Yes he did, Steve- he went hard after Wright because Wright is 10x more important to Obama's life than Ayers. And then Obama countered by saying he believed in Wright but changed his views after he had kids.
Actually, that didn't happen but you were excited for a while right?
When are you going to post something interesting?
I've been reading that queer Sullivan for a while- he posts like 25x a day. What's your excuse? Oh right, he's got supplemental testosterone flowing through his system.
Obama's answer to the Ayers question was smooth. (I'm paraphrasing) "The president of Northwestern, who is a Republican, was on this same board with Ayers," etc.
You felt that McCain was out of line, asking about Ayers like that.
It's incredible, when all respectable people act like something isn't a big deal, it's hard to make a big deal about it.
Of course not. And it’s worse than that. He didn’t even dare mention the word “racist” (as in being accused of being one). He instead talked about being associated with George Wallace and church burnings, which is not clear and potent many voters.
Wasn't able to catch the debate, but according to the NRO commentary, no mention of Wright.
One intersting comment Mark Steyn made in the wrap-up, though, caught me eye:
McCain was never able to cast aside the Senatorial collegiality and really stick it to Obama. Why couldn't he have used the s-word - "socialism"...McCain lacked the killer instinct...You look at the way he sneered at Romney in the primary debates and compare it with his tentativeness toward Obama.
This is a guy not known for his "collegiality," who is being entirely too collegial with a radical leftist. John McCain had no problem sneering at Romney or telling his fellow (Republican) senator to "f--- off" during the write up of the immigration bill, but he's playing buddies with Obama?
I go back and forth on who I want to win. I have no love for Obama's radicalism, but backing this nominee is a bit much to ask of anyone. Besides, I still think that Republicans will have a better chance of regaining Congress with Obama at the helm than with McCain.
Captain Jack -- It will be one man, one vote, one time. Already ACORN is stuffing ballots in OH to the tune of 200K at least. Probably A million or so when all is said and done.
My question for Steve is what will he do when Obama's guys come for him, and VDARE?
We all KNOW there will be "hate speech" codes and so on. "Fairness" doctrine to blogging. Policing of what can be said and written on the internet.
Obama's supporters are already talking of putting folks like Steve (and I'm sure, myself) in "camps" for the "good of the World" and that stuff.
McCain was used like a punk, because Obama owned him. Made him afraid to use Wright and the racist card be thrown once again at him.
If McCain is afraid of Obama (he is) just imagine what will befall Steve and I (and you too, for that matter). When Obama follows cousin Raila Odinga.
You know, you would think that Bush had conclusively shown us all the importance of appealing to people who think like you.
I wondered for the life of me why McCain never used the word "Marxist" to describe Obama's views. Then I realized that McCain, just like Obama, is really a Senator. Huckabee, Guliani and Romney's criticism of Senators as negotiators as opposed to hardnosed decision makers came to mind as I watched McCain fumble every opportunity to put Obama's position in the category it often deserved.
Now I know that if I ever want to be a politician, I will never be a Senator!
I found the most interesting part of the debate was the discussion of the “free trade” with Columbia. Obama claimed that he didn’t support free trade with Columbia because “labor leaders” there are being assassinated and the assassins are not being “prosecuted.”
I took this to mean that Obama sides with the radical left in South America, and that he was blaming the assassinations on the “right wing” American supported Columbian government. That would appear to be a reasonable inference, and if correct it would certainly place Obama far to the left of former President Clinton.
Obama handled the Ayres question by doing a reverse non-guilt by association argument. Obama claimed that there were respectable people on the education board with him (whether it was the Woods foundation or the Walter Annenberg challenge isn’t clear to me).
What is misleading (i.e., dishonest) about Obama’s non-guilt by association argument is that Ayres had specifically selected Obama, an unknown at the time, to be a board member. Selecting the then president of Northwestern University, arguably the most prestigious institution of higher learning in the Chicago area is pretty much a no-brainer and great cover for a radical left wing program. Recall that Ayres father had lots of clout in Chicago and was more than willing to use it, so invoking the clout of Ayres “old man” could get some respectable names involved. As far as we know, Obama was the only person on the board who came out of nowhere and was handpicked by Ayres himself.
"My question for Steve is what will he do when Obama's guys come for him, and VDARE? We all KNOW there will be "hate speech" codes and so on. "Fairness" doctrine to blogging. Policing of what can be said and written on the internet."
The British geneticist Steve Jones recently argued that evolution is over. I don't necessarily agree with his thesis - although it's interesting - but it's hard not to agree with the following point he made:
"Small populations which are isolated can evolve at random as genes are accidentally lost. World-wide, all populations are becoming connected and the opportunity for random change is dwindling. History is made in bed, but nowadays the beds are getting closer together. We are mixing into a glo-bal mass, and the future is brown.”
In 200 years time white man and the civilization he created will be "roadkill" on the path of history - to quote Mz Condi Rice's famous remark about "Old Europe".
Might as well accept this fate graciously, while endeavouring to maintain a grim sense of humour.
McCain has evidently been cowed into not mentioning the very real association with Wright due to "racism" concerns.
MEANWHILE . . .
It appears the much-vaunted "kill him" racial epithets against Obama at McCain rally are unfounded, Secret Service reporting (Drudge clip below).
Who's betting that the liberal media has concocted this whole storyline to play the "racism" angle
The liberal media can INVENT stories - but conservatives are supposed to hold off on a real guy (Wright) saying "God damn America' on videotape -
Conservatives: keep doing what you're doing. Keep playing fair and square with opponents who are only interested in the big lie, the cheap shot, the whitewash, propaganda.
"The agent in charge of the Secret Service field office in Scranton said allegations that someone yelled “kill him” when presidential hopeful Barack Obama’s name was mentioned during Tuesday’s Sarah Palin rally are unfounded.
The Scranton Times-Tribune first reported the alleged incident on its Web site Tuesday and then again in its print edition Wednesday. The first story, written by reporter David Singleton, appeared with allegations that while congressional candidate Chris Hackett was addressing the crowd and mentioned Oabama’s name a man in the audience shouted “kill him."
News organizations including ABC, The Associated Press, The Washington Monthly and MSNBC’s Countdown with Keith Olbermann reported the claim, with most attributing the allegations to the Times-Tribune story.
Agent Bill Slavoski said he was in the audience, along with an undisclosed number of additional secret service agents and other law enforcement officers and not one heard the comment.
“I was baffled,” he said after reading the report in Wednesday’s Times-Tribune. "
Already ACORN is stuffing ballots in OH to the tune of 200K at least.
Non-whites (predominantly, let's be honest) clamoring and now scheming for their share, whether they earned it or not. And why not? They'll soon be the majority and making the rules and taking what they want.
BTW, how's that whole 'black rule' thing in Africa working out?
I don't think McCain has even mentioned affirmative action or illegal immigration in any of the debates.
He seems to be ignoring the huge racial elephant in the living room. What's he afraid of? Winning?
I think he is. I don't think McCain really wants the job.
ben franklin said... I found the most interesting part of the debate was the discussion of the “free trade” with Columbia. Obama claimed that he didn’t support free trade with Columbia because “labor leaders” there are being assassinated and the assassins are not being “prosecuted.”
I noticed that, too. He was starting to sound like a Marxist in some state U. cultural anthropology dept. When Obama's president it's going to be a weird ride. I expect anti-rightist paranoia to come out in full-force.
McCain was used like a punk, because Obama owned him. Made him afraid to use Wright and the racist card be thrown once again at him."
And if McCain was used like a punk, why is it that you think he will be able to stand up to Admednidjahd and all of those tribes with nukes (and motorboats too), whom you claim are such great existential threats to this nation?
Obama is a much greater threat to this nation than is any Afghan or Pakistani, as you now seem to be admitting. So what has become of the argument which you tirelessly - and tiresomely - have made previously.
Get a grip. You guys are getting unhinged over Obama. He is, in my opinion, a moderate, cautious, centrist Democrat who used to present himself as more leftish (and black_ than he really was. He did it for reasons of peer pressure and political expediency, especially the latter. He wouldn't be where he is now if he hadn't.
I find it more plausible that Obama used to be a secret moderate masquerading as a radical, than that he is now a secret radical masquerading as a moderate. For one thing, real radicals cannot craft intelligent, imaginative, middle-of-the-road positions. If they could they wouldn't be radicals.
Of course, given present circumstances, Obama may turn out to be a FDR style Democrat. But since when was that beyond the pale? Reagan admired FDR as I recall.
anonymous wrote: "It's incredible, when all respectable people act like something isn't a big deal, it's hard to make a big deal about it."
That is a very insightful and important comment. That is how civilized societies slip into barbarism. It is how a logical, Western civilization slips into a premodern state of mind. It is how good things go bad.
No Wright, but McCain did bring up Joe the Plumber who I believe is the second biggest cultural flash point with Wright being the biggest. Probably bigger than Palin's family.
Before Joe, a white working class guy could plausibly believe that Obama was for them and against the rich. Because of Joe, they now believe that Obama is against them and for the dregs.
The visuals of that encounter between Joe and Obama, ignored by the msm until McCain made Joe a national figure, couldn't be worse for Obama. Joe is a nice looking guy that anyone can relate to and you have a bunch of "Joe's people" surrounding him and Obama who run the gamut from the more clean cut middle-middle to the slovenly looking guy with a big belly who looks almost working poor.
"and if correct it would certainly place Obama far to the left of former President Clinton."
Obama is by far the most leftwing presidential candidate in our history. I'm not talking about his carefully constructed public persona for this campaign. I'm talking about the real Obama.
Captain Jack Aubrey:I go back and forth on who I want to win. I have no love for Obama's radicalism, but backing this nominee is a bit much to ask of anyone. Besides, I still think that Republicans will have a better chance of regaining Congress with Obama at the helm than with McCain.
You would think that on a board which is [at least ostensibly] obsessed with questions of demographics, the readership would be aware that it will be demographically impossible for the GOP to win at the national level [either the presidency or houses of Congress] after about the 2012-2016 timeframe.
Frankly I'm dubious that the GOP will even be theoretically capable of winning in 2012.
PS: Testing99 is the only one here who really gets it - frankly, there will be some tragicomic poignancy to the irony of seeing Steve Sailer hauled off to the Gulag after all of his sucking up to Obama in the last year or two.
Wasn't there one of those old, dead white dudes who said something about the deaths of a coward?
Aah, what difference does it make - at the end of the day, all of those old, dead white dudes will still be old and dead.
Captain Jack -- It will be one man, one vote, one time.
I agree Obama and the Dems will try to undermine the legitimate election process any way they can - because that's what they've been doing for years, starting at least with Motor Voter. But Obama is being elected president of the USA. That doesn't give him control of state election appariti. That doesn' give him control of federal judges - only the power to appoint new ones.
And if he tries to hush Rush and various other radio and internet personalities via the "Fairness Doctrine"? I see violence in that course of action - actual physical violence. Who would he call out to stop it, the military? The National Guard? Ha!
If Obama governs half so radically as he is, there is a GOP majority waiting for him 2 years hence. Even business, though they usually kiss the ass of whoever's in office, may fall back in line with the GOP if Obama is leftist enough.
Besides that, I think the next two years will be very difficult ones. The economy's not quite ready to bounce back. There is too much debt in the USA, and banks will still keep very a tight leash on credit. Obama does not have the luxury that FDR had. People have come to expect short recessions, and anything otherwise they'll blame on him.
I have a hunch that voters will also start to get very, very tired of hearing that you can't criticize Obama because it's racist to do so.
...Wright is 10x more important to Obama's life than Ayers.-- danindc
Yes, but Ayers is more important to us because he's white. People dismiss Wright's views because he's black, and nobody really takes blacks seriously. "Oh, look at him... isn't he cute, the way he bellows?"
Blacks make good victims in the present environment, and a black victim would be most handy for anti-Obama forces. (As opposed to pro-McCain.) And one is handy...
In 1981, the white parents of a toddler were involved in a joint Weather Underground/Black Liberation Army operation that killed two cops and a guard who had nine children of their own between them. One of the cops, Waverly Brown, was black.
The parents were caught and convicted, and the toddler was reared by foster parents in Chicago. His name is Chesa Boudin, and he was probably in the room when Bill & Bern hosted the political coming-out party of Barack Obama.
Rich white radicals knock off a black cop with three kids. Waverly Brown is the perfect "Willie Horton" for this political season.
McCain is embarrassing. I like it when some ask why before last night he didn't "go after" Obama more. When he did he looked silly because there is nothing he fundamentally disagrees with him on. People sit there wondering why he's acting as if he's going to kill Obama over never having been to Columbia or meeting with Hugo handlers. That is, if they're hollow enough not to realize that it's because his handlers told him to "be tough" and connect by speaking "directly to Joe the plumber." I hate how on nature vs. nurture, race/iq, economics, etc. we have science on our side but anybody who turned on the debate last night thinking that liberals were the smart ones and conservatives brain dead idiots would've seen that confirmed.
I had hope when McCain picked Palin until we found out what a complete idiot she was. Thank God these jokers aren't going to be representing what conservativism is for four years.
People are going to be shocked at how leftist Obama is when he's elected, and we on the Right need to be ready for this. The U.S. is going to have a huge case of buyer's remorse, and we need to be ready to hit back, hard. Remember, Testing99, despair is a sin. In the meantime, McCain is running the worst campaign of my lifetime (I'm 48), and the wonder is that he's within 20 point of Obama. The fact that he isn't show the latent support out there for our side. We'll be back...
Conservatives: Get Drunk and vote for Obama! A stupid party Decider and the crooked party holding the purse strings is the worst. Has been since Tory governors and crooked Whig legislatures. A slick hustler president, who knows his ratings are affected by popular dislike for Congress- Better than a RINO president with a Pelosi Congress.
To me this was by far the most revealing and important part of the debate. Schieffer asked: "the U.S. spends more per capita than any other country on education. Yet, by every international measurement, in math and science competence, from kindergarten through the 12th grade, we trail most of the countries of the world....what do you intend to do about it?"
First of all, let Obama's response haunt his endlessly destructive and discredited worldview for all time: "This [national test scores: a perfect proxy for IQ] probably has more to do with our economic future than anything and that means it also has a national security implication"
YES, Mr. Obama!! National IQ does "probably have more to do with our economic future than anything" and therefore YOUR number one priority as the leader of this country is to be a responsible steward of those precious scores and the prosperity they CAUSE. If YOU are importing lower scores, that we don't know how to fix.. scores that persist across 5 generations.. then YOU are responsible for taking away our prosperity and national security. YOU are responsible by your own accidental admission.
Second, one would think that answering such a transparently loaded question like this with "spend more money" would be interpreted by everyone as an idiotic response, but that is exactly what Obama did! And since the correct answer is we don't have the first clue how to make blacks and Hispanics smart,by religious necessity Obama is forced to promote pseudoscience:
"..what's happened is that there's been a debate between more money or reform, and I think we need both.. In some cases, we are going to have to invest. Early childhood education, which closes the achievement gap, so that every child is prepared for school, every dollar we invest in that, we end up getting huge benefits with improved reading scores, reduced dropout rates, reduced delinquency rates."
