MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE by Michael Wolraich Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop |
Beneath the Spin * Eric L. Wattree
WHAT WILL SHE HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THOSE WHO SLANDERED THE FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES? |
I often wonder why Obama-haters tend to hate Obama so much more than they do the Republicans, who have a much more malevolent agenda towards the American people. The GOP is engaged in an ongoing campaign to abolish Medicare, Social Security, organized labor, the minority's right to vote, and they repeatedly hold the American people, including the unemployed, hostage to promote the interest of the rich. In addition, they’ve staged a bitter war against women, gays, and the immigrant community - and this GOP assault on the rights of the poor, middle class, and minorities is not just being staged by a radical few. It’s clearly a concerted effort by the entire Republican Party.
.
Thousands of Republicans have come together in a solid block of solidarity to embarked upon the exact same agenda. It involves corporations, congressmen, U.S. senators, state senators, state legislatures, city council members, judges, etc., all across this country who seem to be hell-bent on cutting the throats of poor and middle-class America. Yet, Black, Obama-haters seem to be completely oblivious to this fact and are totally fixated on this one Black man who was elected twice, by a large majority of the American people to be President of the United States. One would think that, that fact alone would, at the very least, cause these haters to reflect on what's REALLY going on inside of their heads.
.
But these people are so fixated on hating Obama that they’re completely blind to everything else. One can prove to them without a doubt that one of their leading and most high profile Obama-haters is connected to several members of ALEC - an organization that's spending HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS to obstruct the minority right to vote and was also instrumental in herding poor and middle class minorities into Wells Fargo's "Ghetto Loan" scam that caused the bank to have to pay a $175 MILLION SETTLEMENT to Black and Hispanic borrowers - and they’ll simply say something like "Yeah, but Obama played golf with a man who works for the oil company." Thereafter, they won’t say ONE WORD about anything else.
.
These people hate Obama so passionately that they’re allowing the GOP - the most insidious domestic threat to the American people in the nation’s history - to pursue it’s malevolent agenda with complete impunity. In fact, their behavior is enhancing the GOP effort.
.
I mean, one would think that their tunnel vision alone would send up a red flag signaling them to review their thinking. It’s absolutely amazing how it doesn’t, but it does clearly show why Black people are in such bad shape. The thoughtless behavior of these haters is undeniable confirmation that there are a handful of Black people in this country who hate other Black people - and especially this Black president - as much, or more, than any Klan member. But their hatred is even more insidious than that of a White, White supremacist - at least a White bigot recognizes his bigotry - but the bigotry of these Black "bligots" seem to be cloaked even from their own recognition in a camouflaging labyrinth of pretextural justifications.
.
If Malcolm, Martin, and the other Black icons of the past could see what’s currently going on among us, I’m sure they’d hang their heads in shame. But even if they can’t see what’s going on, there are many others who surely will.
.
Due to the election of Barack Obama as the nation’s first Black president, scholars and historians are going to be scrutinizing this period in history with a fine toothed comb - and they won’t be alone. Due to the flawless memory of the internet, Black people who are yet unborn are going to be looking back and reading our posts, articles, and comments during this period, and I guarantee you that many of us are going to be a huge embarrassment to them.
.
Remember, they’ll be reading our remarks with an objective eye. They’ll be able to examine this period in history absent the passions and fog of current politics and with a perspective of 20/20 hindsight. So it will be absolutely clear to them who was engaged in promoting malevolent and selfish agendas, and who were merely "bligoted" (Black bigoted) fools. As a result, many of us are going to be, at best, horrible embarrassments to our families, and at worst, in the case of some high profile people, even smears on their family names.
.
You see, what the Obama-haters are engaged in has been going on for centuries - in fact, we were undoubtedly sold into slavery initially by such people in Africa. But back in the day, people were anonymous, so we don’t know whose family members helped to promote the interest of the slave masters. But during this information age, it’s all going to be a part of the public record, and I don’t think many of these people recognize that fact. So what many of us do today, may someday cause our great grandchildren to hang their heads in shame and public ridicule.
.
Consider the following. Let’s say that President Obama ends up having a hugely successful presidency and history records him as being one of the nation’s greatest presidents. Many of these Obama-haters’ conspiracy theories and doomsday scenarios will live on as part of the public record. As a result, our great grandchildren and future historians are going to look back upon these people as un-American - and considering the fact that Obama was our first Black president - Black people of the future may even view them, and quite possibly their families, as race traitors.
.
I can hear it now: "Hey Willie, I was just reading some of the stuff that your "Uncle Tavis" great grandfather wrote. He was a world-class fool. Now I see where you get it from."
Eric L. Wattree
http://wattree.blogspot.com/
[email protected]
Citizens Against Reckless Middle-Class Abuse (CARMA)
Religious bigotry: It's not that I hate everyone who doesn't look, think, and act like me - it's just that God does.
Comments
It matters what people were "hating" Obama for.
I think people who said he should impeached and forfeited his Nobel Peace Prize for murdering 200 children in Pakistan should be viewed as heroes who didn't let Obama's handsome face and charisma make them stop caring about life and death.
People like Glenn Beck, etc. - they'll go the way of George Wallace, etc.
by Orion on Sun, 02/24/2013 - 3:48pm
The Bureau for Investigative Journalism says that up to 196 children have been killed by drone attacks in Pakistan since 2004. The New America Foundation say less than a third of the civilian casualties have occurred under Obama. So the number of children killed by Obama's drones has probably been around 60, leaving aside the question of whether there was an intention to kill children, a distinction that counts for something in defensive wars, if not other ones.
http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/category/projects/drones/
http://counterterrorism.newamerica.net/drones
by Aaron Carine on Sun, 02/24/2013 - 5:17pm
Orion, there has never been a war in the history of mankind where innocent noncombatants weren't killed. So in that sense, EVERY head of who engages in war is a war criminal, because all wars, by definition, is a crime against humanity. We commonly view WWII as a heroic event from our perspective, yet, during that war we blew up not one, but two entire Japanese cities - Hiroshima and Nagasaki - PURPOSELY killing men, women, children, newborn babies, cute little puppies, and cuddly little kittens. So why are we only now getting religion - because it's Barack Obama? we have no idea what's contained in the CIA condition reports that's placed on his desk EVERY SINGLE MORNING. And after all, the man is charged with assuring that Al Qaeda doesn't get their hands on Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, and they're camped out about a block away. That's where we found, and killed, Osama Bin Laden. So as Min. Farrakhan - who is no great friend of obama - pointed out, he's not turning grey for nothing.
