mtlucas0311
New member
Sorry if this seems like a cheap shot, but clearly you haven't applied for an acedemic scholorship lately. I do say it with a smile on my face though!
The Democratic Convention made me proud for our country
- Thread starter MedicineBow
- Start date
- Status
I am Black and I'm proud that a Black person has been nominated. I would have much preferred that they be on the GOP ticket but, hey, it is what it is.
For those who disrespect him for his lack of views according to your perception - I've not met but ONE White politician who met MY criteria for leading the USA - Ron Paul. And the vast majority of Whites abandoned him if polls are to be believed.
Reading the posts here many of you have deep-seated issues about race. You unwittingly fit into Black stereotypes of non-Blacks concerning race.
The asininity of "he isn't Black": You sure as Hades recognize that "he sure aint Irish."
YOU know that if a person has darker skin and coarse hair they aren't considered to be White with all that may entail. The whole concept of "maroons" "quadroons" and "octaroons" is a Southern (primarily) Caucasian invention. Just as Blacks cannot have it both ways neither can you.
The fact that Whites voted for a Black man is cause enough to celebrate. Perhaps the specter of Racism and Bigotry has been reduced to the point of it not mattering? I hope so.
You have had crooks and b@stards in office since the beginning of this nation yet no mention of the fact that they were "White" and that was reason enough for their abysmal behavior. The fact that he's Black is HUGE for a nation with the checkered path that we have.
That said, my "dream team" would be (for better or worse) Ron Paul for President and maybe Colin Powell for VP.
My opinion of the two tickets is this: The last eight years we've seen an exceedingly sharp, steep decline in the status, influence and standard of living of the USA. The eight years prior was also marked a rapid decline in the status of the USA. That's not to say the eight years prior to Bush, Sr and Clinton did not represent a decline but it was made very obvious to all at Gulf War I (Bush, Sr. and his publicly announced "New World Order" - the first time I heard the term). From that time onwards it's been an ever steeper decline.
That said, there's no way in Hades I'd support the incumbent party. They've shown their hand and I find it treasonous. Your perceptions may vary. McCain vents about Russia - a first rate military power with 20,000 + nuclear missiles - as if we could actually do something without sustaining fatal injuries to our nation, Europe and Israel. What a d@mned fool. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization includes Russia, China and several Caucasian nation states with Iran being close to being a member. To attack Iran will bring the SCO in direct conflict with NATO (that would include the US and Israel) and the EU. I've no idea how many missiles that China has but to think that the neocon/Trotskite foreign policy towards Eurasia will lead to anything but a Holocaust (death by fire) is interminably stupid. McCain endorses this evil ideology. He presumably endorses Israel "unilaterally" striking Iran. Well, whose planes and bombs will be used - or more accurately - from whence did they come? And who will aid Israel when the inevitable response happens? Exactly. Putin and Medveded aren't stupid.
It was reported in the world press (but not in the US press) that Putin and medveded declared that re-arming Georgia would be taken as a declaration of war. We were re-arming Georgia (according to Russia) and there were reports that would most certainly do so. Well, after the "declaration of war" statement - and it was that blunt - we blinked. Turkey was contacted by Moscow concerning allowing warships into the Bosphorous Straits. Nothing was reported but I'm sure Russia's wrath would not have stopped with sinking the NATO ships on the Black Sea. Turkey would have lost control of the Bosphorous - something that Russia has wanted for over 150 years (i.e., a warm water sea port). And Turkey would be stupid beyond belief to provide the circumstances for that to happen.
And the neocons and McCain barked as if they could take Russia down without losing a round...
I would have been much happier if Obama had stated that we should look to repair damages to our relationship with Russia but he either does not fully see the light or he's saying what he must to remain electable.
