Ok, boys and girls, here’s you big chance to just have at it…lefties, you want to endlessly rehash the reasons we went to war? Here’s you thread. RIghties, been burning for the 1,000th opportunity to make lefties look like fools over their views on the war? Here’s the place.
Alternately, you can discuss the continuing Obama saga; why Hillary is suddenly so quiet. Why recent polling shows McCain doing better and better against either part of HillBama. Why President Bush seems in such a fine mood these days. Why commodity prices took a dump the other day and why some have opined that oil prices will start to slide later this year.
Have at it.
Blogs For Victory 
So are you admitting that he lied about knowing he belonged to a racist church? It really isn’t up to you to decide how Americans feel about this issue.
Rich,
Do you take everything Literally?
Rich, it really isn’t up to you as to what church someone goes to. It isn’t up to you if someone even wants to go to a church.
Would you ever vote for an athiest?
Would you have elected Mitt Romney although his church believes in magic underwear?
You see… voting for or against someone based on their church is completely up to you. But to make this big of a deal of it is a bit foolish.
But hey… keep listening to Hannity and Rush and get your kicks with the whole pastor thing.
The rest of America will move on to what actually affects us.
Rich,
Is Obama’s comment that I posted (commect #65) not at all valid to you?
This whole preacher thing is distracting us from the real debate people LAPEL FLAG PINS!!
We need a person in the white house who can fix the massive screwups of the current president, and hopefully the people of the US remember the years of Bush a long time and the GOP brand is tarnished for decades to come.
Rich, before you move into the Rev’ comment about america giving black men aids. Have you ever heard of the ‘Tuskegee Experiment’?
http://www.tuskegee.edu/Global/Story.asp?s=1207586
Move past this Issue like the public has moved past John Hagee and Rod Parsley. Or the Evangelical advisers that bush has on retainer.
Now, the bush adm. cut interest rates by 0.75% two days ago, their was a momentary spike but now the markets are worse than the were. Continuing the tax cut and furthering Bush’s Economic policies do not seem like a viable options where they are certainly not helping now. If McCain really wants to win in November this is an area that he MUST Flip-flop on
I am not to go the Canadian Observer route and plead “Why can’t we all just get along”. I will take Mark at his word and dish it out to you Busbots.
Folks, just remember the reasoning of the Bushbot neo-cons. They, in their ignorant preening arrogance, thought, by invading Iraq(using lies as reasons), they would bring democracy, that it would flower and spread and bring peace and happiness to that cesspool part of the world. Well how’s that working for ya?
Probably a year from now I will be able go ‘NAH NAH NAH NAH & BWAH WAH WAH BWAH’, you and the other Bushbot Repugs were so wrong..
Also, I am sure you will have to eat crow with this this widespread neo-con belief that I summarize here:
“The war in Iraq has been and will be historically regarded as a great success. The long-term positive geopolitical consequences of our bold action are impossible to overestimate”
Too many swallow that bullshit. Good grief, where’s your brains at?
Sometimes the only choice is between the lesser of two evils. Not invading Iraq will be seen as the proper choice when history later judges. Should have concentrated on Afghanistan. But of course, the bonehead neo-cons were more interested in getting control of Iraq’s oil.
There, and a pleasant good evening to yall.
BTW, you Mercans have no good frontrunners, Dems or Repugs for president.. Nothing good in that litter to pick from. Too bad, so sad. You need a smart far-sighted brave leader to get the USA back on track again. I certainly want to see a strong USA run by people with morals and brains.
Joe- No not really. Because somone was treated badly in the past by a member of a certain race does not give them the right to take their prejudices and then spread them. I was stabbed by a black man six years ago, but I would be a fool to use my past experience and preach to others that black people are dangerous. If Wright was treated badly by whites in the 60’s, does that really explain his stance on HIV and 9-11? Once again here is Obama’s quote about his church before the controversy,
“I don’t think my church is actually particularly controversial.”
So which is it? Did he not think his church was controversial when he made that statement or was he lying. He’s kinda stuck here.
Would I vote for an atheist. Yes. Mormon, yes. Woman, yes. Black, yes. Racist, no.
Someone went to the trouble of scouring through hundreds of hours of Wright’s sermons to distill out the most controversial clips available. They removed them from their contexts, stitched them together and threw them out as if they were representative of everything the man stands for.
It is possible to make anyone look like a fool using such a method. I’ve seen similar videos of George W. Bush that make him appear mentally retarded to anyone with clinical experience. Some might argue, “well he is” – to which I’d respond, “no more or less than Wright is a hate-filled demagogue.”