by Wattree on Sun, 02/24/2013 - 7:02pm
It isn't only now that anyone has made a fuss about children getting killed in war. It has been protested a number of times before--The United States has been widely condemned for Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
by Aaron Carine on Sun, 02/24/2013 - 8:07pm
Isn't the major storyline that US casualties would have been higher if the bombs hadn't been used rather than Truman being a war criminal?
by rmrd0000 on Sun, 02/24/2013 - 10:54pm
They probably could have dropped it on a military target(I mean one that wasn't inside a city), and there is a good chance that they could have gotten a surrender on the condition that the emperor stay on the throne. Foreign Minister Togo cabled the Moscow embassy that they were inclined to make the Potsdam Declaration the "basis of negotiations" or "the basis of our study concerning terms" depending on the translation. That was hopeful.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/index.htm document 47
The Strategic Bombing Survey claimed--I don't know if they were right--that Japan probably would have surrendered by the date set for the invasion.
by Aaron Carine on Mon, 02/25/2013 - 6:24pm
It was all about teaching them and the world a lesson. DFWU
Shock and Awe in Iraq was the same thing.
Those who have Nukes don't fear us and those who don't have them, want them so they can keep us in check.
Rule or Ruin mentality.
by Resistance on Mon, 02/25/2013 - 6:46pm
That doesn't make it right or okay.
by Orion on Tue, 02/26/2013 - 12:51am
by trkingmomoe on Sun, 02/24/2013 - 9:25pm
An excellent observation, TRK. "The Social Civil War Period" - you just defined our times. I hope you don't mind if I use it. The GOP is doing "Tailgunner" Joe McCarthy proud. But the media must also bear much responsibility for this period as well. They're guilty of treating the GOP's total nonsense as though it's reasonable position. Radical Republicans should have long sense been ridiculed off the world stage, and the only reason they haven't been is because they make for good television.
by Wattree on Sun, 02/24/2013 - 10:57pm
by trkingmomoe on Mon, 02/25/2013 - 12:56pm
by trkingmomoe on Mon, 02/25/2013 - 1:14pm
I think that is a very interesting analysis Momoe, and I think you could be correct.
by tmccarthy0 on Mon, 02/25/2013 - 1:57am
I believe Reagan was an instrumental part, in the destruction of the Rust belt, where Unions were strong.
Money flowed to the South, away from the Union's politically held areas.
All financed by the bubble, that had to be dealt with in the Savings and Loan crisis.
No thanks to Clinton, who destroyed what was left of the Rust Belt, when he signed NAFTA.
Obama and the sequester "Don't throw me in the briar patch"
It's all BS. His finger prints may not be clearly on the damage to be done; the blame will be on the GOP, but Obama will be complicit when the big ticket item; "Entitlements" will be attacked.
Future generations will ask "Who was the President, when entitlement reform was enacted, saving the country from a fiscal cliff "? Who'll remember the pain a generation from now?
by Resistance on Mon, 02/25/2013 - 6:39pm
I guess I take your original idea more philosophically.
I mean something like 95% of all people who call themselves 'Black' are pretty energized over the twin elections of President Obama.
Again, a few 'Blacks' attack Mr. Obama and they do so for personal monies and power just like some of the nutty Black Repubs.
You had me more on the historical perspective; I mean how many people alive today realize how important FDR was to this nation and to the world let alone who his main detractors were.
The NAZI party in this country had a rather small contingency but there were many 'admirers' of Hitler such as Lindberg and powerful folks like w bush's grandpa.
The Communist parties had a lot of issues with FDR of course and there were more commies of course.
And then there was Huey Long; I just viewed the Ken Burns doc which reminded me of many things. Long backs FDR in '32 but by 33 Huey is lambasting the dems and FDR and setting up a chance for a third party candidacy.
But FDR had no problems winning the Southern vote, time and time again but he knew how to kind of 'skip' over the issues of race; much to his detriment in my view.
I think that in a hundred years the 'educated' will learn quite a bit about President Obama--the tech is all different today than it was a hundred years ago. I think that beckerhead and rush and a number of nuts will be remembered because they have tens of millions of followers.
And they spray obscenities that one could pile up on discs from here to the moon.
My guess is that the objections by some African-Americans to this African-American President will be as impactive as a fart in a hurricane.
I am sure some obscure prof in 2190 might put together a college course on this strange development but I doubt the discussion will last very long.
Meanwhile individuals, both white and Black will continue in their attempt to make a living spewing out bullshite.
I mean, it sells.
by Richard Day on Sun, 02/24/2013 - 11:29pm
by trkingmomoe on Mon, 02/25/2013 - 1:27pm
Richard,
I disagree with just one thing that you said. Black people of the future are going be focused on people like Tavis and West like a laser due to the negative impact of our 400 year history of having to deal with Black turncoats. Like I said in the piece, Black turncoats been hugely demonized in the Black community throughout our history. Every Black person in America is familiar with the sentence, "Dim niggas talkin’ bout burnin’ OUR house down, boss" - or a variation thereof.
The only limitation to our intense hatred of such people is the fact that history has obscured exactly who they were. But now, due to the flawless memory of the internet, Black people of the future will not only be able to identify these people, but connect them to their contemporaries with a simple people and Google search, and then connect them to specific families - and I guarantee you, that’s gonna be devastating to the Black families involved. In some cases it may even become a threat to their well being. In any event, I would hate to be connected in any way to an "Uncle Tavis," or a "Dr. West" (an educated fool), because these people are directly associated with bringing shame to the Black community during a seminal moment in Black History by the trashing of the first Black President of the United States.
I know my people, and they’re starved for a focal point in which to vent the hostility and frustration of the way that they’ve been treated over the years. So their response will be no different than that of Jewish people who are able to identify Nazi collaborators. So I guarantee you, these two are going to be demonized like on other individuals in Black history.
Tavis Smiley and Cornel West seemed to have been determined to ride President Obama’s coattail into American history. Well, they’ve done it, and I sincerely hope they enjoy their infamy. Black people are going to make Benedict Arnold look like a rock star compared to these two.
Just call me a prophet.
by Wattree on Tue, 02/26/2013 - 11:58am
IMHO you are wrong. There are many successful blacks who disagree entirely, with "Obama the savior" mentality. It's the fault of those exercising blind faith, that put us all in this mess
"Beware of those who claim the messiah is here or over there"
Americans have had a lot of turncoats, this one just happens to be black. We dont condemn all blacks because this one was bad.
