I am surprised no one here has already begun this topic. Perhaps those who tend to favor Obama are a bit disheartened and confused, and unsure what to say about it.
I watched the whole speech. Obama did give a good recitation of the reasons for the war in Afghanistan, and why it matters to us not to have a country where terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda are harbored and nurtured by the government. He noted that the attack on 911 came from Afghanistan, thus our taking down of the Taliban government when it refused to give up Osama bin Laden was directly linked and completely justified. He also noted that NATO and the UN fully endorsed the legitimacy of our attack on Afghanistan.
Now the negative counts against Obama's position, stated in his speech:
(1) He said he would send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, but not for several more months yet, in the spring of 2010. This is after three months of dithering about making any response at all. So in effect, the Taliban, which already has growing momentum, has been given possibly up to five more months in which they can continue to put pressure on the Afghan capital city and other key areas.
(2) Obama's general in the field, whom he appointed and whose recommendations he had pledged to follow, asked for 60,000 additional troops, or at least a minimum of 40,000. So the 30,000 Obama says he will send is 25% less than what McCrystal said was the minimum he needed.
(3) He also added a time limit--in 18 months (the summer of 2011) U.S. troops would begin to be withdrawn. This pretty much negated any encouragement our allies in Afghanistan might take from the Obama "three-quarter" surge. And as Senator John McCain said on Fox last night, it tells Al Qaeda and the Taliban that they can "ly back in the weeds" and launch their all-out offensive when U.S. troops are leaving.
(4) Obama obviously added the time table in an effort to placate the extreme pseudo-liberal left wing in his core constituency, even though at most they comprise only ten percent of the population. As such efforts go, it is likely not to placate anybody, so it was a complete waste of time, politically.
(5) If it is so important to America, as Obama said, to deny Al Qaeda a safe haven in Afghanistan in which they can prepare to launch new attacks against America, then why didn't he make any commitment about winning?
(6) Obama also mentioned very briefly the idea that the new government in Afghanistan should be willing to negotiate an amnesty for the Taliban, if they renounce violence and the repression of human rights, and renounce harboring terrorists like Al Qaeda. (Good luck with those!) So potentially the Taliban could be allowed to return to power merely by saying the right words.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
The only thing our enemies got from it was our surrender date is in 18 months. It's likely violence will decrease and there will be an illusion of progress. They'll lie low and wait for our surrender in the summer of 2011.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote: Obama obviously added the time table in an effort to placate the extreme pseudo-liberal left wing in his core constituency
Lol
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It's likely violence will decrease and there will be an illusion of progress.
So an improvement over the Bush years, then...? Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
For the record, is "extreme pseudo-liberal left wing" more left wing than "extreme non-pseudo-liberal left wing" or not?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Tom, defeat is not an improvement. The Taliban being allowed to regain control of Afghanistan, and offer a safe haven once again to terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda, where they can prepare to launch fresh attacks against America, would not be an improvement.
Bush succeeded in Iraq.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Mucus, I used that term because some people object to the blanket term liberal being used for the modern political left, since classical liberalism is more akin to libertarianism, and is not collectivist. If my attempt to be precise is too confusing to you, then just delete "extreme pseudo-liberal left wing" and substitute in its place "liberal."
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Take a look at the death numbers via Google. The first year of this Administration is by far the worst in eight years. I'm not defending Bush but these primitives only understand power. Bush may have been a "cowboy" but that carries a lot more water than a Nobel Peace prize when it comes to these dregs of humanity.
Obama should send 100,000 troops and guarantee victory in 12 months. That would break their spirit. Send half of what your general wants and announce a pullout in 18 months? So we'll trudge along and surrender instead of overwhelm and win. I think we could actually win sooner but our commander and chief would rather lose later. They've been fighting over that land for thousands of years...Obama may as well have announced we are leaving next week. He announced our defeat. We aren't going to crush. They don't even have to fight us, we lose by default. There will be a short term appearance of increased peace. Didn't Jimmy Carter get a Nobel for bringing peace to the middle east?
[ December 02, 2009, 12:01 PM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
(1) I'm happy to have a president who actually considers the costs and responsibilities of major military action before leaping into it. Bush should have dithered more.
(2) Obama's general in the field, whom he appointed and whose recommendations he had pledged to follow, seems happy with the 30,000 the president has agreed to. "I think it is sufficient…it's exactly what we need." However, he quietly chided NATO countries: "I'm hoping all the coalition partners will look and see what they can do to expand their capabilities."
(3) Obama's general in the field, whom he appointed and whose recommendations he had pledged to follow, [url]http://abcnews.go.com/International/obamas-afghanistan-strategy-gen-stanley-mcchrystal-rallies-troops/story?id=9224685]approves of the timeline.[/url]
quote:"I'm absolutely supportive of the timeline," McChrystal said in an address to his commanders today. "The 18 months timeline, however, is not an absolute. It's not an 18 months and everybody leaves. The president has expressed on numerous occasions a long-term strategic partnership with Afghanistan and that includes all manners of assistance."
(4) Obama obviously wanted the timeline and added the troops as a way of saying "Here, I've done what you asked, now make it work. If it does, great, if not we're not spending any more on this."
(5) "If it is so important to America, as Obama said, to deny Al Qaeda a safe haven in Afghanistan in which they can prepare to launch new attacks against America, then why didn't he make any commitment about winning?"
Because he's not an idiot? How would you define wining in this case that wouldn't require a permanent American troop presence?
(6) Amnesty does not equal return to power.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Ron:
quote:I am surprised no one here has already begun this topic. Perhaps those who tend to favor Obama are a bit disheartened and confused, and unsure what to say about it.
I posted my topic before seeing your thread. But thanks for starting your post off with the best of feelings for your opposition.
quote:He said he would send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, but not for several more months yet, in the spring of 2010. This is after three months of dithering about making any response at all. So in effect, the Taliban, which already has growing momentum, has been given possibly up to five more months in which they can continue to put pressure on the Afghan capital city and other key areas.
He sent troops back in March Ron, this latest surge is in addition to this. Further, how many troops do you think we have? We still have a full compliment in Iraq, our decision to be in Iraq severely inhibits the options we realistically have in Afghanistan.
quote:Obama's general in the field, whom he appointed and whose recommendations he had pledged to follow, asked for 60,000 additional troops, or at least a minimum of 40,000. So the 30,000 Obama says he will send is 25% less than what McCrystal said was the minimum he needed.
Again, there are other considerations than simply whatever the general wants the general gets. Are you so certain Obama can feasibly send 60,000?
quote:He also added a time limit--in 18 months (the summer of 2011) U.S. troops would begin to be withdrawn. This pretty much negated any encouragement our allies in Afghanistan might take from the Obama "three-quarter" surge. And as Senator John McCain said on Fox last night, it tells Al Qaeda and the Taliban that they can "ly back in the weeds" and launch their all-out offensive when U.S. troops are leaving.
Since when did saying, "We will win this thing by 2011," become "We have enough resolve to last until 2011?" When did it become a virtue to tell our troops, "You will fight until we win, if you do not eek out a win, you aren't coming home." If our enemies lay low in the weeds, then their soldiers will go home. It's what happened in our own revolutionary war, which is why we had the battle of Trenton. Peace will be restored to a degree, and if they then try to shatter it, they will meet resistance from the people who wanted things to wind down. Inaction engenders boredom and concern for affairs back at home, it kills armies. We should expect time tables after this many years of conflict. There need to be measurable standards for victory that make sense. You don't just kill the enemy until they stop shooting back, we tried that in Vietnam and it does not work.
quote:If it is so important to America, as Obama said, to deny Al Qaeda a safe haven in Afghanistan in which they can prepare to launch new attacks against America, then why didn't he make any commitment about winning?
What are you talking about? He committed 30,000 more troops because he just wants to protract the thing out? The whole point of these additional troops is to obtain victory. Argue why that won't be enough or why surges may not work in Afghanistan. Why are you arguing that sending more troops means Obama doesn't want victory?
quote:Obama also mentioned very briefly the idea that the new government in Afghanistan should be willing to negotiate an amnesty for the Taliban, if they renounce violence and the repression of human rights, and renounce harboring terrorists like Al Qaeda. (Good luck with those!) So potentially the Taliban could be allowed to return to power merely by saying the right words.
Yes yes yes! This is exactly what we made the militias in Iraq promise us when we surged there. If you attacked us, and pledged to help us, you were not punished, so long as you promised to work towards a unified government. A promise does actually mean something over there Ron. Will some people abuse this sort of deal, of course! Will some people take advantage of it and work with us, a thousand times yes. We ended our own civil war with a similar deal.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Since when did saying, "We will win this thing by 2011," become "We have enough resolve to last until 2011?" When did it become a virtue to tell our troops, "You will fight until we win, if you do not eek out a win, you aren't coming home." If our enemies lay low in the weeds, then their soldiers will go home. It's what happened in our own revolutionary war, which is why we had the battle of Trenton. Peace will be restored to a degree, and if they then try to shatter it, they will meet resistance from the people who wanted things to wind down. Inaction engenders boredom and concern for affairs back at home, it kills armies. We should expect time tables after this many years of conflict. There need to be measurable standards for victory that make sense. You don't just kill the enemy until they stop shooting back, we tried that in Vietnam and it does not work.
Not to mention that that would give us additional time to train up the Afghan security forces.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Obama dithered because he was concerned about the political dilemma he had, of placating his super-liberal core constituency (with a time table), and yet of satisfying most Americans that he was being "presidential" and sending in more troops (his "three-quarter surge").
Regardless of any forces sent in previously, General McCrystal had asked for 60,000 ADDITIONAL troops, 40,000 AT THE MINIMUM. If he now says 30,000 is sufficient and the 18-month time table is OK, it is only because his commander-in-chief ordered him to say those things. They are contrary to what he originally said.
We ended our Civil War when General Lee surrendered to General Grant at Appomattox Court House.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Giving a date for withdrawal sends the message to the Afghan people that we have no interest in occupying their country once it is not a threat to us. The Taliban gained power because they fought when the Soviet Union tried to conquer Afghanistan. And, of course, thanks to us.
A deadline also sends the message to our "allies" in the Afghan government that they can't lean on us forever and need to get their own act together.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:Obama dithered because...
Unless Obama personally called you up and told you this, please preface such statements with "I think that..." You don't know what was running through his mind.
Obama in fact has pissed off people from both sides, and he did it anyway because (I think) it was the right thing to do.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:We ended our Civil War when General Lee surrendered to General Grant at Appomattox Court House.
But it wasn't really over until the last Confederate ship surrendered, which wasn't for 7 more months. And there are people still who believe it should be fought again.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Chris, the only thing significant Obama came up with were political considerations, not military. It was all about placating his core constituency--which does not seem to have worked--and yet trying to appear presidential. There was no new information, no new military analysis he provided, that we did not have three months ago.
I do not have to read his mind. He himself has provided ample evidence so that anyone can deduce what was on his mind.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Obama dithered because he was concerned about the political dilemma he had, of placating his super-liberal core constituency (with a time table), and yet of satisfying most Americans that he was being "presidential" and sending in more troops (his "three-quarter surge").
I'm also not really sure why Obama has to placate any liberals. Refocusing on Afghanistan was a central part of his foreign policy campaign during the election. The political dilemma is not a dilemma at all - it goes something like, "I'm doing exactly as I promised when I was elected."
quote:Regardless of any forces sent in previously, General McCrystal had asked for 60,000 ADDITIONAL troops, 40,000 AT THE MINIMUM. If he now says that is sufficient and the 18-month time tabel is OK, it is only because his commander-in-chief ordered him to say those things. They are contrary to what he originally said.
Or the man changed his mind in the meantime.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Which could mean that he gave the military advisors three months to come up with something better than his original plan, and they didn't to his satisfaction.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:We ended our Civil War when General Lee surrendered to General Grant at Appomattox Court House.