Did you catch that? He asserted that we know how to "close the achievement gap" between whites and blacks. Obama just lied to the American people. He is going to waste MORE tax payer money when the question itself indicated we already spend the most and get the least results. "Early childhood education" programs are expensive and do NOT close or influence the achievement gap. That is a lie.
Here is a program we should waste some money on. Wasteful because either way it proves the same thing:
Why not send a herd of our black and Mexican students to Finland, which has the highest test scores and spends the least on education. Let's see if it really is the government which is responsible for national test scores instead of the people which comprise the population.
If it works, import the Finnish school system: it costs a whole lot less and works. If it doesn't work, import the Finnish school system: it doesn't work but it costs a whole lot less!!
One thing is certain: Obama is going to further destroy this country with his dangerous religion of hbd denial.
Here is the future of America Barack Obama is ushering in, while wasting billions of dollars on pseudoscientific education programs.
Declining test scores, due to specific demographic policies Obama will have full control over, will already subtract from the economies in the states with these demographic shifts over the next 10 years:
"IF the educational gaps remain as they are.... over one-third of the states would experience a decline in personal income per capita, including many currently with the highest levels, such as California, Colorado, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New York. In these states, the decrease in income would be much more substantial than the U.S. average and could significantly affect their tax bases. For example, the projected decline in personal income per capita from 2000 to 2020 in Colorado would be $662, in New York $1,182, and in California $2,475. "
"California provides a glimpse of what such changes might mean for America’s economic future. The Center for Public Policy and Higher Education predicts that unless the rate of college matriculation among “underrepresented” minorities (that is, Hispanics) immediately rises, the state will face an 11 percent drop in per capita income by 2020."
FWIW, the "Joe the Plumber" guy is being destroyed in the Press. He doesn't like Obama's tax plan, and the press and Obama are combing through every thing they can to dig up dirt on the guy.
Imagine what they will do when One Man, One Vote, One Time Obama takes office.
Steve, you better start a fundraising drive now, because I imagine you are on Obama's "to do list" as am I.
They'll do that to the "Joe the Plumber" guy before the election -- just imagine the measures they'll put in place afterwards.
Well, if Obama decided you were an unlawful combatant, and needed to be, oh, say, disappeared off the streets of an American city and locked up in a military brig for several years for some "enhanced interrogation," would you think he was exceeding his powers? You did oppose the current president's claim of the power to do this, right? Or did you imagine that only your side would ever have it?
I don't see any reason to think Obama will be shipping people off to camps for disagreeing with him, FWIW. I wish I believed he would not claim all the powers George W Bush claimed for the presidency, would not continue the use of torture overseas (I hope to God not done to Americans, but you never know what's being done in secret) and widespread surveillance at home. But he's a politician, and when you hand him powers, he's going to use them.
It's a pity those powers will be used against everyone, instead of just against the folks who thought it was okay when someone from their party was using them.
Calling Obama a Marxist won't work because it's transparent BS. Obama and McCain's actual spending, judging from past Democrats / Republicans, will be quite close together.
They were both lying constantly through the debate, of course. We ain't balancing the budget in four years. That wasn't in the cards even where we were last year--since then, we've committed ourselves to a godawful amount of money trying to keep the financial system from melting the rest of the way down, and we're facing a huge recession. We're not going to get off foreign oil. All this talk of tax cuts is going out the window as soon as either man is elected, most likely--to be replaced by some sober discussion about WTF to do about the economic disaster.
That was the hardest thing for me to handle, watching the debate. The first world is in the process of nationalizing its financial industry. It's hard to overstate just how ominous the situation there is. And we got cutesy talking points about Joe the Plumber and innumerate nonsense about getting off imported oil. Why not give them both fiddles, and set fire to DC around them, just to set the right tone for the quality of leadership we're looking at?
A McCain T-shirt that reads, "It's the American dream, stupid."
PM: Do you hope Sen. McCain will talk more about this issue during Wednesday’s debate, you know, taxes for small businesses?
JW: There’s a lot of things I wish McCain would say...I’d like to hear him talk about immigration and what he plans on doing about that and with our borders.
I assume that either a) McCain has resigned himself to "losing with honor" or b) he knows something damaging to Obama is going to drop and McCain doesn't want to be accused of stirring the pot.
And don't just assume that the McCain campaign orchestrated option b, if it happens. It could come from several places.
So, since it is clear that we are in a recession and it is only going to get worse, I imagine that quite a number of Americans will be grateful for any job next year, and many will be grateful that their children can get any job, even those sorts of jobs that we currently use illegal immigrants for.
Perhaps the Dems (and some Repubs) will start feel the heat from their constituents pretty soon.
You would think that...the readership would be aware that it will be demographically impossible for the GOP to win at the national level [either the presidency or houses of Congress] after about the 2012-2016 timeframe.
What percentage of white Southerners vote GOP? It's pretty high, no?
The more radicalized and powerful the Black/Latino element becomes, the more race realist whites and Asians will become. Will it swing enough votes to give conservatives a chance?
The U.S. is going to have a huge case of buyer's remorse
Obama's going to play moderate as bes he can. To the extent that he doesn't, the media will cover much of his tracks. And there will probably be no money to back any "Harry & Louise"-type ads to oppose Obama's soialist push.
In the meantime, McCain is running the worst campaign of my lifetime
Conservatives and liberals are both creatures of habit. Conservatives tend to go for the guy next in line, liberals for the hot new thing.
Yet, by every international measurement, in math and science competence, from kindergarten through the 12th grade, we trail most of the countries of the [white and Asian] world....what do you intend to do about it?"
Fixed that. That's what he meant. If McCain had answered, "But we're ahead ofZimbabwe!" everyone would have laughed, and Bob would've had to scrach his head and say "Well, I wasn't really thinking of them."
Aside from that, I wonder. If it's not race - that's taboo - and it's not money - we spend more than anyone - then it must be tactics. Who decides that? The NEA. What bias do they have? A leftist one.
FWIW, the "Joe the Plumber" guy is being destroyed in the Press.
Funny how quick they were to dig up his skeletons. Guess they've optimized their search engines for names like "Joe Wurzelbacher" but not "Jeremiah Wright" and "William Ayers."
McCain's being taken to task for every random idiot his campaign comes into contact with (including several phantom ones), while Obama's real friends are being ignored. (And FWIW, Joe's real legal first name is "Samuel," so they really had to dig).
McCain can't mention Wright because he has a Hagee in his closet.
That's silly. Anyone with any brains would welcome the comparison; did McCain sit in Hagee's pews for 20 years? The relationship is obviously different, before one begins comparing the positions of the men in question, which again favors McCain.
People are going to be shocked at how leftist Obama is when he's elected, and we on the Right need to be ready for this. The U.S. is going to have a huge case of buyer's remorse, and we need to be ready to hit back, hard.
I agree, if hitting back hard means hitting back with constructive conservatives ideas. If it means more bitter personal attacks, then we've had enough of that for the last 16 years.
If the citizenry does indeed develop a case of buyer's remorse, conservatives will have an opportunity handed to them to make a case for their values and policies. It would be a shame if they squandered that chance searching for evidence that Obama's 4th cousin once drove past a madrasah in Islamabad.
I've been reading that queer Sullivan for a while- he posts like 25x a day. What's your excuse? Oh right, he's got supplemental testosterone flowing through his system.
Heh. Unfortunately, Sullivan has become virtually unreadable because of his emotional diatribes and hysterical overreactions to every little thing he disapproves of. Today, for example, his knickers are in a twist because the Virginia GOP sent out some campaign literature that seems to identify Obama and the Dems with terrorists. Nasty? Yes, but hardly unique in politics on either side. Sullivan, however, wonders, "how does any decent person remain a Republican with this kind of crap?" Sullivan's blog is littered daily with that kind of adolescent tantrum.
The irony is that he claims to oppose affirmative action and yet is a poster child for unofficial AA: If he were not gay, he would have dropped off the radar screen of serious people years ago.
No, God DAMMMMNNNNN America! (Sorry guys, I just couldn't resist.)
"McCain can't mention Wright because he has a Hagee in his closet."
No, McCain can't mention Wright because he has an ex-wife in his closet. If this story becomes mainstream, the support he picked up from Palin amongst women...pooof...just dissappears like a puff of smoke.
None -- I don't mind when guys captured on the battlefield with rifles in their hands are either shot out of hand, returned to their countries of origin where they may be shot out of hand, or tortured, or kept in Gitmo. I don't want Jihadis let go in the middle of DC or anywhere else in America, nor do I think Soldiers on the battlefield in Afghanistan or Iraq are cops who have to mirandize their enemies and collect forensic evidence.
I certainly DO mind when Joe Average asks a question, and Obama's minions and goons destroy the guys life. His tax records, parking tickets, tax lien, property records, are all posted on the internet. The City of Toledo is saying it can't "find" his paperwork so will forbid him to work.
THAT is retaliation. Before Obama even takes office.
I expect to be PROTECTED FROM JIHADIS. If Bush wanted to shoot all the scum we collected from Iraq and particularly Afghanistan, I'm for it. I'm FOR AMERICANS, and AGAINST JIHAD.
None of this retaliation for asking "the One" a question, btw, is being done by GWB or the Whitehouse or the Federal Government. It is being done by Obama's PRIVATE Storm Troopers, in service to their worship of the man as a God.
I don't like McCain much, but he or Hillary are better than this.
Obama is good for internal purges Anon -- but not for tribes with nukes because he is ON THE SIDE OF THE TRIBES WOTH NUKES. He hates America, Americans, and particularly, whites since his mom abandoned him at age 9. He's a hard-core Marxist in his books and his admitted background.
McCain may be a punk domestically, but he's at least able to respond to nuclear threats. Obama would offer an apology to the nuking of NYC.
"I find it more plausible that Obama used to be a secret moderate masquerading as a radical.."
What are you basing that claim on? Let's return to what the man has written. Steve claims the nautical metaphors in Obama's memoirs are plausible because Obama has read a lot of Conrad and Melville. And, indeed, Obama does mention Conrad more than any other author in "Dreams from my Father." So if you want to understand Obama, read Conrad. Here is a good place to start.
Or perhaps you're right. Obama is a moderate. Maybe Ayers really did write "Dreams from my Father" because it's Ayers who was greatly influenced by Conrad and, just as his favorite author did, Ayers joined the merchant marine, and, just like one of Conrad's main charcters, Ayers eventually became a bomb-throwing terrorist.
It's rumored that a lot of Muslims are secret moderates, as well, but it's only a rumor.
"A while back I chatted with a University of Chicago professor who was a frequent lunch companion of Obama's. This professor said that Obama was as close to a full-out Marxist as anyone who has ever run for president of the United States. Now, I tend to quickly dismiss that kind of talk as way over the top. My working assumption is that Obama is firmly within the mainstream of Democratic politics. But if he is as free with that sort of redistributive philosophy in private as he was on the campaign trail this week, I have no doubt that U of C professor really does figure him as a radical. And after last night's debate, a few more Americans might think that way, too. McCain's best line: "Now, of all times in America, we need to cut people's taxes. We need to encourage business, create jobs, not spread the wealth around."
I was thinking specifically about Jose Padilla. He was arrested on US soil, and was held incommunicado in a US military brig for several years. His defense attorney alleged that he'd been tortured, though I don't think he could provide any evidence, so I don't know what happened there. After a long set of legal appeals and manouvers, he was transferred to the civilian courts just ahead of a Supreme Court decision that would probably have gone against the Bush administration, and prosecuted for something completely different from any of the previous allegations made about him that got him originally locked up without trial.
The administration claimed the authority, in this case, to take US citizens off the streets of US cities, and lock them up without trial or review or rights, for as long as they like, on the say so of the president. This is the precedent we got from the "party of limited government."
Do you think the president has this power? What would Clinton have done with it? What will Obama do with it?
As I said, I don't think Obama will be doing scary police state stuff at even the same level as Bush has. But if he, say, decides to have some "dangerous far-right extremists" detained in a military brig and waterboarded till they confess to something serious, what argument will you have to oppose it? Either the president has that power, or he doesn't.
Was Padilla tortured? We'll probably never know for sure, but that would be my bet. The next time some "dangerous extremist" (from what's come out in public, Padilla looks more like a dupe than a mastermind, but who knows?) gets the same treatment, will he be tortured? How about the next one?
When the Obama administration with Democratic majorities in both houses of congress gets access to the massive domestic surveillance mechanisms built to "keep us safe," what do you suppose will be done with it?
The "party of limited government" did this for us, just like the "party of fiscal responsibility" gave us the biggest deficits ever by a huge margin, just like the "party of free markets" is in the process of some weird combination of nationalizing and handing out money to the whole financial industry, just like the "party of Federalism" carried out that obscene drama with Terry Schiavo and raided medical marijuana suppliers that were legal under state law.
The Democrats may not deserve to win, but by God, the Republicans surely deserve to lose. And they will.
truth, did you see McCain tonight at the Al Smith Dinner? You might not agree with McCain's politics, but he's a decent, intelligent, and honorable man. His decision not to attack on Wright is based on principle and not on fear of retaliation.
Captain Jack -- It will be one man, one vote, one time. Already ACORN is stuffing ballots in OH to the tune of 200K at least. Probably A million or so when all is said and done.
I'm willing to believe you, but do you have a source? I'd like to read it if you can post it.
His decision not to attack on Wright is based on principle and not on fear of retaliation.
What principle is that? The principled belief that if he were attending the Westboro Baptist Church (the one that protests with signs that say "God Hates Fags") that Obama and his allies in the media would never dare bring it up?
Sorry, but it's a dumb principle. Some religious beliefs are entirely questionable. But I guess that explains why McCain is losing.
Already ACORN is stuffing ballots in OH to the tune of 200K at least.
I wonder if the voter mess in Ohio and Murtha's comments in Pennsylvania have put those 2 states within striking distance for McCain?
I believe that McCain is decent and honorable, although his intelligence is probably roughly average. I also believe that he is pragmatic. McCain has skeletons in his closet that make Obama's look like chicken bones. Not only the marriage, but the wet-start incident that killed 135 sailors and the huge question marks over whether he was ever actually tortured. One of his guards in Vietnam recently said that all of his wounds came from his crash and that he was treated better than their own soldiers.
McCain is not the only one decent and honorable here.
Not only the marriage, but the wet-start incident that killed 135 sailors and the huge question marks over whether he was ever actually tortured."
The "wet-start" incident is a load of crap you pulled off the internet, and a scurillous lie. McCain's plane was across the deck from the plane that fired the missile, and in no position to cook off a missile with a wet-start. Moreover, the missile was believed to have fired due to an electrical mishap, not from being cooked off.
But then, you have never shown the slightest interest in the truth, Truth.
Jeez, I'd like to think that Born Again Democrat is right: that Obama is a moderate who once pretended to be radical, rather than a radical who now pretends to be moderate. But I doubt it. Every once in a while, we see the wolf's eye peeping through the sheep's covering. Two recent examples.When challenged by Charles Gibson with historical evidence showing that raising the capital gains tax hurts the entire economy, he was forced to fall back to his real position - he's for it as a matter of "fairness." And his riffs on how he'll pick judges! He wants judges who 'know what it's like to be a knocked-up teenage girl' rather than fuddy-duddies whose expertise is in old fashioned things like statutes, constitutions and precedent.
