Originally posted by Sam The ShamThis is just the kind of bias and inaccuracy that I would expect to come out of Cobra Command Headquarters.
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
Obama has never said he was at the July 22 sermon. His website still states that he was not there.
The reason that the media is not attacking him for lying about being at the July 22 sermon is because there's no reason to believe he lied. According to Bill Kristol’s Times Op/Ed on March 17th (a day later than the Kessler article), the Obama campaign has provided evidence that he wasn't there for the July 22 sermon. I also attached a foxnews article that explains that he was in florida giving a speech on immigration at 1:30 that afternoon.
Some still think he was there, but there's no reason to believe that he's lying. The bias is that the media is still wasting its time on these unsubstantiated and insignificant claims.
Either way Obama knew the kinds of tirades that Wright occasionally made. And he addresses this fact in his speech. You really ought to listen to it rather than ignorantly caricaturing it. You’re making yourself sound biased and uninformed. You’re smarter than that.
http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/03/16/fact_obama_did_not_attend_serv.php
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/17/report-places-obama-at-controversial-july-07-wright-sermon-official-schedule-places-him-in-miami/
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/17/opinion/17kristol.html
Originally posted by FMF1. Hillary: B.A., J.D. (lawyer degree), First Lady, senator.
Well, 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 t ...[text shortened]... hines certain prominent political figures. A few examples to back this up wouldn't go amiss.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton#Early_life
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton#College
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton#Law_school
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton#United_States_Senator
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton#First_term
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton#Second_term
2. Barack: B.A., J.D. (lawyer degree), state legislator, senator.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama#Early_life_and_career
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama#Senate_career
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama#109th_Congress
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama#110th_Congress
3. Condoleeza: B.A., M.S., Ph.D., Stanford Professor, National Security Administration head, Secretary of State.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condoleeza_Rice#Early_life
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condoleeza_Rice#Discrimination
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condoleeza_Rice#Early_education
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condoleeza_Rice#High_school_and_university_education
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condoleeza_Rice#Academic_career
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condoleeza_Rice#Provost_promotion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condoleeza_Rice#Balancing_school_budgethttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condoleeza_Rice#Special_interest_issues
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condoleeza_Rice#Private_sector
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condoleeza_Rice#Early_political_career
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condoleeza_Rice#National_Security_Advisor_.282001.E2.80.932005.29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condoleeza_Rice#Secretary_of_State_.282005.E2.80.93present.29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condoleeza_Rice#Major_initiatives
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condoleeza_Rice#Regional_issues
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condoleeza_Rice#Gaza_withdrawal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condoleeza_Rice#Border_Crossings_Deal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condoleeza_Rice#Israeli-Palestinian_conflict
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condoleeza_Rice#2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condoleeza_Rice#Egypt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condoleeza_Rice#Saudi_Arabia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condoleeza_Rice#Iran
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condoleeza_Rice#Iraq
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condoleeza_Rice#North_Korea
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condoleeza_Rice#Japan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condoleeza_Rice#Russia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condoleeza_Rice#Equatorial_Guinea
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condoleeza_Rice#Kenya
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condoleeza_Rice#Venezuela
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condoleeza_Rice#Pakistan
Originally posted by SMSBear716I'm more worried about the legal drugs.
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 Sam The ShamWell, something that was pointed out today, on a sports talk show of all things, Barrack was talking about his speech, and he made the statement that his grandmother was not a racist, but she was 'a typical white oerson' inferring that all white people are afraid of black men on the street.
This journalist says what's wrong with Obama and his little speech everybody seems to think so much of far better than I can:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120579535818243439.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
God Damn America, Vote OBAMA !!!
The ironic thing about this is he sterotyped white people, which is the same thing he 'dumped' on his grandmother about doing to black people in his speech.
Well , I'm sure Obama wishes this would all just go away. As a conservative white guy, I wish it go away as well. Its 'mudding the waters' and pushing the candidates positions on important issues to the background.