We most certainly did not end it there. What happened at Appomattox Courthouse was that Lee surrendered his army to Grant. Lee did not speak for the entire South, and indeed we made several military colonies after the Civil War. A huge factor for getting the South to calm down was that Lincoln insisted on extending the olive branch, and Johnson a Southerner became president after Lincoln was killed and refused to rub the South's noses in it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Obama dithered because he was concerned about the political dilemma he had, of placating his super-liberal core constituency (with a time table), and yet of satisfying most Americans that he was being "presidential" and sending in more troops (his "three-quarter surge").
So now you're adding telepathy to precognition? Quite a suite of powers you're developing, Ron.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose: "I'm doing exactly as I promised when I was elected."
Which to me is why I am so surprised by conservative responses to Obama and their claims of a "secret agenda." Obama has surprised me by how completely (relative to other presidents) he has been enacting his stated agenda when he was running for office. Everything he is doing right now was in his campaign promises.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Blackblade, Lee's army was the only significant fighting force the South had left. When he surrendered his army, that was the end of the Civil War. The aftermath was complicated, with most of Congress wanting to divide the south into five military districts, while Lincoln opposed this, and when he was assassinated, Johnson opposed this--and almost was impeached and removed from office. But the fact remains that the South had no say in the matter. They were defeated, and their fate was decided for them by their victors.
Your comparison to the war in Afghanistan is invalid. No foreign army was involved in our Civil War.
Juxtapose, I will be more interested to see the Rasmussen poll that will be taken tonight. Their poll focuses on likely voters, and should gauge people's actual reactions to Obama's speech.
Here are the Rasmussen presidential tracking poll results thus far (taken prior to the speech):
quote:The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 27% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Thirty-nine percent (39%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -12 (see trends).
....
Prior to the President’s speech, 35% gave him good or excellent marks for handling the situation in Afghanistan while 41% say he’s doing a poor job.
I'd like to know the breakdown of the 39% disapproval. Specifically, how many think he shuld be pulling out of Afghanistan and how many think he should be sending more troops.
Right now there simply is no answer that will give him a majority approval.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Ron:
quote:Blackblade, Lee's army was the only significant fighting force the South had left. When he surrendered his army, that was the end of the Civil War.
The end of the war as it pertained to two organized fighting forces. It was not the end of the Southern insurgency. The war could have been fought again if different policies had been implemented.
quote:Your comparison to the war in Afghanistan is invalid. No foreign army was involved in our Civil War.
What's that got to do with what I was saying? I am comparing the deal we are offering the militias in Afghanistan to be similar to the deal former Confederate soldiers were offered. If you don't offer them that deal they will fight to the death because death is all you have offered them. When you tell your enemies, "We don't want to kill you, we want your country to become a unified Afghanistan not a Taliban Afghanistan, you can be a part of that future. You can be a part of that country." It flies in the face of what their leaders are telling them, "The Americans want to kill every single one of you and force Afghanistan to become a Christian puppet state."
Of course Afghanistan and the American Civil War are not identical, why would I ever take two conflicts and say they are the same? But the principle of offering amnesty to your enemies as a way to erode their desire to fight is a very long and proven principle.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Juxtapose, I will be more interested to see the Rasmussen poll that will be taken tonight. Their poll focuses on likely voters, and should gauge people's actual reactions to Obama's speech.
It's interesting that you leave out the total approval/disapproval ratings, which are much closer together.
Anyway, the polling I linked to was not to address the question "do Americans think Obama is doing a good job?" It was to address the question "do Americans think more troops ought to be sent to Afghanistan?"
Most Americans do not favor a troop surge in Afghanistan. This
A) disproves the implication in your statement that Obama had to "[satisfy] most Americans that he was being 'presidential' and sending in more troops (his 'three-quarter surge')."
B) casts doubt on your larger claim that Obama has been stalling this whole time while trying to figure out the best political move. Can you explain why he would do that and then make the politically unpopular choice?
EDITED to add quotes for clarity.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I am surprised no one here has already begun this topic. Perhaps those who tend to favor Obama are a bit disheartened and confused, and unsure what to say about it.
Heh, so then you're *not* surprised. Ron, if you're going to be disingenuous, you might as well do the courtesy of getting it straight- nonsensical condescension just make you look like a tool.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Now now, Ron could have been initially surprised, then came up with his reasoning after the fact.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose: ... B) casts doubt on your larger claim that Obama has been stalling this whole time while trying to figure out the best political move. Can you explain why he would do that and then make the politically unpopular choice?
A leader doesn't always have to go with the majority opinion when trying to figure out the best political move.
Sometimes the leader may be trying to cater to a different group, or knows that his base won't support someone else anyways, or expects a certain result that may change what people thought was wrong.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose: ... B) casts doubt on your larger claim that Obama has been stalling this whole time while trying to figure out the best political move. Can you explain why he would do that and then make the politically unpopular choice?
A leader doesn't always have to go with the majority opinion when trying to figure out the best political move.
Sometimes the leader may be trying to cater to a different group, or knows that his base won't support someone else anyways, or expects a certain result that may change what people thought was wrong.
This man speaks the truth.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
He does indeed. He's not speaking to Ron's claim though, which was that Obama had to balance appeasing his "super-liberal core constituency"* and the majority of Americans, which he claimed supported a troop surge. Since the majority of Americans do NOT approve a surge, Obama does not have a balancing act to make between the "super-liberals" and mainstream America.
The question that mucus quoted was not an attempt to say that there were no other political reasons for still ordering a surge, just that the stated one did not apply. Sorry if it came across that way.
*incidentally, I think his core constituency are moderate liberals.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I am surprised no one here has already begun this topic.
I'm surprised you begun the topic and didn't once address the fact that all of your predictions have once again failed to materialize.
Shall we have that discussion now, or later, when Obama turns out not to have been impeached due to his failure to act in afghanistan?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Juxtapose, when you say you think Obama's core constituency are moderate liberals, I suspect you may be indulging in wishful thinking. Since he took so many inconsistent positions during his candidacy, and he tended to tell each group he was addressing what they wanted to hear, it is hard to go by his profession. But his voting records in Congress and the Senate were the most consistently liberal of any legislator, even more to the left than John Kerry or the late Ted Kennedy, as measured by liberal organizations that keep tabs on such votes.
It depends on which selection of citizens are interviewed by poll-takers what the exact numbers are of those in favor of an increase in troops in Afghanistan. I usually give Rasmussen the most regard, since they only include likely voters in their polls. And then there is the question of how strongly in favor or opposed to a troop increase people may be.
Obama, presumably, has been exposed to enough political reality so that he has at least an inkling of what an immense disaster it would be for the USA if we just pulled out of Afghanistan and let the Taliban claim victory over us, and how dire the consequences would be of allowing back in power a regime that before harbored Al Qaeda, and allowed them to prepare for the 911 attack, and others. Remember also that the Taliban regime had one of the most dreadful records of treatment of women in human history. Even now, they murder school girls who learn to read. Could we really live with ourselves if we let these monsters back into power?
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Obama dithered because he was concerned about the political dilemma he had, of placating his super-liberal core constituency (with a time table), and yet of satisfying most Americans that he was being "presidential" and sending in more troops (his "three-quarter surge").
So now you're adding telepathy to precognition? Quite a suite of powers you're developing, Ron.
Twenty years from now, when future generations look up at Darth Ron in wonder and fear, they will ask, "Who is this superhuman force, this deep-voiced paragon of dark power? Where did he come from? What incredible horrors must have occurred to give rise to such a being?"
And then they will look to his past for the answer, and find out that he used to be an obnoxious, whiny troll. And they will be mightily disappointed.
...although it won't stop them from buying season 3 of "Ron Wars: The Clone Wars."
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Ron, would you have us beggar ourselves to continue trying to maintain forces on two fronts against a constantly shifting enemy? How long, precisely, should we keep troops in those areas? What do you consider a win?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Remember also that the Taliban regime had one of the most dreadful records of treatment of women in human history. Even now, they murder school girls who learn to read. Could we really live with ourselves if we let these monsters back into power?
Remember also that we were a big part of putting them in power to begin with.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Samprimary, any predictions I made that have not been fulfilled, are ones that have not been fulfilled YET. I did predict that Obama would not have the nerve to do the right thing, that he would dither and delay, and finally would not abide by the recommendation of his general in the field, even though he originally said that he would.
Thus far, Obama has behaved exactly as I said he would. Or haven't you noticed? He has shown himself to be a fascist nee socialist, by giving government something like a 25% control over industry, finance, and insurance, and is trying to provide a government takeover of health care, too. That is classical fascism, as was practiced in Nazi (which was a socialist party) Germany.
He has shown himself to be hostile to any real investigation by others of himself, his background, or his past associations. He has directly attacked freedom of the press by encouraging people in his adminstration to denounce Fox News as "not being a news organization," which was so blatant an intrusion into freedom of the press that even the other networks reacted with immediate criticism. This is exactly the kind of behavior I predicted, based on how extreme a liberal zealot Obama has always shown himself to be, and on how exalted he is encouraged to feel himself to be because so many people blindly made an idol of him and regarded him as a virtual savior.
Samprimary, what have I gotten wrong so far? Don't bother raising things that have yet to happen, unless you can prove they won't happen. It seems to me that my record of prediction is far better than your record of denial.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
kmboots, we gave assistance to anyone in Afghanistan who was opposing the Soviets during the Soviet occupation. Unfortunately, this included giving stinger missiles to Osama bin Ladin--but he was not Taliban, and did not become part of the government. At one point, the Northern Alliance had popular support and was poised to become the government, but the Taliban ambushed and assassinated their way into power. That was after the Soviets had been driven out, and we had no further involvement.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:But his voting records in Congress and the Senate were the most consistently liberal of any legislator...
This is a common misunderstanding, cited by people who do not understand the way the statistics are culled. After all, you may wonder, how does anyone determine psuedo-scientifically what a "liberal" vote is?
The answer is that votes which are supported overwhelmingly by Democrats but opposed overwhelmingly by Republicans are considered "heavily liberal," and votes which are supported overwhelmingly by Republicans and opposed overwhelmingly by Democrats are considered "heavily conservative." Votes in the middle are assigned weights somewhere in the middle. The "most liberal" and "most conservative" senators, then, are not the senators whose positions are actually the most traditionally liberal or conservative, but the ones who, on the most partisan of votes, voted the party line most often.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
You should talk, Tarrsk Sidious.
You and Jar Jar Samprimary clearly belong on the same side.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: ...extreme zealot...
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Tsk, tsk. Racist, Alcon.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
The following explanation is being provieded for the education of the deliberately obtuse.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: kmboots, we gave assistance to anyone in Afghanistan who was opposing the Soviets during the Soviet occupation. Unfortunately, this included giving stinger missiles to Osama bin Ladin--but he was not Taliban, and did not become part of the government. At one point, the Northern Alliance had popular support and was poised to become the government, but the Taliban ambushed and assassinated their way into power. That was after the Soviets had been driven out, and we had no further involvement.
Except that we wanted a pipeline. Google "Unocal taliban" sometime.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Obama should send 100,000 troops and guarantee victory in 12 months.
Define "victory," as it pertains to the current counterinsurgency operation in Afghanistan.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I asked that already, it seems to have been skipped over.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Ron, a lot of the stories that I've read describe a three tier situation put forth by General McChrystal, where Obama was presented with a variety of troop levels depending on different mission directives, and that the lowest of these was actually in the 30,000 troop range, whereas the highest was more like 60,000.
I'm a little nervous about the whole endeavor. I think we need to be there, and I think leaving would have disastrous long term problems for America. Is 30,000 the right number of troops? I have absolutely no idea. But I think before we even begin to discuss how many troops are enough, and when we plan to be out of there, we need to have a serious discussion on what victory is going to look like.
