Indexes
November 2nd, 2009
November 8th, 2009
November 7th, 2009
November 6th, 2009
November 5th, 2009
November 4th, 2009
November 3rd, 2009
November 2nd, 2009
The following stories have received the most reader comments during the last 7 days.
- Bible is entwined with American civic life (135)
- I predict: A conservative tide will rise in 2010 (73)
- David Diskin is first to give an invocation under new city of Lodi policy (70)
- The Treaty of Tripoli hoax (60)
- Universal health care solves big problems (54)
- Here's what my father knew about the assassination of JFK (35)
- Stuck in neutral? Hardly! (35)
- Words from our forefathers (27)
- City of Lodi staff looking into possibility of limiting number of taco trucks (24)
- Majority cannot deprive the minority (23)
ADVERTISEMENT
Is Obama qualified to be president?
Saturday, March 22, 2008 6:27 AM PDT
I was extremely disappointed in Democratic candidate Obama's response to the various comments he has labeled as "racist."
I thought someone seeking the presidency of the United States would have risen above these comments. If anything, I now question whether he is qualified or ready to be president.
Roger Kern
Lodi
Search for Ads 
Today’s Print Ads 
RSS Feeds
Reader Feedback
Leonard wrote on Mar 30, 2008 1:45 PM:
At the time, I wondered why. Now, I guess I know.
I suppose that I should be honored that Brian seems to care so much about what I do and how I do it.
"
girard74 wrote on Mar 30, 2008 12:55 PM:
This is the kind of information that should be out there to give us better insight as to who he is. My nickname at the institution where I was raised was simple - 'Pig.' I think I'd rather be remembered as O'Bomber, although the name was attached because of my 'slightly' pug nose.
Obama was evidently an outstanding student. I just thought I'd throw that out there. "
girard74 wrote on Mar 30, 2008 12:37 PM:
There are many issues on which my stand is absolutely firm, rigid even. Yet, I am always open to listening to others' opinions, even (especially) when they are as firm in their convictions as I. When I do find an opening permitting me to state my case in opposition, I seize upon it; although I do so with fervor and respect. "
Brian wrote on Mar 30, 2008 12:25 PM:
Brian wrote on Mar 30, 2008 12:23 PM:
" voter wrote, 'this garbage is part of the FOX NEWS campaign to paint Obama as a "scary black man" in the eyes of its mostly undereducated, white WalMart-Republican audience.'
This is patently absurd. What, we're not supposed to investigate the integrity and background of ALL those desiring to become the President? Doing so labels one (individual, group, news outlet, etc.) as 'racist'?
The rest of your blogg couldn't fit with this comment of mine. It is my sentiments exactly. Let's begin here on this note. "
girard74 wrote on Mar 30, 2008 12:20 PM:
That said, I'll give it a rest.
You do agree that Obama has too many skeletons in his closet? Or have you changed your position on that too out of peer pressure?'
Now just why would I ever consider taking you seriously? This is exactly what I've been trying to get through to you on. You ask what appears to be a logical question; and then immediately snipe me with a silly jibe. Again, exactly why are you here? "
Brian wrote on Mar 30, 2008 12:16 PM:
In other words, your'e sticking with the masses that disagree with me. Some people would call that peer pressure.
That said, I'll give it a rest.
You do agree that Obama has too many skeletons in his closet? Or have you changed your position on that too out of peer pressure?
"
girard74 wrote on Mar 30, 2008 12:05 PM:
'Brian - your methodology in your discourse encourages me from 'entertaining your thoughts.'
That should read '...discourages' me from 'entertaining your thoughts.' "
girard74 wrote on Mar 30, 2008 11:56 AM:
Oh no!! Not the hypocrisy label!! I really thought there couldn't possibly be TWO of these on the same blog-block. The truth is slowly emerging; it won't be long now!!
H5! "
girard74 wrote on Mar 30, 2008 11:53 AM:
While asking what might appear to be a logical question, you lace it with comments such as, 'I only say this because of your persistence to proove (sic) me wrong and to keep in good graces with the fray here.'
What you want is something I cannot provide: agreement with you on virtually everything of which you disagree with others on this blog.
Not only is your brand of 'debate' non-productive, it simply isn't pleasurable for me. And I enjoy debating - it is under normal circumstances, fun. "
Brian wrote on Mar 30, 2008 11:27 AM:
Boy you described Leonard here to the T.
How many times has he grandstanded only to be ignored by most. You sir, are a hipocrite. "
Brian wrote on Mar 30, 2008 11:21 AM:
But you can't proove me wrong. You question my sources just like Leonard.