Just because Obama is black, doesn't make his decisions any better, than any other Color/ Race. We were led to believe he would understand, his insight would be superior. We were hoping on someone, some messiah to lead us to a better future? Why did we fall for this?
There are a lot of folks, who are color blind, asking more about how policy choices, will affect our lives.
I was glad to see Obama win then, I regret it now; he wasn't what I expected.
He winked and probably had his fingers crossed behind his back, when he told Union workers, he would review NAFTA.
How to win elections 101 Tell the folks what they want to hear to get elected.
He's just another politician; no better than a snake oil salesman, telling us what we want to hear, so he can make the sale, with enough wiggle room to avoid fulfilling promises.
If it's not in the contract, it's not enforceable; SUCKERS.
by Resistance on Tue, 02/26/2013 - 12:30pm
So you would have preferred McCain/Palin or. Romney/Ryan?
by rmrd0000 on Tue, 02/26/2013 - 6:38pm
You should notice something, this aint about the people who didn't get elected. Evaluations of Obama can be made separate from comparisons to what the Republicans had to offer. Four more years of not as bad as it could have been don't rate as reason to deface a mountain top. Yours is the very weakest possible rejoinder to criticism of Obama.
by A Guy Called LULU on Tue, 02/26/2013 - 7:13pm
There observations made about Obama are no different than those made about other Presidents.. The arguments on Truman range from calling him a patriot who hastened the end of the war and limited US causalities to suggesting that he could have waited for the Japanese to surrender, but wanted to see how well his new nuclear toy worked. Hero or villain?
LBJ is the creator of the Great Society and was willing to sacrifice the votes of Southerners to pass Civil rights legislation, but he also increased the human lives lost in Vietnam. Hero or villain? A person can write about the Great Society without mentioning Vietnam The tragedy of Vietnam can be discussed without mentioning the Great Society.
Nixon had Affirmative Action and the Southern Strategy. He also had Watergate. Social hero and political tyrant? Towards the end, he was being rehabilitated.An article could be written about how the GOP changed from supporters to opponents of Affirmative Action without mentioning Watergate, or vice versa.
People take different views on different Presidents. Clinton was an adulterer, I would still choose him over the Republicans of the time. Nothing I write prevents you from criticizing Barack Obama. Feel free to make your points about the failures of the President.
by rmrd0000 on Wed, 02/27/2013 - 12:27am
Let me also make clear that since the GOP had as a first order of business making Obama a one-term President and actively worked to suppress votes, create recurrent fiscal crises, and make a historic filibuster of a Secretary of Defense nominee among other things, it would be short-sighted not to take the opposition's actions into consideration.
by rmrd0000 on Wed, 02/27/2013 - 12:42am
Maybe they saw Obama, as the Trojan horse, before the rest of us did?
He looked good, he spoke good, what a prize; but once inside the gates, his people (appointees) undermined what the Nation really needed to do.
Particularly T Geithner, Larry Summers
All the little gimmicks, amounted to crumbs of cake. So what; people say he's a bad negotiator?
Where are the good paying JOBS?
The Nation didn't come together under his leadership, despite his Chicago acceptance speech. The moment he said he was the "President of all the people", I and others knew then, all the fiery rhetoric, was an illusion.
The Right knew then, he'd come for the guns, they weren't fooled. The Right knew he'd grant amnesty, they weren't fooled
The Nation wanted to see the banksters punished, but instead we didn't get the transparency we were promised. Obama planted an insider to clean up the books. No dirt here?
And how about that stellar Justice Department when theft is discovered?
Or how about, first they give the automatic weapons away knowing it might end up in the Cartels hands; hen they come for them? We are not fooled.
Anybody who believes, the middle class wont see an increase in Taxes, has been duped.
Anyone who doesn't see that once Baucus shut us out, and we knowing the public option was the best way, the Trojan horse did what he was going to do.
Anyone who doesn't see, The Trojan horse will make sounds, but in the end, he'll allow entitlement reform.
Hope you enjoyed your little crumbs of cake; because there is no more. The big boys, are not buying another one, for Obama's celebration. The parties over.
Would you mind picking up the tab, my credit card is maxed out?
by Resistance on Wed, 02/27/2013 - 7:04am
I think that there are very few politicians who would meet your criteria. The chances that they could get elected is small.
As I understand your position, Obama is simultaneously coming after the guns and giving guns away. Was Obama also responsible for the meteor that hit Russia?
At any rate, I'll be taking note of today's oral arguments on Section 5 of the Civil Rights Act before the Supreme Court. On Friday, I'll wait to see how government dependent Southern states will adjust to less money in their coffers.
The Republicans on the court will likely rule to suppress votes. Boehner's 113th Congress has not submitted any legislation to prevent the Sequester. One year after the death of Trayvon Martin, people are fighting to change "Stand Your Ground". Unarmed people have the right to live.
Tirades may feel good, but figuring out how to use Title I when Title 5 is overturned, working to rid z ingress of Teabaggers and fighting against "Stop and Frisk" and " Stand your Ground" seem to be more worthy of time.
by rmrd0000 on Wed, 02/27/2013 - 9:12am
On all the rest of your comment I agree with you .
On the Gun issue, I smelled a skunk the moment I heard Eric Holder, may have known, but was able to distance himself. This same Eric holder who cant bring himself to punish the banksters?
Remember all the hysteria of the time, the border States were afraid of the heavily armed cartel using automatic weapons, The public worried, "What ever should we do"
Now I'll admit, it's only speculation, but it seems rather odd. as you say, they want to come for the guns and yet they give them away.
So I ask you. whatever is there to gain, by such contradiction?
Except; If fast and Furious wouldn't have been uncovered. you/we wouldn't have known of the contradiction.
Well I am not surprised; Never to lose an opportunity,to exploit for political gain, the Obama administration, with the Help of Eric Holder, figures out a plan.
Feed the hysteria and the people will be clamoring "get the Automatic weapons; only the plan was stopped short, when Fast and Furious blew up, prematurely.
If the American public hadn't learned of our governments role, in the death of the Border agent, everyone would have asked "whose going to protect us from these particular Guns, carried by these Bad guys, the heavily armed cartel members; who as it turns out, they were armed secretly by US.