What will the government of Afghanistan look like? What is an acceptable division of political control between currently unfriendly elements and "Pro-American" elements? To what degree are we going to accept hardline Muslim views on gender inequality? (this one is going to be a big one, as enforcing western standards of gender equality is going to be an even harder sell than some form of secular government). These are the questions that I want answered long before I can begin to come up with an opinion on American tactical plans.
His speech should have had a pretty lengthy section on what are goals are. Undefined goals have been the plague of many an American foreign policy folly. How can we set an end date on a conflict that has no defined goals?
ETA: Sorry Chris, and others, I've been in and out of this post for the last half hour or so, so I missed others bringing up the "victory" issue.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Samprimary, any predictions I made that have not been fulfilled, are ones that have not been fulfilled YET.
That's not even remotely true. You've made predictions which are rather unambiguously false, and have been contradicted entirely.
The "Yellowcake in Iraq" event was a pretty stark example of that. You even got shown wrong by the very articles you presented to defend yourself.
quote:I did predict that Obama would not have the nerve to do the right thing, that he would dither and delay, and finally would not abide by the recommendation of his general in the field, even though he originally said that he would.
Strangely enough, Obama's 'general in the field' is onboard with Obama's plan as his current recommendation. I am going to assume that you are going to whitewash this inconvenient fact with one of two contortions (possibly both)
1. You're going to say that when you said that, you meant his original recommendation, and subsequent revisions related to additional planning and inspection don't matter; only the original recommendation counts because for you it's the only right one, no takebacks.
2. You're going to say that the general's first recommendation was the only REAL one and now he's just being forced to tow the line and fall in with Obama and not contradict him. Proof of this conspiracy notwithstanding, you're going to believe this as though it were unambiguously factual, not a biased apprehension.
quote:That is classical fascism, as was practiced in Nazi (which was a socialist party) Germany.
It takes someone who is incredibly coarse and amateurish with political history to be unable to understand the difference between 'socialism' and 'national socialism,' Ron. I guess you're defaulting to whatever apprehension of history allows you to assume that the Democrats are like Nazis.
Evidently.
quote:Samprimary, what have I gotten wrong so far? Don't bother raising things that have yet to happen, unless you can prove they won't happen.
You said he would not respond to the call of his generals for more troops, and that he would actually withdraw troops rather than add more.
In fact, you also claimed that he would simply not respond. That "non response" would become his response.
Later, you waffled. You changed your initial estimation and your wording to make your initial predictions of troop draw-back essentially open-ended, not that he would do so in the short term or that he might not add troops first.
So, okay. You were wrong on the subject once. It turns out that I was right and Obama was going to send in additional troops.
Now, this leads to your subsequent predictions. The new ones that you created to cover your older, less-defensible predictions. These ones are where you say that if Obama didn't send 40,000 troops and follow the advice of his generals, he'll be impeached with the help of democrats.
Since I'm going to assume that in your mind the 40,000 troops had to be only American troops (in total, he's working out a plan to get 50,000 troops over there with international forces) even though this was never stated by you, and since I am going to furthermore assume that you're going to say that the amount of time that passed between now and then counts as all the 'dithering' you 'initially predicted' then that means that right now, officially, we are in the state of affairs that you claimed would make the impeachment inevitable.
So, everyone remember that.
Remember that according to Ron Lambert, Obama is going to be impeached with the help of Democrats. That this is assuredly going to happen.
I have all of his claims on record. I can cite them. He says that this is going to happen. Posted by Godric (Member # 4587) on :
I'm much less interested in proving Ron's predictions inaccurate than with looking at the actual situation. I'm happy to hear Ron's definition (even if I expect to disagree with it) along with anyone else's of what, at this point, is "winning?"
Honestly, I'm not sure if it really makes a difference if we send 100,000 more troops or immediately pull everyone out at this point.
We can, and will continue physically fighting those who wish to harm us. But I think in fighting Al Queda, our primary offensive should be an ideological one. That's the only thing I see that will be capable of turning the tide.
But as I said, I'd love to hear other thoughts...
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Godric: I'm much less interested in proving Ron's predictions inaccurate than with looking at the actual situation. I'm happy to hear Ron's definition (even if I expect to disagree with it) along with anyone else's of what, at this point, is "winning?"
Honestly, I'm not sure if it really makes a difference if we send 100,000 more troops or immediately pull everyone out at this point.
We can, and will continue physically fighting those who wish to harm us. But I think in fighting Al Queda, our primary offensive should be an ideological one. That's the only thing I see that will be capable of turning the tide.
But as I said, I'd love to hear other thoughts...
I've been in D.C., actually. And I have talked with plenty of people involved in the issue of 'figuring out' afghanistan. I've got a few things to say on the matter, but I feel they are better served in the other thread.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Obama knows nothing other than the political. He has accomplished nothing in any other pursuit. He sent half the troops required while placating the left.
"A man's judgment is best when he can forget himself and any reputation he may have acquired and can concentrate wholly on making the right decisions." - Admiral Spruance
"There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil." - Ayn Rand
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Does the general actually in charge of the forces in Afghanistan, and who would be in a position to know, actually agree with you, mal?
Or is your skill as an armchair general superior to the military's?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Nice job on ignoring everything that's been posted so far, malanthrop.
And the quote from Ayn Rand defines precisely what I believe to be wrong with most politics and just about all political commentary today. Someone who truly believes that has already shut their minds down to any sort of discussion.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
There's a difference between compromise and lacking core principles.
The general must've changed his mind about what he really wanted or perhaps he was playing used car salesman, ask for twice what you hope to get. You forget, generals are politicians and military officers are legally forbidden from speaking against the commander and chief.
He wanted 60k and 40k minimum...are you saying 30k is what he wanted? He's a soldier and soldiers are of the mind that they will accomplish the mission with what they have. They are used to being underfunded and undermanned. They cannot afford to be negative. The general would never tell his troops that the presidents decision was insufficient to accomplish the mission. He will be quiet about his dissapointment. Would any leader project a message of immenent failure to those who follow?
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
"Additional resources are required. But focusing on force or resource requirements misses the point entirely."
-General Stanley McChrystal, from the Commander's Initial Assessment
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Obama knows nothing other than the political. He has accomplished nothing in any other pursuit.
He has a family and has well-raised children. I guess for the purposes of your monomaniac invective against a successful political career, that is "nothing."
I mean, really! Even for you, this is extraordinarily childish Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
He's a successful father? That is rare in his community. I take it all back...he is qualified to be president. I was incorrect in stating he has no executive experience - he's been the executive of two children. Afterall, his party views the American people as children who do not know what is best.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
Being a successful father is rare in his community?
You mean the African American community?
Now that you've just made a rather racist statement, maybe you should just stop talking now.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: He's a successful father? That is rare in his community. I take it all back...he is qualified to be president.
I like the quality of your goalpost-shifting. It's like it is second nature for you. I catch you on your insinuation that he has 'accomplished nothing in any other pursuit,' and your defensive tactic relies on a sarcastic presumption that anyone at all was suggesting that being a father is an automatic qualification to be president.
Half the time, I have to ask if you just waltz into these gaffes for my amusement, but by now I know that it's really that you simply don't know any better.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Unless I am mistaken, the qualifications for being president of the United State are as follows.
1. Native Born Citizen 2. Over 40 years of age 3. Win a majority of votes in the electoral college.
Obama meets all three, ergo he is qualified to be president of the US.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
What about the qualifications to be a GOOD president of the United States? Here are some:
Not have any long-time past associates who are known to be criminals, terrorists, or fanatical denouncers of the United States of America. This would have mattered tremendously to all voters for any other candidate. Why did so many choose to shrug their shoulders and ignore or believe the provably false spins about Tony Rezko, William Ayers, Irreverend Jeremiah Wrong?
Must have moral and family values, and political views, in harmony with most Americans. According to polls, 40% of Americans describe themselves as conservative, 20% as liberal, and the rest as moderates. Barack Obama had the most liberal voting record in Congress, as judged by liberal groups who rate such votes. That puts him even further to the left than John Kerry and the late Ted Kennedy. Not to mention Congressman Dennis Kucinich, and "Governor Moonbeam" Jerry Brown (now Attorney General of California).
Have serious leadership experience, in government and/or business, involving real responsibility, preferably executive, with a good record of solid accomplishments to point to. Obama had none.
Have expertise in international affairs. Obama had none. That is why as representative of America, the Champion of Liberty and Democracy in the world, he commits such faux-paux as bowing to the King of Saudi Arabia, and to the supposedly divine Japanese Emperor Akihito. That is why he proclaims as a candidate he will meet with any problematic world leader "without preconditions," and since his election has only received laughing scorn and increased defiance and ridicule from the likes of Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, and Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and North Korea's Kim Jong-Il.
Have comprehensive understanding of military principles and policy, especially on the strategic level. This is especially important for the person who would be Commander-In-Chief of the U.S. military. Obama had none. This is why every military decision he makes is only a political decision, designed to appease his core constituency without unduly alienating the much larger number who know America cannot afford to lose in Afghanistan. So he gives his field commander--whose recommendation he had pledged to follow--only three-fourths of the minimum increase in troop level he had requested. And this after dithering (the only honestly correct word) for three months, and not scheduling the troop increase until the spring of 2010.
He must have appreciation for and absolute loyalty to the constitutional principles which are the foundation of American government, which he swore to uphold at his inauguration (twice), including freedom of the press. Obama had the nerve to allow his administration to try to define top-rated Fox News as "not a news organization," which provoked even the left-leaning mainstream media into openly criticizing Obama to his face for intruding on freedom of the press.
Another such freedom is freedom of speech. Yet he had the nerve to denounce the many people who spoke out in criticism of his health care plan proposals at town hall meetings across the country, even saying "They should be silenced" or kept from speaking at such public venues.
All these tendencies could be seen in advance--and were seen--by those willing to open their eyes to objective reality and see what was really there to be seen.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Not have any long-time past associates who are known to be criminals, terrorists, or fanatical denouncers of the United States of America.
Wow. Are there any presidents in my lifetime for whom that's been true? I can't think of any.
quote:Barack Obama had the most liberal voting record in Congress, as judged by liberal groups who rate such votes.
I've addressed this very recently, in a thread I know you read. When these studies say "liberal," what they mean is "most likely to vote the Democratic party line on votes that are heavily divided by party line." There is actually a significant distinction.
quote:Have serious leadership experience, in government and/or business, involving real responsibility, preferably executive, with a good record of solid accomplishments to point to.
Wow. Again, in my lifetime, I think we'd probably have to go back to Nixon.
quote:Have expertise in international affairs. Obama had none.
Hm. In my lifetime....Nixon, again.
quote:Have comprehensive understanding of military principles and policy, especially on the strategic level.
A comprehensive understanding of military strategy? I think we're going back before I was born -- to Eisenhower, now.
quote:He must have appreciation for and absolute loyalty to the consitutional principles which are the foundation of American government...
I'm confident that Obama cares more for the Constitution than Bush does, for what it's worth. But otherwise, no argument here. Of course, the last president who really cared about the Constitution was Carter.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Tom:
quote: Have expertise in international affairs. Obama had none.
Hm. In my lifetime....Nixon, again.
To be fair I think George H. W. Bush had foreign policy expertise having been ambassador to the UN, Envoy to China, and CIA director.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Let's see what there really is to be seen, then, shall we?
quote:Not have any long-time past associates who are known to be criminals, terrorists, or fanatical denouncers of the United States of America. This would have mattered tremendously to all voters for any other candidate. Why did so many choose to shrug their shoulders and ignore or believe the provably false spins about Tony Rezko, William Ayers, Irreverend Jeremiah Wrong?