Yet you expect me to continue to provide
sources even though they will be met with pessimism. Am I to conclude that there isn't any source you will agree with? You're just like Leonard. "
Brian wrote on Mar 30, 2008 11:14 AM:
Anything that is older than yesterday is
outmoded.
Liberals consider it an inconvenience
to remember what brought them to this point in time. Hence, those that forget their history are doomed to repeat it. "
girard74 wrote on Mar 30, 2008 11:12 AM:
What exactly do you think I have been doing? By 'build[ing] [you] up,' do you mean that I should simply nod my head and agree with everything you state; that YOUR enemies should be MY enemies; that I should change my method of debate to one that has no basis in fact or truth? Is this how you want me to 'build you up?'
Sorry fella, can't do that; not for YOU, not for NO ONE. (Double negative intended simply because your whole argument is silly.) "
Brian wrote on Mar 30, 2008 11:03 AM:
I only say this because of your persistence to proove me wrong and to keep in good graces with the fray here. "
Brian wrote on Mar 30, 2008 10:57 AM:
Because you're a liberal? "
Brian wrote on Mar 30, 2008 10:55 AM:
It seems to me you're too concerned about me. I'm appalled that you would think that I am engaging in a fight I cannot win. I have only just begun.
Are YOU afraid you might learn something from someone you feel superior to? Go away, you're getting on my nerves. "
girard74 wrote on Mar 30, 2008 10:54 AM:
You should know, Brian, that Wikipedia isn't all that reliable. Much of the information there is from folks like us who simply send them our definitions of different things and they somehow make it to the website. I'm not sure what their vetting system is; but I wouldn't rely solely on that as my reference base. "
Brian wrote on Mar 30, 2008 10:50 AM:
Hense my suspicion that my conservatism
is viewed here from a liberals point of view. Jefferson, Hamilton, and the others are turning over in their graves. "
girard74 wrote on Mar 30, 2008 10:48 AM:
What, you think I care what you think of me? There are those here whose opinions of me do, in fact, matter to me. This is only because over the course of time we've been able to discuss, argue, rant, rave and scream at each other - and then 'walk away' with our self-respect intact as well as a little more respect for our worthy opponents.
This is why I enjoy debating so much; exactly why are you here? "
girard74 wrote on Mar 30, 2008 10:43 AM:
If you don't think that goes both ways, then you are truly deluded.
Like I advised you a short time ago - learn to pick your fights carefully. Anyone who engages in battle knowing full well that they cannot possibly win is foolish, to say the least. "
Brian wrote on Mar 30, 2008 10:39 AM:
You can deny this all you want but facts are facts.
I did check the source. Tell me something else I already know. "
Brian wrote on Mar 30, 2008 10:33 AM:
that this blogg is populated by more liberals than conservatives.
I've seen this many times that when I try to insert some conservatism into a blogg the liberals come out of the woodwork protesting "How Dare You"
Cogito and I are amongst the minority here. I'm dubious Girard and Co. have the slightest idea what conservatism really is. "
voter wrote on Mar 30, 2008 10:29 AM:
But you wouldn't know one way or the other, Brian, because you didn't check it out, like the others here would if they suspected its objectivity. The site was reporting on a peer reviewed study conducted over 30 years by a respected university. Girard is right--you are not marginalized for you opinions, but for the manner in which you conduct yourself. You arrogantly throw out sensational invective and then expect us to do the leg work to "prove" your ridiculous points. Come back when you learn some manners.
H-5 "
Brian wrote on Mar 30, 2008 10:25 AM:
I thought you were of sound mind. I was wrong.
Have a nice day:) "
girard74 wrote on Mar 30, 2008 10:13 AM:
H5! "
girard74 wrote on Mar 30, 2008 10:11 AM:
Off you go now; that's a good little boy. No, you can't play with the big boys here - you'll get hurt. Some day, maybe when you're 50, you'll be capable of contributing something of value. Until then, Sesame Street beckons. "
Brian wrote on Mar 30, 2008 10:08 AM:
Brian wrote on Mar 30, 2008 10:06 AM:
Brian wrote on Mar 30, 2008 10:01 AM:
Real Facts wouldn't kiss Leonard's butt.
And so, what does Leonard do? He marginalizes him. "
girard74 wrote on Mar 30, 2008 10:00 AM:
Brian wrote on Mar 30, 2008 9:58 AM:
This just goes to show how little you know about me too. I am much more capable of discerning things then you give me credit for. You are, in essence, pulling a Leonard as an attempt to prop yourself up and distract us from your shortcomings.
