Better Than Bush?
Obama says McCain would be better than Bush.
Odd thing to say when he's been going around equating McCain to Bush. It's almost like he saying that his earlier criticisms about McCain...aren't true. Could it be that Obama has no ability to discern? Or did he just get slip and speak the truth?
Posted by Rosemary on
04.21.2008
R.I.P. Steven Malcolm Anderson
Back here on planet earth, regardless of what any of the liberal fucks, or the Republicans who have decided Bush is a "failed" president, I still support the president, I support the war as a terrible thing but necessary, I thank God daily for delivering us from the tender mercies of President Gore or Kerry. The economy thing is obviously not Bush's fault to anyone who knows anything at all about economics. I think Bush has done a masterful job of what is an intolerable situation. I don't know anyone who could have done it better, and I don't know anyone who could have done as well. He leaves the country and the world better than he found it, both Iraq and Afghanistan at least WORKING toward democracy, which never would have happened without him. And the people in those countries both appreciate that, even if ungrateful Americans don't. I have no clue why Bush is at 28% but I do shout out a hearty fuck you to people who don't know what the fuck they really want or what they expect Bush to be doing.
That says it all.
Or did he just get slip and speak the truth?
Enh. Whatever.
Speaking of slipping and speaking the truth, why don't you have Mr. Kill Whitey the WonderGerbil tell us more about his secret fear that jack-booted thugs will come and take him away in the middle of the night if Obama is elected president?
I'll be here, waiting.
Being queen ain't what it used to be.
Dude. Drop the obsession. Wonderbread wrote that phrase once, whereas you typed it in and LINKED it at least 2 dozen times.
If something offends me, I don't need to bookmark it and link it over and over again. It's as if you are trying to remind yourself and everyone else that we should be offended.
People here are relatively bright. They can make up their own mind as to what is offensive and what is not.
When you or that racist lawyer from Ohio continually link those words, it just makes you look that much more foolish.
Jerry
He did? When?
Once is one time too many, my friend.
Look at it this way: if you lived in a neighborhood and one morning you woke up and someone had spray-painted Nazi and racist graffitti in the common area, wouldn't you push back?
Maybe you'd just up and move; not me. I'd push back as many times as I needed to.
Anyway, one thing's for sure, Barack Obama tells the truth as he sees it. Can't say that about either McCain or Clinton.
About McCain? You can knock McCain for a whole lot of stuff, but telling it like he sees it doesn't really just to mind as a good angle of attack. Maybe 'I'll leave troops there for 100 years' doesn't mean what I think it means and doesn't carry the political downside that I think it does either.
Care to give some examples?
* McCain pledged in February 2008 that he would not, under any circumstances, raise taxes. Specifically, McCain was asked if he is a “‘read my lips’ candidate, no new taxes, no matter what?” referring to George H.W. Bush’s 1988 pledge. “No new taxes,” McCain responded. Two weeks later, McCain said, “I’m not making a ‘read my lips’ statement, in that I will not raise taxes.”
* McCain claims to have considered and not considered joining John Kerry’s Democratic ticket in 2004.
* In 1998, he championed raising cigarette taxes to fund programs to cut underage smoking, insisting that it would prevent illnesses and provide resources for public health programs. Now, McCain opposes a $0.61-per-pack tax increase, won’t commit to supporting a regulation bill he’s co-sponsoring, and has hired Philip Morris’ former lobbyist as his senior campaign adviser.
* McCain’s first mortgage plan was premised on the notion that homeowners facing foreclosure shouldn’t be “rewarded” for acting “irresponsibly.” His second mortgage plan took largely the opposite position.
* McCain vowed, if elected, to balance the federal budget by the end of his first term. Soon after, he decided he would no longer even try to reach that goal.
* McCain’s campaign unveiled a Social Security policy that the senator would implement if elected, which did not include a Bush-like privatization scheme. In March 2008, McCain denounced his own campaign’s policy.
* In February 2008, McCain reversed course on prohibiting waterboarding.
* In November 2007, McCain reversed his previous position on a long-term presence for U.S. troops in Iraq, arguing that the “nature of the society in Iraq” and the “religious aspects” of the country make it inevitable that the United States “eventually withdraws.” Two months later, McCain reversed back, saying he’s prepared to leave U.S. troops in Iraq for 100 years.
* McCain used to champion the Law of the Sea convention, even volunteering to testify on the treaty’s behalf before a Senate committee. Now he opposes it.
* McCain was a co-sponsor of the DREAM Act, which would grant legal status to illegal immigrants’ kids who graduate from high school. Now he’s against it.
* On immigration policy in general, McCain announced in February 2008 that he would vote against his own legislation.
* In 2006, McCain sponsored legislation to require grassroots lobbying coalitions to reveal their financial donors. In 2007, after receiving “feedback” on the proposal, McCain told far-right activist groups that he opposes his own measure.