Obama's dealing with Rezko have been documented through his tx returns, interviews and other sources: He bought a piece of property from him. Obama did not know Ayers very well, there's no indication that they ever discussed policy, and Obama has denounced Ayers' previous activities. (link) Rev. Wright is trickier, as Obama should have denounced Wright's specific statements immediately after they were brought to light.
quote:Must have moral and family values, and political views, in harmony with most Americans.
And since he won by popular vote, one imagines that enough people did feel he represented their values. However, the 40% conservative is a bit misleading, since the Republican Party drifted away from the conservative label over the last decade or so and now they don't necessarily represent the values of their own constituents either.
quote:Have serious leadership experience, in government and/or business, involving real responsibility, preferably executive, with a good record of solid accomplishments to point to. Obama had none.
Aside from the work he did in Chicago, of course. And his time as Senator, where he was the primary sponsor of 152 bills and resolutions introduced in the last Congress, where he sponsored three nonbinding resolutions that passed the Senate, and co-sponsored 14 bills that became law. And the campaign machine he built that outperformed every other candidate in every other way. On the plus side, he didn't have failed executive experience (Bush) or dismal governmental experience (Bush) and he comes to office without years of favors from lobbyists to pay back.
quote:Have expertise in international affairs. Obama had none.
Well, aside from actually living abroad at different times of his life. But that is a legitimate complaint, which was a big reason why Obama picked Biden as his running mate.
quote:That is why as representative of America, the Champion of Liberty and Democracy in the world, he commits such faux-paux as bowing to the King of Saudi Arabia, and to the supposedly divine Japanese Emperor Akihito.
Had you expressed similar outrage when Bush bowed to King Abdullah (and held his hand while walking together!), Clinton sort-of bowing to Emperor Akhito, or Nixon bowing low to Emperor Hirohito (who was Emperor when they bombed us, I'd probably care more.
Most of what Obama has done with foreign affairs has been to repair the actions of the previous administration, and if that means showing them some respect then I'm all for it.
quote:Have comprehensive understanding of military principles and policy, especially on the strategic level. [...] ...designed to appease his core constituency without unduly alienating the much larger number who know America cannot afford to lose in Afghanistan.
I believe he understands enough to know that we need to extricate ourselves from a war we should never have been in while doing as little additional damage on the way, and that we need to bring our time in Afghanistan to a mutually agreeable close. But the rest of your statements need some backing up. The majority of Americans polled want us out of Afghanistan. And I wish with all that's in me that Bush had dithered for three months before invading Iraq. Perhaps if he had considered the financial and emotional toil on our country, the impossibility of the task (described by Cheney himself 10 years previously as a quagmire we'd never attempt) and the loss of international support, we'd be better off now.
By the way, you have yet, after repeated requests, to define what "winning" in Afghanistan means. Please do so, if you expect me to take your pleas for it seriously. I even started a thread about it.
quote:He must have appreciation for and absolute loyalty to the consitutional principles which are the foundation of American government, which he swore to uphold at his inauguration (twice), including freedom of the press. Obama had the nerve to allow his administration to try to define top-rated Fox News as "not a news organization," which provoked even the left-leaning mainstream media into openly criticizing Obama to his face for intruding on freedom of the press.
Obama deserves criticism for the horrible handling of this "crisis," but he has never once suggested removing Fox News' freedom of speech. Freedom of speech includes freedom to speak your opinion, much as Bush did when criticizing MSNBC. Yes, this was an incredibly stupid PR failure, but it is not even close to being a constitutional breech.
quote:Another such freedom is freedom of speech. Yet he had the nerve to denounce the many people who spoke out in criticism of his health care plan proposals at town hall meetings across the country, even saying "They should be silenced" or kept from speaking at such public venues.
Please provide a link to validate that quote. I just googled it and found no instance of Obama ever saying that phrase.
However, I have seen several of those town hall meetings, and often the problem was that the people speaking were shouting down all attempts at conversation. They were rabble-rousing, plain and simple. Not everyone there against his plan were, mind you, but some definitely were. Is asking someone to please engage in a conversation and not a shoutfest a free speech issue?
None of this will make the slightest difference to you, I'm sure, but the constant repetition of invented controversies when there are plenty of actual issues to discuss infuriates me.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Tom, the blanket term "liberal" these days in common usage is different from the classical meaning of "liberal," which today would be libertarian and non-collectivist. But if I attempt to use more precise terminology, some people do not understand what I mean. So liberal will have to do. And yes, it does mainly mean the left wing (majority wing now) of the Democratic Party. The only other Democrats are a relatively few moderates, also known as "Blue Dog." There used to be a conservative, but Joe Lieberman has since been forced out of the party and calls himself an Independent.
That is the only counterpoint you made that I will even acknowledge as seriously reasonable. But just so you won't feel I am just arbitrarily neglecting you, here are some counters to your points:
(1) Name any president in your lifetime (other than Obama, of course), and list a few "criminals, terrorists, or denouncers of the USA" who were long-time associates.
(2) Already addressed. Your point here I will grant to the extent noted.
(3) Why go back to Nixon to find a president with leadership experience involving real responsibility? Clinton was a governor before coming to the presidency. He brought disrepute on his office with his personal philandering and his "Wag-the-Dog" use of the military, but he did have some solid accomplishments in his first term. And George Bush, the last president, was a governor for two terms as well. At least by the second term, he was qualified. And he did succeed in Iraq.
(4) You don't have to go back to Nixon for expertise in international affairs. The first President Bush was previously head of the CIA for many years. As such, he probably had the best resumé of any candidate for president in history (that was why I voted for him), and knew more about foreign leaders than those leaders knew about themselves.
(5) For a comprehensive understanding of use of the military, both president Bushes did very well, the first in driving Iraq out of Kuwait while building one of the best coalitions in history to do it, and the second in allowing the military to show its capabilities by defeating the Iraqis in a ground invasion so quickly they didn't even have time to blow any bridges or dams. And though he did not leave enough troops in to accomplish the pacification and nation building that was needed, he eventually saw the light and allowed a fully effective surge, which turned the corner, and brought eventual success in Iraq by virtually anyone's measure, however grudging some of them might be. I might also point out that President Reagan was so effective in international expertise and understanding of the military, that he brought about the collapse of the Soviet Empire and the Fall of the Berlin Wall, without the U.S. military having to fire a shot.
(6) Again, I must ask for an example of how you feel the most recent President Bush was not properly careful in upholding the U.S. Constitution. That is not obvious to me. And I am also curious as to why you single out Carter for praise as someone who really cared about the Constitution. When I recall his presidency, that is not one of the things that I would say stand out.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
If we cared about qualifications to be a good president then Palin wouldn't have made it onto the ticket.
Posted by Godric (Member # 4587) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges:
quote:Not have any long-time past associates who are known to be criminals, terrorists, or fanatical denouncers of the United States of America. This would have mattered tremendously to all voters for any other candidate. Why did so many choose to shrug their shoulders and ignore or believe the provably false spins about Tony Rezko, William Ayers, Irreverend Jeremiah Wrong?
Obama's dealing with Rezko have been documented through his tx returns, interviews and other sources: He bought a piece of property from him. Obama did not know Ayers very well, there's no indication that they ever discussed policy, and Obama has denounced Ayers' previous activities. (link) Rev. Wright is trickier, as Obama should have denounced Wright's specific statements immediately after they were brought to light.
I'm only going to respond to this one for now.
Why is "not have any long-time past associates who are known to be criminals, terrorists, or fanatical denouncers of the United States of America" a criteria for judging what makes a "good" president?
Does my association with you make me a bad liberal? Did Jesus' association with the poor, prostitutes, etc. make him a bad God?
If anything, I would think having associations with a wide range of people, including criminals or even former terrorists, would broaden Obama's understanding of America and society - which I think can only be a good thing for a president. If he hasn't encouraged or actively participated in illegal activities with those associates (and I've seen nothing that suggests he has), I have no issues with him having them.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:For a comprehensive understanding of use of the military, both president Bushes did very well
So we count on the job training now?
By the by, I think it's "Presidents Bush" rather than "President Bushes." That makes it sound like a hedge row was running the country.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: If we cared about qualifications to be a good president then Palin wouldn't have made it onto the ticket.
That particular argument only applies to the people who put her on the ticket and voted for her.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
I'm confused.
President GW Bush is given credit for--listening to his military advisers about the conduct of a war that lasted a few weeks, then not listening to them as he left too few troops in both countries to do the jobs that should have been done. President GW Bush will go down in history as one of the most Non-Military Minded War Presidents ever.
You criticize President Obama for taking the time to listen to his military advisers, then for taking a firm stand in Afghanistan, with their approval, and putting in a drop dead date for the Afghanistan Government to get its act together, as suggested by the military.
Duh.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Did Jesus' association with the poor, prostitutes, etc. make him a bad God?
Come now. Democratic propaganda to the contrary, Obama is not the Messiah.
Posted by Godric (Member # 4587) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Did Jesus' association with the poor, prostitutes, etc. make him a bad God?
Come now. Democratic propaganda to the contrary, Obama is not the Messiah.
I wasn't trying to say he was. And I don't think more than a handful of liberal fringe elements come close to making that claim.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I hear far more refutations of that point from the right, than I do attempts to assert it from the left.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
That's because if you exaggerate the left's claims into something no human could attain, you can then point to the inevitable less-than-godlike actual person and declare him worthless.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Chris, you are merely going by the attempts made by Democrats, the left, and other Obama apologists, to "spin," or explain away the negative publicity about Obama's past associations. Obama had more involvement with Rezko than just buying a house.
As for his association with William Ayers, what you seem to choose to believe are pure lies. Obama flat out lied when he referred to Ayers as "just some guy down the street." It has been proven by testimony of eyewitnesses who were there that Obama did in fact launch his polical career in the living room of William Ayer's home. Obama explicitly denied this on national TV, and thus he is a proven liar, and all his other denials should be discredited. Evidence of a continuing relation with Ayers continues to come forward. There are even charges that Obama's 1995 book, Dreams of[sic] My Father, was in fact ghost-written by William Ayers.
quote:Let me just cite a few matches between Ayers’ work and Dreams that I found intriguing. Rather astonishingly, as Mr. West points out, at least six of the characters in Dreams have the same names as characters in Ayers’ books: Malik, Freddy, Tim, Coretta, Marcus, and "the old man." Many of the stories involving these characters in Dreams seem as contrived as their names.
Some of the tie-ins are built on mistakes appearing in both books: misquoting Carl Sandburg in exactly the same way, or misspelling the name Frantz Fanon (Ayers writes Franz, so does Obama).
Interestingly, Obama’s other book, The Audacity of Hope, was not written by Ayers. All the clever literary devices disappear.
Mr. West independently came to the same conclusion that I did, namely that Ayers was not meaningfully involved in Audacity. These two Obama books almost assuredly had different primary authors. What should be transparent to any literary critic is that the author of Audacity lacked the style and skill of the author of Dreams. There are a few pockets in Audacity that evoke the spirit of Dreams but without the same grace.
Obama is a literary pretender. Case closed. The evidence is overwhelming that Bill Ayers ghost-wrote Dreams from my Father, the book which established Obama’s pose as a brilliant writer (and therefore a fine mind, in the estimation of many). The stylistic resemblance between the Dreams and Ayers’ work is stunning. Now we know, thanks to Chris Andersen’s new book,that Obama hit a brick wall trying to fulfill his contract to produce a book, and shipped off his notes and tapes to Ayers. That is the classic description of a ghost writer’s assignment. And it completely fits the theories Cashill had inferentially reasoned from the data of his literary studies. The revelation that Chris Andersen had two separate sources means that this fact meets the journalistic standard of reliability, provided by a respected, established bestselling author. Obama’s dismissal of Ayers as “just a guy in the neighborhood” has been shown to be an outright lie.
....