With Pelosi and Frank running the House, and a veto-proof Senate, he'll be able to shrug off the disguise.
Face it folks. At G7 summit meetings, the most left-wing head of state in the room will be the guy representing us. And at UN get-togethers, Communist leaders won't be referring to the American President as "Satan" anymore.
When I think back about a year or so, and remember myself as a guy worrying about another Clinton in the White House...
steve, there seems to be a republican media blackout on criticism of Karl Rove, author of the "explaining is losing" mantra (which has left typical folks wondering what republicans stand for) and architect of the coming liberal ruling majority. While his writing on the election is among the clearest in the media, he made a collosal misjudgment about the nature of the american center for which he hasn't been held accountable. The Rove faction continues to dictate the party's direction. Exclusion of Bobby Jindal (fairly bright shining Obama anti-matter) from the republican convention speakers list, with the then idea of limiting challenges to Sarah Palin's ascendency (something which now appears fairly futile), is another step by the Rove faction in a direction which may work for them personally (as handlers of Palin--with Bush's level of deference to the advisors--for the forseeable future), but which doesn't work for the party or conservatives.
The reigning idea here is fear among the republican media. It seems like a blogger with pull with the republican media but no need for inside sources could do some good...
"I certainly DO mind when Joe Average asks a question, and Obama's minions and goons destroy the guys life. His tax records, parking tickets, tax lien, property records, are all posted on the internet. The City of Toledo is saying it can't "find" his paperwork so will forbid him to work."
No doubt expecting an Obama victory.
It's this that I find most disturbing. Arguably you could see hints of this with the New Yorker cover flap; he's willing to go after an ideologically *friendly* magazine (since when has the New Yorker gone Republican? does anyone really think they want McCain to win?) if his ox is gored even a little. It's sort of like Rudy Giuliani going after New York magazine (not the NYT, this is a glossy that tells you where to buy the best focaccia) for making fun of him on the sides of buses.
Is there any confirmation that O's mamma, Stanley Ann Dunham, was working in Pakistan at the time Obama traveled there. He says he just happened to be traveling there (on an Indonesian passport.)
"Obama is going to further destroy this country with his dangerous religion of hbd denial."
And you expect him to say, "We can never close the gap because of genetic inequalities." ...?
Who put his/her head on the block and say that in a political forum? It would be like a non-village-idiot publicly denying the existence of God in a Christian country in 1212
Jose Padilla is a hard core AQ guy who's name is no longer Padilla but Abu Jihad or some Arabic stuff like that.
He's a known associate of bin Laden -- that right there ought to get him a firing squad.
Which brings to mind Obama's weakness. He's like Stalin, or Mussolini, or any of those African Big Man thugs, or Hussein for that matter.
VERY good at running a dictatorship. Willing to thug it up as much as possible to be the only Big Man, and with thug-like (Barone's the Coming Thugocracy). VERY bad at dealing with external threats, not the least of which is an effective military requires independence and non-crony officers.
Part of the reason, maybe much of it, that the Wehrmacht and US Army rolled over Stalin and Hussein respectively, was that the military each constructed was for coup-prevention not military defense. Each dictator could be strong only in suppressing dissent, not national defense. Their military forces were weakened to prevent coups.
As for McCain, there was no "wet start" any more than Obama was secretly born in Kenya. His fellow prisoners saw him tortured, and cared for him -- I'd take their words for it over NVA torturers.
McCain led normalizations efforts despite his torture, so he can rise above petty concerns. His problem is that he really is a Conservative Dem instead of a Republican. But he's better than Raila Odinga Version 2.0, aka Obama.
Voters in 1952 had a choice between a cerebral, "smart" former Professor, and Senator, and Ike. Who promised to be strong in deterrence but not militaristic and risk-happy. In 1960, voters chose JFK, who was weak and indecisive with Kruschev in their first summit, creating Kruschev's aggressive Cuban missile response. Which in turn meant Kennedy had to erratically dial up his response.
Obama would see all sorts of testing, not just from Iran seeking to close the Persian Gulf and send oil from it's 70 price range to maybe 200 a barrel, but local would be tribal leaders in Pakistan wanting a nuke for delivery to the distant and weak-seeming Americans.
Nuclear proliferation REQUIRES the US to be seen as "strong" while not militaristic -- an Ike in other words, and requires that perception being pushed down to the tribal level. It might be impossible. But Obama, being weak and sympathetic to Islam and another Odinga -- brutal at home, weak abroad -- would be a disaster.
Voter Fraud? Go to Fox News, Michelle Malkin, Ace of Spades, Hotair, they all have the disaster in OH. Already 200K fraudulent registrations (Mickey Mouse, etc.) have been found, and the US Supreme Court has allowed those ballots to be cast.
Obama is not even trying to hide the ACORN voter fraud. Don't imagine there will ever be a free election again.
One of his guards in Vietnam recently said that all of his wounds came from his crash and that he was treated better than their own soldiers.
Except for the beatings, the bayonetings, the physical and mental torture...The Party is always right, truth! Hysterical. if you believe the NVA, I have a bridge, no wait, 2 that I want to sell you!
There is no Democrat voter fraud. That story has been debumked long ago. Occasionally, some people commit fraud against ACORN and ACORN turns them in when it catches them. But this voter registration fraud is nothing more than a worker cutting corners while collecting his paycheck and it does not lead to voter fraud.
The Bush Admin made Democrat voter fraud the top priority of the Justice Department. 8 years later they've found NOTHING. ZIP. ZILCH. NADA. Too bad the Justice Department wasn't using its precious resources to prosecute illegal immigration.
I didn't say that McCain did wet-start a jet to cause the Forrestal disaster, and I didn't say he didn't. I wasn't there. You people are so certain that he is innocent, apparently, you were. What I said is that it is a tragic event That caused many deaths and the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars of equipment. Three things of which I am sure;
1- Many people, including people on the ship, seem to have believe that it is true, few sailors will say that this behavior would be out of character for a young McCain, who casts himself as a testosterone- laden hell-raiser in his thirties.
2- This incident is a whole hell of a lot more significant than Obama sitting in church with some goofball, phony preacher. (McCain has one of those also,remember?)
3- Obama hasn't brought it up.
Here is an excerpt from an article on the incident:
WMR has been informed that crewmen aboard the Forrestal have provided additional information about the Forrestal incident. It is believed by many crewmen and those who have investigated the case that McCain deliberately 'wet-started' his A-4E to shake up the guy in the plane behind his A-4. 'Wet-starts', done either deliberately or accidentally, shoot a large flame from the tail of the aircraft.
In McCain's case, the 'wet-start' apparently 'cooked off' and launched the Zuni rocket from the rear F-4 that touched off the explosions and massive fire. The F-4 pilot was reportedly killed in the conflagration.
'Wet starting' was apparently a common practice among young 'hot-dog' pilots. McCain was quickly transferred to the USS Oriskany (the only Forrestal crewman to be immediately transferred).
I also did not say that McCain was not tortured; again, I was not there. I said that one of his captors said that he was not tortured, and 40 years ex-post facto I don't see why he would lie. Believe it or not, I can see where a violent crash from a firey jet a quarter-mile above the earth would cause injuries...call me crazy.
"if you believe the NVA, I have a bridge, no wait, 2 that I want to sell you!
And if you believe that a man who'd Daddy was an admiral at that time, and grandaddy was also an Admiral cannot use connections to orchestrate a cover-up for his son, then you can by the water rights under the bridge!
Oh, by the way; below is a video compilation of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's 'hate whitey' speeches.
Silly me though, I could not find one second where he said anything that imlied hatred of whitey. Maybe one of you tripple-digit-IQ types could help me out here.
I'd like to see someone try to defend Hagee at an MSM press conference with a straight face.
It would be laughable.
Not so laughable. Hagee isn't Bob Jones. He's 101% pro-diversity and (most important) radically, frothing-at-the-mouth pro-Israel. What a friend they have in Hagee.
"This incident is a whole hell of a lot more significant than Obama sitting in church with some goofball, phony preacher. (McCain has one of those also,remember?)"
It takes one heck of a hardcore leftist ideologue to compare reports of jet fighter operation he doesn't understand unfavorably to a politician hobnobbing with a treasonous preacher he DOES understand. (And you do.)
Yo, Truth. Here is a quote from James Cone, the black liberation theology thinker cited by Jerry Wright during his March 2007 TV interview with Sean Hannity. Wright presented Cone as one of the leading lights behind his (Wright’s) own theology. Here is the Cone quote with citation:
Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community ... Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.
From: African-American Religious Thought: An Anthology, editors Cornel West and Eddie Glaube (Westminster John Knox Press).
AND THERE IS MORE TRUTH. This is from Spengler’s column, where he quotes from Jerry Wright’s Hannity interview as follows:
One of the strangest dialogues in American political history ensued on March 15 when Fox News interviewed Obama's pastor, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, of Chicago's Trinity Church. Wright asserted the authority of the "black liberation" theologians James Cone and Dwight Hopkins:
Wright: How many of Cone's books have you read? How many of Cone's book have you read?
Sean Hannity: Reverend, Reverend?
(crosstalk)
Wright: How many books of Cone's have you head?
Hannity: I'm going to ask you this question ...
Wright: How many books of Dwight Hopkins have you read?
Hannity: You're very angry and defensive. I'm just trying to ask a question here.
Wright: You haven't answered - you haven't answered my question.
Hopkins is a full professor at the University of Chicago's Divinity School; Cone is now distinguished professor at New York's Union Theological Seminary. They promote a "black power" reading of Christianity, to which liberal academic establishment condescends.
Obama referred to this when he asserted in a March 14 statement, "I knew Reverend Wright as someone who served this nation with honor as a United States Marine, as a respected biblical scholar, and as someone who taught or lectured at seminaries across the country, from Union Theological Seminary to the University of Chicago." But the fact the liberal academy condescends to sponsor black liberation theology does not make it less peculiar to mainstream American Christians. Obama wants to talk about what Wright is, rather than what he says.
OK, so now we are not attacking Obama for doing anything against white people, we are not attacking Obama for saying anything anti-white, we are not even attacking Obma, for knowing a guy who did anything against white people, or said anything anti-white, but we are attacking him because he knows a guy, who read a book from a guy who said some stupid things!
"What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love."
OOOOh, the horrors!
OK, so the guy, (who has been read by a guy that Obama knows) made up a silly religion. Let me tell you something; Christianity is a made-up religion. It is pagan sun/moon worship married with tax collection. I'm sorry, but that's the truth. You can download the movie Zeitgeist for further details.
As far as the Hannity interview, I know that it is beyond reasonable expectation for a talk-show guest to ACTUALLY EXPECT THE HOST TO HAVE DONE RESEARCH NOWADAYS, but Wright seems to have had the audacity, according to your excerpt:
"Wright: How many of Cone's books have you read? How many of Cone's book have you read?
Sean Hannity: Reverend, Reverend?
(crosstalk)
Wright: How many books of Cone's have you head?
Hannity: I'm going to ask you this question ...
Wright: How many books of Dwight Hopkins have you read?
Hannity: You're very angry and defensive. I'm just trying to ask a question here.
Wright: You haven't answered - you haven't answered my question."
I'm not picking upon you my friend, but as Plato once said,and I paraphrase, he who is not capable of dialectic thought is not really alive.
I'm sure that you harbor no preconceived notions about black people and feel that everyone is equally competent and has an equal claim upon your love, (heavy sarcasm intended) but should I judge you because you know a guy who knows a guy who logged into 'stormfront.org' a couple of times?
Obama wants to talk about what Wright is, rather than what he says."
Again, the horrors! Isn't this what we are supposed to do? Wright is a veteran of not one but TWO branches of military service who saved the lives of (probably white) soldiers in Korea as a medic. He put his ass on the line to make Exxon richer 40 years ago, did you? From this I can only ascertain that JW is more patriotic than you are. (and quite possibly whiter from the looks of him.)
"t takes one heck of a hardcore leftist ideologue to compare reports of jet fighter operation he doesn't understand unfavorably to a politician hobnobbing with a treasonous preacher he DOES understand."
Oh, so Wright is 'treasonous' now? I've just listed his military record, would you be so kind to list yours?
No, I am not an aeronautical engineer, but I can read. I can make heads and tails of:
"In McCain's case, the 'wet-start' apparently 'cooked off' and launched the Zuni rocket from the rear F-4 that touched off the explosions and massive fire. The F-4 pilot was reportedly killed in the conflagration."
I am not an economist either, but I do know that I lost 10,000 from my 401K last week, so that gives me all of the economic knowledge I need for those purposes; get it?
"There is no Democrat voter fraud. That story has been debumked long ago. Occasionally, some people commit fraud against ACORN and ACORN turns them in when it catches them. But this voter registration fraud is nothing more than a worker cutting corners while collecting his paycheck and it does not lead to voter fraud."
Please, this is a serious site. You are out of your depth here. I don't mean to be rude and I suspect you're young, but you've wandered onto the wrong side of the blogosphere if you expect this comment to be taken seriously. It's not because you're liberal that I respond thus, but this comment is naive at best. Check out Steve's blogroll for sites such as Gene Expression; La Griffe; Audacious Epigone; Inductivist; etc. to see what I mean about this corner we affectionately call the "steveosphere".
I'm reading through this thread and (thusfar) finding it somewhat lacking in originality, sparks of insight or brilliance but I just came across the following comment (by a "professor" no less!) and I actually laughed:
Obama is by far the most leftwing presidential candidate in our history. I'm not talking about his carefully constructed public persona for this campaign. I'm talking about the real Obama.
Maybe it's time we rethink that first amendment thing, ey? Nothing too grand, just a simple literacy test before you're allowed to assault the intelligences of what unwitting audiences might be violated by your spoken or written word.
Selah.
More substantially, , , well - I don't actually have anything more substantial to say. The (again, thusfar in my reading) lacklustre nature of the comments in this thread is likely on account of the fact that there really isn't that much to say - by non wild-eyed-paranoiacs that is. Obama aint cool, McCain aint cool and one of them (probably Obama) will become president - at which point he won't do anything too substantial in any case. So... let's all just get back to the drinking and the humping, shall we?
In McCain's case, the 'wet-start' apparently 'cooked off' and launched the Zuni rocket from the rear F-4 that touched off the explosions and massive fire. The F-4 pilot was reportedly killed in the conflagration."
That's pretty good shooting then. The plane which was hit by the missle was the one immediately adjacent to McCain's. The plane which fired the missle was across the deck from McCain's and facing his, so even if he did wet-start his plane, it couldn't have cooked off the missle (in case you were unaware of this fact truth, the engines on jet fighters point to the rear of the aircraft - that's the direction the smoke and flame go).
I don't even like McCain, but I don't think that means anything that can be said about him is true. I don't like Obama. And I'm sure some people believe he is the anti-christ. They have probably stated their opinions on the internet. Does it then follow that Obama IS, in fact, the anti-christ? I would have to say no.
You're really grasping at straws here. You seem to think that anything is true if you read it on the internet, as long as there is some reference for it, however thin. Were you ever on a college debating team?
Anyway, I'd estimate that your arguments sway something south of 1% of the people who read this blog.