* McCain said before the war in Iraq, “We will win this conflict. We will win it easily.” Four years later, McCain said he knew all along that the war in Iraq war was “probably going to be long and hard and tough.”
* McCain said he was the “greatest critic” of Rumsfeld’s failed Iraq policy. In December 2003, McCain praised the same strategy as “a mission accomplished.” In March 2004, he said, “I’m confident we’re on the right course.” In December 2005, he said, “Overall, I think a year from now, we will have made a fair amount of progress if we stay the course.”
* McCain went from saying he would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade to saying the exact opposite.
* McCain went from saying gay marriage should be allowed, to saying gay marriage shouldn’t be allowed.
* McCain criticized TV preacher Jerry Falwell as “an agent of intolerance” in 2002, but then decided to cozy up to the man who said Americans “deserved” the 9/11 attacks.
* McCain used to oppose Bush’s tax cuts for the very wealthy, but he reversed course in February.
* On a related note, he said 2005 that he opposed the tax cuts because they were “too tilted to the wealthy.” By 2007, he denied ever having said this, and insisted he opposed the cuts because of increased government spending.
* In 2000, McCain accused Texas businessmen Sam and Charles Wyly of being corrupt, spending “dirty money” to help finance Bush’s presidential campaign. McCain not only filed a complaint against the Wylys for allegedly violating campaign finance law, he also lashed out at them publicly. In April, McCain reached out to the Wylys for support.
* McCain supported a major campaign-finance reform measure that bore his name. In June 2007, he abandoned his own legislation.
* McCain opposed a holiday to honor Martin Luther King, Jr., before he supported it.
* McCain was against presidential candidates campaigning at Bob Jones University before he was for it.
* McCain was anti-ethanol. Now he’s pro-ethanol.
* McCain was both for and against state promotion of the Confederate flag.
* McCain decided in 2000 that he didn’t want anything to do with former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, believing he “would taint the image of the ‘Straight Talk Express.’” Kissinger is now the Honorary Co-Chair for his presidential campaign in New York.
I think I know which way I'm pushing.
Also noted that my apology and explanation was rejected. Ce la vie.
Interesting factoid I found recently in researching domestic terrorism. While overall the trend in terrorist incidents is down according to the FBI, The threat from domestic terrorists consists mainly of fragmented white supremacists which remains an ongoing threat to government targets, Jewish individuals and establishments, and non-white ethnic groups. Militia groups who continue to intimidate and sometimes threaten judges, prosecutors, and other officers of the court. Radical islamic black separatists who express solidarity with international terrorist groups and could feed international terrorists intel. And Animal Rights and Eco-terrorists, which have been on the rise and increasingly dangerous while other terror incidents have decreased. (pdf link)
I don't know any liberal who supports any terror groups, but I do remember seeing a swastika blazoned around these parts in support of some gangster Animal Rightists. Yet I'm sure there are more than a few mouth-breathing 285ers who bought all the propaganda Rumsfeld's Rent-A-Generals vomited who agree with Newt Gingrich that Obama and Democrats in general admire terrorists.
In the words of Laura Ingraham, the Christian thing to do is say, "We forgive, but we don't forget."
285ers = 28%ers
Actually, that's one of the few things I believe he really means (it was the Neoconservatives' plan all along). And it's going to destroy him.
True, which is why:
Wonderbread is being slammed by me for his statement, as is the racist lawyer from Ohio.
No, Mark Adams, telling Polish jokes doesn't make you a racist. It makes you an IGNORANT racist.
Satire is usually something that's given a free pass when it comes to racist behavior, but if you are going to hold Wonderbread's feet to the flame for his statements, so to should your feet be held.
It was also why I singled you and Alice (and your mom) out for a direct and personal apology. My pushback/satire/evilfuckingtrollishness was not directed at anyone but Wrongfulofit and Rose for accepting and encouraging his screed which to date we have no indication he truly believes otherwise.
I hoped I made it clear I do not believe it proper to ridicule anyone for their heritage. Could I be more clear?
Indeed, I was acting as ignorant and distasteful as I could so those two would have just an inkling of how the other half lived.
I hope it is not forgotten even if forgiven. But even in this, I am not representing the opinions of this domain as a front-pager and unlike whathisname, was repentant from the start.
I've yet to see an acknowledgment that his behavior was unacceptable or even something I should be insulted by, but merely deal with because I and many members of this community somehow "deserved" such despicable treatment. Indeed, he still maintains that Rose and he are victims, and were from the start before he ever appeared.
Jerry, when you are personally targeted by Mr. W, then we can have a strategy session on how to push back. I don't recall him going after you directly. Meanwhile, I again regret you received some shrapnel in the cross-fire.