The image of Obama packing boxes full of tapes and notebooks and hauling them over to Ayers’ house a couple of blocks away, is simple and compelling evidence of a ghost writer being put to work. Jack’s literary detective work made the case, and Andersen’s two neighborhood sources confirm it.
Anyone who refuses to deal with this issue is willfully avoiding topics that make Obama look bad. The facts are in the public domain.
As for the Irreverent Jeremiah Wrong, I note that you were unable to swallow the "spin" about that. The statements made by Obama's pastor were horrendous, and Obama sat in that church and heard them without protest for 20 years! I would suggest to you that you should not swallow the other "spin" offered about the other things, either.
Obama may have won by popular vote, but the whole point I am making is that many who voted for Obama were not responsible in the way they decided whom to vote for. They willfully ignored clear and compelling evidence that he was not fit to be president. Many people today still believe the utter lies that the mainstream media tried to snow everyone with concerning the negatives about Obama, and concerning the deliberate attempts to demonize Sarah Palin, repeating endlessly negative stories about her (NONE of which were true).
Chris, it is hard to find a specific original quote, even when it is often repeated. But here is a similar quote of Obama during the campaign, where Obama revealed his intolerance toward critics:
quote:At an August campaign rally in Virginia, he pronounced, "I don't want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking. I want them just to get out of the way."
I would also point out that the recent calls from the Obamanites for a renewed imposition of the "Fairness Doctrine" is really an attempt to put a muzzle on Fox News, or on anyone who would criticize Obama, by implying that if they could not give equal time to opposing views, they should be prohibited from airing the conservative criticisms. The real problem here is that liberal talk shows have never been able to make it economically because their ratings are so poor, while conservative talk shows are very popular with high ratings. Also Fox News, which actually does make a concerted effort to present all views, "Fair and Balanced," as their slogan goes, is the highest-rated cable news network of all, often higher than all the others (including CNN and MSNBC) combined. The left is trying to use the law in a sneaky way to force the public to receive their propaganda, even if the public does not want it, and prevent them from hearing the conservative viewpoints.
Obama's personal involvement in this is seen in the fact that he has placed a "chief diversity officer" on the Federal Communications Commission, a person who favors fining broadcasters up to $250 million a year if they don’t "balance" the airwaves with less conservative talk. And how will it be judged what talk is too conservative and needs to be balanced? Obviously anyone who disagrees with Obama is too conservative. So Obama is the standard. Those of you who voted for a virtual "Messiah" have gotten a false god. Bow down or be beaten down.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:And yes, it does mainly mean the left wing (majority wing now) of the Democratic Party.
But that's not how you're using it. You're saying "Obama is out of touch because he's more liberal than the population, which identifies as conservative more than it does liberal." But THEIR usage of the word "liberal" is not "votes overwhelmingly with the Democratic Party on the most partisan issues of the day."
quote:Name any president in your lifetime (other than Obama, of course), and list a few "criminals, terrorists, or denouncers of the USA" who were long-time associates.
Good Lord. I could list the criminals and terrorists who associated with Nixon, Bush, and Reagan, many of whom are quite famous for, well, being criminals and terrorists. But perhaps you'll concede that Clinton and Carter associated with criminals and terrorists without my even having to Google some names for you...?
quote:Clinton was a governor before coming to the presidency....he did have some solid accomplishments in his first term. And George Bush, the last president, was a governor for two terms as well.
How are we defining "solid accomplishments," then? Which of Clinton's accomplishments as governor do you believe were solid?
quote:The first President Bush was previously head of the CIA for many years.
Hm. I personally wouldn't consider that "expertise in foreign affairs," but I suppose you can make an argument for it. So I'll concede that the elder Bush met that criteria, by some standards.
quote:For a comprehensive understanding of use of the military, both president Bushes did very well...
Heh. So we're assuming that presidents who used the military as you believe it should be used had a "comprehensive understanding of military strategy," even prior to their election(s)? Forgive me if I don't concede that definition to you.
[ December 03, 2009, 05:35 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: ... Those of you who voted for a virtual "Messiah" have gotten a false god. Bow down or be beaten down.
Damnit, I knew voting for a Goa'uld was a bad idea.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Blayne, Sarah Palin had far more real executive experience as mayor, chairman of the Alaskan Petroleum Regulatory Commission, and governor (who had to deal with Russia, Canada, China, Japan, and other nations in direct trade relations) with real responsibilities--and solid, significant accomplishments--than most people who have ever run for president. Certainly more than Obama. She also succeeded in bringing real reform to politics in her state, which included defeating the corrupt political machine of her own party. When she won the governorship, she defeated the sitting Republican governor in the Republican Primary, then went on to win the general election by a wide margin. She forced recalcitrant major oil companies to abide by the contracts they had signed but had been getting around, winning case after case before the Alaskan Supreme Court to do it.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Mucus, more like the Orai. Where was the Ark of Truth when we needed it?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Tom, I would certainly sleep better if she were president. Have you read her book, Going Rogue? It is great, fascinating, interesting reading, and she is a good writer. (One of her degrees was in journalism.)
By the way, one of Clinton's significant accomplishments was getting NAFTA passed. A lot of unions don't like it, and try to blame it for our recession. But that was a genuine attempt to put fairness into our trade relations with our partners in the Western Hemisphere, and was one of the truly statesmanlike things Clinton did.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I haven't read Going Rogue, actually. I'm not a fan of Lynn Vincent, her ghostwriter, and Palin herself makes me cringe. If I start hearing about fascinating insights or perspectives available in the book, I might pick it up -- but until then, there are more interesting things out there to read.
----------
quote:one of Clinton's significant accomplishments was getting NAFTA passed
He didn't do that as governor of Arkansas. What significant accomplishments did he have as governor? Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Tom, I would certainly sleep better if she were president. Have you read her book, Going Rogue? It is great, fascinating, interesting reading, and she is a good writer. (One of her degrees was in journalism.)
By the way, one of Clinton's significant accomplishments was getting NAFTA passed. A lot of unions don't like it, and try to blame it for our recession. But that was a genuine attempt to put fairness into our trade relations with our partners in the Western Hemisphere, and was one of the truly statesmanlike things Clinton did.
Oh dear god.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:Chris, you are merely going by the attempts made by Democrats, the left, and other Obama apologists, to "spin," or explain away the negative publicity about Obama's past associations.
And you are of course not at all influenced by the attempts made by Republicans, the right, and other Obama attackers to "spin" or make more of a relationship than actually existed?
I would argue more, but your gushing approval of Sarah Palin -- someone I consider to be at best a political lightweight and at worst a focal point for everything that is unhealthy about the current political system -- leaves me aware of the divide between us. We simply do not see the same world and are possibly incapable of it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Tom, I would certainly sleep better if she were president. Have you read her book, Going Rogue? It is great, fascinating, interesting reading, and she is a good writer. (One of her degrees was in journalism.)
By "one of her degrees" do you intend to imply that she has more than one?
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: As for his association with William Ayers, what you seem to choose to believe are pure lies. Obama flat out lied when he referred to Ayers as "just some guy down the street." It has been proven by testimony of eyewitnesses who were there that Obama did in fact launch his polical career in the living room of William Ayer's home. Obama explicitly denied this on national TV, and thus he is a proven liar, and all his other denials should be discredited.
April 16: An early organizing meeting for your state senate campaign was held at his house, and your campaign has said you are friendly. Can you explain that relationship for the voters, and explain to Democrats why it won't be a problem?
Obama: George, but this is an example of what I'm talking about.
This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English in Chicago, who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis.
And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values, doesn't make much sense, George. --------------------- Is this the quote you are referring to? He didn't answer the question (perhaps answering the questions voters wanted answered? ), but that's a bit different from flat out lying.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Few ghostwriters, no matter how good, can rise above the material they are given. But by most accounts, Vincent and Palin worked well together, and were quite sympatico in their political views. You can hear Palin speaking in her own voice in the book, making clear her own inner feelings. Vincent could not have done this without getting a lot of contribution from Palin.
Palin gives us a behind-the-scenes look at everything, including the two hours of interview with Katie Couric--who then edited out everything substantive, and just included things that seemed unflattering to Palin. Palin, who had written op-ed pieces for the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and many other publications prior to becoming a VP candidate, and was in fact very widely read, was understandably annoyed at Couric's question about how many magazines she read. In fact, Couric would sometimes ask Palin virtually the same question several times in slightly different words when Palin's answers were too good and informative, and did not provide the sound bites Couric seemed to be looking for.
Palin tells about the town crank, and the defeated political adversary, and the rebellious police chief who refused her repeated orders to cut his budget and was then fired by her and made up a story that grew up into the totally false story called "Troopergate," all of whom were taken by the national news media as "credible" news sources, who never bothered to verify any of their facts.
One thing that strikes you as you read her book, is her complete honesty about everything, including what she thought and felt at each turn of events, and her real struggles of faith in trials, where her faith eventually helped her to prevail.
The book is proving to be a real hit, breaking all kinds of sales records. Even before publication, Going Rogue: An American Life became the best-selling book ever in the history of Newsmax for pre-publication sales. Over a million copies have already been sold, 700,000 in the first week, according to the publisher, HarperCollins. That beat out Dan Brown, Stephen King, James Patterson, and Alex Cross, for sales ranking for their new books, and exceeded the first week sales of the memoir by Hillary Clinton. Palin's book sold 300,000 copies on the first day. The initial print run was 1.5 million. The publisher has announced a second printing of one million copies.
If you don't want to pay the price, most libraries have the book. I read mine by checking it out of the public library. I got my hold in early, and was second on the hold list when the library got their copies in. So I got to read mine only a few weeks after it was published.
[ December 03, 2009, 06:21 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
As is frequently the case, Obama did not himself host the event at which "his political career was launched". It was indeed held at the Ayers's home, but it was hosted by then State Senator Alice Palmer.
If anyone is really interested in what Trinity UCC is really about, check out their website. http://www.tucc.org/
Yes, they are "Unashamedly Black" and they do focus on empowering black people but they are not anti-white. They have a good relationship with my (very white) parish and their ministers are often guest preachers (and always quite wonderful). I have been welcomed by their congregation as well. They do powerful good work in this city. The Rev. Wright has, IMO, gone off the deep end in recent years, but he has not always been that way.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
kmboots, I should have said that Palin graduated with a degree in communications/journalism. That was probably a major in communications with a journalism minor. At the time, she wanted to be a sports reporter/writer, and she did work in that field for a broadcast station in Alaska. Some people criticize her for taking six years to graduate from college. But as she explains, she earned her way.
As for Jeremiah (to whom I refuse ever to refer to as "Reverend"--only God is Reverend, anyway), the poison that he revealed in his heart and soul does not develop overnight.
Tom, something else of some interest, perhaps. In that final season of high school basketball, she was determined that her team, the Wasilla Warriors, would win the state title. In a game shortly before the final game, she came down on one foot wrong, and heard something pop. Her coach had to carry her off the court. But she refused even to see a doctor or have X-rays, for fear she would be told it was broken. She toughed it and and played in the final game where they won the championship--even making the winning basket herself, despite being in great pain. She says to this day, her ankle is someone knobby and misshapen. This gives you an idea of what kind of drive and determination she has, her capacity to play through pain, and prevail despite opposition.
[ December 03, 2009, 06:41 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Yes, you should have. Earned her way how?
ETA: How do you know his heart? I can imagine the "poison" of living through the times he lived through seeping in after a while. I can imagine a man who served his country yet couldn't get served at certain restaurants to build up some resentments. I can imagine a man who lived through the revelations of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study and who made caring for black people with AIDS a priority when they were shunned and forgotten by most everyone else seeing conspiracy.
I know well people who people who know him well. He has not always been like what we have seen on TV. Again, what do you know other than that?
ETA: Drive and determination - and crappy priorities. Great attributes for a president. "I don't care what I wreck; I want to win this game."