I first heard McCain referred to as Yosemite Sam by you. Was that you're idea because I saw it used on last night's Saturday Night Live, and now I see the comparison is all over the Internet.
If there is a there there with Ayers, bringing up Wright would look desperate and only serve as a distraction. McCain said that Obama should be truthful about the nature of his relationship with Ayers. The press responded to McCain's plea by immediately digging into the past of Joe the Plumber.
"You're really grasping at straws here. You seem to think that anything is true if you read it on the internet, as long as there is some reference for it, however thin."
Again, I did not say that McCain did start the fire, I said that OTHER PEOPLE HAVE SAID that he started the fire. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't, for the second time I WAS NOT THERE. There are people MUCH CLOSER TO THE INCIDENT than I who believe he started the fire. I also said that Obama did not bring this incident up. He could, just as McCain could bring up Wright. They each CHOSE NOT TO.
I've written now three separate versions of what I have said; why is this so hard?
"Anyway, I'd estimate that your arguments sway something south of 1% of the people who read this blog."
If I am the low IQ guy here, what does that say about your reading comprehension?
Silly me though, I could not find one second where he said anything that imlied hatred of whitey.
Maybe one of you tripple-digit-IQ types could help me out here.
Silly you works better as straight talk than it does as sarcasm.
Wright's church, according to Wright, is "unashamedly black." Now, obviously "public discourse" (i.e., establishment ideologues talk and we listen) holds that being "unashamedly white" is racism and hatred of blacks, whereas being unashamedly black, while better not talked about, is just fine. Now obviously establishment ideologues are not middle America, who if faced with this construction would undoubtedly respond overwhelmingly with something about sauce and geese. Then there's people who are remotely sane and honest about race, who know that a) the American double-standards on race are themselves anti-white and b) that simple love of kind isn't hatred of other, and who in a strict, rhetorical sense don't regard unashamed blackness or whiteness as hatred of the other.
So it's not as simple as just saying "show me where Wright said he wanted to kill crackas." The answer to the question of whether being "unashamedly black" is racist against all non-blacks depends on one's perspective. If one's an establishment mouthpiece or drone, the circle of racism around blacks is drawn as absurdly small as possible. The circle widens as one approaches universalism, where one ends up at sauce for the gander (still dupes, but consistent dupes). As one approaches actual racial sanity, the underlying premises are seen as suspect and the whole thing becomes somewhat moot; BUT, that doesn't change the facts of what the lunatics running the asylum are actually thinking and saying.
Here's more:
White America got their wake-up call after 9-11. White America and the Western world came to realize people of color had not gone away, faded in the woodwork, or just disappeared as the Great White West kept on its merry way of ignoring black concerns.
Racist? Depends on who you ask. Probably not according to the establishment, but you could say something similar about Katrina and blacks, and according to the same bobble-heads that'd be racist coming from an "unashamedly white" pastor. So no, Wright's no more racist than the vast majority of the racists running our establishment - you've got me there. When Wright's God-damning America, he obviously means white America, the US of KKKA.
But then, there's no need for degrees of separation on this issue vis-a-vis Obama, since he referred to his white grandmother in a negative way as a "typical white person," which following the logic above is clearly racist to any universalist.
LOL, while reviewing my post I noticed that you denied noticing anything that implied hatred of whites. Now that's funny. The implications are myriad. For a guy who calls himself truth, you really aren't very honest. Or maybe you are, and you should change your name to "Intelligence."
So, when the president says a US citizen is a serious bad guy who ought to get the firing squad, should he then have the power to have that person disappeared off the streets of a US city and tossed into a military brig, with no trial, no review, and no appeal? That's what the Bush administration claimed. Should the Obama administration have the same power?
All those "keep us safe" internal security measures have massive potential for abuse, and the Bush administration has fought like hell to minimize any kind of supervision, as with bypassing the FISA court on wiretaps inside the US. (They promise us that these were only done on bad people. But previously, they promised us they weren't being done at all, so it's a bit hard to trust them this time. And news reports suggest much more widespread use, and abuse.
What will an Obama administration do with these powers? What will Attorney General Hillary Clinton and DHS Secretary Rahm Emanuel do with those powers? We're about to try the experiment. Thanks, GOP!
As an aside, you may want to read up a bit more on military history. The German army did well against the Red Army at first, but they eventually were completely defeated. (I guess it helped when Stalin had the purged officers brought from the gulags and returned to service, though I gather the Germans really didn't enjoy Russian winters much, either.) When did we ever fight Stalin's Red Army?
How has George W "I looked into his eyes and felt his soul" Bush done at handling other countries. There's been some hard rhetoric, and we really did defeat the Iraqi army and kill off Saddam and a bunch of his subordinate thugs, but look at the results. North Korea openly went nuclear, and appears to be willing to negotiate so long as we do just what they say. Iran's still developing a bomb, and they're unambiguously not the kind of folks you want having nukes. We pushed to get Syria out of Lebanon, and got the disastrous Israel/Hezbollah war. We pushed for democracy among the Palestinians, and got massively more legitimacy for Hamas and eventually the Gaza Strip under Hamas' rule. Our heels have been amazingly round for China (probably because the amount of our debt they hold amounts to an economic mutual-suicide-pact). Our dealings with Pakistan look to me to have been a mess, and we've just basically ditched the idea of fighting for nonproliferation in our recent deal with India. Tough rhetoric impresses people at home, but not necessarily tough people in foreign countries.
Will Obama do better? I don't know. I hope to God he doesn't do *worse*.
I have no doubt Obama is a (cultural) Marxist; outside the US Marxist academics & politicians are ten a penny. In the US they're five a penny, but chose to obfuscate their allegiance as it's seen as un-American. The Marxists at my work love Obama, of course.
I doubt President Obama will be sending his goons to drag Steve Sailer off to the gulags, though. Hate speech codes are likely; but in Europe (and Canada) these are usually used in a carefully targetted fashion (the Mark Steyn case was aberrant). Jared Taylor would be a likely target for prosecution if they can find a way.
"Now, obviously "public discourse" (i.e., establishment ideologues talk and we listen) holds that being "unashamedly white" is racism and hatred of blacks, whereas being unashamedly black, while better not talked about, is just fine."
Public discourse by whom? There are 1,739 public TV stations in the US right now, blacks own exactly 8 of them (and no, the rest are not owned by jews.)
"Then there's people who are remotely sane and honest about race, who know that a) the American double-standards on race are themselves anti-white"
Svigor, for roughly the 11th time on this forum, double standards FOR blacks were instituted to counteract 300 years of double standards AGAINST blacks. AFFIRMATIVE action was created as a counterweight to NEGATIVE action. It is quite possible that these programs have persisted too long (in my opinion, the have) but you cannot intelligently be against a law without understanding why it was created.
The double-standards may or may not be 'anti-white' as you put it, but they were created, instituted and are continued by whites.
"The answer to the question of whether being "unashamedly black" is racist against all non-blacks depends on one's perspective."
In all honesty, this may be the most enlightened sentence I've seen from you my friend. I am a little confused as to why you used 'non-blacks' here instead of 'whites'. A subtle isolate the enemy technique? I have not heard Jesse or Al or Jeremiah speaking with great hatred toward Mexicans, or Palestinians.
"When Wright's God-damning America, he obviously means white America, the US of KKKA."
This is a blatant supposition. If he had meant 'God-Dammmmnnn whites', that is what he would have said, he is not running for office.
"since he referred to his white grandmother in a negative way as a "typical white person," which following the logic above is clearly racist to any universalist."
Why?
I think Ralph Waldo Emmerson came up with a great quotation on this 150 years ago.
'What you are screams so loudly in my ears, I cannot hear what you say.'
Obama speaks about his mother and grandmother with great kindness and affection and always has. He makes one extremely borderline and questionable statement (which if a white person had said you would have agreed with anyway) and you choose, underline CHOOSE to focus upon it. I'll flip the script for you to help you understand;
Do you feel that Michael Richards was a racist? I personally don't know. I know he went on stage and made a fool of himself shouting "nigger, nigger, nigger" for ten minutes but does that make him a racist?
Maybe, he is simply a non-funny, untalented, and inexperienced comedian who was not getting laughs and got unnerved by a heckler. Maybe he goose-steps around his house in a Nazi SS uniform. I don't paint him a racist because I don't know him.
Now you on the other hand would probably argue that Richards for saying N-, N-, N- is not a racist whereas Obama for saying 'typical white person' is. I don't get it please explain it.
"LOL, while reviewing my post I noticed that you denied noticing anything that implied hatred of whites."
Not only did Wright not SAY anything that proved he hated whites, please show me where he IMPLIED anything of this sort. The video is posted above.
I personally choose not to live in a world of abstractions, implications and subtleties. All of this 'well, if you watch Reverend Wright while standing on one leg, looking through 3-d glasses and having the speech translated into Mandarin Chinese in your left ear, you can almost hear the hate whitey implications!' just doesn't work for me, but if you are dying for a hate whitey fix, here it is: (assisted by some creative editing to heard a nice young white man like yourself into that pen.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v= 4qu9NdZYQA0
BTW, I don't know if this qualifies as 'hate whitey' because he made it clear that he was ONLY talking about white South Africans. Maybe he just doesn't like mustaches.
Svigor, for roughly the 11th time on this forum, double standards FOR blacks were instituted to counteract 300 years of double standards AGAINST blacks. AFFIRMATIVE action was created as a counterweight to NEGATIVE action.
Negative action like making descendants of slaves 20x+ wealthier than their less-fortunate African brethren? Like outlawing the slave trade, despite what seems like genetic imprinting on sub-Saharan Africans right up to the present? Like affording them western civilization? Like granting them huge wealth transfers from white pockets to theirs?
That aside, I wasn't talking about AA, Smarts, I was talking about a double-standard, one I thought I expouned to the point of belaboring it, but I see that isn't the case.
It is quite possible that these programs have persisted too long (in my opinion, the have) but you cannot intelligently be against a law without understanding why it was created.
Sure you can. You can see it's wrong now (based on unjust ideas about inherited collective guilt and punishment, even if you accept the specious leftist reading of history) and that the past has no bearing in that regard.
The double-standards may or may not be 'anti-white' as you put it, but they were created, instituted and are continued by whites.
Oh, well that makes everything okay then!
I started to read and respond to the rest of your post but it all went pear-shaped. If anyone buys your crap I ask him to please say so with a comment and I'll respond to any given point. Otherwise why bother because your post is silly and I'm not actually trying to convince you of anything anyway.
Well, the unwritten rules of what may be said in public on race are almost entirely enforced by whites, and are in practice mostly done on behalf of internal power/status conflicts among whites.
Many years ago, people used to torture and murder women for being witches, based on testimony about hexes and "congress with the devil." Now, here's the thing: the devil was a major player in this drama, brought up all the time, a justification or proof of guilt or guaranteed convincing argument. But I'm pretty sure the devil wasn't really f--king (or buying the souls of, or granting powers to) any of the women tortured and murdered on charges of witchcraft. Instead, the devil was a prop, like John Galt in the first big chunk of _Atlas Shrugged_. In the same way, in the massive PC bubble surrounding race, blacks are a prop.
This turns out badly for blacks a lot of the time, as (for example) Thomas Sowell, Bill Cosby, and a couple of times even Barack Obama have pointed out. But they're a prop, so who cares? For evidence of this, look at how many people who are "deeply concerned" about the education performance gap will crucify anyone who wants to bring up the obviously-relevant IQ gap, but won't take any particular action when the existing schools screw all the poor black kids in Baltimore out of an education.
"Otherwise why bother because your post is silly and I'm not actually trying to convince you of anything anyway."
Well, Svig, it makes me feel very important that you spent 10 minutes and 600 words not trying to convince me of anything.
You know your problem my friend, you take this stuff all way to seriously, I mean, think about it; you get another 40 maybe 50 years to discuss this stuff with me on this blog and then we're dead so try to have a little fun, sport.
I mean let's both be honest for a second, if I did what I did here at NYU or Colombia school of Philosophy they'd be calling me the closet thing modern man has seen to Socrates. My revolutionary idesas would be trumpeted on the cover of Time and Newsweek. Bernard Henri-Levy would give my style of thought a new and very impressive moniker such as post-modern Afro dialectivism. Of course that would all first be contingent upon an angry white male such as you approving my dissertation...So I'll just stay right here where I'm loved and keep my job stocking shelves.
Truth - Svigor isnt trying to convince you, he is talking to the more passive watchers beyond, those readers who hopefully can see who is winning/losing the argument.
You, otoh, are probably a lost cause!
Thats my take anyway.
I generally find Svi's comments incisive and amusing and look out for them wherever possible> Wish he would write more. In fact, wish I could write like that!
Yes he did, Steve- he went hard after Wright because Wright is 10x more important to Obama's life than Ayers. And then Obama countered by saying he believed in Wright but changed his views after he had kids.
ReplyDeleteActually, that didn't happen but you were excited for a while right?
When are you going to post something interesting?
I've been reading that queer Sullivan for a while- he posts like 25x a day. What's your excuse? Oh right, he's got supplemental testosterone flowing through his system.
He didn't mention Ayers.
ReplyDeleteObama's answer to the Ayers question was smooth. (I'm paraphrasing) "The president of Northwestern, who is a Republican, was on this same board with Ayers," etc.
You felt that McCain was out of line, asking about Ayers like that.
It's incredible, when all respectable people act like something isn't a big deal, it's hard to make a big deal about it.
Of course not. And it’s worse than that. He didn’t even dare mention the word “racist” (as in being accused of being one). He instead talked about being associated with George Wallace and church burnings, which is not clear and potent many voters.
ReplyDeleteNothing about Wright. A sizable chunk on Ayers, Typifies the failure of his campiagn.
ReplyDeleteTwo of the Fox pundits - one being Charles Krauthammer - were dismayed by McCain's refusal to mention Wright.
I guess this would be an example of McCain being a "maverick" and bucking his supporters and advisors. A lot of good it will do him.
Wasn't able to catch the debate, but according to the NRO commentary, no mention of Wright.
ReplyDeleteOne intersting comment Mark Steyn made in the wrap-up, though, caught me eye:
McCain was never able to cast aside the Senatorial collegiality and really stick it to Obama. Why couldn't he have used the s-word - "socialism"...McCain lacked the killer instinct...You look at the way he sneered at Romney in the primary debates and compare it with his tentativeness toward Obama.
This is a guy not known for his "collegiality," who is being entirely too collegial with a radical leftist. John McCain had no problem sneering at Romney or telling his fellow (Republican) senator to "f--- off" during the write up of the immigration bill, but he's playing buddies with Obama?
I go back and forth on who I want to win. I have no love for Obama's radicalism, but backing this nominee is a bit much to ask of anyone. Besides, I still think that Republicans will have a better chance of regaining Congress with Obama at the helm than with McCain.
No, he did not mention Wright. I don't see how that could have helped.
ReplyDeleteObama will be President.
God bless America.
But as for your question: apparently not. The LA Times trasncript doesn't show Wright being mentioned at all.
ReplyDeleteCaptain Jack -- It will be one man, one vote, one time. Already ACORN is stuffing ballots in OH to the tune of 200K at least. Probably A million or so when all is said and done.