A few lost lives in Mexico, was worth it if Obama could get the guns, in the USA?
Beware putting our trust in Obama; this administration is as sneaky, as those who came before.
As for the meteor comment. Don't be absurd.
Maybe it was a secret satellite that crashed?
by Resistance on Wed, 02/27/2013 - 11:02pm
Holder was cleared in the "Fast and Furious" investigation.
by rmrd0000 on Wed, 02/27/2013 - 11:32pm
Holder cleared the stonewall fence?
Plausible deniability?
"You guys need to fall on your swords, for the good of the country."
Hmmm I wonder, what is the ATF's position in banning guns?
by Resistance on Thu, 02/28/2013 - 12:09am
Have a nice day
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 02/28/2013 - 7:03am
You too.
by Resistance on Thu, 02/28/2013 - 5:23pm
'He's just another politician; no better than a snake oil salesman, telling us what we want to hear, so he can make the sale, with enough wiggle room to avoid fulfilling promises'.
Beautifully stated Resistance. The wife and I disagree consistently about the President in that I believe she has blinders on and she thinks I am an Obama hater. I don't hate him, I just have a problem with how he has backtracked on many of the positions he was for until he became the man.
by miltothebone (not verified) on Wed, 02/27/2013 - 12:20pm
Can you give specifics?
by rmrd0000 on Wed, 02/27/2013 - 12:26pm
All politicians lie and break promises. Obama is no different. I could give a few examples but here's one.
Obama's big difference from Hillary's health care plan was that he was totally against an individual mandate. Every time the subject came up he or his surrogates criticized her for the mandate to buy insurance and went on and on about how bad an idea it was.
So what did we get? An individual mandate, just as I knew we would. I knew at the time Obama was lying because you just can't pay for universal health care without an individual mandate for healthy young people. Unless of course you go for a single payer state run system that bypasses the private market completely, and no one was or is talking about that.
by ocean-kat on Thu, 02/28/2013 - 12:10am
Really. This your big problem? In the Supreme court today, Justice Scalia said the voting rights for minorities were a "perpetuation of a racial entitlement". After a long delay the House is thinking about re-authorizing the Violence Against Women Act which should have been a no-brainer. GOP legislatoers are still trying to put probes in women's bodies. The GOP House has not done one bill to prevent a Sequester and the mandate issue is your big beef with Obama? Forgive me if I'm not upset about that issue.
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 02/28/2013 - 12:42am
No rmrd, its not a problem at all for me.Though one might suppose its a problem for those who argued so vehemently for Obama and against the mandate during the primary. But then I always suspected they didn't care about anything they wrote or about anything Obama said. Most of the discussions back then, especially from the Obama supporters, were nothing but spin and partisan hackery.
miltothebone stated he had, "a problem with how he has backtracked on many of the positions he was for until he became the man." You asked for specifics. I gave you one very clear example of many. So maybe we can stop pretending Obama is anything more than a typical politician. I thought the days of the Obamabots and the kool-aid were long gone.
by ocean-kat on Thu, 02/28/2013 - 12:44pm
If you have to use name-calling, have at it.
My response is similar to that Colin Powell had to Mitt Romney. When Romney was asked what was the biggest threat to the US, he replied "Russia". Powell asked Romney to think.
The country is under attack by a dedicated group of Conservatives and you offer your response as if that is a major concern.As Wattree notes future generations will wonder why some were ignoring the plutocrat assault.
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 02/28/2013 - 1:28pm
Whatever. You always seem to be saying that people shouldn't criticize the president because the republicans are so much worse. I voted for Obama twice now so I know the republicans are worse.
I'm not upset that Obama lied about the mandate, Guantanamo and other things to get elected, they all do. If you didn't want specifics you shouldn't have asked. If your sole rebuttal is the republicans are worse than we really have nothing to discuss.
What bothers me is that Obama doesn't seem to have any core beliefs that he's willing to fight for. At least that's my view of his first term and what I expected from him from the beginning. The ACA is a prime example of that. He dithered around for nearly two years giving away damn near every thing liberals wanted from a health care bill in an idiotic attempt to get just one republican on board. We got the crappy Obamacare bill and that fiasco was a major reason for the lost of the house.
Now maybe you don't thing the loss of the house in 2010 was a big deal because, my god, the attack of the conservatives, that's all we should look at.
As if that wasn't enough in the fiscal cliff deal two months ago Obama eliminated the ACA provisions to fund nonprofits.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/15/co-ops-were-s...
Personally I'm glad that the republicans are so intransigent. If it weren't for republicans being unwilling to compromise Obama would have sold us out with a "grand bargain" and cut both SS and medicare.
by ocean-kat on Thu, 02/28/2013 - 2:19pm
I'm a little confused about the Midterms and the ACA. What is the historical record on Congressional seats wins vs losses for midterm elections for first term Presidents?
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 02/28/2013 - 5:57pm
Although the sitting U.S. President's party usually loses seats in a midterm election, the 2010 election resulted in the highest loss of a party in a House midterm election since 1938.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elec...
by ocean-kat on Thu, 02/28/2013 - 7:28pm
Right Obama loss 63 seats, FDR lost 75. A first term President loses seats. FDR had an aggressive agenda. Obama had an aggressive agenda. Obama got re-elected despite an unprecedented and racist effort to suppress minority votes. In 2012, Congressional Democrats got more votes than Republicans, but Republicans have more seats because of gerrymandering by Republican legislators.
I never said that the President could not be criticized. I repeatedly make the point that the attack on the American public by the GOP. Criticize away. I may point out the failings of the GOP while you point out the failures of Barack Obama. You may point out Obama's failures in my posts about the GOP and I may point out the GOP's assault in your posts on Obama.
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 02/28/2013 - 8:24pm
We have different priorities. A Supreme Court Justice keep his robes but took off his Klan hood yesterday when he said voting rights were entitlements. I think Modern Conservatives are a far greater present danger to the country. If that makes me an Obamabot, I am a proud Obamabot at least I'm not diverting my attention away from the assault on voting rights. women's rights, immigration and the assault on the Unions
As an Obamabot I was proud when Kagan openly challenged Scalia.I was heartened when Sotomayor questioned the lead attorney in the case challenging Section 5. This Obamabot remembers that the Obama- haters said both women were not "Progressive" enough and laughs.