For my part, I am quite content never to go down that road again because I don't like it, it's demeaning and not my style. But I do reserve the right to combat his style of hate by any means I feel necessary.
Making this world a better place has never been a motivating factor for that man, only what will get him the most power, the most money and the most votes.
So, what you're saying is that you can't challenge any of the facts on the list so you want to throw the whole thing out and replace it with one you agree with.
Dude, you wanted a list. How did I know you wanted one from someone who was politically correct?
How about Grover Norquist? Is he politically correct enough for you?
More where that came from. It's a target rich environment.
The permanent ban on changing ones mind in modern politics does not mean that one cannot legitimately believe two different at two different times. It just means that one side gets to yell really loud about how bad someone on the other side is for having done it.
At the risk of highjacking this thread and taking it in a direction opposite
of MY Queen's initial blog, I will address this issue with you ... although
I'm sure it won't be the last time.
(Author's note: I have attempted numerous times to research the origin of the phrase "kill whitey" online and with a black scholar I'm personally acquainted with, very little seems to be written - that I could find - about this phrase. Thus, the desciption that follows is largely anecdotal and from memory.)
The phrase "kill whitey" is that it was a phrase used by black rights activists - particularly the more aggressive and radical ones - during the 60s. It did not necessarily mean "kill all white people" (quotes used to separate speculative meaning from my description) ... it was used to symbolize the idea of white privilege being destroyed in terms of a government that included people of color, etc. The problem was, when shouted by angry Black Panther Party members, associates, hangers on, and like-minded sympathizers, the phrase could take on a menancing overtone to people, in general, who were unaware of its intricacies and its original meaning.
In this context and my understanding of the phrase "kill whitey," I chose to use it to symbolize what I believe to be Barry Obama's very radical past - his association to Rev. Wright, his early education in what might very well have been a Madrassa in Indonesia, his wife's college term paper that was, at the very least, racially charged, and his most recent statements about his white grandmother. And it's exactly this perceived radicalism that I believe he's not the right candidate to run this country, and that's why I won't vote for him. And the last time I checked, I'm still entitled to my opinion, whether any member of the Unholy Alliance agrees with it or not.
Although Barry has never uttered the phrase "kill whitey" to my knowlege, I still stand by my belief that, while inflammatory, it is not a completely inaccurate depiction of what might be Barry's thoughts on race. After all, his spiritual advisor Rev. Wright is a product of the 60s, and many of his inflammatory words - which deal with black rage toward perceived institutionalized racism in America - are close enough to "kill whitey" to cause me some concern. And given Barry's association to Wright ... well, let's just say "birds of a feather" and all that.
That being said, the onus is on YOU, Ara, to prove that my "kill whitey" statement is racist. How am I being a racist by drawing a likeness between Barry's racially charged statements and 1960s black radicalism? Also it's
been said by you or other Unholy Alliance members that the statement
"bullies" Barry. I also would like that to be proven to my satisfaction.
Don't worry ... I'll wait.
Changing one's mind isn't the issue at all. It's changing it from what is right "irresponsible tax cuts" and "agents of intolerance" to what is wrong, just to appeal to the Neanderthal base of the party.
So do the rest of them. What's so remarkable about that?
..and now shep too...
I'll say what I have said before, I refuse to fault the players for playing by the rules of the game. You want to change the rules and make it so that politicians are punished for playing today's game? OK, I'm right there willing to get into the give and take and hammer something out that is both 1) better than what we have now and 2) more or less agreeable to as many people over 50% that we can get.
Politics is a completely pragmatic endeavor at this point, even ideology is pragmatic for those in Washington.
Bankers and lobbyists, they own him.
That leaves the two most likely to be running against each other. McCain is closer to me on more issues than Obama, but I don't lineup particularly well with either one. That means it comes down to who they are. I have real problems with McCain's temper and age. As for Obama, he definitely scores points his willingness to grant that those who disagree with him are not intellectually or morally flawed, but his inexperience gives me pause. That pause, though, is tempered a bit by what he was able to do at HLS. I'd like to give him credit for his idealistic campaign funding strategy, but I doubt he has the force of personality to drag others along to his point of view.
I think we've just witnessed a pretty good example of where that can lead, at least since Republicans seem to be the only people willing to tear the country apart by using impeachment to attack a President they don't like or when the other party threatens to use it against a criminal enterprise being run from the White House?
If you'd like, please explain the use of a question mark. I'm not certain where the question was.
It was a typo, actually, since I changed what I started to say into a statement rather than a question and had to run.
As far as Marks' point goes, McCain's a millionaire Republican Senator who's been in Washington for decades so his allegiance to corporate lobbyists isn't really in any question, imo, regardless of the fact that he's surrounded himself with them. And we've just witnessed the final-term oilmen in the Oval Office drive the price of oil from $20/barrel to $117/barrel, probably because they could do what THEY WANTED. And McCain wants the same thing for different reasons.