Can we expect some grandstanding from you too? "
Brian wrote on Mar 30, 2008 9:52 AM:
" The article in LiveScience says "The surveys assessed attitudes on politics, economics, race, gender, religion and sexuality issues. In some cases, such as racial issues and questions of civil liberties for communists, the researchers measured a greater change toward liberalism in older people than in younger people."
It would seem that more is at play here than irresponsible savings for retirement. "
Sounds like a left leaning site. Perhaps a little biased. "
girard74 wrote on Mar 30, 2008 9:52 AM:
What you consider 'stupid,' Leonard does not. This is the nature of 'opinion.' You need to pick your fights more carefully. Learn about the person you intend to argue with; there will be certain issues that are simply not debatable - try and understand that. "
girard74 wrote on Mar 30, 2008 9:49 AM:
Leonard, like most of us here, is very opinionated. What you view as 'marginalizing' you is actually an attempt to have you 'back up' that which you so fervently believe.
In debate, there's not much respect for those who support their contentions on passion alone. There needs to be some sort of believable premise underlying the statements put forth; otherwise, it just turns into a brawl. Like I said before, you gotta have thicker skin. "
Brian wrote on Mar 30, 2008 9:45 AM:
His latest rant is that since Worldnetdaily.com has been filtered by the military for a very stupid reason
he doesn't consider it a reputable site even though overall the military as whole, minus the jackoff who decided to filter it, considers it a wealth of good news reporting. WND is a pro-troop site. "
Brian wrote on Mar 30, 2008 9:40 AM:
I'll look up some of his columns that have facts to back this up.
Of course Leonard doesn't like Prager so he'll attempt to dismiss anything he says as hogwash and try to marginalize me as he always does. "
Brian wrote on Mar 30, 2008 9:35 AM:
" Cogito wrote on Mar 29, 2008 11:40 PM:
" Since Lincoln, the last President elected from a new party, we have had twice as many Republican Presidents as Democrats. So it's pretty obvious, America is twice as likely to agree with Republican idealism, or twice as likely to reject what Democrats stand for. Take your pick.
-This proves my point that there is more wisdom in conservatism than liberalism.
AND THIS IS JUST THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG "
girard74 wrote on Mar 30, 2008 8:19 AM:
Tell me you're not this ignorant. You're the one who put forth what you believe to be 'fact' with no supporting evidence. When we are so unreasonable as to ask you where you got your 'statistics,' you actually have the gall to whine about us.
So, here's my analysis. You presented your 'opinion,' based on nothing but your arrogance attempting to pass it off as fact. As such, not only is your premise dismissed you are as well. (IMHO) "
voter wrote on Mar 30, 2008 8:10 AM:
Cogito wrote on Mar 29, 2008 10:23 PM:
Cogito wrote on Mar 29, 2008 10:09 PM:
voter wrote on Mar 29, 2008 10:01 PM:
voter wrote on Mar 29, 2008 9:59 PM:
voter wrote on Mar 29, 2008 9:57 PM:
voter wrote on Mar 29, 2008 9:57 PM:
Cogito wrote on Mar 29, 2008 9:55 PM:
Cogito wrote on Mar 29, 2008 9:53 PM:
voter wrote on Mar 29, 2008 9:50 PM:
It would seem that more is at play here than irresponsible savings for retirement. "
Cogito wrote on Mar 29, 2008 9:41 PM:
voter wrote on Mar 29, 2008 9:18 PM:
http://news.aol.com/story/_a/people-become-more-liberal-with-age/20080311091309990001
"
Leonard wrote on Mar 29, 2008 8:54 PM:
voter wrote on Mar 29, 2008 8:53 PM:
Brian whines, "bloodletting" ??? "you have no idea what I have endured blogging here." ???? !!!!
I think it's time to invoke St. Isidore, Patron Saint of the Internet, for help, Brian, because that's what you'll need to find reputable sources to substantiate your claims.
As for the "injecting humor" part--Amen. "
Leonard wrote on Mar 29, 2008 8:47 PM:
Oh boy, you took the bait and ran with it again. You've got a lot of nerve to say you don't instigate things to further an argument.
Hmmm.... this particular bit of bait tasted very much like cheddar. "
Leonard wrote on Mar 29, 2008 8:46 PM:
Can you cite a single published study that shows that people become more conservative as they gain more wisdom?
A peer reviewed article perhaps?
Or were you really just making that stuff up as you went along? "
Brian wrote on Mar 29, 2008 8:45 PM:
" Brian wrote on Mar 29, 2008 8:28 PM:
It does make for good entertainment
on Leonard's behalf to further the bloodletting.
Bloodletting???