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 02/28/2013 - 2:29pm
I'm not sure what your point is. I can follow the fight in the supreme court over the voter's rights act, pay attention to the house again breaking the Haster rule and passing the VAWA with the democrats, note the republican filibuster of the senate solution to the sequester and several other issue. At the same time I can remember that Obama screwed liberals over the public option in the ACA and then just two months ago rubbed salt in the wound by defunding the weak sop he threw to us to take its place.
While I'm doing that I can divert myself by pointing out that Obama campaigned relentlessly against Hillary's individual mandate which is a "specific" answer to your question.
Its not rocket science. Am I supposed to be ashamed that I talk about something other than, "the assault on voting rights. women's rights, immigration and the assault on the Unions?"
by ocean-kat on Thu, 02/28/2013 - 7:20pm
I'm not clear on whether you're for the mandate or against it.
by Aaron Carine on Thu, 02/28/2013 - 8:20pm
I don't see how that's relevant.
miltothebone stated he had, "a problem with how he has backtracked on many of the positions he was for until he became the man."
rmrd asked for specifics, as if he couldn't think of a single instance.
Well I could think of several things that Obama vigorously campaigned for and backtracked on after elected. For example I could have suggested his promise to close Guantanamo. But rmrd might have blamed congress for stopping him. That's a fair argument. I disagree with that assessment but its a matter of opinion. I didn't want to get into a debate over who was more at fault.
So I went with the mandate. Its clear, unequivocal and undeniable. Anyone who paid any attention knows Obama campaigned vigorously against the mandate and then backtracked. No one forced him to, there was no big fight over it. One would think he cared about it during the campaign, and from the arguments from the Obama supporters hating on Hillary over it one would think they did too.
I get a bit annoyed when people imply Obama is a different sort of politician. He lies and spins to get elected and breaks his promises when the campaign is over. Just like any other politician. Sure, the republicans have gone crazy and democrats are better, but we still have to keep an eye on them constantly because none of them can be trusted.
by ocean-kat on Fri, 03/01/2013 - 12:21am
Well the dictator in Michigan just took over Detroit today. We anxiously await your updates on the mandate. You seem to still be carrying some baggage from the previous election.
I thought that you were going to go with drones being flown under the CIA's banner. I think that they should be flown under the DOD and wasn't sure if you were going to argue that they should be banned.
I get the feeling that you think that Obama doesn't get criticized enough, but it seems to me that the Republicans have not just gone crazy but are actually taking over cities, destroying Unions, allowing corporations with foreign interests to influence elections, putting guns into the hands of people who can't wait to harm unarmed people among a host of other ills, it is not unwise to focus on them.
The media chased the Conservative's Benghazi cover-up nonsense. More recently, BOb Woodward accused the White House of threatening him, a complete lie. I don't think Obama gets a pass. To the contrary,lies about the administration get widespread coverage as valid by MSM.
by rmrd0000 on Fri, 03/01/2013 - 5:34pm
Obama is not being judged by any different yardstick. Bill Clinton had support even though he said that he didn't have sex with Lewinsky. Hillary has large support even though she said that she land on an airstrip that was being shelled.
by rmrd0000 on Fri, 03/01/2013 - 5:42pm
I get the feeling that you think that Obama doesn't get criticized enough
I rarely criticize Obama, others here criticize him much more than I and when they do I rarely join in. Yet when I do make an occasional criticism you're right there defending him. Its true that Obama gets an inordinate amount of criticism from the republicans. But I don't think its our job to be a counterweight to that.
Its like that dialog we had a while back on MSNBC. I like MSNBC. I'm glad there's a liberal news station. I probably posted a dozen times praising them. Yet the one time I made a mild criticism, bam, you were right there defending them.
Sometimes it seems to me like you feel you have to stay on top of it here, defender of Obama and the liberal news station.
Yes I was a hard core Hillary supporter even after she lied about the shelling on the airstrip.I was disappointed but all politicians lie. But I couldn't defend her, because she clearly, obviously, undeniably lied. I'll support Hillary in 2016 if she runs. If someone posts that they can't support her because she lies I won't ask, "Can you give specifics?" Because I know the specifics. Willful blindness in the face of obvious reality irks me. That's why I jumped in here.
I mean really, Bill lied, Hillary lied, Obama lied. Some may feel the lies are deal breakers, others that they're trivial. But let's not pretend it doesn't happen.
by ocean-kat on Fri, 03/01/2013 - 8:54pm
I really don't remember our discussion about MSNBC In a world where the Governor of Michigan is taking over multiple towns in the state by abolishing democracy and MSNBC is one of the few places doing an analysis of the tyranny, i do think they are worthy of defense. Rachel Maddow noted on her show tonight that 49% of African-Americans in Michigan have had their democracy abolished by the Governor. This takeover is not a big national story. I find that outrageous.
I simply don't see modern day politics as a "both sides do it" bottom line.
by rmrd0000 on Fri, 03/01/2013 - 9:45pm
We are simply not going to agree on this issue. Have a nice day.
by rmrd0000 on Fri, 03/01/2013 - 9:47pm
i do think they are worthy of defense.
Well so do I. But from your posts here I'm convinced you believe they shouldn't be criticized at all. Not MSNBC or Obama.
by ocean-kat on Fri, 03/01/2013 - 10:46pm
Given the full blown assault that we are facing, I think that the transgressions of MSNBC are a side issue. As I said you are free to criticize Obama. I think on many issues, time is better spent getting Conservatives off our backs. I see the country at a critical crossroads and given our current situation want to stay focused on the biggest problem.
Stealing votes. Overthrowing governments. Invading women' bodies. I just see more important issues. I am not saying that you can't criticize Obama, but when it comes to lies about the mandate, I put them in the same category as I put Bill and Monica, not that important in the wide scope of things.
by rmrd0000 on Fri, 03/01/2013 - 11:49pm
Criticize away. I will make counterpoints. I see the country at a crossroads. There is a Conservative attempt to overthrown the government. A lie about mandates during a campaign does not rank high on my list of concerns.
by rmrd0000 on Sat, 03/02/2013 - 12:01am
About Michigan: In some circles it is a big story, and Rachel Maddow should be rewarded for keeping it alive. In Michigan, Chris Savage at Eclectablog works tirelessly to get the information out to us. There are several groups within Michigan that are working hard, but we do need more national exposure. Still, you can't get much better than Rachel to dissect it and tell it like it is. (She keeps in touch with Chris and gets most of her info from him.)