His record shows that he's not a blind supporter of everything Israel - a source for much vitriol in the press. He did go and state what he'd do for Israel to AIPAC, etc., earlier this year but I don't think that's what he believes as his record prior to this haven't borne that out. If Israel knew the US would not have her back militarily you'd think she'd go about trying to make peace with her neighbors as opposed to making threats of military airstrikes against nuclear powerplants... Yet McCain approves even if it ultimately leads to the destruction of 2/3 of the US population from a combined Russian, Chinese response. No, he cannot have my vote.
Since Paul is effectively "out" what about Obama? I don't like Joe Biden at all. Even though he's quoted as being a "Constitutional scholar" his view of the 2nd Amendment does not resonate with mine. His stated "will not raise taxes" cannot be as the last 8 yrs have drained the coffers and unless we retreat from Eurasia we'll have to pay for the equipment. He has stated that he wishes to remove troops from Iraq but he wishes to increase troops in Afghanistan while McCain would increase troop strengths in both areas, deal with the mess Israel would presumably create in Iran and somehow deal with a motivated Russia after the fiasco in the Republic of Georgia. Oh, Saakashvili is out. Agreements appear to have been made to evacuate him "in the event of a coup" and the US has wisely dropped the idea of forcing their way into the port in Poti. Wiser heads prevailed. Source: http://morris108.wordpress.com/
At worse, Obama will lead us into a direct confrontation with the SCO - something the neocons seem Hell-bent on doing. At best he can delay this during his term(s) such that the next president can complete the turnaround of this nation. Ron Paul, perhaps?
It's your call.
Sorry for the long, winding response.
For those who disrespect him for his lack of views according to your perception - I've not met but ONE White politician who met MY criteria for leading the USA - Ron Paul. And the vast majority of Whites abandoned him if polls are to be believed.
Reading the posts here many of you have deep-seated issues about race. You unwittingly fit into Black stereotypes of non-Blacks concerning race.
The asininity of "he isn't Black": You sure as Hades recognize that "he sure aint Irish."
YOU know that if a person has darker skin and coarse hair they aren't considered to be White with all that may entail. The whole concept of "maroons" "quadroons" and "octaroons" is a Southern (primarily) Caucasian invention. Just as Blacks cannot have it both ways neither can you.The fact that Whites voted for a Black man is cause enough to celebrate. Perhaps the specter of Racism and Bigotry has been reduced to the point of it not mattering? I hope so.
You have had crooks and b@stards in office since the beginning of this nation yet no mention of the fact that they were "White" and that was reason enough for their abysmal behavior. The fact that he's Black is HUGE for a nation with the checkered path that we have.
That said, my "dream team" would be (for better or worse) Ron Paul for President and maybe Colin Powell for VP.
My opinion of the two tickets is this: The last eight years we've seen an exceedingly sharp, steep decline in the status, influence and standard of living of the USA. The eight years prior was also marked a rapid decline in the status of the USA. That's not to say the eight years prior to Bush, Sr and Clinton did not represent a decline but it was made very obvious to all at Gulf War I (Bush, Sr. and his publicly announced "New World Order" - the first time I heard the term). From that time onwards it's been an ever steeper decline.
That said, there's no way in Hades I'd support the incumbent party. They've shown their hand and I find it treasonous. Your perceptions may vary. McCain vents about Russia - a first rate military power with 20,000 + nuclear missiles - as if we could actually do something without sustaining fatal injuries to our nation, Europe and Israel. What a d@mned fool. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization includes Russia, China and several Caucasian nation states with Iran being close to being a member. To attack Iran will bring the SCO in direct conflict with NATO (that would include the US and Israel) and the EU. I've no idea how many missiles that China has but to think that the neocon/Trotskite foreign policy towards Eurasia will lead to anything but a Holocaust (death by fire) is interminably stupid. McCain endorses this evil ideology. He presumably endorses Israel "unilaterally" striking Iran. Well, whose planes and bombs will be used - or more accurately - from whence did they come? And who will aid Israel when the inevitable response happens? Exactly. Putin and Medveded aren't stupid.