ReplyDeleteMy question for Steve is what will he do when Obama's guys come for him, and VDARE?
We all KNOW there will be "hate speech" codes and so on. "Fairness" doctrine to blogging. Policing of what can be said and written on the internet.
Obama's supporters are already talking of putting folks like Steve (and I'm sure, myself) in "camps" for the "good of the World" and that stuff.
McCain was used like a punk, because Obama owned him. Made him afraid to use Wright and the racist card be thrown once again at him.
If McCain is afraid of Obama (he is) just imagine what will befall Steve and I (and you too, for that matter). When Obama follows cousin Raila Odinga.
You know, you would think that Bush had conclusively shown us all the importance of appealing to people who think like you.
ReplyDeleteI wondered for the life of me why McCain never used the word "Marxist" to describe Obama's views. Then I realized that McCain, just like Obama, is really a Senator. Huckabee, Guliani and Romney's criticism of Senators as negotiators as opposed to hardnosed decision makers came to mind as I watched McCain fumble every opportunity to put Obama's position in the category it often deserved.
Now I know that if I ever want to be a politician, I will never be a Senator!
I found the most interesting part of the debate was the discussion of the “free trade” with Columbia. Obama claimed that he didn’t support free trade with Columbia because “labor leaders” there are being assassinated and the assassins are not being “prosecuted.”
ReplyDeleteI took this to mean that Obama sides with the radical left in South America, and that he was blaming the assassinations on the “right wing” American supported Columbian government. That would appear to be a reasonable inference, and if correct it would certainly place Obama far to the left of former President Clinton.
Obama handled the Ayres question by doing a reverse non-guilt by association argument. Obama claimed that there were respectable people on the education board with him (whether it was the Woods foundation or the Walter Annenberg challenge isn’t clear to me).
ReplyDeleteWhat is misleading (i.e., dishonest) about Obama’s non-guilt by association argument is that Ayres had specifically selected Obama, an unknown at the time, to be a board member. Selecting the then president of Northwestern University, arguably the most prestigious institution of higher learning in the Chicago area is pretty much a no-brainer and great cover for a radical left wing program. Recall that Ayres father had lots of clout in Chicago and was more than willing to use it, so invoking the clout of Ayres “old man” could get some respectable names involved. As far as we know, Obama was the only person on the board who came out of nowhere and was handpicked by Ayres himself.
"My question for Steve is what will he do when Obama's guys come for him, and VDARE?
ReplyDeleteWe all KNOW there will be "hate speech" codes and so on. "Fairness" doctrine to blogging. Policing of what can be said and written on the internet."
The British geneticist Steve Jones recently argued that evolution is over. I don't necessarily agree with his thesis - although it's interesting - but it's hard not to agree with the following point he made:
"Small populations which are isolated can evolve at random as genes are accidentally lost. World-wide, all populations are becoming connected and the opportunity for random change is dwindling. History is made in bed, but nowadays the beds are getting closer together. We are mixing into a glo-bal mass, and the future is brown.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article4894696.ece?&EMC-Bltn=PPUEN9
In 200 years time white man and the civilization he created will be "roadkill" on the path of history - to quote Mz Condi Rice's famous remark about "Old Europe".
Might as well accept this fate graciously, while endeavouring to maintain a grim sense of humour.
McCain has evidently been cowed into not mentioning the very real association with Wright due to "racism" concerns.
ReplyDeleteMEANWHILE . . .
It appears the much-vaunted "kill him" racial epithets against Obama at McCain rally are unfounded, Secret Service reporting (Drudge clip below).
Who's betting that the liberal media has concocted this whole storyline to play the "racism" angle
The liberal media can INVENT stories - but conservatives are supposed to hold off on a real guy (Wright) saying "God damn America' on videotape -
Conservatives: keep doing what you're doing. Keep playing fair and square with opponents who are only interested in the big lie, the cheap shot, the whitewash, propaganda.
"The agent in charge of the Secret Service field office in Scranton said allegations that someone yelled “kill him” when presidential hopeful Barack Obama’s name was mentioned during Tuesday’s Sarah Palin rally are unfounded.
The Scranton Times-Tribune first reported the alleged incident on its Web site Tuesday and then again in its print edition Wednesday. The first story, written by reporter David Singleton, appeared with allegations that while congressional candidate Chris Hackett was addressing the crowd and mentioned Oabama’s name a man in the audience shouted “kill him."
News organizations including ABC, The Associated Press, The Washington Monthly and MSNBC’s Countdown with Keith Olbermann reported the claim, with most attributing the allegations to the Times-Tribune story.
Agent Bill Slavoski said he was in the audience, along with an undisclosed number of additional secret service agents and other law enforcement officers and not one heard the comment.
“I was baffled,” he said after reading the report in Wednesday’s Times-Tribune. "
McCain can't mention Wright because he has a Hagee in his closet.
ReplyDeleteAlready ACORN is stuffing ballots in OH to the tune of 200K at least.
ReplyDeleteNon-whites (predominantly, let's be honest) clamoring and now scheming for their share, whether they earned it or not. And why not? They'll soon be the majority and making the rules and taking what they want.
BTW, how's that whole 'black rule' thing in Africa working out?
I don't think McCain has even mentioned affirmative action or illegal immigration in any of the debates.
ReplyDeleteHe seems to be ignoring the huge racial elephant in the living room. What's he afraid of? Winning?
I think he is. I don't think McCain really wants the job.
ben franklin said...
I found the most interesting part of the debate was the discussion of the “free trade” with Columbia. Obama claimed that he didn’t support free trade with Columbia because “labor leaders” there are being assassinated and the assassins are not being “prosecuted.”
I noticed that, too. He was starting to sound like a Marxist in some state U. cultural anthropology dept. When Obama's president it's going to be a weird ride. I expect anti-rightist paranoia to come out in full-force.
"testing99 said...
ReplyDeleteMcCain was used like a punk, because Obama owned him. Made him afraid to use Wright and the racist card be thrown once again at him."
And if McCain was used like a punk, why is it that you think he will be able to stand up to Admednidjahd and all of those tribes with nukes (and motorboats too), whom you claim are such great existential threats to this nation?
Obama is a much greater threat to this nation than is any Afghan or Pakistani, as you now seem to be admitting. So what has become of the argument which you tirelessly - and tiresomely - have made previously.
Get a grip. You guys are getting unhinged over Obama. He is, in my opinion, a moderate, cautious, centrist Democrat who used to present himself as more leftish (and black_ than he really was. He did it for reasons of peer pressure and political expediency, especially the latter. He wouldn't be where he is now if he hadn't.
ReplyDeleteI find it more plausible that Obama used to be a secret moderate masquerading as a radical, than that he is now a secret radical masquerading as a moderate. For one thing, real radicals cannot craft intelligent, imaginative, middle-of-the-road positions. If they could they wouldn't be radicals.
Of course, given present circumstances, Obama may turn out to be a FDR style Democrat. But since when was that beyond the pale? Reagan admired FDR as I recall.
anonymous wrote:
ReplyDelete"It's incredible, when all respectable people act like something isn't a big deal, it's hard to make a big deal about it."
That is a very insightful and important comment. That is how civilized societies slip into barbarism. It is how a logical, Western civilization slips into a premodern state of mind. It is how good things go bad.
We all KNOW there will be "hate speech" codes and so on. "Fairness" doctrine to blogging. Policing of what can be said and written on the internet.
ReplyDeleteThe only people that I see pushing hate speech codes are the ADL.
No Wright, but McCain did bring up Joe the Plumber who I believe is the second biggest cultural flash point with Wright being the biggest. Probably bigger than Palin's family.
ReplyDeleteBefore Joe, a white working class guy could plausibly believe that Obama was for them and against the rich. Because of Joe, they now believe that Obama is against them and for the dregs.
The visuals of that encounter between Joe and Obama, ignored by the msm until McCain made Joe a national figure, couldn't be worse for Obama. Joe is a nice looking guy that anyone can relate to and you have a bunch of "Joe's people" surrounding him and Obama who run the gamut from the more clean cut middle-middle to the slovenly looking guy with a big belly who looks almost working poor.
ben franklin wrote:
ReplyDelete"and if correct it would certainly place Obama far to the left of former President Clinton."
Obama is by far the most leftwing presidential candidate in our history. I'm not talking about his carefully constructed public persona for this campaign. I'm talking about the real Obama.
Captain Jack Aubrey: I go back and forth on who I want to win. I have no love for Obama's radicalism, but backing this nominee is a bit much to ask of anyone. Besides, I still think that Republicans will have a better chance of regaining Congress with Obama at the helm than with McCain.
ReplyDeleteYou would think that on a board which is [at least ostensibly] obsessed with questions of demographics, the readership would be aware that it will be demographically impossible for the GOP to win at the national level [either the presidency or houses of Congress] after about the 2012-2016 timeframe.
Frankly I'm dubious that the GOP will even be theoretically capable of winning in 2012.
PS: Testing99 is the only one here who really gets it - frankly, there will be some tragicomic poignancy to the irony of seeing Steve Sailer hauled off to the Gulag after all of his sucking up to Obama in the last year or two.
Wasn't there one of those old, dead white dudes who said something about the deaths of a coward?
Aah, what difference does it make - at the end of the day, all of those old, dead white dudes will still be old and dead.
Captain Jack -- It will be one man, one vote, one time.
ReplyDeleteI agree Obama and the Dems will try to undermine the legitimate election process any way they can - because that's what they've been doing for years, starting at least with Motor Voter. But Obama is being elected president of the USA. That doesn't give him control of state election appariti. That doesn' give him control of federal judges - only the power to appoint new ones.
And if he tries to hush Rush and various other radio and internet personalities via the "Fairness Doctrine"? I see violence in that course of action - actual physical violence. Who would he call out to stop it, the military? The National Guard? Ha!
If Obama governs half so radically as he is, there is a GOP majority waiting for him 2 years hence. Even business, though they usually kiss the ass of whoever's in office, may fall back in line with the GOP if Obama is leftist enough.
Besides that, I think the next two years will be very difficult ones. The economy's not quite ready to bounce back. There is too much debt in the USA, and banks will still keep very a tight leash on credit. Obama does not have the luxury that FDR had. People have come to expect short recessions, and anything otherwise they'll blame on him.
I have a hunch that voters will also start to get very, very tired of hearing that you can't criticize Obama because it's racist to do so.
Obama will be President.
ReplyDeleteGod SAVE America.
Fixed that for you, KO.
...Wright is 10x more important to Obama's life than Ayers.-- danindc
ReplyDeleteYes, but Ayers is more important to us because he's white. People dismiss Wright's views because he's black, and nobody really takes blacks seriously. "Oh, look at him... isn't he cute, the way he bellows?"
Blacks make good victims in the present environment, and a black victim would be most handy for anti-Obama forces. (As opposed to pro-McCain.) And one is handy...
In 1981, the white parents of a toddler were involved in a joint Weather Underground/Black Liberation Army operation that killed two cops and a guard who had nine children of their own between them. One of the cops, Waverly Brown, was black.
The parents were caught and convicted, and the toddler was reared by foster parents in Chicago. His name is Chesa Boudin, and he was probably in the room when Bill & Bern hosted the political coming-out party of Barack Obama.
Rich white radicals knock off a black cop with three kids. Waverly Brown is the perfect "Willie Horton" for this political season.
McCain is embarrassing. I like it when some ask why before last night he didn't "go after" Obama more. When he did he looked silly because there is nothing he fundamentally disagrees with him on. People sit there wondering why he's acting as if he's going to kill Obama over never having been to Columbia or meeting with Hugo handlers. That is, if they're hollow enough not to realize that it's because his handlers told him to "be tough" and connect by speaking "directly to Joe the plumber." I hate how on nature vs. nurture, race/iq, economics, etc. we have science on our side but anybody who turned on the debate last night thinking that liberals were the smart ones and conservatives brain dead idiots would've seen that confirmed.
ReplyDeleteI had hope when McCain picked Palin until we found out what a complete idiot she was. Thank God these jokers aren't going to be representing what conservativism is for four years.
People are going to be shocked at how leftist Obama is when he's elected, and we on the Right need to be ready for this. The U.S. is going to have a huge case of buyer's remorse, and we need to be ready to hit back, hard. Remember, Testing99, despair is a sin. In the meantime, McCain is running the worst campaign of my lifetime (I'm 48), and the wonder is that he's within 20 point of Obama. The fact that he isn't show the latent support out there for our side. We'll be back...
ReplyDeleteConservatives: Get Drunk and vote for Obama!
ReplyDeleteA stupid party Decider and the crooked party holding the purse strings is the worst. Has been since Tory governors and crooked Whig legislatures. A slick hustler president, who knows his ratings are affected by popular dislike for Congress-
Better than a RINO president with a Pelosi Congress.
Transcript:
ReplyDeletehttp://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/10/debate-transcri.html
To me this was by far the most revealing and important part of the debate. Schieffer asked: "the U.S. spends more per capita than any other country on education. Yet, by every international measurement, in math and science competence, from kindergarten through the 12th grade, we trail most of the countries of the world....what do you intend to do about it?"
First of all, let Obama's response haunt his endlessly destructive and discredited worldview for all time: "This [national test scores: a perfect proxy for IQ] probably has more to do with our economic future than anything and that means it also has a national security implication"
YES, Mr. Obama!! National IQ does "probably have more to do with our economic future than anything" and therefore YOUR number one priority as the leader of this country is to be a responsible steward of those precious scores and the prosperity they CAUSE. If YOU are importing lower scores, that we don't know how to fix.. scores that persist across 5 generations.. then YOU are responsible for taking away our prosperity and national security. YOU are responsible by your own accidental admission.
Second, one would think that answering such a transparently loaded question like this with "spend more money" would be interpreted by everyone as an idiotic response, but that is exactly what Obama did! And since the correct answer is we don't have the first clue how to make blacks and Hispanics smart,by religious necessity Obama is forced to promote pseudoscience:
"..what's happened is that there's been a debate between more money or reform, and I think we need both.. In some cases, we are going to have to invest. Early childhood education, which closes the achievement gap, so that every child is prepared for school, every dollar we invest in that, we end up getting huge benefits with improved reading scores, reduced dropout rates, reduced delinquency rates."
Did you catch that? He asserted that we know how to "close the achievement gap" between whites and blacks. Obama just lied to the American people. He is going to waste MORE tax payer money when the question itself indicated we already spend the most and get the least results. "Early childhood education" programs are expensive and do NOT close or influence the achievement gap. That is a lie.
Here is a program we should waste some money on. Wasteful because either way it proves the same thing:
Why not send a herd of our black and Mexican students to Finland, which has the highest test scores and spends the least on education. Let's see if it really is the government which is responsible for national test scores instead of the people which comprise the population.
If it works, import the Finnish school system: it costs a whole lot less and works. If it doesn't work, import the Finnish school system: it doesn't work but it costs a whole lot less!!
One thing is certain:
Obama is going to further destroy this country with his dangerous religion of hbd denial.
Here is the future of America Barack Obama is ushering in, while wasting billions of dollars on pseudoscientific education programs.