[ December 03, 2009, 06:47 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
kmboots, Sarah Palin paid for one or two years with scholarships earned by winning a city beauty contest, and by becoming second runner-up in a regional beauty contest. She also worked as a waitress, and as a sports writer.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
kmboots, "out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh." (Mat. 12:34) It is valid to judge people by the venom they spew. Especially when they refuse to repent, or acknowledge any need to.
You cannot atone for sin, no matter how much good you do. Benedict Arnold probably did some good things too. Adolph Hitler probably did some good things in his life. But one was a traitor, and the other a monster. And Jeremiah has earned utter contempt.
And you forget, it was her own ankle she risked wrecking, not someone else's. You may call it crappy priorities. But she was willing to pay a great price in self-sacrifice to attain a goal that meant a lot to her and to her teammates, who had sat on the bench as the "B" team for years, until the last year when they were finally seniors, and had the chance to prove who they really were. Don't knock the self-sacrifice of others unless you are able to equal it for a cause you deem worthy.
[ December 03, 2009, 07:02 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
You don't think that people change (for better or worse) over time?
And forgive me, but I am not all that impressed by beauty contest scholarships or waiting tables. Nothing wrong with doing any of that, but it is hardly noteworthy. Most people have odd jobs when they are in college.
ETA: Re: Wright. SO saying some hateful things wipes out any of the good he has done? I can imagine if he killed millions of people, but a couple of examples of ugly rhetoric? Really? And President Obama was supposed to see into the future to know that Rev. Wright was going to become angry and crazy as he got old?
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Tom, something else of some interest, perhaps. In that final season of high school basketball, she was determined that her team, the Wasilla Warriors, would win the state title. In a game shortly before the final game, she came down on one foot wrong, and heard something pop. Her coach had to carry her off the court. But she refused even to see a doctor or have X-rays, for fear she would be told it was broken. She toughed it and and played in the final game where they won the championship--even making the winning basket herself, despite being in great pain. She says to this day, her ankle is someone knobby and misshapen. This gives you an idea of what kind of drive and determination she has, her capacity to play through pain, and prevail despite opposition.
I'm sorry, is this supposed to make me think Palin is smart OR sensible?
She refuses to get her foot looked at so she can pretend to herself that she can keep playing a game, and then she permanently maims herself as a result?
This is supposed to be inspirational?
It makes me think she's a flipping idiot.
Posted by Godric (Member # 4587) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Tom, something else of some interest, perhaps. In that final season of high school basketball, she was determined that her team, the Wasilla Warriors, would win the state title. In a game shortly before the final game, she came down on one foot wrong, and heard something pop. Her coach had to carry her off the court. But she refused even to see a doctor or have X-rays, for fear she would be told it was broken. She toughed it and and played in the final game where they won the championship--even making the winning basket herself, despite being in great pain. She says to this day, her ankle is someone knobby and misshapen. This gives you an idea of what kind of drive and determination she has, her capacity to play through pain, and prevail despite opposition.
Seriously? A high school basketball game? Not to knock high-school athletes, but I'm not impressed. At all.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Again, don't forget, it was her own ankle she risked wrecking, not someone else's. You may call it crappy priorities. But she was willing to pay a great price in self-sacrifice to attain a goal that meant a lot to her and to her teammates, who had sat on the bench as the "B" team for years, until the last year when they were finally seniors, and had the chance to prove who they really were. Don't knock the self-sacrifice of others unless you are able to equal it for a cause you deem worthy.
As for the way she earned her way through college--very few people pay all their own bills. Most have their tuition paid by parents, or rely on student loans. As Palin said in her book, paying your own way through school used to be looked upon as honorable.
Do you not view it as such?
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
I really think, Ron, that the fact that you would uphold that story as an example of positive Palin traits really says a lot about you, given the way you argue. You are championing a story where Palin relies on *willful ignorance* in order to commit to an action without regard for the consequences, and she ends up permanently gimped as a result.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Did she pay all her own bills? Or did she supplement student loans and help from her parents with some part time work (and by being pretty?)
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Repeat my previous post. You just aren't looking at it correctly. What she did was striking because it was such a unique example of extreme dedication. Perhaps it makes you feel shown up by her example. When you call it "crappy priorities," that is really just "sour grapes."
And fortunately she was not "permanently gimped." She ran in a few marathons after that, and always--even to the present--loves to go out and run when she gets the chance. She says it helps her to regroup and focus.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
So she got lucky and the sacrifice wasn't all that great. Still reckless. Something that is understandable in a teenager but disastrous in a president.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
kmboots, yes, she says she paid all her own bills. Didn't I already say that? And how dare you denigrate her for winning a couple of beauty contests. That is really "sour grapes."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
"Not being impressed" is not denigrating. I said there was nothing wrong with it - it just isn't impressive.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
kmboots (sigh, again), as you said, her act of extreme self-sacrifice and determination was "understandable" in a teenager. TEENAGER! That does not mean that is what she would do as a president. Come on, be at least a slight bit fair.
I'm done talking about Sarah Palin. I merely wanted to give Tom some indications of why her book is worth reading. If anyone else has any more questions, read her book for yourself. It is a good read, really engrossing and enjoyable.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic:
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: As for his association with William Ayers, what you seem to choose to believe are pure lies. Obama flat out lied when he referred to Ayers as "just some guy down the street." It has been proven by testimony of eyewitnesses who were there that Obama did in fact launch his polical career in the living room of William Ayer's home. Obama explicitly denied this on national TV, and thus he is a proven liar, and all his other denials should be discredited.
April 16: An early organizing meeting for your state senate campaign was held at his house, and your campaign has said you are friendly. Can you explain that relationship for the voters, and explain to Democrats why it won't be a problem?
Obama: George, but this is an example of what I'm talking about.
This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English in Chicago, who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis.
And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values, doesn't make much sense, George. --------------------- Is this the quote you are referring to? He didn't answer the question (perhaps answering the questions voters wanted answered? ), but that's a bit different from flat out lying.
I'm re-posting this because: a)Ron has not responded, and b)I mis-characterized Obama's response. I don't think he's even evasive. He's not asked to elaborate on the "controversial" senate meeting.
I have not done a rigorous search (or even read the interview I quote in its entirety) so it's very possible that Ron knows of another quotation. If he does, though, he should produce it. Otherwise, he should admit he's wrong.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
I heard Obama say what I said he said myself. He has said it several times, not only in speeches but in several interviews. Your lack of scholarship is not my problem. And he was flat-out lying in the statement you quoted.
This is all the response you deserve. I did not mischaracterize anything about what Obama said. You are lying about me.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Repeat my previous post. You just aren't looking at it correctly. What she did was striking because it was such a unique example of extreme dedication.
No, I'm looking at it correctly.. Extreme dedication on its own is not a positive trait. It has to be mindful of consequences and sensible in application. Permanently knotting up my body parts through ignorance for the sake of a game is a perfect example of when extreme dedication in itself is just silly. Especially given her purposeful avoidance of having an injured body part looked at before a game by a qualified professional.
quote:Perhaps it makes you feel shown up by her example. When you call it "crappy priorities," that is really just "sour grapes."
That is some pretty terrible amateur psychology, so you should stop trying to guess at my mental motives. I am actually not at all jealous or shown up by her example, considering that I am personally glad I would not have followed her example.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Ron, do you understand that State Senator Alice Palmer hosted the event at the Ayers house? Not Obama. Obama did not arrange the event. This event is not evidence of a close relationship between the two.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
Did you read my post? Where did I say you mischaracterize something Obama said? (I notice I said that I mischaracterized Obama). Now you are lying about me.
Given the force of your paragraph -"flat out lied" , "proven liar" - I think anyone with an interest in good faith discussion would provide a source. That's up to you.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
kmboots, who cares who arranged the meeting? It was in William Ayers' living room. Does that not register? At least you do admit that Obama did launch his political career in William Ayers' living room, a point that Obama loyalists have loud and long been denying. I do remember hearing Obama himself saying flat-out on national TV that that never happened.
Obama's lie that he had only a slight, occasional association with Ayers has been disproven too. Did you read the evidence that Ayers wrote Obama's book, Dreams From My Father?
Or the reported eyewitness testimony by neighbors of seeing Obama carrying boxes of books, tapes, etc. to Ayers' house, prior to the publication of Dreams?
And are you aware that it was that book, Dreams, really written by Ayers (a college professor as well as unrepentant terrorist), that led many people to conclude that Obama was a very sharp person and brilliant writer, "remarkable" for such a young person?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: You cannot atone for sin, no matter how much good you do. Benedict Arnold probably did some good things too. Adolph Hitler probably did some good things in his life. But one was a traitor, and the other a monster. And Jeremiah has earned utter contempt.
Can you please elaborate on the sins that Jeremiah has committed?
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic: I think anyone with an interest in good faith discussion would provide a source.
I really want to give Ron Lambert the benefit of the doubt here. I think he may have interest in good faith discussion and probably *thinks* he is offering good faith discussion. I just think he quite honestly does not know how to and is not aware when he is not arguing in good faith.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Wouldn't she have been a better role model had she accomplished a university level education from scholarships resulting from academic excellence?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I have not read Palin's book.
I have seen an overwhelming amount of fact-checking going on, to the point where I have to wonder if anything in it is factually true at all.
One quick example: on pages 115 and 116, she describes a debate she was in during the campaign for governor:
quote:It wasn't the last time I'd find that there's no better training ground for politics than motherhood. At one point during the general election, motherhood became the focus of a unique line of questioning. In my responses to a series of debate questions on abortion, I remained consistent and sincere, explaining how personal and sensitive the issue is and that good people can disagree. But the debate moderator decided to personalize his hypotheticals with a series of "What if..." questions.
He asked: "If a woman were, say, raped..." "...I would choose life." "If your daughter were pregnant..." "Again, I would choose life." "If your teenage daughter got pregnant..." "I'd counsel a young parent to choose life...consider adoption," I answered. I calmly repeated my answer to all of his "what-ifs,", then looked pointedly to my right and my left, to one opponent, then the other. Then I returned to the moderator and said, "I'm confident you'll be asking the other candidates these same questions, right?"
Of course, he didn't."
For what it's worth, I consider her response laudable. Not that I agree with it; I don't. But it's more consistent than the response of those who believe in the sanctity of life but get uneasy when rape babies get brought up.
But the last line: "Of course, he didn't" is a problem. Because he did. Right away, by immediately turning to another candidate and asking him the same thing. Here's the video of it.
So why add that last line, when the previous excerpt was accurate up till then?
Posted by Godric (Member # 4587) on :
Because it makes the story more dramatic?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Alcon: Being a successful father is rare in his community?
You mean the African American community?
Now that you've just made a rather racist statement, maybe you should just stop talking now.
Do you believe it is racist to point out the fact that the African American illegitimate birth rate is 80%. Would you consider 20% a minority? Only 20% of African American fathers stick around. Obama is a rarity in that regard. I stand corrected...he is only HALF black. Your view of my racism should be reduced by one half since he is half white and was raised by his white grandparents. Without them, he would be nothing.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Wow, so you're essentially admitting that your remark about being surprised that Obama was a successful father was expressly over the fact that he was black.
While trying to 'roll with the punches,' you only make yourself look worse. Maybe you should find a different tactic!
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
If you watch Chris's clip go to 2:55 to see the moderator ask one of the other candidates the same question.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Lets really break it down, I'm sexist as well. You only focus on the race but do not realize I am condemning men. I have the utmost respect for black women; they are the only ones holding that society together.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:Do you believe it is racist to point out the fact that the African American illegitimate birth rate is 80%.
Which means, even assuming you didn't pull those numbers out of a hat, that 80% of African American babies are born to parents who are not married at the time. Doesn't mean they have broken homes or bad fathers, or even that the parents didn't marry later on, just that their parents weren't married before the birth. One of my children was born out of wedlock, the other born after we married. Does that mean my older son had bad parents?