That's what you call a request for a source? Bloodletting?
I think someone is being a bit of a drama queen.
Oh boy, you took the bait and ran with it again. You've got a lot of nerve to say you don't instigate things to further an argument. "
Brian wrote on Mar 29, 2008 8:42 PM:
" Does anyone hear violins playing?
OTH, you just had to ruin the moment with your nauseating reply. "
Leonard wrote on Mar 29, 2008 8:39 PM:
It does make for good entertainment
on Leonard's behalf to further the bloodletting.
Bloodletting???
That's what you call a request for a source? Bloodletting?
I think someone is being a bit of a drama queen. "
OTH wrote on Mar 29, 2008 8:33 PM:
Brian wrote on Mar 29, 2008 8:28 PM:
on Leonard's behalf to further the bloodletting. I can't say many of us haven't enabled him. He does tend to take the bait and run with it.
There is no malice involved, although it seems to look that way at times.
I really enjoy the food for thought I get from these bloggs. Inserting a little bit of drama and humor makes it all that more interesting and entertaining. "
Brian wrote on Mar 29, 2008 8:18 PM:
" I (girard74) wrote, 'Nowhere have I ever read of Leonard threatening you, bullying you or any such tactics to get his point across.
Girard74,And you never saw leonard making claims that I posted a link from a Nazi website. I lost count the numerous occasions when Leonard distorted what I said to suit his agenda. Obviously you have no idea what I have endured blogging here. It seems to me Leonard has you eating out of his hands too all the while many others share my sentiments about Leonard. "
Brian wrote on Mar 29, 2008 8:12 PM:
" girard74 wrote on Mar 29, 2008 2:24 PM:
Nowhere have I ever read of Leonard threatening you, bullying you or any such tactics to get his point across.
To be fair, I think Brian probably meant that he felt threatened by my arguments.
HA HA HA Your flimzy arguments. I can see why Real Facts does what he does to you.
Get over yourself Leonard. "
Brian wrote on Mar 29, 2008 8:09 PM:
" Brian stated, 'There are many studies that back this up. As I'm sure there are studies that back up the contrary.'
Here again you state what appears to be a 'fact' while at the same time stating your 'opinion' regarding '[You’re] sure there are studies ... to the contrary.' You should be able to support your 'fact' with evidence;
So you and your cronies can pick it apart. It's not so outlandish that you can't find these studies for yourself.
I'm tired of Leonard (and now you)
picking me apart. They do exist.
"
Leonard wrote on Mar 29, 2008 6:14 PM:
Nowhere have I ever read of Leonard threatening you, bullying you or any such tactics to get his point across.
To be fair, I think Brian probably meant that he felt threatened by my arguments. "
OTH wrote on Mar 29, 2008 2:50 PM:
voter wrote on Mar 29, 2008 2:33 PM:
girard74 wrote on Mar 29, 2008 2:31 PM:
I also want to point out that I have never heard of or read of Leonard employing such tactics against anyone else. After reading what I originally posted, I felt that perhaps some might conclude that I was playing fast and loose with my words. "
girard74 wrote on Mar 29, 2008 2:24 PM:
Nowhere have I ever read of Leonard threatening you, bullying you or any such tactics to get his point across.
As I've always stated and believe, 'debate' is NEARLY a contact sport; you've got to grow thick skin to get a seat at the table; you've got to have your facts and opinions in good order to retain that seat.
Try to not defend your stand on any issue by accusing others of being 'unfair' or pushing you around. It simply doesn't hold water. "
girard74 wrote on Mar 29, 2008 2:01 PM:
Here again you state what appears to be a 'fact' while at the same time stating your 'opinion' regarding '[You’re] sure there are studies ... to the contrary.' You should be able to support your 'fact' with evidence; you have no obligation to produce any evidence for your 'opinion,' although it would be helpful to advance that opinion further than this one lowly blog. The words ‘are’ and ‘sure there are’ have distinctly different meanings.
Understand? "
girard74 wrote on Mar 29, 2008 1:56 PM:
My response to Leonard, to a large degree acknowledging his humor, was to encourage you to cite the source of your 'statistics.'
I believe in conservative principles, this is true. I do not, however, make broad statements in support of those beliefs without some sort of basis for my contentions.