It was reported in the world press (but not in the US press) that Putin and medveded declared that re-arming Georgia would be taken as a declaration of war. We were re-arming Georgia (according to Russia) and there were reports that would most certainly do so. Well, after the "declaration of war" statement - and it was that blunt - we blinked. Turkey was contacted by Moscow concerning allowing warships into the Bosphorous Straits. Nothing was reported but I'm sure Russia's wrath would not have stopped with sinking the NATO ships on the Black Sea. Turkey would have lost control of the Bosphorous - something that Russia has wanted for over 150 years (i.e., a warm water sea port). And Turkey would be stupid beyond belief to provide the circumstances for that to happen.
And the neocons and McCain barked as if they could take Russia down without losing a round...
I would have been much happier if Obama had stated that we should look to repair damages to our relationship with Russia but he either does not fully see the light or he's saying what he must to remain electable.
His record shows that he's not a blind supporter of everything Israel - a source for much vitriol in the press. He did go and state what he'd do for Israel to AIPAC, etc., earlier this year but I don't think that's what he believes as his record prior to this haven't borne that out. If Israel knew the US would not have her back militarily you'd think she'd go about trying to make peace with her neighbors as opposed to making threats of military airstrikes against nuclear powerplants... Yet McCain approves even if it ultimately leads to the destruction of 2/3 of the US population from a combined Russian, Chinese response. No, he cannot have my vote.
Since Paul is effectively "out" what about Obama? I don't like Joe Biden at all. Even though he's quoted as being a "Constitutional scholar" his view of the 2nd Amendment does not resonate with mine. His stated "will not raise taxes" cannot be as the last 8 yrs have drained the coffers and unless we retreat from Eurasia we'll have to pay for the equipment. He has stated that he wishes to remove troops from Iraq but he wishes to increase troops in Afghanistan while McCain would increase troop strengths in both areas, deal with the mess Israel would presumably create in Iran and somehow deal with a motivated Russia after the fiasco in the Republic of Georgia. Oh, Saakashvili is out. Agreements appear to have been made to evacuate him "in the event of a coup" and the US has wisely dropped the idea of forcing their way into the port in Poti. Wiser heads prevailed. Source: http://morris108.wordpress.com/
At worse, Obama will lead us into a direct confrontation with the SCO - something the neocons seem Hell-bent on doing. At best he can delay this during his term(s) such that the next president can complete the turnaround of this nation. Ron Paul, perhaps?
It's your call.
Sorry for the long, winding response.
mtlucas0311
New member
Chui, I don't feel so bad about posting long responces after reading yours! Your take on the two tickets seemed to spend a lot of time going after "Neocons"; do you really think McCain is that far right? Rush surely doesn't, and he's certainly over in that area. I feel for you about Ron Paul being the preverbial snowball, but he's way to radical to stand a chance with the general public, no matter how much sence he makes. I think you take a whole lot of liberties in your assumptions about other countries intentions and potential reactions, Iraq is a perfect example of that. I don't think we should really be stirring the pot with Russia but appeasement is only asking for more(see: Hitler, 1930's.) If you really want to get into this "race business", I think most have it wrong, it's not about skin color anymore. It's about social perception and MONEY. If you are black, white, yellow, purple, green,...what ever! and you dress conservatively or professionally and speak inteligently and act politely, you won't be remembered for your color. If you dress in the latest hood gear with the saggy pants and speak like you dropped out in 3rd grade, you will be remembered as such, regardless of skin tone. When you hear somebody drop the F bomb, I believe it's more often because its the most hateful nasty thing that person can think of, and at the time they are REALLY P.O'd about something that person did; not because they hate all people who are not like them. I admit there are always exceptions, but I believe it to be a very small minority.
I love how a person can say that he hates racism while posting such a markedly racist opinion.
How does a person of your race make you proud? What did you have to do with his nomination? Other than an accident of birth, you have little in common with BHO. I love how the party that claims to want racial equality spends so much time harping on race, and I also love how so many in the "equality" party immediately accuse the Republicans of using their VP choice as a "token" an accusation which in itself is extremely prejudicial.
