.html
Trying to trace this back to my original point, I have been conditioned to suspect hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty anytime anyone cites the sanctity of the Constitution, the power of the people, or the primacy of States Rights. Usually what they mean is that some entity somewhere ruled or voted in a way they didn’t like. You cried foul when Bill Clinton sought to expand executive power, but are mute on Bush’s “signing statements” because you agree with what he’s doing. But you’ll conveniently protest the constitutionality of signing statements if a Democratic President used them to not enforce a Partial Birth Abortion ban.
And the hypocrisy is prevalent *on all sides*. There are a few absolutists around (Ron Paul and I suspect Dasein Libsbane) and I respect their consistency and honesty.
88. Dasein Libsbane | April 1st, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Liberals talk like they have a collective paper head; the National Speed Limit was struck down by the Federal Government in 1995 specifically because it was beyond they’re (Congress’) purview. The federal roads were built for national defense and must be ceded to the Federal Government in time of national crises or emergency. Regulation of the usage beyond that is to the States; read the National Highways Act.
Stare Decisis doesn’t apply to your argument; (See: Dred Scott). Marbury is referenced in my response because it established judicial review, not because it was a legal construct based on founders’ intent or strict interpretation.
States’ granting gay marriage is a federal issue owing to the full faith and credit clause, State courts ruling on an election methodology established by the State’s own legislature is the domain of the Supreme Court; to whom else can a state turn when the State court has overstepped its authority? Remember that the Supreme Court agreed with Florida Legislators by a vote of 7 -2 that the Florida State Supreme Court was wrong. (See: Bush v. Gore; the 5-4 vote was on the remedy).
As long as you ignoramuses insist on picking fly $hit out of the pepper; the first declaration of a “war on drugs” (in those words) came in 1968 shortly after Nixon’s inauguration, this in response to the failure of the Federal Government to enforce Johnson’s “Drug Abuse Control Amendments,” which created the Bureau of Drug Abuse Control. It is the “act” that is a questionable use of interstate commerce, not the declaration of phony wars. Try to keep up.
There is no such thing as a “tax and spend clause,” that’s simply absurd.
89. Joe | April 1st, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Capitalist Infidel.
Nice post #83. Perhaps you should read this post before opening that trap of yours again.
90. Dasein Libsbane | April 1st, 2008 at 1:58 pm
And don’t bother with the “Article 1; Section 8 as “Tax and spend” only liberals refer to that as authority by Congress to raise revenue through taxes and spend on their pet social projects; (See Chief Justice Roberts in United States v. Butler)
91. DBM | April 1st, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Dasein Libsbane,
It certainly is convenient that every increment of federal usurpation was made in the name of liberal causes. Or, in the case of Nixon’s war on drugs (subsequently renewed with vigor by Reagan and Bush I), it was merely the poor Republican administration being forced into that situation because of the Johnson’s missteps.
And tell me, if you’re so bothered by the subtle creep of federal power, and since you repeatedly raise Marbury’s Judicial Review, what’s your opinion of Bush’s signing statements? I am an ignoramus, and am probably wrong, but aren’t those two positions contradictory?
Do inform us. I’ll pass the time picking at the pepper pile.
92. What? | April 1st, 2008 at 5:48 pm
“There is no such thing as a “tax and spend clause,” that’s simply absurd.”
Wow, good argument. Um, look again.
I also would suggest you read Cheminisky on Constitutional Law. He feels differently.
You would also have to explain why we currently have so many “liberal social programs” if they are all unconstitutional. Sorry, you can’t just say something doesn’t exist when the Supreme Court has ruled otherwise. It doesn’t work that way. The New Deal expanded the powers of the Federal government so that it could provide those programs. The Supreme Court eventually allowed such expansion. Take your arm chair lawyering elsewhere.
Then there is this:
Liberals talk like they have a collective paper head; the National Speed Limit was struck down by the Federal Government in 1995 specifically because it was beyond they’re (Congress’) purview.
A Congress can’t strike something down as unconstitutional. Congress’ interpretation of the Constitution simply carries no weight. That is the role of the Supreme Court. Shouldn’t you know this?
The Federal Government can pass speed limit laws. Not only under the interstate commerce clause but also under the post road clause.It simply chose to repeal its previous law. Take a look at some of the cases interpreting the interstate commerce clause and you will understand it better.