As to your last sentence, neither do I. Not by a long shot.
by Ramona on Sat, 03/02/2013 - 7:58am
Thanks for the link. While we were sleeping, the Republicans have gerrymandered things so that the wishes of the majority of voters are being ignored. To me arguing that Obama just needs to be criticized on a non-issue serves as a distraction from the serious issue of usurping the will of the people by the Republican Party.
The GOP ran a crazy Teabagger against Richard Lugar because Lugar wasn't Conservative enough. Chris Christie is too radical for CPAC but Palin, Allan West and Newt Gingrich are just fine. We live in frightful times.
by rmrd0000 on Sat, 03/02/2013 - 1:01pm
Yeah, yeah, I know. The republicans are coming and since you've decided that everything I posted from lying about the mandate, closing Guantanamo, and screwing over the liberals on the public option twice, two years ago and two months ago, is trivial I should just shut up. This is a liberal site and our job is to be partisan hacks spinning for the democrats. Keep on keeping on rmrd.
by ocean-kat on Sat, 03/02/2013 - 4:26pm
by rmrd0000 on Sat, 03/02/2013 - 5:43pm
Comment at bottom.
by Resistance on Sat, 03/02/2013 - 10:49pm
Comment continued from above
http://dagblog.com/reader-blogs/how-will-obama-haters-be-viewed-posterity-16244#comment-175150
As I recall, the Democrats had the republicans on the ropes we had them by the throats, after having had enough of Bush and his allies, the people were ready for a new direction in the battle between the Republicans and the Democrats.
Obama; just as General McClellan years before blew it; he let the Republicans slip away to regroup.
The Obama administration proved to be frustratingly derisive of, and insubordinate to those who brought him to power. (Dirty hippies, cry babies ?)
Under Obama' leadership and his Chicago cronies, the democrats lost the war against the Republicans Thinking the subordinate sucker voters, would take the crap they were pedaling, because the Republicans were worse.
We suffer under both parties and there isn't a damn thing we can do about it. We always get the shaft and the politicians and their closest friends get the gold.
The most important watershed moment after Bush/Gore and we ended up with a Republican lite sympathizer
That is how I see Obama being remembered, unless the Obambots get to write the history?
by Resistance on Sat, 03/02/2013 - 10:57pm
No one would meet your political standards. Criticism is easy. While you blog about resistance, there are people actually resisting. Cornel West gains little respect in many quarters because he is a mere critic. As I repeatedly point out Rev. Al Sharpton, another Obamabot, played a critical role in the assault against voter suppression, "stop and Frisk", "Stand Your Ground" and the murder of Trayvon Martin case. Cornel West was not a major player in any major issue. There are people who talk a good game.
It may be that you support the "Stand Your Ground" law and Trayvon's murder. I believe that unarmed people have a right not to be murder by scared armed people.
by rmrd0000 on Sun, 03/03/2013 - 1:15pm
By the way given the inability of the other side to actually accomplish anything of importance, the Obamabots will be writing the history.
by rmrd0000 on Sun, 03/03/2013 - 1:17pm
"It may be that you support the "Stand Your Ground" law and Trayvon's murder."
Wow, you just feel encouraged to get nastier and nastier. What an ass.
by Anonymous PP (not verified) on Sun, 03/03/2013 - 2:04pm
You are correct ,it was uncalled for. I apologize to Resistance.
I do think that I have much more to fear from my armed neighbors than I do from the police, military,etc. Stand Your Ground is not the solution to crime, it merely puts unarmed citizens at undue risk.
by rmrd0000 on Sun, 03/03/2013 - 5:41pm
I imagine when the massacre between the Hutus and Tutsis started, the victims had wished, they would have had protection from the machetes, hatchets and knives ?
Maybe we better start banning them NOW?
I somewhat agree, but I am mindful, that not only should you fear your desperate neighbor, but in the deep south, where in the daytime, they are the police and at night, they wear white sheets, with ropes in their hands. You're not going to talk your way out, of the situation. They're coming for you.
If this sequester becomes worse than expected or another financial crisis occurs or any emergency, you better be prepared. You can't reason with desperate people; if you have, what they want; they won't care, if the food and water they take, is for your families survival. You won't need it, if your dead. How they do it wont matter, since your unarmed, you'll be defenseless. Maybe their Pit Bulls or some stray gets you first?
I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want to take on a large dog or a mob, without a gun.
by Resistance on Mon, 03/04/2013 - 2:15am
It's 2013, the south has changed, they're not coming with white sheets and nooses even if they'll disenfranchise blacks if possible. I see more ridiculous police tasering and shooting in Oakland and LA than I see in the South (though can't say I've tallied these)
If I'm on a boat, a life preserver makes sense. Not so much walking around Manhattan.
Hutus vs. Tutsis was a long-term built up ethnic rage (Tutsis massacred say 400,000 Hutus in Burundi not long before, etc., etc.). In this case, there was long advanced warning of growing danger, especially after the President was shot down. Against machetes, a gun would have been a solid defense. Against machine-gun & stun grenade wielding SWAT teams it's pathetically useless.
Walking around with a gun on literally less than 1-in-a-million chance that someone will try to shoot up your darkened theater is like wearing a diaper just in case you go incontinent. There are more sensible approaches to risk. Sure, if you run a check-cashing service, carry a gun & install bullet-proof glass, though in the end, a simple insurance policy to cover possible losses might be less likely to end in your funeral than using a weapon.
Re: being defenseless in time of need, how did Iraqi & Afghan militants twist our $700 billion/year defense department with a few IED's? Asymmetric warfare favors the home team unless there's complete door-to-door searches & occupation and horrific reprisals. All the Unibomber and anthrax and Washington sniper and Zodiac killer frights were 1 or 2 people. But note that all of this is based on non-confrontation of superior forces. Shooting it out against a gang is usually suicidal, even with the comfort of taking 1 or 2 with you.
by Anonymous PP (not verified) on Mon, 03/04/2013 - 4:20am
If I was with the Donner party, I'd be sleeping with one eye open and next to my gun, at all times.
I am reminded, that it is not always safe inside the city.
Josephus Describes The Romans' Sack Of Jerusalem - PBS
by Resistance on Mon, 03/04/2013 - 8:41am
Only 4 or 5 of the Donner Party might have been murdered - most died of brutal starvation and/or hypothermia. And again, an extreme situation, crossing the frontier towards winter, not going to the store or movie theater.