You stated that you possessed knowledge of these 'stats;' it now behooves you to reveal your source. Otherwise, many might believe that you're simply creating these 'facts' out of whole cloth - that's potentially damaging. "
Brian wrote on Mar 29, 2008 1:56 PM:
But I won't be intimidated. You just keep on making childish remarks to marginalize me and others. I know it makes you feel superior. I will pray for you. "
Brian wrote on Mar 29, 2008 1:50 PM:
It's unfortunate that there are so many who have blind faith for him. "
Brian wrote on Mar 29, 2008 1:47 PM:
as a person matures they become more conservative? There are many studies that back this up. As I'm sure there are studies that back up the contrary. "
Brian wrote on Mar 29, 2008 1:41 PM:
" Brian, what's up with the anti-feminism? How do equal rights for women threaten you? "
Some of those things in my post at 7:52 don't disturb you I see.
Nor did the activites at the folsom street fair disturb you either. You've made that quite clear. "
girard74 wrote on Mar 29, 2008 1:21 PM:
And I, like you, anxiously await his reply in this regard. "
Leonard wrote on Mar 29, 2008 1:04 PM:
While hilarious, I would think permitting Brian to post his source(s) for his claim before starting with the intestinal comic relief would be fair. Very funny, though!!
If the source of Brian's statement was anything other than his colon, I urge him by all means to post it. "
girard74 wrote on Mar 29, 2008 10:57 AM:
Perhaps you're right about Reagan. However, nearly every time I listened to Bill Clinton speak I KNEW that something was decidedly not right. "
OTH wrote on Mar 29, 2008 10:35 AM:
OTH wrote on Mar 29, 2008 10:33 AM:
girard74 wrote on Mar 29, 2008 10:21 AM:
While hilarious, I would think permitting Brian to post his source(s) for his claim before starting with the intestinal comic relief would be fair. Very funny, though!! "
Leonard wrote on Mar 29, 2008 10:05 AM:
At that time the only way to diagnose Alzheimer’s was with an autopsy (ok, no wise jokes here). I believe identifying the disease now, while not exact, is more accurate
They still can't make a positive diagnosis without an autopsy. What can be identified is the symptoms, such as dementia and forgetfulness. I don't think Reagan had progressed as far as dementia while in office. "
Leonard wrote on Mar 29, 2008 10:01 AM:
Statisitics show that as we gain more wisdom we tend to become more conservative.
ROTFLMAO!!!!!
"STATISTICS"???
What statistic, exactly, would those be Brian? Do you have a study that you are citing? Perhaps a Team W government report???
Or... could it possibly be that you are just pulling this absurdly laughable assertion out of the deepest recesses of your colon?
"
sam wrote on Mar 29, 2008 9:44 AM:
sam wrote on Mar 29, 2008 9:42 AM:
G, you are correct. One of my brothers is smack in the middle of Alzheimer’s research. "
girard74 wrote on Mar 29, 2008 9:37 AM:
As ethically, morally and honesty bankrupt as Hillary Clinton is, there is no where on earth she can 'redeem' herself. As I've stated on numerous occasions, this person is simply 'bad' for America. I rarely ever make that distinction about another human or citizen; years of exposure to this toxic excuse for a human being simply permit me to come to this conclusion.
Gee, does anyone think I really don't 'like' Hillary? Sometimes I wonder if I'm being clear. "
voter wrote on Mar 29, 2008 9:37 AM:
girard74 wrote on Mar 29, 2008 9:31 AM:
At that time the only way to diagnose Alzheimer’s was with an autopsy (ok, no wise jokes here). I believe identifying the disease now, while not exact, is more accurate.
Regardless, no one should be prohibited from running for president because he/she is 'old.' The voters, however, should certainly take into consideration not only the age of the person 'when' elected; but also as time rolls on during his/her administration.
It IS a very valid concern. (IMO) (no 'H'). "
sam wrote on Mar 29, 2008 9:27 AM:
adjective
1. of or relating to or advocating equal rights for women
noun
1. a supporter of feminism "
sam wrote on Mar 29, 2008 9:26 AM:
–noun
1. the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.
2. (sometimes initial capital letter) an organized movement for the attainment of such rights for women.
3. feminine character. "
sam wrote on Mar 29, 2008 9:25 AM:
Brian Mar 29, 2008 7:52 AM:
"
sam wrote on Mar 29, 2008 9:23 AM:
" At this point it seems Hillary is just acting out a vendetta against Obama and the voters who robbed her of the nomination that she thinks she deserved."
We, here, have noticed the same thing. She acts like the presidency is "her right", not an elected office.