How does a person of your race make you proud? What did you have to do with his nomination? Other than an accident of birth, you have little in common with BHO. I love how the party that claims to want racial equality spends so much time harping on race, and I also love how so many in the "equality" party immediately accuse the Republicans of using their VP choice as a "token" an accusation which in itself is extremely prejudicial.
Tell me, divemedic: Where on God's green earth is there any "racism" in my post? You've misread what I've typed. Try again. Perhaps it's the poor sentence structure of this sentence:
It would be much more clear if written this way to avoid any ambiguity:
Obama isn't perfect by ANY means. But then NONE of US are either. And neither were the Founders of this nation. Many were slave-owning elitists and horribly racist. But you know what? I honor what I can about them; they created the greatest nation on the planet. I haven't forgotten their "sins", I just don't dwell on it. They were who they were - GREAT MEN. With flaws. Like all men.
Yet we have the idiotic insinuations such as this dribble:
There's too much crap in those few sentences to dissect so I'll state the more obvious. Well, Whites would not have voted for any leader in the 60's, 70's or 80's in my honest, humble opinion.
Yes, no conspiracies and bad associations of our last 10 presidents... :barf: It never stopped the bootlegging family of the Kennedy's, the Communist philosophied FDR, Dixie-Mafia-associated successor to Kennedy, cocaine smuggling governor of Arkansas became president with the aid of his mob-tied wife or the cocaine and oil soaked family now... No, I don't think that's the sole reason, ringworm. Not by a long shot.
In honesty, the only WHITE candidate I have found worthy to run for POTUS has been... Ron Paul. Actually, there have been a FEW others. At the time Ross Perot could have made a difference, for example. He would not have been able to turn it all around in one or two terms but neither could Obama or MYSELF. But like Paul they could not get by the Mass Media Empire who is as much threatened by an awakened American public as Congress and the Crowned Heads of Europe. Ultimately, I fault the US PUBLIC because we fail to do our research and listen to the talking heads. "My people perish for lack of knowledge." Hosea 4:6
No, divemedic, I don't like racism but I'm not blind. Race is, for whatever reasons, an issue in America. Yes, I see the Media "rubbing each race's nose together but WE ALLOW the negative perceptions to take hold. And MANY of BOTH races have racist ideologies. Look around at those closest to you. I have bigots in my family (aunts, uncles and cousins) and I'm sure we all here do.
Hiding from that reality will not cure the problem.
mtlucas0311:
I'm not sure what you mean about Iraq. We should never have gone into Iraq. The decision was made immediately upon Bush being inaugurated - prior to 9/11. We need to familiarize ourselves with our Foreign Policy. The guys mentioned in the prior response should be studied in detail. Brzezinski's book The Grand Chessboard can be downloaded freely at:
http://sandiego.indymedia.org/media/2006/10/119973.pdf
Study it. It's our CURRENT Foreign Policy; the policy of the so-called Neocons. They are "conservative" and I don't like the terms "left", "right", "conservative", "liberal". To be more definitive they are Trotskiites (followers of Trotsky). I have 'invented' a term: CommuFascists or "CommuNazis". They are simultaneously International Socialists (i.e., Communism) by their desire for international organizations and agreements yet very much National Socialists (Fascists) in other aspects of their goings on (i.e., the merging of big business and gov't).
I think that social perceptions include race. There are a lot of assumptions made about a person based upon the color of his or her skin color and sex. I have experienced it in Corporate America myself. I'm not quick to call it but others (Whites) have. I don't usually let on to agreeing with them. It happens. Blacks are as guilty as Whites with racism; it's just not acknowledged by the Media. YOU know it, however. I believe racism, prejudice, etc. exists to some degree in all of us. When all is fine there is no issue. As soon as we are able to single out a group causing the issue the racist comments will be whispered by many and shouted by a few.
