Originally posted by SMSBear716You don't have a clue what I want to say. Don't put words into my mouth.
We are discussing the behavior of Obama... stop trying to deflect the focus...... Republicans have been raked over the coals because of Robertson or Falwell flapping their jaws....
Basically you want to say that what Mr Wright says is ok cause Falwell or Roberts have said... thats moral equivalency again. Both have said stupid things, but nothing coming close to basically blaming white people for all the wrongs in the world..or this country.
Originally posted by SMSBear716iran-contra hearings?
My second hard ball question for Mr Wright is where is your proof for your claim that the government brings illegal drugs into the country and distributes them to the poor (assuming here he means poor blacks) to keep them 'under control'
Kindly display your detailed evidence for this claim , Mr Wright
Originally posted by omega1000me, too ... i wish'd she'd run 🙁 ...
You seem have a large chip on your, presumaby black, shoulder.
No, it's not because Obama is 'black' (in fact he is coffee coloured) but because he does not appear to be up to scratch for the job, any more than does Mrs. Clinton.
I would prefer to vote for Condelezza Rice than either of them if I were a citizen of the USA.
Originally posted by zeeblebotI think her CV is deceptive. She gets a lot of plaudits for being the top expert on all things Soviet when the USSR collapsed. And yet she got her analysis and advice wrong at every juncture: when, what, what next. She may have been the USA's top expert but was she any good? It's hardly controversial to say that the West totally mishandled and misjudged the USSR's demise and aftermath.
her wikipedia bio knocks hillary's and obama's wikipedia bios out of the park.
Furthermore, she has clearly been a very ineffectual National Security Adviser and Secretary Of State, with the likes of Cheney and Rumsfeld running rings around her. Her performance on the Middle East has been lamentable and even embarrassing (remember how she described Israel's 2006 bombing of Lebanon as the birth of a new Middle East?) She has never been elected to any significant post and has never been called on to show any meaningful or consequential leadership.
I have no doubt that Cheney picked her as National Security Adviser and later as Secretary Of State, specifically because it completely neutralized and sidelined those two institutions. He was, as we know, planning to run things from the VP's office, in close cooperation with the Pentagon.
I think, as a VP candidate, it will be easy for her political foes to portray her as a key player in just about all of Bush's "failures" (albeit less so on the domestic front). She started out by dropping the ball over Al-Qaeda (and then fibbing about it) and has ended up sinking, once and for all, any lingering pretense the USA might have had to be an "honest broker' in the Middle East.
Originally posted by FMFYour personal opinion of the merits of Condoleezza Rice as to both her academic and personal attributes, as well as her political standing, are at complete variance with the view we have of her in the UK where I would guess that most would vote her as one of the few politicians in the Western hemisphere worth support.
I think her CV is deceptive. She gets a lot of plaudits for being the top expert on all things Soviet when the USSR collapsed. And yet she got her analysis and advice wrong at every juncture: when, what, what next. She may have been the USA's top expert but was she any good? It's hardly controversial to say that the West totally mishandled and misjudged t ...[text shortened]... lingering pretense the USA might have had to be an "honest broker' in the Middle East.
She ceratinly outshines the two Democratic aspirants to the Presidency as well as the sitting tenant.
Originally posted by FMFsome excellant points. I think ppl seem to believe what the media say about her more then what the facts are.
I think her CV is deceptive. She gets a lot of plaudits for being the top expert on all things Soviet when the USSR collapsed. And yet she got her analysis and advice wrong at every juncture: when, what, what next. She may have been the USA's top expert but was she any good? It's hardly controversial to say that the West totally mishandled and misjudged t ...[text shortened]... lingering pretense the USA might have had to be an "honest broker' in the Middle East.
Originally posted by BogleOOO really?.... give some examples?
Your personal opinion of the merits of Condoleezza Rice as to both her academic and personal attributes, as well as her political standing, are at complete variance with the view we have of her in the UK where I would guess that most would vote her as one of the few politicians in the Western hemisphere worth support.
She ceratinly outshines the two Democratic aspirants to the Presidency as well as the sitting tenant.
OK I'm still wondering why the media let Obama off the hook for lying when asked if he knew about the "God Damn America" sermon. Obama initially claimed HE WASN'T THERE. Later, when it was pointed out that he was indeed at that particular sermon, he owned up to it. (with Secret Service agents protecting him, kinda hard to deny) Then, and only then did he decide to give his speech where he didn't really say anything except "I didn't do nuthin' wrong let's come together my gramma was a racist too" blah blah blah
http://newsmax.com/kessler/Obama_hat%20e_America_sermon/2008/03/16/80870.html?s=al&promo_code=9991-1
Originally posted by BogleWell, obviously not. He clearly meant examples of Condaleeza Rice outshining the two 'Democratic aspirants to the Presidency as well as the sitting tenant'. I think it's a valid question (your self-ridiculing determination to be snide notwithstanding) because my basic point is that she has been a kind of spectacular powerless nothingness, manipulated by those with real power (and achievements, like them or not) in Washington DC these last 8 years. You claim her achievements mean that she outshines certain prominent political figures. A few examples to back this up wouldn't go amiss.
Examples of what? Your failure to make any sort of useful contribution
to any debate?
Originally posted by Sam The ShamHave you watched the whole of the speech?
OK I'm still wondering why the media let Obama off the hook for lying when asked if he knew about the "God Damn America" sermon. Obama initially claimed HE WASN'T THERE. Later, when it was pointed out that he was indeed at that particular sermon, he owned up to it. (with Secret Service agents protecting him, kinda hard to deny) Then, and only then did ...[text shortened]... .com/kessler/Obama_hat%20e_America_sermon/2008/03/16/80870.html?s=al&promo_code=9991-1
Have you tried to understand it?
Whatever your political views, Sam, you must have noticed that a lot of clever and experienced people (not just politicians) think:
1. Obama is very clever,
2. Obama is very good at writing / giving speeches,
3. Obama has thought deeply about race issues in America, and
4. The speech he have yesterday was one of the best he has given.
Surely you might find SOMETHING in it of value??
Don't worry, if you do it doesn't mean you have to vote for the guy.
Just try opening your mind for 37 minutes.......