"
sam wrote on Mar 29, 2008 9:21 AM:
" What do you all think about these rumors that McCain may make Hillary his VP? "
WOW, that would be wierd. "
sam wrote on Mar 29, 2008 9:17 AM:
I believe Obama will take their advise, not give over his presidency to them. There is a huge difference. "
sam wrote on Mar 29, 2008 9:15 AM:
" Will all the feminist supporters of Obama please stand up. "
I am stnding up ! "
Brian wrote on Mar 29, 2008 8:57 AM:
the beast on top of Bill, billed a beast, and a Clintonbeasta. "
OTH wrote on Mar 29, 2008 8:53 AM:
I find that rather disturbing. As far as I know no one bothered to tell the public. I don't want to take away from McCain solely on his age, but when you combine everything together it is concerning.
"
Brian wrote on Mar 29, 2008 8:53 AM:
My sentiments exactly. This is another example of how Obama's skeletons will be his undoing. "
OTH wrote on Mar 29, 2008 8:46 AM:
WY wrote on Mar 29, 2008 8:44 AM:
Brian wrote on Mar 29, 2008 8:29 AM:
Brian wrote on Mar 29, 2008 8:28 AM:
Will we then see a change of heart for the feminist movement? There may be hope for even the most liberal of the liberal movement. "
girard74 wrote on Mar 29, 2008 8:24 AM:
Certainly those are just rumors. 'If' such a scenario were to play out, the screams of agony from both parties would be heard 'round the world!
There would be either a record low turnout for the general election because no one would want to vote for anyone; or else there would be a record high turnout with people voting for Ralph Nader or writing in 'Bozo the Clown.’ My money would be on Bozo. "
Brian wrote on Mar 29, 2008 8:23 AM:
conservatives?
We may very well see her cross the aisle. Statisitics show that as we gain more wisdom we tend to become more conservative. I'll be the first to concragulate her. "
Brian wrote on Mar 29, 2008 8:16 AM:
The skeletons in Obama's closet are far more destructive to his campaign than McCain's will ever be.
"
Brian wrote on Mar 29, 2008 7:59 AM:
" What do you all think about these rumors that McCain may make Hillary his VP? "
It may only be a ploy for those supporting Hillary to look the McCain way if she drops out. My thinking is, he's testing the waters. I'm dubious she will be VP. "
Brian wrote on Mar 29, 2008 7:52 AM:
The feminist prof who helped shield a lying feminist colleague from scrutiny for her misdeeds, resulting in the tarnishing of an innocent man’s reputation
The Northern Kentucky University professor who invited her students to "express their freedom-of-speech rights" by destroying a pro-life display
The Chapel Hill professor who wrote approvingly about erotic relationships between human beings and dogs
The Society for Cutting Up Men Manifesto – an incitement to hatred and violence now enshrined in the library of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
How the feminist movement has college girls acting like prostitutes, talking like prostitutes, and looking like prostitutes
How the feminist attachment to postmodernism has resulted in widespread academic and personal dishonesty
The unhinged professor who tried to destroy Adams’ career by making numerous false charges against him -- including the claim that he sprayed tear gas in her office!
The lesbian coed who boasted in her student newspaper about using federally subsidized student aid money to buy sex toys
The feminist professor who defended homosexual activists who defamed and hurled racist slurs at two women who dared protest a showing of the play The Vagina Monologues
How feminists generally lack the courage to act as individuals -- and, when challenged, often react wildly and with a virtually total lack of self-control
Feminists’ husbands: even more irritating than feminists
The feminist affinity for Communism "
Brian wrote on Mar 29, 2008 7:51 AM:
Leonard wrote on Mar 29, 2008 7:44 AM:
Leonard wrote on Mar 29, 2008 7:39 AM:
Leonard wrote on Mar 29, 2008 7:39 AM:
Many of Obama's supporters probably felt like they were being thrown under the bus when the words of Rev. Wright came to the surface. Only then did Obama distance himself from the man.
This won't go away any time soon. He may get the nomination. He will be scared of McCain.
Obama addressed this issue in a speech that has drawn accolades from across the political spectrum. He has moved on.
At this point, I think those in the Clinton/McCain camp who are chanting this mantra are just making fools of themselves. "
Brian wrote on Mar 29, 2008 7:32 AM:
" Does anyone realize what Howard Dean did this morning? By insisting that the 'super'delegates decide who they support by July 1 (in order to avoid problems at the convention), he just changed the course of this nomination.
It just goes to show the Dems will do anything to get back in the White House.
And to those that question them...
HOW DARE YOU!
"
Brian wrote on Mar 29, 2008 7:24 AM:
Many of Obama's supporters probably felt like they were being thrown under the bus when the words of Rev. Wright came to the surface. Only then did Obama distance himself from the man.