So the fact that so many whites would support a black candidate is proof positive that there is MUCH hope and MUCH to celebrate. I'm not speaking of what he professes because if I were KING I'd charge them ALL (minus Ron Paul) with TREASON and SEDITION. So it's immaterial. Whites have voted for all manner of arse-clowns, traitors and seditious mattoids since the day this nation was wrested from the British. They did so in droves. I think bclarks quote resonates with me:
It would be much more clear if written this way to avoid any ambiguity:
Obama isn't perfect by ANY means. But then NONE of US are either. And neither were the Founders of this nation. Many were slave-owning elitists and horribly racist. But you know what? I honor what I can about them; they created the greatest nation on the planet. I haven't forgotten their "sins", I just don't dwell on it. They were who they were - GREAT MEN. With flaws. Like all men.
Yet we have the idiotic insinuations such as this dribble:
There's too much crap in those few sentences to dissect so I'll state the more obvious. Well, Whites would not have voted for any leader in the 60's, 70's or 80's in my honest, humble opinion.
Yes, no conspiracies and bad associations of our last 10 presidents... :barf: It never stopped the bootlegging family of the Kennedy's, the Communist philosophied FDR, Dixie-Mafia-associated successor to Kennedy, cocaine smuggling governor of Arkansas became president with the aid of his mob-tied wife or the cocaine and oil soaked family now... No, I don't think that's the sole reason, ringworm. Not by a long shot.
In honesty, the only WHITE candidate I have found worthy to run for POTUS has been... Ron Paul. Actually, there have been a FEW others. At the time Ross Perot could have made a difference, for example. He would not have been able to turn it all around in one or two terms but neither could Obama or MYSELF. But like Paul they could not get by the Mass Media Empire who is as much threatened by an awakened American public as Congress and the Crowned Heads of Europe. Ultimately, I fault the US PUBLIC because we fail to do our research and listen to the talking heads. "My people perish for lack of knowledge." Hosea 4:6
No, divemedic, I don't like racism but I'm not blind. Race is, for whatever reasons, an issue in America. Yes, I see the Media "rubbing each race's nose together but WE ALLOW the negative perceptions to take hold. And MANY of BOTH races have racist ideologies. Look around at those closest to you. I have bigots in my family (aunts, uncles and cousins) and I'm sure we all here do.
Hiding from that reality will not cure the problem.
mtlucas0311:
I'm not sure what you mean about Iraq. We should never have gone into Iraq. The decision was made immediately upon Bush being inaugurated - prior to 9/11. We need to familiarize ourselves with our Foreign Policy. The guys mentioned in the prior response should be studied in detail. Brzezinski's book The Grand Chessboard can be downloaded freely at:
http://sandiego.indymedia.org/media/2006/10/119973.pdf
Study it. It's our CURRENT Foreign Policy; the policy of the so-called Neocons. They are "conservative" and I don't like the terms "left", "right", "conservative", "liberal". To be more definitive they are Trotskiites (followers of Trotsky). I have 'invented' a term: CommuFascists or "CommuNazis". They are simultaneously International Socialists (i.e., Communism) by their desire for international organizations and agreements yet very much National Socialists (Fascists) in other aspects of their goings on (i.e., the merging of big business and gov't).
I think that social perceptions include race. There are a lot of assumptions made about a person based upon the color of his or her skin color and sex. I have experienced it in Corporate America myself. I'm not quick to call it but others (Whites) have. I don't usually let on to agreeing with them. It happens. Blacks are as guilty as Whites with racism; it's just not acknowledged by the Media. YOU know it, however. I believe racism, prejudice, etc. exists to some degree in all of us. When all is fine there is no issue. As soon as we are able to single out a group causing the issue the racist comments will be whispered by many and shouted by a few.