(Also would appreciate a source for your figures)
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:So why add that last line, when the previous excerpt was accurate up till then?
Apparently she did a good job of hiring a competent ghostwriter, but not so much with hiring a fact-checker.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I'm sure the father is responsible: "•Black women have the highest teen pregnancy rate (134 per 1,000 women aged 15-19), followed by Hispanics (131 per 1,000) and non-Hispanic whites (48 per 1,000).[27]"
Here, I'll really prove to you I'm a racist. http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats08/trends.htm "Blacks represent only 12 percent of the total U.S. population, but made up more than 70 percent of gonorrhea cases, The chlamydia rate among blacks in 2008 was more than eight times higher than that of whites, The syphilis rate among blacks was about eight times higher than that of whites in 2008"
These are facts - government CDC statistics. Call me a racist all you want, I love my daughter and will warn her accordingly. If these statistics were equal across racial lines, it would be a non-issue. I love my daughter too much to play your PC games.
If I'm not mistaken, cancer rates among smokers vs non-smokers is less than that discrepancy but you wouldn't disparage me for pressing my daughter not to smoke.
[ December 03, 2009, 10:39 PM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: CDC statistics. Call me a racist all you want, I love my daughter and will warn her accordingly.
You mean, you'll warn your daughter not to marry a black man?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I would never tell her not to marry a black man. I live in a very diverse neighborhood and my children go to a very diverse school. My daughter is "crushing on" Deshuan; the black son of a fellow PTA member of my wife. Deshuan, is a very smart, well mannered son of a fellow PTA member. If you'd like me to show my racism, I'll point out that Deshuan's dadddy gone. Fortunately, his mother is amazing and has taught her sons well. When it comes to serious relationships, I trust my daughter's judgment. I will teach my daughter safe sex. Part of this lesson is who is the least safe to have unprotected sex with.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parkour:
quote:Tom, something else of some interest, perhaps. In that final season of high school basketball, she was determined that her team, the Wasilla Warriors, would win the state title. In a game shortly before the final game, she came down on one foot wrong, and heard something pop. Her coach had to carry her off the court. But she refused even to see a doctor or have X-rays, for fear she would be told it was broken. She toughed it and and played in the final game where they won the championship--even making the winning basket herself, despite being in great pain. She says to this day, her ankle is someone knobby and misshapen. This gives you an idea of what kind of drive and determination she has, her capacity to play through pain, and prevail despite opposition.
I'm sorry, is this supposed to make me think Palin is smart OR sensible?
She refuses to get her foot looked at so she can pretend to herself that she can keep playing a game, and then she permanently maims herself as a result?
This is supposed to be inspirational?
It makes me think she's a flipping idiot.
Completely agreed.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: As for the way she earned her way through college--very few people pay all their own bills. Most have their tuition paid by parents, or rely on student loans.
False. Less than a quarter of current college students have all or most of their tuition paid by their parents. Also, how is taking out student loans NOT paying your own way? Unless the student defaults or is one of the very few who qualifies for some sort of loan forgiveness (usually by being a teacher or other public servant), they are simply delaying when they pay. Not if.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Deshuan, is a very smart, well mannered son of a fellow PTA member. If you'd like me to show my racism, I'll point out that Deshuan's dadddy gone.
That's okay, I'm sure he's "articulate."
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:False. Less than a quarter of current college students have all or most of their tuition paid by their parents. Also, how is taking out student loans NOT paying your own way? Unless the student defaults or is one of the very few who qualifies for some sort of loan forgiveness (usually by being a teacher or other public servant), they are simply delaying when they pay. Not if.
QFT. Preach it sister.
Ron, what fantasyland do you live in where most kids have their parents pay their way? Personally, I can only think of one person out of everyone I know who had their parents pay her way. Everyone else has had to tough it out with loans and grants.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
That probably has something to do with the population at the specific school you are at. And there are certainly some schools (Ivies, Stanford, and some others comes to mind) where in excess of 80% of the students have parents who pay their full tuition. (I'm approximating.)
However, they are a very small fraction of the national picture.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: If you'd like me to show my racism, I'll point out that Deshuan's dadddy gone.
Okay, why is it that whenever you try to point out reasons that you are 'showing your racism,' they have pretty much nothing to do with why you're getting hammered with the charge by other people?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: That probably has something to do with the population at the specific school you are at. And there are certainly some schools (Ivies, Stanford, and some others comes to mind) where in excess of 80% of the students have parents who pay their full tuition. (I'm approximating.)
However, they are a very small fraction of the national picture.
None of the people I was referring to actually go to school with me. They go to a dozen different schools, including but not limited to Purdue, University of Michigan, Michigan State University, Aquinas College, Alma College and the American University in DC.
Though, you might have a different point there, in that all of us came from one geographic area.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Three state schools, and two of the others have (for private schools) fairly low tuition and appear to have very generous financial aid.
Definitely not the schools with all the rich kids. Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
I guess most people are tired of talking about Obama and his Dec. 1 speech at West Point. Certainly, Sarah Palin is far more interesting. So even her detractors reveal they feel she still is someone to be reckoned with. I believe this is especially true, looking toward the 2012 election. This is likely why even after the last presidential election, the bloodthirsty left wouldn't let her alone, they intensified their efforts to attack her, flooded her administration in Alaska with hundreds of frivolous Freedom of Information Act Requests (all of which had to be responded to formally, requiring thousands of hours for her staff and millions of dollars), continued to badger her friends and relatives digging for something they could twist and play up in the tabloids, even making up stories like claiming she and Todd were about to divorce, and continuing to harp on the utterly stupid story that Trig wasn't really her baby.
The left knows, those who hate her most know, she is still a serious threat. Why? Because she is such an attractive example of what a real conservative is, and what a real liberated woman who still embraces conservative family values is, and she has proven herself to be consistent and successful in her defiance of the corrupt political machines whether Democrat or Republican, bringing about genuine ethical reform. We haven't had a politician and potential presidential candidate this good come along since Ronald Reagan, and it was not readily apparent going in that even Reagan was going to be as good as he turned out to be (at one point Republicans talked about a sort of co-presidency with Gerald Ford). Polls say that 40% of the population identifies itself as conservative, and only 20% indentify themselves as liberal. Liberal talk shows always die from lack of ratings, and conservative talk shows and commentators continue to reap record ratings. So liberals know they are "under the gun," as the lustre fades away from their Obama icon, and they feel a desperation that moves many of them to employ the utmost in meanness and deliberate dishonest slander--against Palin herself, and her family, even her children.
Palin tells in her book how months after the election a bunch of reporters pounced on 12-year-old Piper as she walked home from school, accompanying her all the way home, trying to get something from her they could use against her mother. (Sadly, Palin said, they realized they could not allow Piper to walk home by herself any more.) This shows true desperation and utter disregard for any moral restraint on the part of the left.
Since her book is doing so tremendously well, already selling over a million copies of the 1.2 million first print run--and her publisher has announced a second print run of another million copies--it is clear she is going to be plenty well off, now, with plenty of financial resources of her own. I don't know what the rate for autobiographies is, but in the general mainstream publishing business, a 15% of gross sales royalty rate is typical. Of course, Lynn Vincent may get a share of that, as ghostwriter (unless she worked under a contract for a set amount of money).
[ December 04, 2009, 11:09 AM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: You cannot atone for sin, no matter how much good you do. Benedict Arnold probably did some good things too. Adolph Hitler probably did some good things in his life. But one was a traitor, and the other a monster. And Jeremiah has earned utter contempt.
Can you please elaborate on the sins that Jeremiah has committed?
I find this interesting too, if you don't mind.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:So even her detractors reveal they feel she still is someone to be reckoned with. I believe this is especially true, looking toward the 2012 election.
I hope she runs. It would guaranty a democrat victory.
I can see the ads now. "Sarah Palin quit her job as Governor of Alaska when things got tough. How can she say she won't do the same thing if she becomes President?" That gets aired, and she's done. Maybe Fox News will give her a tv show.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Mucus, I would consider that all the negative, treasonous things Jeremiah said about America were indeed sins in the sight of God. Here is the Bible definition of sin: "Sin is the transgression of the Law." (1 John 3:4) He took God's name in vain--and daring to do it in the pulpit--when he said "God d--n America", violating the third commandment (Ex. 20:7), he spoke lies about America and Americans, thus also violating the ninth commandment: "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." (Ex. 20:16)
He also spoke evil and utterly false things against dignitaries, which the Apostle Peter warned against in 2 Peter 2:10.
Anyone who speaks as Jeremiah did, and anyone who agrees with and would defend him, deserve to be stripped of their U.S. citizen and sentenced to permanent exile. They are not worthy of enjoying any of the privileges of being an American. By denouncing America, they have renounced the rights of Americans, because they show they do not appreciate them or deserve them.
[ December 04, 2009, 11:29 AM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Ron: Yes Ron, those on the left have absolute control over what journalists do to try and get a story. The moment a good chunk of people decided Palin was an interesting candidate, that they should take seriously, she was going to become the object of intense media scrutiny. In fact the moment she entered politics she should have recognized that. This isn't a left/right question. Do you honestly think the National Enquirer, US Weekly, OK!, and People magazine don't have serious numbers of staff and dollars invested in finding exclusives about Palin?
Further you have it all backwards. If you honestly thought Sarah Palin was done with politics after losing the 2008 elections, your grasp on the obvious is tenuous. I don't think it is, so surely you recognize that she was going to push on after losing. People on the left immediately recognized her ambition, and they also recognized that she had a strong appeal to large conservative constituency. Those things combined make for an obvious attempt at a political career at the upper levels. She readily gave up her governorship, so where does she go from there? Certainly not to the Senate, unless she has to, and certainly not to the House. She is going for executive power and everyone knows it, and she has been very clear about that.
What do you mean by "real conservative?" If by that you mean "Not what is currently running the Republican Party" then I heartily agree. If by conservative you mean somebody Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh supports, then no, I'm sorry, that's not what conservatism should be. That's the sort of conservative who takes pride in ignorance and low levels of intellectual attainments. Thinking that American is some sort of pure substance and not the product of many nations and cultures meeting together, and hence other nations are to be ignored and marginalized as they have nothing to share with us. Believing that government is the problem not the solution, as if many of the incursions of government up until now did not happen as a result of people being unable to deal with problems like education, equal rights, defense, and infrastructure themselves.
I hate the fact that the conservative movement is such a mess right now. We need smart moral conservatives to check the excesses of liberal thought. We need William Buckleys, not Sarah Palins. Reagan was a good president, but frankly he would be hate the almost god-like status he has been given today. If she is the best candidate since Reagan, what does that say about the two Bushes?
I almost wish some nation would attack us so that the left and right would suddenly all become Americans fighting a common enemy. We're all bloody Americans, and we all matter equally.
As for Piper, why on earth would you let your child walk home from school alone in any circumstance? My children will always get to and from school on the bus, if they can walk, they will walk home with a friend. The idea that Piper Palin is somehow unique in that she is the daughter of a famous political person and is the only one who can't walk home alone because of reporters is ridiculous. Palin has essentially announced her candidacy far in advance, do you think Obama's daughters walked home alone from school when he was just a Senator from Illinois running for president?
You are absolutely right that there are people who hate what Sarah Palin believes in and therefore want to destroy her in some fashion. But guess what Ron, lumping them with the many of us who feel we have real concerns with her running our country and calling us all "the left" is infuriating because we have little in common. You might as well define "the right" as "Those who support my ideas."
/rant
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: ... They are not worthy of enjoying any of the privileges of being an American. By denouncing America, they have renounced the rights of Americans ...
Fascinating,
Do you believe it is a sin for citizens of other countries to say negative things about or denounce their own countries?