ReplyDeleteDeclining test scores, due to specific demographic policies Obama will have full control over, will already subtract from the economies in the states with these demographic shifts over the next 10 years:
"IF the educational gaps remain as they are.... over one-third of the states would experience a decline in personal income per capita, including many currently with the highest levels, such as California, Colorado, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New York. In these states, the decrease in income would be much more substantial than the U.S. average and could significantly affect their tax bases. For example, the projected decline in personal income per capita from 2000 to 2020 in Colorado would be $662, in New York $1,182, and in California $2,475. "
http://www.highereducation.org/reports/pa_decline/decline-impact-income.shtml
"California provides a glimpse of what such changes might mean for America’s economic future. The Center for Public Policy and Higher Education predicts that unless the rate of college matriculation among “underrepresented” minorities (that is, Hispanics) immediately rises, the state will face an 11 percent drop in per capita income by 2020."
http://www.city-journal.org/2008/eon1008hm.html
FWIW, the "Joe the Plumber" guy is being destroyed in the Press. He doesn't like Obama's tax plan, and the press and Obama are combing through every thing they can to dig up dirt on the guy.
ReplyDeleteImagine what they will do when One Man, One Vote, One Time Obama takes office.
Steve, you better start a fundraising drive now, because I imagine you are on Obama's "to do list" as am I.
They'll do that to the "Joe the Plumber" guy before the election -- just imagine the measures they'll put in place afterwards.
Testing99:
ReplyDeleteWell, if Obama decided you were an unlawful combatant, and needed to be, oh, say, disappeared off the streets of an American city and locked up in a military brig for several years for some "enhanced interrogation," would you think he was exceeding his powers? You did oppose the current president's claim of the power to do this, right? Or did you imagine that only your side would ever have it?
I don't see any reason to think Obama will be shipping people off to camps for disagreeing with him, FWIW. I wish I believed he would not claim all the powers George W Bush claimed for the presidency, would not continue the use of torture overseas (I hope to God not done to Americans, but you never know what's being done in secret) and widespread surveillance at home. But he's a politician, and when you hand him powers, he's going to use them.
It's a pity those powers will be used against everyone, instead of just against the folks who thought it was okay when someone from their party was using them.
Calling Obama a Marxist won't work because it's transparent BS. Obama and McCain's actual spending, judging from past Democrats / Republicans, will be quite close together.
ReplyDeleteThey were both lying constantly through the debate, of course. We ain't balancing the budget in four years. That wasn't in the cards even where we were last year--since then, we've committed ourselves to a godawful amount of money trying to keep the financial system from melting the rest of the way down, and we're facing a huge recession. We're not going to get off foreign oil. All this talk of tax cuts is going out the window as soon as either man is elected, most likely--to be replaced by some sober discussion about WTF to do about the economic disaster.
That was the hardest thing for me to handle, watching the debate. The first world is in the process of nationalizing its financial industry. It's hard to overstate just how ominous the situation there is. And we got cutesy talking points about Joe the Plumber and innumerate nonsense about getting off imported oil. Why not give them both fiddles, and set fire to DC around them, just to set the right tone for the quality of leadership we're looking at?
Who is Barack Obama!???
ReplyDeleteThe "Joe Plumber" exchange was a gift for McCain and he really didn't make much hay from it.
ReplyDeleteJoe Wurzelbacher's question of Obama;
"Do you believe in the American dream?"
A McCain T-shirt that reads, "It's the American dream, stupid."
PM: Do you hope Sen. McCain will talk more about this issue during Wednesday’s debate, you know, taxes for small businesses?
JW: There’s a lot of things I wish McCain would say...I’d like to hear him talk about immigration and what he plans on doing about that and with our borders.
Ooops, maybe not!
I assume that either a) McCain has resigned himself to "losing with honor" or b) he knows something damaging to Obama is going to drop and McCain doesn't want to be accused of stirring the pot.
ReplyDeleteAnd don't just assume that the McCain campaign orchestrated option b, if it happens. It could come from several places.
"Cui bono?"
So, since it is clear that we are in a recession and it is only going to get worse, I imagine that quite a number of Americans will be grateful for any job next year, and many will be grateful that their children can get any job, even those sorts of jobs that we currently use illegal immigrants for.
ReplyDeletePerhaps the Dems (and some Repubs) will start feel the heat from their constituents pretty soon.
You would think that...the readership would be aware that it will be demographically impossible for the GOP to win at the national level [either the presidency or houses of Congress] after about the 2012-2016 timeframe.
ReplyDeleteWhat percentage of white Southerners vote GOP? It's pretty high, no?
The more radicalized and powerful the Black/Latino element becomes, the more race realist whites and Asians will become. Will it swing enough votes to give conservatives a chance?
The U.S. is going to have a huge case of buyer's remorse
Obama's going to play moderate as bes he can. To the extent that he doesn't, the media will cover much of his tracks. And there will probably be no money to back any "Harry & Louise"-type ads to oppose Obama's soialist push.
In the meantime, McCain is running the worst campaign of my lifetime
Conservatives and liberals are both creatures of habit. Conservatives tend to go for the guy next in line, liberals for the hot new thing.
Yet, by every international measurement, in math and science competence, from kindergarten through the 12th grade, we trail most of the countries of the [white and Asian] world....what do you intend to do about it?"
Fixed that. That's what he meant. If McCain had answered, "But we're ahead ofZimbabwe!" everyone would have laughed, and Bob would've had to scrach his head and say "Well, I wasn't really thinking of them."
Aside from that, I wonder. If it's not race - that's taboo - and it's not money - we spend more than anyone - then it must be tactics. Who decides that? The NEA. What bias do they have? A leftist one.
FWIW, the "Joe the Plumber" guy is being destroyed in the Press.
Funny how quick they were to dig up his skeletons. Guess they've optimized their search engines for names like "Joe Wurzelbacher" but not "Jeremiah Wright" and "William Ayers."
McCain's being taken to task for every random idiot his campaign comes into contact with (including several phantom ones), while Obama's real friends are being ignored. (And FWIW, Joe's real legal first name is "Samuel," so they really had to dig).
McCain can't mention Wright because he has a Hagee in his closet.
ReplyDeleteThat's silly. Anyone with any brains would welcome the comparison; did McCain sit in Hagee's pews for 20 years? The relationship is obviously different, before one begins comparing the positions of the men in question, which again favors McCain.
People are going to be shocked at how leftist Obama is when he's elected, and we on the Right need to be ready for this. The U.S. is going to have a huge case of buyer's remorse, and we need to be ready to hit back, hard.
ReplyDeleteI agree, if hitting back hard means hitting back with constructive conservatives ideas. If it means more bitter personal attacks, then we've had enough of that for the last 16 years.
If the citizenry does indeed develop a case of buyer's remorse, conservatives will have an opportunity handed to them to make a case for their values and policies. It would be a shame if they squandered that chance searching for evidence that Obama's 4th cousin once drove past a madrasah in Islamabad.
I've been reading that queer Sullivan for a while- he posts like 25x a day. What's your excuse? Oh right, he's got supplemental testosterone flowing through his system.
Heh. Unfortunately, Sullivan has become virtually unreadable because of his emotional diatribes and hysterical overreactions to every little thing he disapproves of. Today, for example, his knickers are in a twist because the Virginia GOP sent out some campaign literature that seems to identify Obama and the Dems with terrorists. Nasty? Yes, but hardly unique in politics on either side. Sullivan, however, wonders, "how does any decent person remain a Republican with this kind of crap?" Sullivan's blog is littered daily with that kind of adolescent tantrum.
The irony is that he claims to oppose affirmative action and yet is a poster child for unofficial AA: If he were not gay, he would have dropped off the radar screen of serious people years ago.
McCain adheres to the suicidal policy of "pas d'amis a droit, pas d'ennemis a gauche."
ReplyDeleteThat pretty much describes conservativism in general these days.
"Obama will be President.
ReplyDeleteGod bless America."
No, God DAMMMMNNNNN America!
(Sorry guys, I just couldn't resist.)
"McCain can't mention Wright because he has a Hagee in his closet."
No, McCain can't mention Wright because he has an ex-wife in his closet. If this story becomes mainstream, the support he picked up from Palin amongst women...pooof...just dissappears like a puff of smoke.
None -- I don't mind when guys captured on the battlefield with rifles in their hands are either shot out of hand, returned to their countries of origin where they may be shot out of hand, or tortured, or kept in Gitmo. I don't want Jihadis let go in the middle of DC or anywhere else in America, nor do I think Soldiers on the battlefield in Afghanistan or Iraq are cops who have to mirandize their enemies and collect forensic evidence.
ReplyDeleteI certainly DO mind when Joe Average asks a question, and Obama's minions and goons destroy the guys life. His tax records, parking tickets, tax lien, property records, are all posted on the internet. The City of Toledo is saying it can't "find" his paperwork so will forbid him to work.
THAT is retaliation. Before Obama even takes office.
I expect to be PROTECTED FROM JIHADIS. If Bush wanted to shoot all the scum we collected from Iraq and particularly Afghanistan, I'm for it. I'm FOR AMERICANS, and AGAINST JIHAD.
None of this retaliation for asking "the One" a question, btw, is being done by GWB or the Whitehouse or the Federal Government. It is being done by Obama's PRIVATE Storm Troopers, in service to their worship of the man as a God.
I don't like McCain much, but he or Hillary are better than this.
Obama is good for internal purges Anon -- but not for tribes with nukes because he is ON THE SIDE OF THE TRIBES WOTH NUKES. He hates America, Americans, and particularly, whites since his mom abandoned him at age 9. He's a hard-core Marxist in his books and his admitted background.
McCain may be a punk domestically, but he's at least able to respond to nuclear threats. Obama would offer an apology to the nuking of NYC.
"I find it more plausible that Obama used to be a secret moderate masquerading as a radical.."
ReplyDeleteWhat are you basing that claim on? Let's return to what the man has written. Steve claims the nautical metaphors in Obama's memoirs are plausible because Obama has read a lot of Conrad and Melville. And, indeed, Obama does mention Conrad more than any other author in "Dreams from my Father." So if you want to understand Obama, read Conrad. Here is a good place to start.
Or perhaps you're right. Obama is a moderate. Maybe Ayers really did write "Dreams from my Father" because it's Ayers who was greatly influenced by Conrad and, just as his favorite author did, Ayers joined the merchant marine, and, just like one of Conrad's main charcters, Ayers eventually became a bomb-throwing terrorist.
It's rumored that a lot of Muslims are secret moderates, as well, but it's only a rumor.
I'd like to see someone try to defend Hagee at an MSM press conference with a straight face.
ReplyDeleteIt would be laughable.
A moderate, eh?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2008/10/16/did-barack-spread-the-wealth-obama-just-blow-the-election.html
"A while back I chatted with a University of Chicago professor who was a frequent lunch companion of Obama's. This professor said that Obama was as close to a full-out Marxist as anyone who has ever run for president of the United States. Now, I tend to quickly dismiss that kind of talk as way over the top. My working assumption is that Obama is firmly within the mainstream of Democratic politics. But if he is as free with that sort of redistributive philosophy in private as he was on the campaign trail this week, I have no doubt that U of C professor really does figure him as a radical. And after last night's debate, a few more Americans might think that way, too. McCain's best line: "Now, of all times in America, we need to cut people's taxes. We need to encourage business, create jobs, not spread the wealth around."
Testing99:
ReplyDeleteI was thinking specifically about Jose Padilla. He was arrested on US soil, and was held incommunicado in a US military brig for several years. His defense attorney alleged that he'd been tortured, though I don't think he could provide any evidence, so I don't know what happened there. After a long set of legal appeals and manouvers, he was transferred to the civilian courts just ahead of a Supreme Court decision that would probably have gone against the Bush administration, and prosecuted for something completely different from any of the previous allegations made about him that got him originally locked up without trial.
The administration claimed the authority, in this case, to take US citizens off the streets of US cities, and lock them up without trial or review or rights, for as long as they like, on the say so of the president. This is the precedent we got from the "party of limited government."
Do you think the president has this power? What would Clinton have done with it? What will Obama do with it?
As I said, I don't think Obama will be doing scary police state stuff at even the same level as Bush has. But if he, say, decides to have some "dangerous far-right extremists" detained in a military brig and waterboarded till they confess to something serious, what argument will you have to oppose it? Either the president has that power, or he doesn't.
Was Padilla tortured? We'll probably never know for sure, but that would be my bet. The next time some "dangerous extremist" (from what's come out in public, Padilla looks more like a dupe than a mastermind, but who knows?) gets the same treatment, will he be tortured? How about the next one?
When the Obama administration with Democratic majorities in both houses of congress gets access to the massive domestic surveillance mechanisms built to "keep us safe," what do you suppose will be done with it?
The "party of limited government" did this for us, just like the "party of fiscal responsibility" gave us the biggest deficits ever by a huge margin, just like the "party of free markets" is in the process of some weird combination of nationalizing and handing out money to the whole financial industry, just like the "party of Federalism" carried out that obscene drama with Terry Schiavo and raided medical marijuana suppliers that were legal under state law.
The Democrats may not deserve to win, but by God, the Republicans surely deserve to lose. And they will.
truth, did you see McCain tonight at the Al Smith Dinner? You might not agree with McCain's politics, but he's a decent, intelligent, and honorable man. His decision not to attack on Wright is based on principle and not on fear of retaliation.
ReplyDeletetesting99 said...
ReplyDeleteCaptain Jack -- It will be one man, one vote, one time. Already ACORN is stuffing ballots in OH to the tune of 200K at least. Probably A million or so when all is said and done.
I'm willing to believe you, but do you have a source? I'd like to read it if you can post it.
His decision not to attack on Wright is based on principle and not on fear of retaliation.
ReplyDeleteWhat principle is that? The principled belief that if he were attending the Westboro Baptist Church (the one that protests with signs that say "God Hates Fags") that Obama and his allies in the media would never dare bring it up?
Sorry, but it's a dumb principle. Some religious beliefs are entirely questionable. But I guess that explains why McCain is losing.
Already ACORN is stuffing ballots in OH to the tune of 200K at least.
I wonder if the voter mess in Ohio and Murtha's comments in Pennsylvania have put those 2 states within striking distance for McCain?
I believe that McCain is decent and honorable, although his intelligence is probably roughly average. I also believe that he is pragmatic. McCain has skeletons in his closet that make Obama's look like chicken bones. Not only the marriage, but the wet-start incident that killed 135 sailors and the huge question marks over whether he was ever actually tortured. One of his guards in Vietnam recently said that all of his wounds came from his crash and that he was treated better than their own soldiers.
ReplyDeleteMcCain is not the only one decent and honorable here.
More doubts about who wrote Dreams from my Father.
ReplyDeleteOne of his guards in Vietnam recently said that all of his wounds came from his crash and that he was treated better than their own soldiers.
ReplyDeleteLOL. Has he endorsed Obama yet?
Hagee has the AIPAC seal of approval. I've heard that AIPAC is a
ReplyDeleterather powerful lobby.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2008/06/020688.php
The most important thing whites can do is regain our voices. The simple act of speaking openly will be like sunlight in a place that has been dark.
ReplyDeleteAnyone seen the video of the Forrestal alleged wet start incident?
ReplyDeleteHorrific.