The Federal government could also place conditions on Federal highway funds that require the states to lower speed limits. Although this is not techically setting a speed limit, it would have the same effect.
Okay, moving on. It is irrelevant when the term war on drugs came into being. The fact is Reagan and Bush I were the biggest supporters of it.
Please, it is pretty clear you are talking about something you do not understand. Don’t embarrass yourself anymore.
93. What? | April 1st, 2008 at 5:54 pm
And don’t bother with the “Article 1; Section 8 as “Tax and spend” only liberals refer to that as authority by Congress to raise revenue through taxes and spend on their pet social projects; (See Chief Justice Roberts in United States v. Butler)
Um, again dismissing something is not an argument. Work harder. Also if you cite a case you need to give more than just the name.
94. DBM | April 1st, 2008 at 9:30 pm
It’s a good time to revisit the reason why we’re down this Constitutional wormhole. Early on, an Obama attacker said his Healthcare plans were “unconstitutional”.
The general theme of all my responses in the thread was that folks who wield Constitution-based arguments tend to be situationalists; they label something unconstitutional if it is a policy or ruling they dislike, or advanced by someone they dislike. Second, they are frequently inconsistent on the application; they are okay with breeches of Constitutional sanctity as long as it supports policy they want advanced. And finally, while they hold no monopoly on these tactics, conservatives tend to rely more heavily upon them. The Constitution provides a nice intellectual shelter.
And I think the responses in the thread have only served to prove these points, rather than deflate them. If Obama’s Healthcare plans are really unconstitutional, why are similar actions and programs by the Bush Administration and/or Republican Congress not also “unconstitutional”? Where’s the outcry against the Medicare prescription plan, Signing Statements, detainment of US citizens without trial, warrant less surveilance, No Child Left Behind, or any of the hundreds of actions both large and small that served to expand the scope, size, and power of the Federal Government?
Look, I’d respect you all a lot more if you just said, “Yes, we too are unhappy with some of the policies of the Bush Administration, and we’re afraid he’s establishing precedent for an Imperial Executive that we’ll only have to fight like hell once a Democrat is in power.” If you think every liberal was content with the Clinton administration, you weren’t getting outside enough.
Blind devotion to your party’s leader is just un-American.
95. js | April 1st, 2008 at 11:28 pm
79. DBM
You really dont have a leg to stand on DBM. Gossip columnists really are no authority about anonymous officers who say this or that.
What a waste of blogsphere for you to even challenge me on that issue.
96. DBM | April 2nd, 2008 at 10:48 am
JS,
Look, you accused Obama of fabricating a story. Regardless of what you think of the fact-checking reporter, or the anonymous officer, doesn’t this prove that Obama *didn’t* fabricate the story?
And had the same fact-checking reporter disproved Obama’s story, would you be dismissing him as a “gossip columnist”?
But, okay, don’t believe the gossip columnist, or the anonymous Captain. Believe General Casey instead. What he says is that the Captain’s story is very plausible given the timeframe. Casey says that when the event supposedly took place, the Army *was* having problems equipping both missions - Iraq and Afghanistan.
http://www.newsmax.com/politics/obama_afghanistan/2008/02/26/75696.html
Wait, that was Obama’s point, wasn’t it? That the Administration’s clumsy execution and strategic blunder compromised the success in Afghanistan.
Now what? When you’re sliding down the slippery slope of baseless accusation and personal attack, it’s difficult to stop. I guess the next step is to now attack General Casey’s credibility and reputation. Or maybe his Congressional testimony wasn’t accurately transcribed?
No, I know what you’ll do. You’ll just concede the issue.
Just Kidding!! It’s so much better this way. Going back and forth, picking at details in each other’s stories. That way we never have to confront the real issues, and the candidates respective plans and abilities to address them.
97. Dasein Libsbane | April 2nd, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Under normal circumstances, i no longer engage with nit-wits on this site when it is clear to me that they haven’t the capacity to make a salient point or defend a position; in this case I’ll make an exception. I have no idea who “Cheminisky” is, but if you mean Irwin CHEMERINSKY, I’ll ask him when he takes over our Law school.
