>> ^quantumushroom:
Yeah, the party that freed the slaves versus the party of Je$$e Jack$on.

Freed the slaves? The party that freed the slaves doesn't exist anymore. The party that freed the slaves was a liberal, progressive party. They may have had the same name, but they're nothing like today's GOP. The Dems were the conservative party in those days.

And let's not forget this, Obama speaking: The choice is clear. Most of all we can choose between hope and fear. It is going to be very difficult for Republicans to run on their stewardship of the economy or their outstanding foreign policy. We know what kind of campaign they’re going to run. They’re going to try to make you afraid. They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?
Poor-me racially-charged victimhood from a man who is an American success story by ANY standard.

I didn't see that statement as playing the victim, a behavior that I despise. He's just taking the wind out of the arguments by bringing them to the table first. Scare tactics are what we've come to expect from the NeoCons. If you don't do what they want, the terrorists have won. Which, now that I think about it, really makes them terrorists themselves.

Hate crime = thoughtcrime, and I don't see Barry or any other left-winger challenging the constitutionally-unsound hate crimes laws. The right, as usual, will just be accused of being racists by the left when they point out the emperor wears no clothes.

I agree that hate crime laws are nonsense and I've been thrashed by the sift for saying so. They are nothing more than legal discrimination. The right might be taken more seriously if they didn't have such a reputation for racism and discrimination. (Accurate or not, that's their reputation)

McCain wasn't referring to 100 years of war, it's a deliberate distortion. He meant something along the lines (I think) of North and South Korea, establishing a lasting military presence there.

He was referring to 100 years of occupation, which still qualifies as war in my opinion. Maybe not fighting, but still a war scenario. I don't think we need military stationed all over the globe, decade after decade. I want our military here, protecting our country when the need arises. We didn't invade Iraq to liberate it, we invaded to conquer it, and "in the 21st century, nations don't invade other nations."

You and others wish to blast Palin on the "Sambo' remark, which was a fabrication (aka a LIE). You've already decided she's a racist based on something that didn't even happen. Now you expect me and every other person who has a problem with Obama's radical, racist church to simply forget he was a member for over 2 decades and gave them 22K?

First off, I hadn't even heard the "Sambo" story before you mentioned it so don't accuse me of any reaction. I looked it up after your comment and the whole thing is ridiculous. A pair of nobodies post the story in their blog with no credible backing... It's not something I would have even taken the time to look at had I stumbled upon it. The Reps haven't missed the opportunity to turn the story into a lie of their own, though. They're claiming this story was fabricated by "Obama's campaign". It sounds more sinister than saying it came from two losers who run a pro-Obama blog.

Fair enough. http://www.publicallies.org/site/c.liKUL3PNLvF/b.3960231/
Obama's relations to this organization.

No, no. Obama's ties to PA were easy enough to find. What I want to know is where the description of PA sounding like Hitler's Youth came from. That was some loony conspiracy theory shit right there.

"Barry" voted yea for "an amendment prohibiting the use of any funds appropriated in the FY2007 Department of Homeland Security Act from being used to confiscate legal firearms during states of emergency or major disasters."

I'll give him some credit, but also: Big Deal. He never would've come up with it on his own, and anyway, it's crap from both sides of the aisle. The 2nd Amendment already covers 'states of emergency'.

This is an unfortunate feature of nearly every politician. Even the conservatives haven't been very conservative during the course of my lifetime. I don't agree with this approach either, but that's not to say that throwing money at a problem doesn't get results sometimes. Counting this against him is not unlike accusing him of only having two arms. When a three-armed candidate surfaces, then I'll care that the other candidates only have two.

I agree with you. But conservatives failing to be conservative and liberals being liberals are still two different animals.

>> ^quantumushroom:
He uses accusations of "racism" whenever he loses an argument (tho not exclusively a Marxist principle).

I've seen these accusations before but I've not seen the evidence. Perhaps you can show some? I'll continue to consider it partisan nonsense in the meantime.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/17/obama_invokes_rush_limbaugh_in.html

Here's the latest kerfuffle, Obama's campaign rearranging Rush Limbaugh's parodies to make him sound like a racist. Partisan? Yeah, the party that freed the slaves versus the party of Je$$e Jack$on.

And let's not forget this, Obama speaking: The choice is clear. Most of all we can choose between hope and fear. It is going to be very difficult for Republicans to run on their stewardship of the economy or their outstanding foreign policy. We know what kind of campaign they’re going to run. They’re going to try to make you afraid. They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?

Poor-me racially-charged victimhood from a man who is an American success story by ANY standard.

>> ^quantumushroom:
I safely predict Orwellian hate crimes and hate speech laws will strengthen under his rule, the closest to outright banning free speech we'll have.

I don't see any basis for this statement except perhaps the idea that 'them Negroes is always conspirin' against us good white folk.' I did notice that Obama voted against a bill to amend the constitution to make "Flag Desecration" illegal. That's big free speech support right there if you ask me. [ref]

I have said nothing here that indicates Obama's race factors into whether or not he supports hate crime legislation. It's more a left-wing thing, not a race thing. Hate crime = thoughtcrime, and I don't see Barry or any other left-winger challenging the constitutionally-unsound hate crimes laws. The right, as usual, will just be accused of being racists by the left when they point out the emperor wears no clothes.