Same with a siege of Jerusalem - sure, we can prepare for the Black Plague every day, but is that really a sane thing to do when dying of car wrecks say is so much more likely?
by Anonymous PP (not verified) on Mon, 03/04/2013 - 11:38am
You don't do it alone. When the marauding gangs, begin to realize, the calvary isn't coming to the rescue, of the good citizens of Mayberry; they'll loot and rape unopposed, and you better hope, you have the numbers on your side and that you are better armed than the thugs.
by Resistance on Mon, 03/04/2013 - 8:24am
Any example of Huns invading Kansas en masse in the last 50 years?
by Anonymous PP (not verified) on Mon, 03/04/2013 - 11:42am
http://www.hunsgarden.com/
by Verified Atheist on Mon, 03/04/2013 - 11:44am
I don't know the ethnic character of those who burned and looted in LA, Even the police and fire service sat outside the area.
You suppose they were Huns or Hun like?
by Resistance on Mon, 03/04/2013 - 3:59pm
Dude. That's just wrong. Read what you write before you post it.
by Verified Atheist on Mon, 03/04/2013 - 4:32pm
In the 80's, South Central was the Wild Wild West or Hun-land. Not sure what the issue is here. Yes, there was justification for protest over Rodney King, but the conflagration,smashing of shops and beatings of innocents were outrageous, don't you think? Okay, the Huns would have done much more killing if that's the complaint.
For Resistance's example, South Central in the 80's is someplace I'd want to own heat - to protect from both the mob and the police.
by Anonymous PP (not verified) on Mon, 03/04/2013 - 5:52pm
Putting aside the question as to whether "owning heat" in South Central would actually be more likely to result in your own death (I think it would, but it's definitely debatable), my issue with what Resistance wrote was him saying "I don't know the ethnic character of those who burned and looted in LA". Perhaps I read too much into that, but it struck me as very insincere.
by Verified Atheist on Mon, 03/04/2013 - 8:27pm
.
by Resistance on Mon, 03/04/2013 - 10:31pm
I think he was just giving me a decent example of defense-requiring mayhem for my query, 'what me worry, since when have Huns invaded Kansas?' LA's not Kansas either, but his analogy holds.
by Anonymous PP (not verified) on Tue, 03/05/2013 - 2:21am
I didn't have a problem with the example but with the wording of his opening clause, but I'm probably reading too much into it. I apologize to Resistance for assuming the worst.
by Verified Atheist on Tue, 03/05/2013 - 6:42am
Thanks for apologizing.
I too am uncomfortable with local self-aggrandizing yahoos carrying weapons, as well as with overreactive police wielding tasers & guns. Not sure which is worse.
by Anonymous PP (not verified) on Mon, 03/04/2013 - 2:21am
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/03/02/this-is-why-obama-cant-make-a-deal-with-republicans/
by Ramona on Sun, 03/03/2013 - 4:17pm
Thanks for the link Ramona, it was enlightening.
Recently I had a discussion with some folks, who told me, despite their educational backgrounds, they cant find work and they believe it is due to their age. over 50
So if Obama believes and agreeing to raising the retirement age, is somehow going to solve any problems, were not buying it
At 50 and you cant find a job, imagine another 26 years of unemployment?
I can only conclude; Democracy has failed.
Both sides of the two party system our senseless.
The sequester undermines the TRUST, the very essence of a free people, to grant our submission to government.
Does it make a difference to say, if only THEY would do this or that, but they refuse to understand.
The political system, we had hoped would deliver us, the governed, is corrupt.
Were trapped in a pit of despair. Ask yourself "when will the suffering end?
It won't be enough to say "if only they would do this or that"
The majority of our leaders love only themselves, they serve only themselves, it's all about how to win the next election, it's their only concern. SELF INTEREST.
There is no love for the rest of us.
Surprise!!! Without "love of neighbor", we are doomed.
This is the reason for my faith in religion; because I can honestly say, I don't trust the majority of our leaders, to do what is right. It couldn't be any plainer than what we are currently experiencing. Why shouldn't we be pessimistic?
Imagine a future where these jerks in DC never agree. Imagine the utter lack of respect for authority, Government of and for the people, having failed. How long before hope, is replaced by despair, by the majority; and I am not alone, in seeing a bleak, near future
We'll discover true democracy was unattainable and we'll be joining the other forms of ruler ships; in the dustbin of history, just as our forefathers warned.
by Resistance on Sun, 03/03/2013 - 8:09pm
I again apologize for suggesting you would support the death of Trayvon Martin. It was a slander.
I don't understand your feeling of hopelessness. Roaa Parks, MLK Jr., Whitney Young and Malcolm X were not hopeless. Black voters should have given up and gone home when open attempts were made to suppress the vote. Yet we had a 102 year-old woman stayed in line for hours defying the government oppressors. She kept her courage.She received support from others in line.She was not without hope.
Hundreds of millions of dollars were poured into a campaign to elect more Republicans. The money did not produce the desired effect.
On a different level, the first night of the Republican Convention was canceled because of weather. Just before the election more bad weather occurred. A Republican Governor openly embraced the President.
I do not regard the parties as equal. There is no Democratic equivalent to the body probes being suggested in Virginia. There is no Democratic equivalent to the takeover of cities by the dictator in Michigan. The active voter suppression being undertaken by multiple Republican Governors is not being offered by Democrats,.
im am saddened that you feel helpless. Most of us are continuing to fight and see multiple signs that there are better days ahead.
by rmrd0000 on Sun, 03/03/2013 - 8:43pm
I've already put it behind me rmrd,
The little bits of hope you speak of could be likened to dust particles on the scale, outweighed by the obvious, overwhelming hurdles and burdens.
I wouldn't trust hope, and I surely have no faith in government. In the overall scheme of things, the cards are stacked against us.
Are you waiting for the TURN OF A FRIENDLY CARD?
by Resistance on Sun, 03/03/2013 - 9:52pm
The debate is about the people, as it has always been.
Remember the mustard seed?
by rmrd0000 on Sun, 03/03/2013 - 10:07pm
I do remember the mustard seed, it was based upon having faith, in the one that could move the mountain like obstacles. But if it is not his will, it won't be moved.
Remember when the one who was exemplary in his faith; the one who didn't lack faith in his father, who said "if it be your will, remove this cup"
Don't look to him to get the Voting rights act or the Clean air and Water act strengthened,
As I have read, God isn't on any governments side; but his own.