“Congress’ interpretation of the Constitution simply carries no weight. That is the role of the Supreme Court. That is a singularly stupid statement; Congress is charged with developing legislation which comports to the Constitution; the Supreme Court of the US can onlyreview what is brought to them, and only if they (the SC) agrees to hear the case. (Read John Jay’s interpretation of judicial review, and the majority opinion in Marbury. btw, if you’re incapable of finding a citation, you’re incapable of understanding it if I do explain it. Look them up yourself.)
98. Dasein Libsbane | April 2nd, 2008 at 6:19 pm
DBM,
Yes, we too are unhappy with some of the policies of the Bush Administration, if you haven’t read that you haven’t been paying attention. Almiranta, Spook, me and others have repeatedly posted our unhappiness with some of the Administration’s policies; immigration, cronyism, Medicare RX Drug Plan AGW, to name but a few.
But, we recognize that many of the issues with which we disagree with Bush on are fundamentally conservative viewpoints and not conspiratorial as you seem to be. Warrantless surveillance, as an example isn’t a matter of interpretation; it’s a matter of law and every authority (legal) has deemed the administrations position as tenable, legal and approvable. The conservatives would be in open revolt if we believed for one minute that the signals intelligence gathering efforts currently being used were used in a manner consistent with Clinton’s acquisition (via Livingstone) of opposition FBI files, or Nixon’s “enemies list.” We just don’t happen to agree that our intel-gathering efforts rise to the level of Roosevelt’s administration or Lincoln’s usurpation of authority, or Wilson’s blatantly unconstitutional crusade against American citizens.
I, for one will be glad when this administration ends, Ann Coulter and other conservatives have written extensively on the major disagreements with this President, and why Bush is not a true conservative (or even a passable faux conservative). The problem is, with the usual suspects hereabouts we cannot have intelligent conversation with each other without having to defend positions with which we essentially disagree, from being mischaracterized to the point of conspiratorial idiocy.
Being an avid follower of Wm. Buckley, I would characterize my application of the Constitution as consistent and hardly situational. I look for the court to apply a strict scrutiny to the cases it hears, and find that the only Jurists on the court that display this consistency are the conservatives. Read, for example Scalia’s writings on “international opinion” if you want to know the mind of a Constitutional conservative.
Instead of discussing the issues or presenting opposing viewpoints, the few (who post under myriad monikers*) play a childish game of gotcha. This is why I don’t often post here, nor do I respond to the mentally handicapped.
*I’m referring here to the person from the make-believe land of internet hell, who posts here under the guise of an attorney, an economist, a lesbian, and other persona-nom d’ Net, but is obviously one desperately lonely person in mom’s basement with no real life of his own. Sad really.
99. Dasein Libsbane | April 2nd, 2008 at 6:41 pm
DBM,
And as to the constitutionality of signing statements; the issue here isn’t if signing statements are constitutional; they are, it is the nature of the specific signing statements.
Bill Clinton issued more signing statements than both Bush’s combined, Mr. Bush claims, and I believe the Courts will agree that Congress may not pass legislation that usurps the Constitutional authority of the President. As an example, as CoC, the Administration prosecutes war; Congress may not pass legislation (in Bush’s opinion) that attempts to control those decisions; military appropriations with conditions relative to troop strength.
In the situation I described, a veto would be more appropriate, but in the case where Congress has passed legislation in an attempt to dictate policy to the Administration, the President has the authority to exempt his staff from compliance, kinda like when Congress passes employment laws, then decides by internal memo that they are not bound to adhere to the same rules, neither is, btw, the state’s employers. The state and federal employees are paid under a set of rules that ignore the restraints placed on private industry by the legislature.
100. DBM | April 3rd, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Libsbane,
Fair enough. I’m new to the forum, and hadn’t yet witnessed the Bush unhappiness.
I’m curious. Who from the Republican field did you think best represented the Buckley heritage?
And a final quibble. An old adage of mine is “Never attribute to subterfuge what is more easily explained by incompetence”, so I generally dismiss conspiracy theories. But I really believe that the size and scope of domestic signals surveillance programs are far larger than we know or even imagine. My suspicions are driven partly by my professional experience — I’m in the telecommunications field, and have some experience in the area. Part of my suspicion was fueled by Gonzalez’ congressional testimony. There were parsings that led me to believe there were other programs in place, and his answers were trying to wend between revealing them and perjury.