So the fact that so many whites would support a black candidate is proof positive that there is MUCH hope and MUCH to celebrate. I'm not speaking of what he professes because if I were KING I'd charge them ALL (minus Ron Paul) with TREASON and SEDITION. So it's immaterial. Whites have voted for all manner of arse-clowns, traitors and seditious mattoids since the day this nation was wrested from the British. They did so in droves. I think bclarks quote resonates with me:
Without reading your most recent long diatribe, I will point out your previous post began with a racist statement:
Hinting that if we don't vote for Obama, we are racists.
How about: "I have a dream that one day, a man will be judged not by the color of his skin, but for the content of his character."
The only people I see making race an issue are the ones who claim they don't want race to be an issue, yet they spend a lot of time doing exactly that. Just as you have done.
Hinting that if we don't vote for Obama, we are racists.
How about: "I have a dream that one day, a man will be judged not by the color of his skin, but for the content of his character."
The only people I see making race an issue are the ones who claim they don't want race to be an issue, yet they spend a lot of time doing exactly that. Just as you have done.
MedicineBow, you are absolutely correct to be proud of our country for being capable of nominating Obama. I am too.
The reaction here is amazing. Someone says he is proud of his country for moving beyond racism and gets shouted down by a bunch of folks who pretend that racism doesn't exist. I wonder what the reaction would have been if the Libertarians had nominated a black man who was an staunch advocate of the second amendment? Would many of you not be crowing about it?
MedicineBow's point is valid, independent of Obama's liberal views. Admit it, guys - you decided you were going to find fault with the original poster the minute you saw the words "proud" and "Democratic" in title of this thread.
The reaction here is amazing. Someone says he is proud of his country for moving beyond racism and gets shouted down by a bunch of folks who pretend that racism doesn't exist. I wonder what the reaction would have been if the Libertarians had nominated a black man who was an staunch advocate of the second amendment? Would many of you not be crowing about it?
MedicineBow's point is valid, independent of Obama's liberal views. Admit it, guys - you decided you were going to find fault with the original poster the minute you saw the words "proud" and "Democratic" in title of this thread.
I am not proud that they selected Obama for their candidate. I'm never proud to see the democrats do anything except lose.
If your referring to a black American running for office then I was proud when Alan Keyes ran for the party nomination in 1996, 2000 and 2008 and whom I voted for in the primaries every time.
If there is rascism in America it's against Republicans. Why didn't Keyes get the celebrity attention Obama is getting?
And if it matters, unfortunately it will for the losers, I'm a white American.
If your referring to a black American running for office then I was proud when Alan Keyes ran for the party nomination in 1996, 2000 and 2008 and whom I voted for in the primaries every time.
If there is rascism in America it's against Republicans. Why didn't Keyes get the celebrity attention Obama is getting?
And if it matters, unfortunately it will for the losers, I'm a white American.
mtlucas0311
New member
My point on Iraq is this: I believe we should have gone into Iraq. I think the intel that ultimately caused us to go into Iraq was probably incorrect, but the end result was that it was a good thing. It was our assumptions about their actions and intentions (we couldn't immagine a reason why they were doing the things they were) and the physical evidence that supported those assumptions that caused us to invade. I believe that once we had boots on the ground in the entire country we got a closer look and realized why we made the mistakes we did, but hind sight is always 20/20.
I think there's a reason you can get that book at SAN DIEGO....MEDIA...dotORG; last time I checked that was the wrong coast for policy. But I'm not familiar with the book so I shouldn't bash it.
Communazis? are you kidding? The big "O" just spent how much time in Europe trying to get votes? those must be those 7 extra states Limbaugh is always razzing him about! Merging of big business and government? What would you call socialized (I stress socialized) medicine? And isn't it the big "O" that wants to take all the wealth and "redistribute"? You'll never see any of that in a communist country!
I understand why you are happy to see Obama as the candidate, my problem with him is that he's done nothing extraordinary to show that he's capable of that level of authority. I can't help but think of him as a pre-packaged Backstreet boy in a suit; singin' the song that they wrote for him, perfectly packaged for a short attention spanned, drama thirsty, uninformed general public.