This won't go away any time soon. He may get the nomination. He will be scared of McCain. "
Brian wrote on Mar 29, 2008 7:10 AM:
And then sheo goes on to write: Voter... After the Frontline "Bush's War" I am well aware of how the "advisors" can take control. Scary stuff. "
So, given her take on Obama is he lacks knowledge she gives him a pass. Will his advisors take control too? Most likely. Scary Stuff.
"
girard74 wrote on Mar 28, 2008 9:42 PM:
Valid concerns demanding honest answers. While any natural citizen over the age of 35 may seek the office, not all are qualified to attain it for a number of valid reasons. Age by itself is not necessarily valid; yet advanced age resulting in faulty memory or simply the lack of energy to keep up with the daily rigor may be valid. "
OTH wrote on Mar 28, 2008 8:45 PM:
Campaigning has got to be tough even for the younger candidates. This is just my opinion but this man has got to be feeling some major discomfort.
Could his misstatements be from fatigue and chronic discomfort? "
sam wrote on Mar 28, 2008 8:37 PM:
Voter, nicely said.
Jeez I wish I had a "pasta" saying apporpriate for the occasion. "
sam wrote on Mar 28, 2008 8:36 PM:
G, I love being a chick. GO WITH YOUR GUT. My gut feelings have been amazingly accurate.
Go with your gut. "
sam wrote on Mar 28, 2008 8:33 PM:
Voter... After the Frontline "Bush's War" I am well aware of how the "advisors" can take control. Scary stuff. "
sam wrote on Mar 28, 2008 8:28 PM:
AMEN. That is why I love the guy. He does not react emotionally, does not throw his friends under the bus, and he has class. Hey, if he lacks knowledge on a topic, he has proven to me that he will hire the appropriate advisors. "
sam wrote on Mar 28, 2008 8:24 PM:
I guess I felt safe throwing my arguement into your FACE.
Oops.. sorry. I will try to pay attention. "
Brian wrote on Mar 28, 2008 8:18 PM:
This is the esssence of Obama's appeal.
This blind faith that people have that this man will transform this country has me worried given he has no idea where to start. I'm looking forward to seeing what cabinet position he'll be giving to Farakhan. Perhaps the office of Racial Equality.
"
voter wrote on Mar 28, 2008 7:46 PM:
girard74 wrote on Mar 28, 2008 7:40 PM:
Further inquiry revealed that this woman hadn't voted since 1968; wasn't registered and really didn't know who Obama was and why he should be allowed to run (his name caused her to believe he wasn't even a citizen). I had to laugh. "
girard74 wrote on Mar 28, 2008 7:36 PM:
C'mon voter - no one's talking about perfection here. We're talking about integrity and judgment.
I believe that if more people approached their 'courting' with a little more care, perhaps there would be less spousal abuse and/or divorce. The same might be said regarding who we (collectively as the nation) choose as our president. (IMHO) "
voter wrote on Mar 28, 2008 7:31 PM:
girard74 wrote on Mar 28, 2008 7:26 PM:
And then one day you discover something about this person that causes you to pause and think. You approach this guy/gal and ask for an explanation about this matter. He/she gives you an explanation that doesn't quite lessen your concerns - yet he/she implores you to simply 'trust' him/her and everything will be alright. Do you marry him/her?
Why would we 'marry' anyone as president under similar circumstances? "
girard74 wrote on Mar 28, 2008 7:08 PM:
That is what needs to be determined if, in fact, there is a discrepancy worth investigation. No, I'm not backing off of McCain. However, this guy has found himself in the enviable/unenviable position of running his general campaign by himself in March.
From what I've heard from Obama and Clinton regarding their economic solutions, there appears to be a question as to how these programs will be 'paid' for.
The general election doesn't begin until September. Lots of questions to be asked/answered. "
voter wrote on Mar 28, 2008 7:03 PM:
girard74 wrote on Mar 28, 2008 6:56 PM:
At this point in the 'game' McCain is already attempting to run his presidential campaign while the Democrats continue to duke it out. McCain is being cautious, as well he should be - he's got the luxury of time to pump up his image while at the same time determine how and when he will put forth his actual platform. Time will certainly tell. "
girard74 wrote on Mar 28, 2008 6:51 PM:
Just to be clear, when I stated, '...to name but a few,...' of matters requiring examination and scrutiny for McCain (and everyone else), I wasn't kidding. "
Leonard wrote on Mar 28, 2008 6:47 PM:
"
OTH, politics are personal. I do understand that. I just do not understand why people "throw everything" at Obama yet it is a No No to talk about Monica, Paula Jones, and MOST important Bill's perjury. Yeah, he is trustworthy all right.... "I did not sexual relations with that woman."