"Truth said...
ReplyDeleteNot only the marriage, but the wet-start incident that killed 135 sailors and the huge question marks over whether he was ever actually tortured."
The "wet-start" incident is a load of crap you pulled off the internet, and a scurillous lie. McCain's plane was across the deck from the plane that fired the missile, and in no position to cook off a missile with a wet-start. Moreover, the missile was believed to have fired due to an electrical mishap, not from being cooked off.
But then, you have never shown the slightest interest in the truth, Truth.
Jeez, I'd like to think that Born Again Democrat is right: that Obama is a moderate who once pretended to be radical, rather than a radical who now pretends to be moderate. But I doubt it. Every once in a while, we see the wolf's eye peeping through the sheep's covering. Two recent examples.When challenged by Charles Gibson with historical evidence showing that raising the capital gains tax hurts the entire economy, he was forced to fall back to his real position - he's for it as a matter of "fairness." And his riffs on how he'll pick judges! He wants judges who 'know what it's like to be a knocked-up teenage girl' rather than fuddy-duddies whose expertise is in old fashioned things like statutes, constitutions and precedent.
ReplyDeleteWith Pelosi and Frank running the House, and a veto-proof Senate, he'll be able to shrug off the disguise.
Face it folks. At G7 summit meetings, the most left-wing head of state in the room will be the guy representing us. And at UN get-togethers, Communist leaders won't be referring to the American President as "Satan" anymore.
When I think back about a year or so, and remember myself as a guy worrying about another Clinton in the White House...
I never thought this could happen here.
What I want to know is if the moderator asked any questions dealing with immigration.
ReplyDeletesteve, there seems to be a republican media blackout on criticism of Karl Rove, author of the "explaining is losing" mantra (which has left typical folks wondering what republicans stand for) and architect of the coming liberal ruling majority. While his writing on the election is among the clearest in the media, he made a collosal misjudgment about the nature of the american center for which he hasn't been held accountable. The Rove faction continues to dictate the party's direction. Exclusion of Bobby Jindal (fairly bright shining Obama anti-matter) from the republican convention speakers list, with the then idea of limiting challenges to Sarah Palin's ascendency (something which now appears fairly futile), is another step by the Rove faction in a direction which may work for them personally (as handlers of Palin--with Bush's level of deference to the advisors--for the forseeable future), but which doesn't work for the party or conservatives.
ReplyDeleteThe reigning idea here is fear among the republican media. It seems like a blogger with pull with the republican media but no need for inside sources could do some good...
google "Republican criticism of Karl Rove". Hysterical!
ReplyDeleteGoogle "Karl Rove" and "criticism" if that seems too specific and you won't find much either.
I've often commented but have never reached "a reader writes..." status.
"I certainly DO mind when Joe Average asks a question, and Obama's minions and goons destroy the guys life. His tax records, parking tickets, tax lien, property records, are all posted on the internet. The City of Toledo is saying it can't "find" his paperwork so will forbid him to work."
ReplyDeleteNo doubt expecting an Obama victory.
It's this that I find most disturbing. Arguably you could see hints of this with the New Yorker cover flap; he's willing to go after an ideologically *friendly* magazine (since when has the New Yorker gone Republican? does anyone really think they want McCain to win?) if his ox is gored even a little. It's sort of like Rudy Giuliani going after New York magazine (not the NYT, this is a glossy that tells you where to buy the best focaccia) for making fun of him on the sides of buses.
Nobody can graduate magna cum from Harvard Law School with less than a 130 IQ. He's probably 140+.
ReplyDelete"I also believe that he is pragmatic. McCain has skeletons in his closet that make Obama's look like chicken bones."
ReplyDeleteOnly because nobody will examine Obama's skeletons. Including this blog, which does at least examine some of the festering flesh.
Is there any confirmation that O's mamma, Stanley Ann Dunham, was working in Pakistan at the time Obama traveled there. He says he just happened to be traveling there (on an Indonesian passport.)
ReplyDelete"Obama is going to further destroy this country with his dangerous religion of hbd denial."
ReplyDeleteAnd you expect him to say, "We can never close the gap because of genetic inequalities." ...?
Who put his/her head on the block and say that in a political forum? It would be like a non-village-idiot publicly denying the existence of God in a Christian country in 1212
Jose Padilla is a hard core AQ guy who's name is no longer Padilla but Abu Jihad or some Arabic stuff like that.
ReplyDeleteHe's a known associate of bin Laden -- that right there ought to get him a firing squad.
Which brings to mind Obama's weakness. He's like Stalin, or Mussolini, or any of those African Big Man thugs, or Hussein for that matter.
VERY good at running a dictatorship. Willing to thug it up as much as possible to be the only Big Man, and with thug-like (Barone's the Coming Thugocracy). VERY bad at dealing with external threats, not the least of which is an effective military requires independence and non-crony officers.
Part of the reason, maybe much of it, that the Wehrmacht and US Army rolled over Stalin and Hussein respectively, was that the military each constructed was for coup-prevention not military defense. Each dictator could be strong only in suppressing dissent, not national defense. Their military forces were weakened to prevent coups.
As for McCain, there was no "wet start" any more than Obama was secretly born in Kenya. His fellow prisoners saw him tortured, and cared for him -- I'd take their words for it over NVA torturers.
McCain led normalizations efforts despite his torture, so he can rise above petty concerns. His problem is that he really is a Conservative Dem instead of a Republican. But he's better than Raila Odinga Version 2.0, aka Obama.
Voters in 1952 had a choice between a cerebral, "smart" former Professor, and Senator, and Ike. Who promised to be strong in deterrence but not militaristic and risk-happy. In 1960, voters chose JFK, who was weak and indecisive with Kruschev in their first summit, creating Kruschev's aggressive Cuban missile response. Which in turn meant Kennedy had to erratically dial up his response.
Obama would see all sorts of testing, not just from Iran seeking to close the Persian Gulf and send oil from it's 70 price range to maybe 200 a barrel, but local would be tribal leaders in Pakistan wanting a nuke for delivery to the distant and weak-seeming Americans.
Nuclear proliferation REQUIRES the US to be seen as "strong" while not militaristic -- an Ike in other words, and requires that perception being pushed down to the tribal level. It might be impossible. But Obama, being weak and sympathetic to Islam and another Odinga -- brutal at home, weak abroad -- would be a disaster.
Voter Fraud? Go to Fox News, Michelle Malkin, Ace of Spades, Hotair, they all have the disaster in OH. Already 200K fraudulent registrations (Mickey Mouse, etc.) have been found, and the US Supreme Court has allowed those ballots to be cast.
Obama is not even trying to hide the ACORN voter fraud. Don't imagine there will ever be a free election again.
One of his guards in Vietnam recently said that all of his wounds came from his crash and that he was treated better than their own soldiers.
ReplyDeleteExcept for the beatings, the bayonetings, the physical and mental torture...The Party is always right, truth! Hysterical. if you believe the NVA, I have a bridge, no wait, 2 that I want to sell you!
There is no Democrat voter fraud. That story has been debumked long ago. Occasionally, some people commit fraud against ACORN and ACORN turns them in when it catches them. But this voter registration fraud is nothing more than a worker cutting corners while collecting his paycheck and it does not lead to voter fraud.
ReplyDeleteThe Bush Admin made Democrat voter fraud the top priority of the Justice Department. 8 years later they've found NOTHING. ZIP. ZILCH. NADA. Too bad the Justice Department wasn't using its precious resources to prosecute illegal immigration.
I didn't say that McCain did wet-start a jet to cause the Forrestal disaster, and I didn't say he didn't. I wasn't there. You people are so certain that he is innocent, apparently, you were. What I said is that it is a tragic event That caused many deaths and the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars of equipment.
ReplyDeleteThree things of which I am sure;
1- Many people, including people on the ship, seem to have believe that it is true, few sailors will say that this behavior would be out of character for a young McCain, who casts himself as a testosterone- laden hell-raiser in his thirties.
2- This incident is a whole hell of a lot more significant than Obama sitting in church with some goofball, phony preacher. (McCain has one of those also,remember?)
3- Obama hasn't brought it up.
Here is an excerpt from an article on the incident:
WMR has been informed that crewmen aboard the Forrestal have provided additional information about the Forrestal incident. It is believed by many crewmen and those who have investigated the case that McCain deliberately 'wet-started' his A-4E to shake up the guy in the plane behind his A-4. 'Wet-starts', done either deliberately or accidentally, shoot a large flame from the tail of the aircraft.
In McCain's case, the 'wet-start' apparently 'cooked off' and launched the Zuni rocket from the rear F-4 that touched off the explosions and massive fire. The F-4 pilot was reportedly killed in the conflagration.
'Wet starting' was apparently a common practice among young 'hot-dog' pilots. McCain was quickly transferred to the USS Oriskany (the only Forrestal crewman to be immediately transferred).
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/20
08/02/371864.shtml
I also did not say that McCain was not tortured; again, I was not there. I said that one of his captors said that he was not tortured, and 40 years ex-post facto I don't see why he would lie. Believe it or not, I can see where a violent crash from a firey jet a quarter-mile above the earth would cause injuries...call me crazy.
"if you believe the NVA, I have a bridge, no wait, 2 that I want to sell you!
ReplyDeleteAnd if you believe that a man who'd Daddy was an admiral at that time, and grandaddy was also an Admiral cannot use connections to orchestrate a cover-up for his son, then you can by the water rights under the bridge!
Oh, by the way; below is a video compilation of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's 'hate whitey' speeches.
ReplyDeleteSilly me though, I could not find one second where he said anything that imlied hatred of whitey. Maybe one of you tripple-digit-IQ types could help me out here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=
jc2FCJ7zWEQ&feature=related
sebastian said
ReplyDeleteI'd like to see someone try to defend Hagee at an MSM press conference with a straight face.
It would be laughable.
Not so laughable. Hagee isn't Bob Jones. He's 101% pro-diversity and (most important) radically, frothing-at-the-mouth pro-Israel. What a friend they have in Hagee.
"This incident is a whole hell of a lot more significant than Obama sitting in church with some goofball, phony preacher. (McCain has one of those also,remember?)"
ReplyDeleteIt takes one heck of a hardcore leftist ideologue to compare reports of jet fighter operation he doesn't understand unfavorably to a politician hobnobbing with a treasonous preacher he DOES understand. (And you do.)
Yo, Truth. Here is a quote from James Cone, the black liberation theology thinker cited by Jerry Wright during his March 2007 TV interview with Sean Hannity. Wright presented Cone as one of the leading lights behind his (Wright’s) own theology. Here is the Cone quote with citation:
ReplyDeleteBlack theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community ... Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.
From: African-American Religious Thought: An Anthology, editors Cornel West and Eddie Glaube (Westminster John Knox Press).
AND THERE IS MORE TRUTH. This is from Spengler’s column, where he quotes from Jerry Wright’s Hannity interview as follows:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/JC18Aa01.html
One of the strangest dialogues in American political history ensued on March 15 when Fox News interviewed Obama's pastor, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, of Chicago's Trinity Church. Wright asserted the authority of the "black liberation" theologians James Cone and Dwight Hopkins:
Wright: How many of Cone's books have you read? How many of Cone's book have you read?
Sean Hannity: Reverend, Reverend?
(crosstalk)
Wright: How many books of Cone's have you head?
Hannity: I'm going to ask you this question ...
Wright: How many books of Dwight Hopkins have you read?
Hannity: You're very angry and defensive. I'm just trying to ask a question here.
Wright: You haven't answered - you haven't answered my question.
Hopkins is a full professor at the University of Chicago's Divinity School; Cone is now distinguished professor at New York's Union Theological Seminary. They promote a "black power" reading of Christianity, to which liberal academic establishment condescends.
Obama referred to this when he asserted in a March 14 statement, "I knew Reverend Wright as someone who served this nation with honor as a United States Marine, as a respected biblical scholar, and as someone who taught or lectured at seminaries across the country, from Union Theological Seminary to the University of Chicago." But the fact the liberal academy condescends to sponsor black liberation theology does not make it less peculiar to mainstream American Christians. Obama wants to talk about what Wright is, rather than what he says.
OK, so now we are not attacking Obama for doing anything against white people, we are not attacking Obama for saying anything anti-white, we are not even attacking Obma, for knowing a guy who did anything against white people, or said anything anti-white, but we are attacking him because he knows a guy, who read a book from a guy who said some stupid things!
ReplyDelete"What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love."
OOOOh, the horrors!
OK, so the guy, (who has been read by a guy that Obama knows) made up a silly religion. Let me tell you something; Christianity is a made-up religion. It is pagan sun/moon worship married with tax collection. I'm sorry, but that's the truth. You can download the movie Zeitgeist for further details.
As far as the Hannity interview, I know that it is beyond reasonable expectation for a talk-show guest to ACTUALLY EXPECT THE HOST TO HAVE DONE RESEARCH NOWADAYS, but Wright seems to have had the audacity, according to your excerpt:
"Wright: How many of Cone's books have you read? How many of Cone's book have you read?
Sean Hannity: Reverend, Reverend?
(crosstalk)
Wright: How many books of Cone's have you head?
Hannity: I'm going to ask you this question ...
Wright: How many books of Dwight Hopkins have you read?
Hannity: You're very angry and defensive. I'm just trying to ask a question here.
Wright: You haven't answered - you haven't answered my question."
I'm not picking upon you my friend, but as Plato once said,and I paraphrase, he who is not capable of dialectic thought is not really alive.
I'm sure that you harbor no preconceived notions about black people and feel that everyone is equally competent and has an equal claim upon your love, (heavy sarcasm intended) but should I judge you because you know a guy who knows a guy who logged into 'stormfront.org' a couple of times?
Obama wants to talk about what Wright is, rather than what he says."
Again, the horrors! Isn't this what we are supposed to do? Wright is a veteran of not one but TWO branches of military service who saved the lives of (probably white) soldiers in Korea as a medic. He put his ass on the line to make Exxon richer 40 years ago, did you? From this I can only ascertain that JW is more patriotic than you are. (and quite possibly whiter from the looks of him.)
"t takes one heck of a hardcore leftist ideologue to compare reports of jet fighter operation he doesn't understand unfavorably to a politician hobnobbing with a treasonous preacher he DOES understand."
Oh, so Wright is 'treasonous' now? I've just listed his military record, would you be so kind to list yours?
No, I am not an aeronautical engineer, but I can read. I can make heads and tails of:
"In McCain's case, the 'wet-start' apparently 'cooked off' and launched the Zuni rocket from the rear F-4 that touched off the explosions and massive fire. The F-4 pilot was reportedly killed in the conflagration."
I am not an economist either, but I do know that I lost 10,000 from my 401K last week, so that gives me all of the economic knowledge I need for those purposes; get it?
"There is no Democrat voter fraud. That story has been debumked long ago. Occasionally, some people commit fraud against ACORN and ACORN turns them in when it catches them. But this voter registration fraud is nothing more than a worker cutting corners while collecting his paycheck and it does not lead to voter fraud."