I think there's a reason you can get that book at SAN DIEGO....MEDIA...dotORG; last time I checked that was the wrong coast for policy. But I'm not familiar with the book so I shouldn't bash it.
Communazis? are you kidding? The big "O" just spent how much time in Europe trying to get votes? those must be those 7 extra states Limbaugh is always razzing him about! Merging of big business and government? What would you call socialized (I stress socialized) medicine? And isn't it the big "O" that wants to take all the wealth and "redistribute"? You'll never see any of that in a communist country!
I understand why you are happy to see Obama as the candidate, my problem with him is that he's done nothing extraordinary to show that he's capable of that level of authority. I can't help but think of him as a pre-packaged Backstreet boy in a suit; singin' the song that they wrote for him, perfectly packaged for a short attention spanned, drama thirsty, uninformed general public.
mtlucas0311
New member
DaveBeal: I probably wouldn't, but your point is valid. But do you thinks that the folks at that stadium who listened to Obama's speech the other day wouldn't be saying exactly the same thing that many are here? The difference is that I'd admit they were right.
Well, my friend, you set A NEW LOW MARK. Like many "Wimpus Americanus" (i.e., "new Americans") you seem to lack the intellectual fortitude to (A) PROPERLY engage in communication, (B) lack basic understanding which is exacerbated by your lack of desire to read for understanding (C) Lack any pretense of understanding the checkered social history of this nation.
You'll notice that no where did I even remotely suggest that if you did not vote for him you were a racist. I'm verbose enough to tell you directly and in no uncertain terms what I think if you but ask. I'm also not influenced by peer pressure like most and most certainly not influenced by peer pressure over the internet... So if you'd like to communicate then simply ask.
That's okay. You reside in the USA and I'll not only pray for you, I'd provide cover for you.
If your referring to a black American running for office then I was proud when Alan Keyes ran for the party nomination in 1996, 2000 and 2008 and whom I voted for in the primaries every time.
But where was the support for him? He got less exposure than Paul... I also think he was a viable candidate and I, too, supported him. I thought it more likely that the US would rally behind Paul over Keyes, however.
One big dilemma we have is that we've failed each and every time to select the best candidate and have instead picked who the media has suggested. Thus we've repeatedly selected the "best" of the worst and it has led us to these dark days where the light is dim in the USA: no jobs, no currency, no respect in the world, dictatorial laws waiting another "event" and we'll have no liberty. We've GOT to go outside of the current system that brought us here or it's over.
We've slept for too darned long.
I've been saying this for over a decade and have found precious little audience. Well, the gravity of the situations in Adghnistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, Georgia (China and Russia are related), the failed economy and all of the unconstitutional legislation should be a wake up call if there ever was one. But most won't perceive it.
But where was the support for him? He got less exposure than Paul... I also think he was a viable candidate and I, too, supported him. I thought it more likely that the US would rally behind Paul over Keyes, however.
One big dilemma we have is that we've failed each and every time to select the best candidate and have instead picked who the media has suggested. Thus we've repeatedly selected the "best" of the worst and it has led us to these dark days where the light is dim in the USA: no jobs, no currency, no respect in the world, dictatorial laws waiting another "event" and we'll have no liberty. We've GOT to go outside of the current system that brought us here or it's over.
We've slept for too darned long.
I've been saying this for over a decade and have found precious little audience. Well, the gravity of the situations in Adghnistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, Georgia (China and Russia are related), the failed economy and all of the unconstitutional legislation should be a wake up call if there ever was one. But most won't perceive it.
Hey, clown, are you familiar with the BIGOTED history of this nation?
Are you familiar with the Constitution and Bill of Rights?
You SURELY don't act like it.
Here's a clue: there are things that resemble sandwiches but with paper with letters all on them called BOOKS. Have at it. I'm through discussing this with you.
Are you familiar with the Constitution and Bill of Rights?
You SURELY don't act like it.