We know he mocks, our attempts to do things without him, as he probably thinks "You humans made the mess, thinking yourselves so much smarter and wiser; now clean it up, before you kill everyone and the planet. Otherwise; I'll have to stop you, from ruining my plans, for the Earth"
by Resistance on Mon, 03/04/2013 - 1:32am
What kind of gun would Jesus carry? John 18:10-11:
by Verified Atheist on Mon, 03/04/2013 - 9:02am
Jesus didn't need a gun, he had his father to protect him.
There will be many, who did not or will not do, the will of the father and Jesus will be no protector of those who disobeyed.
It will be a fearful day, when those not protected, will be left to fend for themselves, against those who know, they are doomed.
What would you do, knowing it was your last week or day?
Now imagine thugs and all the lawless ones, taking revenge and satisfying their disgusting cravings. Your wife and children, at the mercy of animalistic men.
It would make Mad Max look like a Disney movie.
It isn't hard to envision. Imagine yourself on an island or a sinking boat and as the dry land or deck disappears, how is it you'll be the last man standing, when the panic sets in.
Even in swimming rescue class, always remember, those drowning are desperate to stay alive and they will drown you, if it keeps their heads above water
by Resistance on Mon, 03/04/2013 - 3:54pm
I was a lifeguard and took the requisite training classes. I must have been absent the day they said to drown those you wanted to save before they could drown you. If we were trying to turn this into an analogy to gun ownership, the analogy would be to make sure you know what you're doing before you approach someone with a gun.
If that's the message you got from the Gospels, I suggest you re-read them.
He didn't need a gun because he would rather die himself than condemn humanity. (Warning, spoiler!) In the end, Jesus did, in fact, die on the cross. If you want to argue that he didn't really die because he was later resurrected, well, I'd suggest you have that argument with many bible theologians who actually do believe the whole story and would find that suggestion (i.e., that he didn't really die) to be heresy.
by Verified Atheist on Mon, 03/04/2013 - 4:30pm
I suggest you retake the class, on how to save someone, with out risking your own life.
Maybe your water safety instructors, purposely sent you away, during that part of the discussion? Did you hear any snickering or laughing behind your back ?
An atheist no less, particularly one that has no clue about the theme of the Book, telling me to reread; is laughable.
by Resistance on Mon, 03/04/2013 - 9:31pm
You're the one who seemed to be suggesting that God was going to protect Jesus from the cross when it was clearly not His plan. Re-read what you posted in defense of why Jesus didn't need a gun. Yes, this atheist clearly seems to know more about the Bible than you. That's why I suggested you re-read it. As for my lifeguard training, I stand by my assertion that you're not supposed to drown the people you're trying to save. Instead, you approach them from behind and in such a way that they're unable to grab you and drown you. As I said previously, you should do it safely, but not by trying to drown them before they drown you. If you think that's laughable, I'm glad you're not a lifeguard.
by Verified Atheist on Mon, 03/04/2013 - 9:35pm
.
by Resistance on Mon, 03/04/2013 - 10:28pm
Highly recommended apropos of your sub-discussion here: New Tarantino Movie: 'DJesus Uncrossed".
Only 2 mins., and I do believe you'll find it well worth the time.
by artappraiser on Tue, 03/05/2013 - 12:43am
What seeds will be sowed by that disgusting garbage?
How many more Sandy Hooks, will this Nation reap, because of Tarantino's and others love of violence. What is the message he sends "Kids look how funny it is to kill another" ?
by Resistance on Tue, 03/05/2013 - 4:35am
Them 3 Stooges, always hitting each other with claw hammers and boards. No wonder there's an epidemic of hammer deaths.
by Anonymous PP (not verified) on Tue, 03/05/2013 - 7:37am
I knew there were sufficient numbers; but an epidemic you say?
I'll keep my 12 gauge handy, just in case I see 3 stooges swinging their 16 oz Estwing's and looking my way.
by Resistance on Tue, 03/05/2013 - 10:06am
Um, hopefully most kids these days are not as clueless as you are about the ultimate messages of a SNL parody of Tarantino's shtick.
by artappraiser on Wed, 03/06/2013 - 8:12pm
I hope you have a clue, it's the clueless I worry about?
I was raised differently.
The skit is sick, stupid, and irreverent.
In a world surrounded by uncaring folks and their offspring, it makes little sense to promote killing for laughs...... What is gained?
I am reminded of the verse "Not all things are beneficial"
by Resistance on Thu, 03/07/2013 - 4:12pm
Resistance,
I really don’t who you’re talking about when you speak of these people who though Obama was going to be a Messiah-like figure. Most of the people I know simply thought that he was going to be better than John McCain - and I think he is. In fact, I wrote articles critical of some of his positions even before he won the election.
But that said, many of the people who are critical of him simply fail to recognize the necessities of political reality. Being the first Black president brings with it many challenges that White presidents don’t have to deal with. He has to finesse many issues in a way that precludes the GOP from making Race an issue. White presidents don’t have to deal with that.
For example, many Black critics criticize Obama for not throwing his fist in the air and declaring what he’s doing for the Black community. But if he addressed the issues of poverty and high unemployment in that way, the GOP would use that to tear his coalition apart by claiming that all he’s interested in is helping Black people, and there are many other issues that he also have to take a circuitous route to deal with as well. So much of the criticism of Obama is due to his critics being unrealistic, and lacking political sophistication. Many people were calling him a terrorist sympathizer right up to the moment that he brought down Osama Bin Laden.
by Wattree on Mon, 03/04/2013 - 7:34pm
Most voted for Obama thinking just thinking he'd be a little bit better than McCain?
Yeah right - record turnout for just a little bit....
Surely you've become quite dishonest over the years - what gives?
And Obama had no problem making race an issue early on, year 2007 - being black & white at the same time would give him special insight other candidates didn't have. Nice to butter your toast on both sides - the exceptional president for an exceptional nation.
by Anonymous PP (not verified) on Mon, 03/04/2013 - 8:05pm
APP, wake up and face reality. It was a record turnout because it was a historic event.
by Wattree on Thu, 03/07/2013 - 6:38am
So they voted for Obama just because he was black? Not because he'd bring left & right together, change government as usual? The Nobel committee gave him the peace prize in advance because they thought he'd be a little bit better than McCain?
Rewriting history as usual. I have the sneaking suspicion you swallowed the blue pill by mistake. Or maybe on purpose. Makes me no nevermind.
by Anonymous PP (not verified) on Thu, 03/07/2013 - 2:08pm