ReplyDeletePlease, this is a serious site. You are out of your depth here. I don't mean to be rude and I suspect you're young, but you've wandered onto the wrong side of the blogosphere if you expect this comment to be taken seriously. It's not because you're liberal that I respond thus, but this comment is naive at best. Check out Steve's blogroll for sites such as Gene Expression; La Griffe; Audacious Epigone; Inductivist; etc. to see what I mean about this corner we affectionately call the "steveosphere".
I'm reading through this thread and (thusfar) finding it somewhat lacking in originality, sparks of insight or brilliance but I just came across the following comment (by a "professor" no less!) and I actually laughed:
ReplyDeleteObama is by far the most leftwing presidential candidate in our history. I'm not talking about his carefully constructed public persona for this campaign. I'm talking about the real Obama.
Maybe it's time we rethink that first amendment thing, ey? Nothing too grand, just a simple literacy test before you're allowed to assault the intelligences of what unwitting audiences might be violated by your spoken or written word.
Selah.
More substantially, , , well - I don't actually have anything more substantial to say. The (again, thusfar in my reading) lacklustre nature of the comments in this thread is likely on account of the fact that there really isn't that much to say - by non wild-eyed-paranoiacs that is. Obama aint cool, McCain aint cool and one of them (probably Obama) will become president - at which point he won't do anything too substantial in any case. So... let's all just get back to the drinking and the humping, shall we?
"Truth said...
ReplyDeleteIn McCain's case, the 'wet-start' apparently 'cooked off' and launched the Zuni rocket from the rear F-4 that touched off the explosions and massive fire. The F-4 pilot was reportedly killed in the conflagration."
That's pretty good shooting then. The plane which was hit by the missle was the one immediately adjacent to McCain's. The plane which fired the missle was across the deck from McCain's and facing his, so even if he did wet-start his plane, it couldn't have cooked off the missle (in case you were unaware of this fact truth, the engines on jet fighters point to the rear of the aircraft - that's the direction the smoke and flame go).
I don't even like McCain, but I don't think that means anything that can be said about him is true. I don't like Obama. And I'm sure some people believe he is the anti-christ. They have probably stated their opinions on the internet. Does it then follow that Obama IS, in fact, the anti-christ? I would have to say no.
You're really grasping at straws here. You seem to think that anything is true if you read it on the internet, as long as there is some reference for it, however thin. Were you ever on a college debating team?
Anyway, I'd estimate that your arguments sway something south of 1% of the people who read this blog.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteI first heard McCain referred to as Yosemite Sam by you. Was that you're idea because I saw it used on last night's Saturday Night Live, and now I see the comparison is all over the Internet.
If there is a there there with Ayers, bringing up Wright would look desperate and only serve as a distraction. McCain said that Obama should be truthful about the nature of his relationship with Ayers. The press responded to McCain's plea by immediately digging into the past of Joe the Plumber.
ReplyDelete"You're really grasping at straws here. You seem to think that anything is true if you read it on the internet, as long as there is some reference for it, however thin."
ReplyDeleteAgain, I did not say that McCain did start the fire, I said that OTHER PEOPLE HAVE SAID that he started the fire. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't, for the second time I WAS NOT THERE. There are people MUCH CLOSER TO THE INCIDENT than I who believe he started the fire. I also said that Obama did not bring this incident up. He could, just as McCain could bring up Wright. They each CHOSE NOT TO.
I've written now three separate versions of what I have said; why is this so hard?
"Anyway, I'd estimate that your arguments sway something south of 1% of the people who read this blog."
If I am the low IQ guy here, what does that say about your reading comprehension?
Silly me though, I could not find one second where he said anything that imlied hatred of whitey.
ReplyDeleteMaybe one of you tripple-digit-IQ types could help me out here.
Silly you works better as straight talk than it does as sarcasm.
Wright's church, according to Wright, is "unashamedly black." Now, obviously "public discourse" (i.e., establishment ideologues talk and we listen) holds that being "unashamedly white" is racism and hatred of blacks, whereas being unashamedly black, while better not talked about, is just fine. Now obviously establishment ideologues are not middle America, who if faced with this construction would undoubtedly respond overwhelmingly with something about sauce and geese. Then there's people who are remotely sane and honest about race, who know that a) the American double-standards on race are themselves anti-white and b) that simple love of kind isn't hatred of other, and who in a strict, rhetorical sense don't regard unashamed blackness or whiteness as hatred of the other.
So it's not as simple as just saying "show me where Wright said he wanted to kill crackas." The answer to the question of whether being "unashamedly black" is racist against all non-blacks depends on one's perspective. If one's an establishment mouthpiece or drone, the circle of racism around blacks is drawn as absurdly small as possible. The circle widens as one approaches universalism, where one ends up at sauce for the gander (still dupes, but consistent dupes). As one approaches actual racial sanity, the underlying premises are seen as suspect and the whole thing becomes somewhat moot; BUT, that doesn't change the facts of what the lunatics running the asylum are actually thinking and saying.
Here's more:
White America got their wake-up call after 9-11. White America and the Western world came to realize people of color had not gone away, faded in the woodwork, or just disappeared as the Great White West kept on its merry way of ignoring black concerns.
Racist? Depends on who you ask. Probably not according to the establishment, but you could say something similar about Katrina and blacks, and according to the same bobble-heads that'd be racist coming from an "unashamedly white" pastor. So no, Wright's no more racist than the vast majority of the racists running our establishment - you've got me there. When Wright's God-damning America, he obviously means white America, the US of KKKA.
But then, there's no need for degrees of separation on this issue vis-a-vis Obama, since he referred to his white grandmother in a negative way as a "typical white person," which following the logic above is clearly racist to any universalist.
LOL, while reviewing my post I noticed that you denied noticing anything that implied hatred of whites. Now that's funny. The implications are myriad. For a guy who calls himself truth, you really aren't very honest. Or maybe you are, and you should change your name to "Intelligence."
Testing99:
ReplyDeleteSo, when the president says a US citizen is a serious bad guy who ought to get the firing squad, should he then have the power to have that person disappeared off the streets of a US city and tossed into a military brig, with no trial, no review, and no appeal? That's what the Bush administration claimed. Should the Obama administration have the same power?
All those "keep us safe" internal security measures have massive potential for abuse, and the Bush administration has fought like hell to minimize any kind of supervision, as with bypassing the FISA court on wiretaps inside the US. (They promise us that these were only done on bad people. But previously, they promised us they weren't being done at all, so it's a bit hard to trust them this time. And news reports suggest much more widespread use, and abuse.
What will an Obama administration do with these powers? What will Attorney General Hillary Clinton and DHS Secretary Rahm Emanuel do with those powers? We're about to try the experiment. Thanks, GOP!
Testing99:
ReplyDeleteAs an aside, you may want to read up a bit more on military history. The German army did well against the Red Army at first, but they eventually were completely defeated. (I guess it helped when Stalin had the purged officers brought from the gulags and returned to service, though I gather the Germans really didn't enjoy Russian winters much, either.) When did we ever fight Stalin's Red Army?
How has George W "I looked into his eyes and felt his soul" Bush done at handling other countries. There's been some hard rhetoric, and we really did defeat the Iraqi army and kill off Saddam and a bunch of his subordinate thugs, but look at the results. North Korea openly went nuclear, and appears to be willing to negotiate so long as we do just what they say. Iran's still developing a bomb, and they're unambiguously not the kind of folks you want having nukes. We pushed to get Syria out of Lebanon, and got the disastrous Israel/Hezbollah war. We pushed for democracy among the Palestinians, and got massively more legitimacy for Hamas and eventually the Gaza Strip under Hamas' rule. Our heels have been amazingly round for China (probably because the amount of our debt they hold amounts to an economic mutual-suicide-pact). Our dealings with Pakistan look to me to have been a mess, and we've just basically ditched the idea of fighting for nonproliferation in our recent deal with India. Tough rhetoric impresses people at home, but not necessarily tough people in foreign countries.
Will Obama do better? I don't know. I hope to God he doesn't do *worse*.
I have no doubt Obama is a (cultural) Marxist; outside the US Marxist academics & politicians are ten a penny. In the US they're five a penny, but chose to obfuscate their allegiance as it's seen as un-American. The Marxists at my work love Obama, of course.
ReplyDeleteI doubt President Obama will be sending his goons to drag Steve Sailer off to the gulags, though. Hate speech codes are likely; but in Europe (and Canada) these are usually used in a carefully targetted fashion (the Mark Steyn case was aberrant). Jared Taylor would be a likely target for prosecution if they can find a way.
"Now, obviously "public discourse" (i.e., establishment ideologues talk and we listen) holds that being "unashamedly white" is racism and hatred of blacks, whereas being unashamedly black, while better not talked about, is just fine."
ReplyDeletePublic discourse by whom? There are 1,739 public TV stations in the US right now, blacks own exactly 8 of them (and no, the rest are not owned by jews.)
"Then there's people who are remotely sane and honest about race, who know that a) the American double-standards on race are themselves anti-white"
Svigor, for roughly the 11th time on this forum, double standards FOR blacks were instituted to counteract 300 years of double standards AGAINST blacks. AFFIRMATIVE action was created as a counterweight to NEGATIVE action. It is quite possible that these programs have persisted too long (in my opinion, the have) but you cannot intelligently be against a law without understanding why it was created.
The double-standards may or may not be 'anti-white' as you put it, but they were created, instituted and are continued by whites.
"The answer to the question of whether being "unashamedly black" is racist against all non-blacks depends on one's perspective."
In all honesty, this may be the most enlightened sentence I've seen from you my friend. I am a little confused as to why you used 'non-blacks' here instead of 'whites'. A subtle isolate the enemy technique? I have not heard Jesse or Al or Jeremiah speaking with great hatred toward Mexicans, or Palestinians.
"When Wright's God-damning America, he obviously means white America, the US of KKKA."
This is a blatant supposition. If he had meant 'God-Dammmmnnn whites', that is what he would have said, he is not running for office.
"since he referred to his white grandmother in a negative way as a "typical white person," which following the logic above is clearly racist to any universalist."
Why?
I think Ralph Waldo Emmerson came up with a great quotation on this 150 years ago.
'What you are screams so loudly in my ears, I cannot hear what you say.'
Obama speaks about his mother and grandmother with great kindness and affection and always has. He makes one extremely borderline and questionable statement (which if a white person had said you would have agreed with anyway) and you choose, underline CHOOSE to focus upon it. I'll flip the script for you to help you understand;
Do you feel that Michael Richards was a racist? I personally don't know. I know he went on stage and made a fool of himself shouting "nigger, nigger, nigger" for ten minutes but does that make him a racist?
Maybe, he is simply a non-funny, untalented, and inexperienced comedian who was not getting laughs and got unnerved by a heckler. Maybe he goose-steps around his house in a Nazi SS uniform. I don't paint him a racist because I don't know him.
Now you on the other hand would probably argue that Richards for saying N-, N-, N- is not a racist whereas Obama for saying 'typical white person' is. I don't get it please explain it.
"LOL, while reviewing my post I noticed that you denied noticing anything that implied hatred of whites."
Not only did Wright not SAY anything that proved he hated whites, please show me where he IMPLIED anything of this sort. The video is posted above.
I personally choose not to live in a world of abstractions, implications and subtleties. All of this 'well, if you watch Reverend Wright while standing on one leg, looking through 3-d glasses and having the speech translated into Mandarin Chinese in your left ear, you can almost hear the hate whitey implications!' just doesn't work for me, but if you are dying for a hate whitey fix, here it is: (assisted by some creative editing to heard a nice young white man like yourself into that pen.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=
4qu9NdZYQA0
BTW, I don't know if this qualifies as 'hate whitey' because he made it clear that he was ONLY talking about white South Africans. Maybe he just doesn't like mustaches.
Public discourse by whom?
ReplyDeleteEveryone involved in public discourse.
Svigor, for roughly the 11th time on this forum, double standards FOR blacks were instituted to counteract 300 years of double standards AGAINST blacks. AFFIRMATIVE action was created as a counterweight to NEGATIVE action.
Negative action like making descendants of slaves 20x+ wealthier than their less-fortunate African brethren? Like outlawing the slave trade, despite what seems like genetic imprinting on sub-Saharan Africans right up to the present? Like affording them western civilization? Like granting them huge wealth transfers from white pockets to theirs?
That aside, I wasn't talking about AA, Smarts, I was talking about a double-standard, one I thought I expouned to the point of belaboring it, but I see that isn't the case.
It is quite possible that these programs have persisted too long (in my opinion, the have) but you cannot intelligently be against a law without understanding why it was created.
Sure you can. You can see it's wrong now (based on unjust ideas about inherited collective guilt and punishment, even if you accept the specious leftist reading of history) and that the past has no bearing in that regard.
The double-standards may or may not be 'anti-white' as you put it, but they were created, instituted and are continued by whites.
Oh, well that makes everything okay then!
I started to read and respond to the rest of your post but it all went pear-shaped. If anyone buys your crap I ask him to please say so with a comment and I'll respond to any given point. Otherwise why bother because your post is silly and I'm not actually trying to convince you of anything anyway.
Well, the unwritten rules of what may be said in public on race are almost entirely enforced by whites, and are in practice mostly done on behalf of internal power/status conflicts among whites.
ReplyDeleteMany years ago, people used to torture and murder women for being witches, based on testimony about hexes and "congress with the devil." Now, here's the thing: the devil was a major player in this drama, brought up all the time, a justification or proof of guilt or guaranteed convincing argument. But I'm pretty sure the devil wasn't really f--king (or buying the souls of, or granting powers to) any of the women tortured and murdered on charges of witchcraft. Instead, the devil was a prop, like John Galt in the first big chunk of _Atlas Shrugged_. In the same way, in the massive PC bubble surrounding race, blacks are a prop.
This turns out badly for blacks a lot of the time, as (for example) Thomas Sowell, Bill Cosby, and a couple of times even Barack Obama have pointed out. But they're a prop, so who cares? For evidence of this, look at how many people who are "deeply concerned" about the education performance gap will crucify anyone who wants to bring up the obviously-relevant IQ gap, but won't take any particular action when the existing schools screw all the poor black kids in Baltimore out of an education.
"Otherwise why bother because your post is silly and I'm not actually trying to convince you of anything anyway."
ReplyDeleteWell, Svig, it makes me feel very important that you spent 10 minutes and 600 words not trying to convince me of anything.
You know your problem my friend, you take this stuff all way to seriously, I mean, think about it; you get another 40 maybe 50 years to discuss this stuff with me on this blog and then we're dead so try to have a little fun, sport.
I mean let's both be honest for a second, if I did what I did here at NYU or Colombia school of Philosophy they'd be calling me the closet thing modern man has seen to Socrates. My revolutionary idesas would be trumpeted on the cover of Time and Newsweek. Bernard Henri-Levy would give my style of thought a new and very impressive moniker such as post-modern Afro dialectivism. Of course that would all first be contingent upon an angry white male such as you approving my dissertation...So I'll just stay right here where I'm loved and keep my job stocking shelves.
Truth - Svigor isnt trying to convince you, he is talking to the more passive watchers beyond, those readers who hopefully can see who is winning/losing the argument.
ReplyDeleteYou, otoh, are probably a lost cause!
Thats my take anyway.
I generally find Svi's comments incisive and amusing and look out for them wherever possible> Wish he would write more. In fact, wish I could write like that!