Here's a clue: there are things that resemble sandwiches but with paper with letters all on them called BOOKS. Have at it. I'm through discussing this with you.
MedicineBow
New member
DaveBeal:
Thanks.
And to make it clear: I also think it's great, and proper, for those who don't like Obama, disagree with his policies, etc., to now rip into him, give money to his opponents, volunteer their time to help defeat him...all of that.
Both of these things -- Obama's nomination, and hard-nosed, issue-based opposition to his candidacy -- were unthinkable not so long ago in this country. It's a testament to our system that we are always moving forward like this.
Thanks.
And to make it clear: I also think it's great, and proper, for those who don't like Obama, disagree with his policies, etc., to now rip into him, give money to his opponents, volunteer their time to help defeat him...all of that.
Both of these things -- Obama's nomination, and hard-nosed, issue-based opposition to his candidacy -- were unthinkable not so long ago in this country. It's a testament to our system that we are always moving forward like this.
mtlucas0311
New member
I think you both need to have a cocktail or something, you guys seem like your getting REALLY worked up over this.
Chui, you've got me a bit confused, you extended your sympathy because Divemedic "resides in the USA". So do you not live in the U.S.? I'm sure that there is a simple answer I'm just a little to sleepy to realize, but how is it that your voting for Paul, Keyes etc?
The failed economy? who in this world has more money or a better standard of living than we do? Our "poor" have more money than the "rich" of most other countries! Honestly I'm willing to contend that this country has no "poor", just lazy, undereducated mooches that waste their money and wait for another handout.
Chui, you've got me a bit confused, you extended your sympathy because Divemedic "resides in the USA". So do you not live in the U.S.? I'm sure that there is a simple answer I'm just a little to sleepy to realize, but how is it that your voting for Paul, Keyes etc?
The failed economy? who in this world has more money or a better standard of living than we do? Our "poor" have more money than the "rich" of most other countries! Honestly I'm willing to contend that this country has no "poor", just lazy, undereducated mooches that waste their money and wait for another handout.
mtlucas0311
New member
didn't mean you MedicineBow, you posted while I was typing. I think I understand what your getting at, it's kind of like Grumpy old Men (the movie).
I am not worked up. I did not call names, nor did I say he was stupid.
Accusing me of being stupid or illiterate is a strawman attack that distracts people from the meat of the issue:
Many on the left claim to want people to ignore race, all the while gleefully pointing out that we should be proud because Obama is a black candidate.
My votes go to the candidate with the position that most closely resembles my own view of the world. Color is irrelevant.
I am not a clown, as I do not own a rainbow wig OR floppy shoes. I am not discussing history. I am discussing your posts, as bigoted as they are. I have not once mentioned how a candidate's color or race matters. The COTUS and BOR are irrelevant to this thread. I am not sure what you mean about that.
I have read books. My lips don't even move when I do it.
Personal attacks, a sure sign of a losing argument.
Accusing me of being stupid or illiterate is a strawman attack that distracts people from the meat of the issue:
Many on the left claim to want people to ignore race, all the while gleefully pointing out that we should be proud because Obama is a black candidate.
My votes go to the candidate with the position that most closely resembles my own view of the world. Color is irrelevant.
I am not a clown, as I do not own a rainbow wig OR floppy shoes. I am not discussing history. I am discussing your posts, as bigoted as they are. I have not once mentioned how a candidate's color or race matters. The COTUS and BOR are irrelevant to this thread. I am not sure what you mean about that.
I have read books. My lips don't even move when I do it.
Personal attacks, a sure sign of a losing argument.
Enough.
Some good points have been made.
Some good points have been utterly lost because the person who made them stooped to insulting others -- which is against the board rules.
Some stupid points have been made, too. And some of those have been in violation of board rules, too.
This one's done...
pax
Some good points have been made.
Some good points have been utterly lost because the person who made them stooped to insulting others -- which is against the board rules.
Some stupid points have been made, too. And some of those have been in violation of board rules, too.
This one's done...
pax
- Status