Mike Huckabee said yesterday: “Pastors like Rev. Wright are [preaching] extemporaneously, and caught up in the emotion of the moment. There are things that sometimes get said, that if you put them on paper and looked at them in print, you’d say, ‘Well, I didn’t mean to say it quite like that.'”
Nonetheless, some of Wright’s “extreme” statements actually are quite reasonable when examined dispassionately. In his “chickens coming home to roost” statement he says: “We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye.”
By fire-bombing civilian targets such as Dresden, Nagasaki and Hiroshima, America did in fact kill more innocent civilians by orders of magnitude than we lost on 9/11. Admiral William D. Leahy, Truman’s own chief of staff, said, “The use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan.”
Paulist priest, Father James Gillis, editor of The Catholic World and a stalwart of the old Right, went further, castigating the nuclear attacks on Nagasaki and Hiroshima as “the most powerful blow ever delivered against Christian civilization and the moral law.” Catholic philosopher G.E.M. Anscombe called Truman a war criminal, placing no difference between America massacring civilians from the air and Nazis wiping out Czech or Polish villages.
Similar historic support may be found for most if not all Rev. Wright’s criticisms. Yet we won’t see Mark or the self-styled “pro-life” conservatives here condemn Father James Gillis as a hate-filled demagogue for saying the same thing Rev. Wright has said. The only difference is Wright’s style, his audience and the ill-concealed bigotry of his accusers – who are either too historically ignorant or arrogant to find put Wright’s words in context.
So who are the real hate-filled demagogues? When all is said and done, it is better not to characterize like that. To his credit Barack Obama has refused to do so. He is leaps and bounds ahead of his critics in political perspective, maturity and substance.
America is blessed by divine grace to have Obama’s candidacy at a moment when such insight in leadership is so sorely needed. America lost Lincoln, Martin Luther King and two promising Kennedys all before their time. Now another generation is poised to scorn the same kind of gift offered yet again – trading it all for the hypocrisy of a basely contrived issue.
“BTW, you Mercans have no good frontrunners, Dems or Repugs for president.. Nothing good in that litter to pick from. Too bad, so sad. You need a smart far-sighted brave leader to get the USA back on track again. I certainly want to see a strong USA run by people with morals and brains.”
You mean like President… I mean Prime Minster Harper. Please man, if he had a majority government Canadians maybe facing what the US are right now. Only difference being he could stay in power a lot longer than 8 years. Oh and Dion is not much better.
Obama has both morals and brains as shown by his ‘race’ speech. Which will go down in history no doubt. He is the best candidate in at least a generation.
I agree with you about the war in Iraq, I think the US should start pull out and start helping out those Canadian soldiers who were left holding the bag (for the most part) in Afghanistan because of Iraq.
Wow talk about revisionist history. Why did Japan surrender in WWII? How many lives were saved because the fighting did not go island to island, street to street? You know the Japanese were training women and children to fight to the death right? WWII was a total war, where resources and factories and your “innocent civilians” were legitimate targets. I don’t believe we were the ones that started that. Ever hear of the London air raids? Ever head of the Rape of NanKing? Sorry, there is no moral equivalency between people that propped up Hitler and people that were enjoying their morning coffee and then got blown to smithereens. Furthermore, what war were we in when the planes hit the towers? you are disgusting. Blame America first. Is this Reverand Wright posting?
Source: TPM Election Central
Some Assembly Required – regarding your comment:
–I don’t disagree with your statement about Harper, he is too right wing for me. I never claimed to have good leaders in Canada, right all, they can all go to hell in a handbasket, as far as I am concerned.
–Regarding Afghanistan, well at least 3000 rough tough ready-to-rumble marines are setting up camp with the Canadians, that more than the entire Canadian force in Afghanistan.
Regarding Rich’s comment. I agree with Rich completely, this whining about using nukes on Japan, get over it. They had it coming. It was just two bombs, mind you very powerful bombs.
Diana in #9 you mention Cindy McCain’s drug use.
Check out these
prorev.com/connex.htm
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0707/S00058.htm
Rich says in post 84: “Wow talk about revisionist history. Why did Japan surrender in WWII? How many lives were saved because the fighting did not go island to island, street to street?”
Truman’s chief of staff, Admiral William Leahy, wrote in his book “I Was There” that using the “barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.”
Ralph Raico, senior scolar of the Mises Institute, writes: The rationale for the atomic bombings has come to rest on a single colossal fabrication, which has gained surprising currency: that they were necessary in order to save a half-million or more American lives. These, supposedly, are the lives that would have been lost in the planned invasion of Kyushu in December, then in the all-out invasion of Honshu the next year, if that was needed. But the worst-case scenario for a full-scale invasion of the Japanese home islands was forty-six thousand American lives lost.