(Ain't google awesome?)
I only brought up Edwards since I was such a die-hard supporter of his, and in doing oppo-research came to know Clinton and Obama's situations more than I think the casual observer would.
I don't want to be a kool-aid drinker and am very skeptical of the new politics he promotes -- cuz he's too accepting of GOP positions I believe are hollow on their face. I want someone who will destroy them, to fight, to kick ass and put names on a witness list -- and his people tell me that's unreasonable.
Hillary would fight that fight, and if she had a chance to win the nomination I'd buy a four years supply of popcorn to watch the spectacle and cheer her on.
So I've been persuaded to give Obama a chance to change things, and I'm counting on him working eight full years doing it. The last thing we need right now is a care-taker, especially someone who promises no change in Iraq, thus no change in our overall foreign policy, and no plan for the economy whatsoever except to keep letting lobbyists and corporations writing our laws.
What's the worst that can happen? We'll be disappointed? He doesn't transform us into the land of brotherly love? I was disappointed by Clinton on health care, but things were pretty damn good during the 90's. I can live with disappointment as long as we're trying to make things better. All I've seen of republicans is war and the dismantlement of the middle class. I trust McCain to continue that tradition, and that's the only thing I trust him to do.
McCain's money comes (through marriage) from alcohol distribution, and on that issue I'll readily concede he is bought and owned wholly. The rest, I would submit, is up for grabs. If he is a de facto one term president I would suggest that all bets are off on his allegiances.
The price of oil is not the exclusive domain of "oilmen in the Oval Office" in a worldwide market that is composed of both US players and non-US players. Speculators of all flavor of interest have a stake in a higher/lower price for a barrel of oil. There is money to make in that market. If you would like to indict capitalist markets, as a whole, or a small cabal in a building in Washington that is you prerogative. I disagree.
It's sad to me, in the big picture, but we get the politicians we deserve and a president does not an entire government make. IMO, they are all complicit in the tragic comedy.
Actually, I'm indicting a couple of sociopaths (if only the rest of the "civilized" world would follow suit) and the political movement that supported them for setting the ME aflame in a reckless plan to increase Israel's strategic advantage and our own, relative to the oil-based, capitalist, western economic empire. Consequently, it failed catastrophically, and we will be paying the price for generations.
"The rest, I would submit, is up for grabs. If he is a de facto one term president I would suggest that all bets are off on his allegiances."
I would submit that McCain's primary allegiance is, like everyone else's, to his own id, ego and superego, as it were. In his case, I don't like the apparent mix.
You ask for substance, I deliver. You demand links, I deliver yet again. But when I do, we -and by "we" I mean "you" - go right back to this shyte.
Oh you liberals ... when will you ever learn?Rhetorical question, Mark; I already know the answer.
A bit of advice -- stop saying you are not a racist. It sounds like Nixon saying "I am not a crook" or Clinton saying "I did not have sex..." or even Bush 41 saying "Read my lips...." In other words, it makes you sound disingenuous at best.
Bottom line: you're not going to change my perception of you. Like I said before, you only have one chance to make a first impression and you made yours (as far as I'm concerned).
As for anyone else's perception of you, their mileage may vary.
As for your scholarly treatise on the origin of "kill whitey," all I can say is, you ARE young aren't you?
They have to want to, I've seen no indication of that.
They have to make the attempt, if they attempt has been made, it is woefully inadequate.
They have to work all the harder to be taken seriously after they've laid the groundwork for the opposite impression -- your act ain't cutting it.
Why I have extra "Y's" I don't know why.
As for me, I'll paraphrase Justice Potter Stewart: I can't describe a second act -- I'll just know it when I see it.
William Renquist? Not so much. Same goes for Jesse Helms.
So there you are, Mr. kill whitey Hock-your-phlegm: A cautionary tale.
So let me get this straight ... you call me a racist and I ask for proof, yet your provide none. Then you go on to say, basically, that I'm a racist simply because you say so and that's that.
Wow! Thanks for explaining to me the new rules of the game, and watch and see as I play along, too.
Ara, you're a communist. A no-good, low-down dirty rotten pinko Commie straight out of the school of Stalin.
This is fun!
"...you empty headed animal food trough wiper! I fart in your general direction! Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!"
You can tell Rose is the Queen, cuz she hasn't got shit all over her. W on the other hand is just another bloody peasant.
Not to mention the general Black Nightishness. IJS
I'm not a Monty Python fan, but I'm definitely an "Achiever" ... if you know what I mean?
Yes, definitely, if by "Achiever" you mean someone who holds racist views and thinks he has a sense of humor about it.