Obama is still a big government, raise the taxes progressive, but now it appears as well that his judgement is weak at times as well. And as he tries to say things to improve his situation, he only ends up saying something that digs the hole deeper.
Originally posted by moderationmanDoesn't your Prime Minister believe in God? Did you vote for him?
How can you vote for someone who goes to a church? This person believes in invisible men, flying men, angels and devils....
Fear the flying spaghetti monster!
Well, excuse me, I did a quick check and apparently your current PM Helen Elizabeth Clark is a agnostic......... good for her...if thats what she choses, in the united States and a good other countries around the world, the leader of the country professes a belief in a God.
Originally posted by zeeblebotA rather silly cut & paste post like that makes me think that you are perhaps, for all intents and purposes, conceding.
1. Hillary: B.A., J.D. (lawyer degree), First Lady, senator.
[NOT MANY URLS HERE]
2. Barack: B.A., J.D. (lawyer degree), state legislator, senator.
[NOT MANY URLS HERE]
3. Condoleeza: B.A., M.S., Ph.D., Stanford Professor, National Security Administration head, Secretary of State.
[LOTS OF URLS HERE]
Are you maybe claiming, in an enigmatically indirect way, that it was Condaleeza Rice who ran rings around Cheney & Rumsfeld all along, that history will look kindly on Bush's foreign policy, and that Israel's 2006 assault against Lebanon was indeed the birth of a new Middle East?
Half the things you list on her "wiki CV" are an embarrassment to her.
Originally posted by FMFdude, she is the secretary of state of the USA, not of the Euroweenies ...
A rather silly cut & paste post like that makes me think that you are perhaps, for all intents and purposes, conceding.
Are you maybe claiming, in an enigmatically indirect way, that it was Condaleeza Rice who ran rings around Cheney & Rumsfeld all along, that history will look kindly on Bush's foreign policy, and that Israel's 2006 assault against Lebanon [b ...[text shortened]... w Middle East[/i]?
Half the things you list on her "wiki CV" are an embarrassment to her.
all i got to say for your candidates is, "where's the beef?" ...
Originally posted by zeeblebotYou sound like Bogle.
dude, she is the secretary of state of the USA, not of the Euroweenies ...
all i got to say for your candidates is, "where's the beef?" ...
And you seem to be under the impression that the Europeans were running candidates in the US presidential election.
So you think Condaleeza Rice has been a success as U.S. Secretary of State? You have watched her work for the last four (or eight) years and you feel she has "beef" and that she hasn't been hapless and impotent at all?
I mean, I really don't care whether she stands or not. And I don't care whom you elect in November. I am simply curious as to why people think she has been a success. Was Jimmy Carter's Secretary of State also a great success? ... as in ...dude, he was the secretary of state of the USA..."
you haven't said much ... haven't said why the democratic candidates' CV's hold a candle to Condi's, haven't said why we should consult liberals or euroweenies to define success, haven't said why you think the Israelis lost ...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/11/03/do0302.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2006/11/03/ixopinion.html
John Keegan
"What happened in south Lebanon earlier this year has been widely misunderstood, largely because the anti-Israel bias in the international media led to the situation being misreported as an Israeli defeat.
It was no such thing. It was certainly an Israeli setback, but the idea that the IDF had suddenly lost its historic superiority over its Arab enemies and that they had acquired military qualities that had hitherto eluded them was quite false. Hizbollah suffered heavy losses in the fighting, perhaps as many as 1,000 killed out of its strength of up to 5,000 and it is only just now recovering.
..."
Originally posted by zeeblebotI am not asking you to consult liberals or euroweenies to define success (most people would see you as an oaf for using the word euroweenies, but I myself am not too interested in your self-esteem issues). I am asking you if, in your analysis, Condaleeza Rice has been a successful Secretary Of State. My question is about her and her track record, not about Clinton or Obama. That would perhaps explain why I... haven't said why the democratic candidates' CV's hold a candle to Condi's. That is not the issue I have raised with you.
you haven't said much ... haven't said why the democratic candidates' CV's hold a candle to Condi's, haven't said why we should consult liberals or euroweenies to define success, haven't said why you think the Israelis lost ...