The ridiculously inflated figure of a half-million for the potential death toll – nearly twice the total of U.S. dead in all theaters in the Second World War – is now routinely repeated in high-school and college textbooks and bandied about by ignorant commentators.
Unsurprisingly, the prize for sheer fatuousness on this score goes to President George H.W. Bush, who claimed in 1991 that dropping the bomb “spared millions of American lives.”
http://www.lewrockwell.com/raico/raico22.html
“Iraq is a very wealthy country. Enormous oil reserves. They can finance, largely finance the reconstruction of their own country. And I have no doubt that they will.”
– Richard Perle, Chairman of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board, 7/11/02
“The likely economic effects [of the war in Iraq] would be relatively small… Under every plausible scenario, the negative effect will be quite small relative to the economic benefits.”
– Lawrence Lindsey, White House Economic Advisor, 9/16/02
“It is unimaginable that the United States would have to contribute hundreds of billions of dollars and highly unlikely that we would have to contribute even tens of billions of dollars.”
– Kenneth M. Pollack, former Director for Persian Gulf Affairs, U.S. National Security Council, 9/02
“The costs of any intervention would be very small.”
– Glenn Hubbard, White House Economic Advisor, 10/4/02
“When it comes to reconstruction, before we turn to the American taxpayer, we will turn first to the resources of the Iraqi government and the international community.”
– Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, 3/27/03
“There is a lot of money to pay for this that doesn’t have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people. We are talking about a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon.”
– Paul Wolfowitz, U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense, testifying before the Defense Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, 3/27/03
“The United States is committed to helping Iraq recover from the conflict, but Iraq will not require sustained aid.”
– Mitchell Daniels, Director, White House Office of Management and Budget, 4/21/03
“Iraq has tremendous resources that belong to the Iraqi people. And so there are a variety of means that Iraq has to be able to shoulder much of the burden for ther own reconstruction.”
– Ari Fleischer, White House Press Secretary, 2/18/03
Direct cost per minute of the Iraq occupation: $278,000
Direct cost of the Iraq occupation for the rest of Mister Bush’s term: $122 billion
Total projected cost to the US: 2 to 3 trillion
Oh, go on then… a short video about the real purpose of being in Iraq:
Dennis- There is this thing called cause and effect. The U.S. had been at war with Japan for four years. We bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the Japanese surrendered SIX days later. Yes it is a controversial topic, and its not surprising you have some quotes from dissenting views, big deal. We can argue about the number of American lives saved, but you have to agree that many thousand were indeed saved. Failure to see a direct correlation between the bombings and the immediate surrender six days later is kinda lame.
This whole preacher thing is distracting us from the real debate people LAPEL FLAG PINS!!
So very, very true. As this video conclusively demonstrates, that lapel pin really means something.
Rich, I am sorry to inform you that thousands of lives were not saved. In fact subracting the highest theoretical number of lives that may have been saved from those actually killed leaves a huge sum of burned-up human lives.
And I imagine you fancy yourself pro-life too.
You are so naive to bring up Abrahamof.
Did you guys ever figure out why they only tagged the Republicans that recieved donations from him, and none of the Democrats, like Reid and Pelosi? Do they wear lapel pins too? or are have they become anti American like Obama is?
And that doesnt cover the Pledge of Allegiance either. Why doesnt Obama join in the Pledge, with his hand over his heart, as a traditional gesture if nothing else. Its a salute, of respect, for the flag of your nation.
Then again, Obama takes the traditional stance of a non-American during the Pledge, just standing up, and refraining from the salute. At least he didnt stay sitting.
So, Obama really isnt an American, for sure.
Abramoff told prosecutors that more than $30,000 in campaign contributions to Reid from Abramoff’s clients “were no accident and were in fact requested by Reid.”
Abramoff has reportedly claimed the Nevada senator agreed to help him on matters related to Indian gambling.
The Associated Press reported earlier this year that Reid wrote at least four letters helpful to the tribes that had contributed money to his campaign.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/11/abramoff_report_1.html
Funny how that works….you get elected as senate majority leader, and criminal investigations stop dead in thier tracks.
How democratic…..NOT
js: Did you guys ever figure out why they only tagged the Republicans that recieved donations from him, and none of the Democrats, like Reid and Pelosi?
Umm…. because they didn’t take anything from Abramoff and the Republicans did? Reid took donations from tangent clients of Abramoff, not directly from him or from him thru a client.
I believe this has all been hashed out previously.