Also, do you believe it is a sin for citizens of other countries to say negative things about or denounce America?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
BlackBlade, no one else is being treated the way Palin and her family have been and are being treated, even way after the election is over. When somebody asked something about Obama's children during the campaign, Obama said, "My children are off limits," and all the news media went along with that, conservative and liberal. The bloodthirsty left is crucifying itself with its meanness and extreme unfairness and blatant dishonesty. Everyone can see this, except apparently the left.
Wasilla is a fairly small town, only a few thousand people, in a severe-climate state like Alaska where neighbors depend on each other, and most people know each other. I used to walk home from school alone when I was five. It should be safe for a 12-year-old to walk home from school in her own home town. But times have changed now, obviously, at least here in the big city and suburbs.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Mucus, God will judge the sins of those who speak against America unjustly.
God is on America's side, as long as America remains for the most part on God's side. God has been using America for good in the world, as His primary tool to hold in check and even roll back the forces of tyranny, military conquest, and systematic abuse of human rights. All who speak against America are making themselves enemies of God, and they will answer to Him.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I didn't say unjustly in either question.
I'll repeat the first question since that is more relevant to me. "Do you believe it is a sin for citizens of other countries to say negative things about or denounce their own countries?"
As for the second, why do you feel qualified to judge the sins of Americans that speak against America, but God has to judge the sins of non-Americans that speak against America?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Mucus, I think that if I were a citizen of a nation like Iran, I would still have an obligation to show respect for the government, but that would not prevent me from voicing criticism and calling for reform. Government, after all, is a servant of the people, and therefore answerable to the people. It depends on how you do it. Swearing at the government and using vulgar insults would be sin. That is not how do deal with servants.
In America's civil war, Seventh-day Adventists did not officially take sides, and were conscientious objectors to taking up arms (we still are). But we published statements against slavery, many SDAs were members of the Abolitionist Movement, and the largest share of the homes ("stations") on the "Underground Railroad" for escaping slaves were homes of Seventh-day Adventists. This is why Sojourner Truth, who conducted many groups along the Underground Railroad, remained a friend of SDAs to her dying day.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: BlackBlade, no one else is being treated the way Palin and her family have been and are being treated, even way after the election is over. When somebody asked something about Obama's children during the campaign, Obama said, "My children are off limits," and all the news media went along with that, conservative and liberal. The bloodthirsty left is crucifying itself with its meanness and extreme unfairness and blatant dishonesty. Everyone can see this, except apparently the left.
Wasilla is a fairly small town, only a few thousand people, in a severe-climate state like Alaska where neighbors depend on each other, and most people know each other. I used to walk home from school alone when I was five. It should be safe for a 12-year-old to walk home from school in her own home town. But times have changed now, obviously, at least here in the big city and suburbs.
If you think every single news outlet has completely avoided Obama's children I think you have alot of work ahead of you proving that, it seems very unlikely to me. If they didn't get to and from work in secret service cars you can bet there would be photographers and reporters waiting on their route home to talk to them. Wasilla being a small town has nothing to do with it. She is a major political player, news outlets are going to try to get at her anyway they can.
And get over this "left controlled media" thing you have going on. I've listened to the "right controlled radio" for months now, and believe me, if Obama said he ate Shepherds Pie, and some grapes for lunch, they'd complain that he isn't eating "American food." They have nothing positive to say about him, not...one...thing. I can't emphasize that enough, which is why I can't take them seriously. The Washington Post calls Glenn Beck the new voice of the Right, and Beck's substitute on the show that day (Beck was recovering from having his emergency appendectomy) accused the Washington Post of being sarcastic and disingenuous. The New York Times admits they were slow on the uptake with the Van Jones story that Glenn Beck and Fox News broke, and Beck's response was to gloat. Why not say, "Thanks for acknowledging my hard work?" Instead it's, "Obama has a secret socialist agenda and the left controlled media is on board!"
If you read print media it seems like the right is attacked, if you listen to radio the left is terrible. Christopher Buckley was fired from the National Review (The paper his father started) because he felt Obama was a stronger candidate than McCain. Do you really think the conservative media is fair and balanced all the time, and never engages in character assassination, while the left is without scruples?
I've only heard people complain that the left struggles to create a cohesive message to it's constituents, while the right has turned political information dissemination into a science.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Mucus, God judges everyone's sins. It is easier for me to judge the sins of professed American citizens who speak against America, because I am better acquainted with what is involved, and they are without excuse.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Swearing at the government is a sin or just swearing in general?
If you were a a citizen of Iran though, would you *denounce* the government? Would you subsequently feel that you would have renounced your rights as an Iranian and accept permanent exile?
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: In America's civil war, Seventh-day Adventists did not officially take sides, and were conscientious objectors to taking up arms (we still are). ...
Ah, a tangent. You mentioned "God is on America's side." Was he on the Union or Confederate side during the Civil War and did the other side make themselves "enemies of God"?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:He took God's name in vain--and daring to do it in the pulpit--when he said "God d--n America", violating the third commandment
By that logic, every time someone says "God bless America," the phrase he was deliberately referencing, they are also taking the Lord's name in vain.
quote:Anyone who speaks as Jeremiah did, and anyone who agrees with and would defend him, deserve to be stripped of their U.S. citizen and sentenced to permanent exile.
Heh. Do you want me to find some quotes from Palin's friends about seceding from the U.S.? They might amuse you.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Anyone who speaks as Jeremiah did, and anyone who agrees with and would defend him, deserve to be stripped of their U.S. citizen and sentenced to permanent exile.
Now, that sure sounds American!
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Anyone who speaks as Jeremiah did, and anyone who agrees with and would defend him, deserve to be stripped of their U.S. citizen and sentenced to permanent exile.
Now, that sure sounds American!
And Christian!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, duh, kmbboots. Isn't that a given? Silly.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Anyone who speaks as Jeremiah did, and anyone who agrees with and would defend him, deserve to be stripped of their U.S. citizen and sentenced to permanent exile. They are not worthy of enjoying any of the privileges of being an American. By denouncing America, they have renounced the rights of Americans, because they show they do not appreciate them or deserve them.
Oh Alanis Morrisette, goddess of unintentional irony, you bless me with this gift.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Get the hell outta America, you traitor.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Sounds like in the Revolutionary War, some of you clowns would have been Tories. I still abide by the original Boy Scout Motto: "Onward For God and Country."
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Sounds like in the Revolutionary War, some of you clowns would have been Tories. I still abide by the original Boy Scout Motto: "Onward For God and Country."
Yeah, I totally see how that motto means "Permanently exile people who say things you don't like about America"
It's just so straightforward. So clear. Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Sounds like in the Revolutionary War, some of you clowns would have been Tories. I still abide by the original Boy Scout Motto: "Onward For God and Country."
I'm Canadian so yeah, whats wrong with you people!? Rebelling against the Crown!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Unless you're a Puritan McCarthyist, neither Christian ideals nor American ideals call for the disenfranchisement and exile of citizens who use speech to express criticism of the United States, you jackass.
I put the word 'speech' in bold because the Founding Fathers you no doubt claim to revere thought that the freedom of speech was so absolutely vital it was in their first amendment to the Constitution.
Demanding Wright's exile as an expression of American ideals makes you a much bigger enemy of those very ideals you claim to respect.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Remember though Rakeesh that as early as John Adams' presidency, the alien sedition acts were passed which seriously impeded free speech. Clearly not all the founding fathers thought it an absolutely pivotal right. Lincoln too arrested journalists both for revealing union movements and for speaking out against his policies during the Civil War.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
While that's accurate, it doesn't really diminish the idea that the Founding Fathers, when spoken of as a group, overwhelmingly reject the sort of ideals Ron is espousing.
Certainly Adams had a change of heart between the Constitutional Convention and his later presidency, or at least I think it's safe to say so-he was neck deep in the former, after all.
Lincoln takes a hit for jailing journalists speaking out against his policies, though definitely not for revealing Union movements. The one is free speech, however detrimental in the midst of a war. The other is outright treason.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: If you'd like me to show my racism, I'll point out that Deshuan's dadddy gone.
Okay, why is it that whenever you try to point out reasons that you are 'showing your racism,' they have pretty much nothing to do with why you're getting hammered with the charge by other people?
I'm illustrating how stating a fact can lead to being called a racist. Am I racist to state that African Americans score the lowest and have the lowest high school graduation rate in the nation? Am I an Asian supremasist for stating the fact that Asians have the highest graduation rate and test scores?...of course not, I'm not Asian. This is the PC problem. If an Asian stated that fact, you would interpret it as a supremasist comment. Truth is truth. The same truth said by one is ok but when said by another is not. I brought up the CDC stats because I knew that stating those facts would make me look racist despite the fact the the statement was accurate and verifiable. If Al Sharpton said the same, he'd be praised for helping his community. A white sais it, he's a racist. Deshuan's daddy is gone and so are 80% of children with his background. I pointed out his majority status but when I point out the minority status of a good black father, like Obama, it is also racist. I don't have the appropriate skin color to discuss such issues, either way I'm wrong.
[ December 05, 2009, 02:13 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Am I the only one who thinks it's just a tiny bit, well, I don't know if it's offensive, but bothersome at least, to say "Deshuan's daddy"? The phrasing makes it sound like a diminutive reference. Daddy is a word that children use. Well, it has other wholly inappropriate connotations as well, but they aren't really applicable here.
Say father. Dad is fine even.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
My daughter calls me daddy. Dehsuan's daddy is gone, which is not uncommon at all. I'll admit the phrase "daddy gone" didn't originate in my family.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: If you'd like me to show my racism, I'll point out that Deshuan's dadddy gone.
Okay, why is it that whenever you try to point out reasons that you are 'showing your racism,' they have pretty much nothing to do with why you're getting hammered with the charge by other people?
Am I racist to state that African Americans score the lowest and have the lowest high school graduation rate in the nation? Am I an Asian supremasist for stating the fact that Asians have the highest graduation rate and test scores?...of course not, I'm not Asian. I don't have the appropriate skin color to discuss such issues, either way I'm wrong.
You are aware that Asians used to have much lower IQ test scores that whites, right, mal? I hope you are.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: While that's accurate, it doesn't really diminish the idea that the Founding Fathers, when spoken of as a group, overwhelmingly reject the sort of ideals Ron is espousing.
Certainly Adams had a change of heart between the Constitutional Convention and his later presidency, or at least I think it's safe to say so-he was neck deep in the former, after all.
Lincoln takes a hit for jailing journalists speaking out against his policies, though definitely not for revealing Union movements. The one is free speech, however detrimental in the midst of a war. The other is outright treason.
Wasn't Adams in Europe during the entire Convention? I'm pretty sure he was ambassador to either France or England, I can't remember which.
As for Lincoln, I don't remember reading about him jailing journalists for speaking out against him. In fact, I specifically recall an instance where a Union general shut down a major Chicago Copperhead newspaper for railing against Lincoln, and Lincoln overruled the general in ordering the paper reopened. I can think of another couple of examples where prominent figures were arrested either by locals or generals only to be saved by Lincoln, but I'd have to go back through my notes to get the names right.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Certainly Adams had a change of heart between the Constitutional Convention and his later presidency
According to the McCullough biography, he was against those acts but politically not powerful enough to fight them.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Lyrhawn and Rivka are correct-I was getting my Founding Fathers mixed up. *embarrassed*
Fortunately, though, my error wasn't one made by our country as a whole, and Ron's outlook that critical or even hateful, contemptuous speech by citizens towards our nation, its government, or both, should be punished by exile, is about as unAmerican as anything gets.
It's a disgraceful perversion of American ideals, and he ought to be ashamed to suggest them. But since Ron (by his political expressions on this forum) is actually a profoundly bad American - that is, he routinely fails to cherish the best ideas of American, and often suggests trampling them - I wouldn't be surprised if he wasn't.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
), but that's a bit different from flat out lying.