You seem to think I am being partisan. Well I'm not. It's a straight question: has Rice been hapless, manipulated, marginalized, and ineffectual or do you think she has been a success in her current post?
Then you say: [You] haven't said why you think the Israelis lost.... Presumably this is in reference to my question about the 2006 Israeli attack on Lebanon. Well I didn't say that Israel lost, as you well know. I asked you if you thought Rice's comment at the time, that what we are seeing here is the birth of a new Middle East did her any credit, did the U.S.A. any credit, whether it was shrewd analysis, stateswomanlike and, indeed, whether it embodied much in the way of decency?
i think she's been effective ...
can you show any evidence to the contrary, that's not based on anonymous quotes of internal white house squabbling? ...
re "birth of a new middle east", misquoting her changes the meaning of the original sentence:
http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2006/69331.htm
"QUESTION: Madame Secretary, you've heard the voices saying you should have -- the last several days saying you should go to the region and why you chose now to announce this trip and to go? And secondly, would the United States be willing to contribute troops, that is, boots on the ground to an international peacekeeping force on the Lebanese border?
SECRETARY RICE: We are looking at what kind of international assistance force makes sense, but I do not think that it is anticipated that U.S. ground forces are expected for that force.
As to the timing of this, John, after all I could have gotten on a plane and rushed over and started shuttling and it wouldn't have been clear what I was shuttling to do. We have now had a series of discussions with our -- first at the G-8. I've been in constant contact with others, including with the Egyptians here a couple of days ago. We have been in contact with the Siniora Government. Of course I have been in constant contact with the Israeli Government and then I was just at the UN. I think we are beginning to see the outlines of a political framework that might allow the cessation of violence in a more sustainable way tied to 1559, tied to -- what is there in the G-8 statement. The elements are becoming quite clear. But I have no interest in diplomacy for the sake of returning Lebanon and Israel to the status quo ante. I think it would be a mistake.
What we're seeing here, in a sense, is the growing -- the birth pangs of a new Middle East and whatever we do we have to be certain that we're pushing forward to the new Middle East not going back to the old one. "
in Condi's own words:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Condoleezza_Rice
"Now, six years ago, al-Qaida was planning to attack the Twin Towers. It wasn't a very nice world. And I think that if you think about six years ago, al-Qaida was preparing to attack the Twin Towers, Pakistan was allied with the Taliban, Afghanistan was the base from which al-Qaida was going to operate; the Israelis and the Palestinians had given up on a chance for -- or let me put it, the Palestinians had walked away from a chance for a Palestinian state, launched the second intifada, elected Ariel Sharon who basically said there would never be a Palestinian state and there will be a greater Israel; the North Korean were cheating on a deal that they had just signed; China and others were indifferent to that because it was a U.S.-North Korea bilateral deal; Iran was cheating on the IAEA out of sight. I could go on and on and on. That was the world in 2000 and 2001. And there is no doubt that by confronting -- oh, by the way, and Saddam Hussein was shooting at our pilots regularly in the no-fly zone and making a mockery of the Oil-for-Peace -- Oil-for-Food program and corruption was running rampant in that program. So, a worse world? I think so.
Interview With the Associated Press Editorial Board, June 8, 2007
"
Originally posted by zeeblebot, trimmed by FMFhey, go to the wiki pages and seem for yourself. Hillary and Obama have 'NOT MANY URLS' because they have 'NOT MUCHO EXPERIENCE'. what can i do about that?
1. Hillary: B.A., J.D. (lawyer degree), First Lady, senator.
[NOT MANY URLS HERE]
2. Barack: B.A., J.D. (lawyer degree), state legislator, senator.
[NOT MANY URLS HERE]
3. Condoleeza: B.A., M.S., Ph.D., Stanford Professor, National Security Administration head, Secretary of State.
[LOTS OF URLS HERE]
i]Originally posted by FMF[ ...[text shortened]... e post like that makes me think that you are perhaps, for all intents and purposes, conceding.