>> ^quantumushroom:
A question for Obama supporters: let's say he gets his way and increases taxes on only "the wealthy". Do the middle and lower classes really think they won't suffer any adverse effects by having their employers' earnings slammed?

That all depends on what is done with the money. Not waging a 100 year war with no goals would be a good start.

McCain wasn't referring to 100 years of war, it's a deliberate distortion. He meant something along the lines (I think) of North and South Korea, establishing a lasting military presence there. And yes, I like the idea of B-52s less than 10 minutes from Tehran.

"What is done" with the money, I think you already know, most of it will be pissed away by graft and corruption, bailouts, paying for ongoing failures like the Wars on Poverty, Drugs, and yes, even Terror. I don't see why the Fire Chief of Speckville, Indiana needs a million-dollar APC to defend against terrorists.

There is nothing magical that happens when you give your money to the government. You and I know the value of a dollar, and I trust a dollar in the hands of the average citizen will go much farther than it will in a politician's budget. That's the essence of libertarianism. BTW, it's YOUR dollar!


Obama is nearly a lifelong member of a "church" that promotes Black Liberation Theology. Few things lie closer to a believers' hearts than their faith, whatever it may be. How is it Barry has to disavow his church? Could it be because it's backwards and against not only basic Xtian principles but American principles?

Was a member of said church for less than half his life, actually. If you read up on Trinity United, you'll see they've promoted a number of different ideas about race interaction over the decades as the times and leadership have changed. So, too, has "Black Liberation Theology" changed its implications with time. I know you like to put -ism and -ist labels on everyone and everything, but sometimes it's not that simple and you need full sentences, paragraphs or even pages to explain something adequately.

You and others wish to blast Palin on the "Sambo' remark, which was a fabrication (aka a LIE). You've already decided she's a racist based on something that didn't even happen. Now you expect me and every other person who has a problem with Obama's radical, racist church to simply forget he was a member for over 2 decades and gave them 22K? I'm not saying Obama shares all of Wright's wacky beliefs, but then if McCain said "Bless You" when David Duke sneezed, we both know the level of liberal hysteria that would ensue.

Since you've not attributed this quote, I'm not going to address it. Without knowing if it's from a reliable source or just some conservapedia article, I've really got nothing to go on.

Fair enough. http://www.publicallies.org/site/c.liKUL3PNLvF/b.3960231/

Obama's relations to this organization.


>> ^quantumushroom:
What I'm addressing here has nothing to do with why people support Obama. Facts and logic are out the window, Obamites are electrified by these vague messages of "hope" and "change" or still part of the "Anybody but Bush" mindset.

There is some validity to what you say here. Obama is a charismatic and exciting guy and many people have not looked beyond that. It's important to acknowledge that this is the failing of those people and not of Obama, just as it is your failing to make so many false assumptions about him based on his party, race and background rather than documented facts.

You recognize that it is a failing of the people to not know their candidate. Yes, I will blame the American people if Obama is elected, just as you will blame the other half if McCain is elected.

Yes, I have some assumptions about Obama, but they're based on the many quotes he's made as well as the considerable information about his background, his (in)experience, the company he keeps and his voting record (to the left of Ted Kennedy). I personally don't give a damn about his racial background; if he supported conservative principles with the same thin resume, I'd have a serious choice to make whether he would be better than McCain.

Thanks to all who responded. Yes MINK, you're the Master of Europe and I am at your mercy. You and I have written enough to make a book.

>> ^gorgonheap:
I'm more outraged at the State of California's government to overturn the voters. The democratic system fails when the people's voice is overruled by the select few we elect to a position of stewardship. For the California to overrule Prop. 22 is unconstitutional and a violation of democratic process. If they want to take another vote to annul Prop. 22 that ones thing. But to disregard the people and take matters into their own hands is not democracy.

I agree with that thought, although not on a full scale. There's a reason why we don't have true democracy. That's because people are ignorant and reactionary. While it's OK to maintain those beliefs, I don't agree that a majority should have the right to decide the fate of a minority.

Just remember that there was a time where a majority of people would've voted to continue slavery, segregation and against many civil liberties the African American community have these days. I'm glad that the government overrules certain oppressive values.

I guess we just have to ask ourselves when is it ok for the government to step in. I agree with the title "You Overthrow to Free, Not Lock".

I'm more outraged at the State of California's government to overturn the voters. The democratic system fails when the people's voice is overruled by the select few we elect to a position of stewardship. For the California to overrule Prop. 22 is unconstitutional and a violation of democratic process. If they want to take another vote to annul Prop. 22 that ones thing. But to disregard the people and take matters into their own hands is not democracy.

"having everyone on the site a member will make the word "collective" meaningless (and boring)."

Guess that depends on whether you view the videos or the members as the "collective". However, it could make it a nightmare for owners to ensure that submissions are on-topic and appropriate for their collective if everyone can post to whatever collective they wish. Then again, with a collective queue, owners will be able to smite with ease (which would force them to be the "bad guy"). On the other hand, it doesn't seem fair that amount of stewardship be imposed upon owners who had/have very specific ideas what they want their particular collective to be/include. Tired. Gonna shut up now.