I suspect that the NSA has grabbed lots of communication meta-data (not necessarily the content) to do pattern analysis to discern between benign and non-benign communication patterns, or to identify communications that are worthy of closer attention. I believe that securing this data and the analysis of it is probably not strictly legal, or is in a gray area. They furthermore don’t want it revealed because of political and security reasons.
101. DM | April 3rd, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Bane,
I would like to personally thank you and a number of our other Conservative posters who grace this blog with your insight and wisdom, even if it’s only on occasion.
102. Dasein Libsbane | April 3rd, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Hmmm, Buckley conservative? None of the above?
Romney was moving in that direction, Ron Paul had conservative bona fides but he’s a loon, Thompson had conservative credentials but no real experience that would lend credence to his bid.
I say that Romney had the best shot at the conservative mantle, but having spent time as governor of one of the most liberal states puts a strain on his claim to the mantle. Moving from pro-abortion to pro-life is consistent with a conservative “awakening” and not what I would characterize as “flip-flopping.” He has the credentials to be a fiscal conservative, and like Reagan was willing to give 20% to get 80%.
Buckley wouldn’t “reach across the aisle” for consensus; he would hold fast to his ideals and only “allow” liberals to claim victory in accepting defeat; McCain would do the opposite, compromise his principles then claim victory, which, to a conservative is dangerous. To paraphrase Tevya, where does it stop?
Vis-à-vis signals intelligence; because we cannot or should not know the workings of the NSA we must trust in our representatives to make the best of all possible choices for us. Having said (or written) that, one way to reassure yourself is to look at the advocates/opponents of the program. When such conservative luminaries came out of meetings with NSA as Jane Harmon and Diane Feinstein and believed the program to be necessary and, more importantly neither felt the program crossed the Constitutional line between the Administrations responsibility to protect the country and the citizens’ right to due process, which is what we’re actually talking about here. the government can listen to you discussing cookie recipes with grandma provided your rights under the Constitution aren’t violated.
As a Conservative, I am of the opinion that Bush should have put the AG (Ashcroft) to the task of bringing FISA into the technology age immediately! period-dot-bingo. This inability to act or fear of political retribution that caused the administration to become paralyzed only served to heighten the feeling that the NSA was engaged in something that couldn’t pass constitutional muster. But then, as a conservative, I believe that Bush should have exercised his Veto option before issuing signing statements on controversial legislation.
But, sadly our system under the current conditions doesn’t lend itself to politicos working together behind the scenes to do the peoples’ bidding. If the AG were to have gone to Congress to ask for a legislative review of NSA it would have become a full-blown political contest with both teams intent on scoring points and ignoring the very real danger involved. Just look at the House’s partisan handing of the issue now, they can’t agree on anything that gives an advantage to the opposition political party all the while willing to give the advantage to our real enemies.
Thanks, DM, from you that’s great praise indeed. It’s always a pleasure to read your posts and thoughts as well.
103. ma178zda&hellip | May 6th, 2008 at 8:57 am
t461a
t734t
104. Sc State Employment Appli&hellip | May 20th, 2008 at 6:23 am
Sc State Employment Application
Our destiny is frequently met in the very paths we take to avoid it. ~ Jean de La Fontaine
105. Money Magazine New Constr&hellip | May 21st, 2008 at 3:18 am
Money Magazine New Construction Associated Press
I didn’t agree with you first, but last paragraph makes sense for me
106. Lesbian Sex Teen Lesbians&hellip | June 17th, 2008 at 4:28 am
Lesbian Sex Teen Lesbians Lesbians Fucking
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
107. Vicodin-N-Cocoa | June 20th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Premise is total bullshit. Here’s non-partisan answers.com on fascism
http://www.answers.com/topic/fascism
How does Obama fit any of that?
I’m out front about what I believe. I can’t vote because I’m not a US resident. I am for Obama. He’s not perfect, but what politician is? I don’t want to argue. It’s silly.
You have your set of beliefs. I have mine and we’ll see what happens. That’s it. It’s not really my problem until McCain attacks South America so I’m watching and seeing how it all plays out.
If anyone wants to offer a bet, please advise and I will try to accomodate.
108. Just Say No - To Obama | June 27th, 2008 at 7:40 am
Deleted - off topic.
109. soma oral&hellip | June 27th, 2008 at 11:05 am
soma
the strokes soma