The fact that Obama has refused to go negative in the face of almost absurd provocation is one of the reasons why he has my support. "
voter wrote on Mar 28, 2008 6:46 PM:
girard74 wrote on Mar 28, 2008 6:07 PM:
Sam - you must have me mixed up with someone else. I haven't 'attacked' any of these candidates. Most recently, in support of my belief that Obama can choose to befriend anyone he chooses, I even expressed my opinion that Wright is not 'un-American' as so many have suggested. He, like all of us, has his right to speak what he believes. From what I have heard from and about him, I simply don't agree with him.
As far as all the presidential candidates are concerned, Obama included, my stance has always been to judge them based upon their ‘fitness’ and their ‘judgment’. That’s it. Obama’s relationship with his pastor, while certainly permissible and understandable, does raise questions as to his sense of ‘judgment’. Is this choice of pastor, friend, and mentor indicative of how he will manage his personal or professional relationships as our president? Obama has recently somewhat ‘denounced’ what Wright has espoused during the past 20 years that he (Obama) has been a member of Wright’s church; but what was the impetus for this denunciation? Was it truly because he believes Wright is ‘on the fringe’ or was it simply out of political expediency? These are valid questions and concerns that I, as someone who will consider him ‘my’ president if he wins, am rightfully deserving of answers.
When Obama burst on the scene I, like many others, were impressed with his ‘presence.’ He speaks well; he doesn’t belittle his opponents; he seems to be the ‘genuine’ article. Recent events surrounding his believability have left me scratching my head; just ‘who’ is the real Obama? Is he just like every other politician? This goes to the man’s integrity – his ‘fitness’ for the enormous position that he desires so badly. I’m not suggesting that you (sam and anyone else) follow these same criterions in determining who you should vote for – that’s as personal as the choice you decide to make.
Ah, but then there’s Hillary Clinton! I’ve tried not to be secretive in my opinion of her – I loathe Hillary. I do not believe one word of what comes out of her mouth, regardless of the subject matter. It is my well-researched belief that she ‘has been,’ ‘is,’ and ‘will be’ bad for America. Under no circumstances will I ever cast a vote for her. In fact, I switched parties for the California primary for the sole reason of voting against her; and I do not believe my vote to have been wasted, regardless of the outcome of that contest. I have recently submitted a Letter-to-the-Editor regarding an aspect of Hillary heretofore not explored or exposed (from what I have been able to discern).
In response to someone insisting that I’ve been giving McCain a pass (in that case on the matter of his ‘advanced age’) and that I don’t apply the same standard to him, I sincerely suggested that every aspect of McCain’s background, prior statements, experience and age, to name but a few, are and most certainly should be open to full disclosure and scrutiny. This is the most important job on earth, and that’s not just my ‘opinion.’ As such, EVERYTHING about those desiring the job should be investigated. "
sam wrote on Mar 28, 2008 4:46 PM:
... and I do know you are being sarcastic..hee hee. "
OTH wrote on Mar 28, 2008 4:00 PM:
OTH wrote on Mar 28, 2008 3:59 PM:
"
OTH wrote on Mar 28, 2008 3:53 PM:
I answered my on question, I just don't vote for him. That was easy.
Now if he is elected and the country falls furthur into the abyss people who did vote for him will know why. The rest of us are just screwed. "
sam wrote on Mar 28, 2008 11:53 AM:
Well there ya have it. Look who Hill is sleeping with. I would hardly call Bill "trustworthy". You attack Obama for not denouncing his minister even though he denounced parts of his sermon, but say nothing about about who Hillary sleeps with. "
girard74 wrote on Mar 28, 2008 8:03 AM:
Now you're either being disingenuous or you are simply uninformed. McCain's admittance that economics is not his strong point served two goals: it DOES provide the voter with more information as to whether or not to vote for him; and it indicates that McCain is being honest regarding different aspects of the job which he seeks.
NO candidate is an 'expert' on all things the president is responsible for. That's why he must surround himself with people who can honestly and ethically advise him on all matters. "
OTH wrote on Mar 28, 2008 7:59 AM:
girard74 wrote on Mar 28, 2008 7:58 AM:
Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Kentucky, et al., no longer have the same value as they did yesterday. Knowing that these states would not fully decide who wins, at least without calling in these Party Hacks to 'fix' the problem, there was a purpose for campaigning vigorously - perhaps giving a more positive reason for settling the matter at the convention. Dean just screwed the Party(again). "
OTH wrote on Mar 28, 2008 7:55 AM:
All McCain says is "I'm don't know much about economics." Helllllooooo You're running for President. That's just not going to cut it, as he was saying the same thing years ago. Surely at some point he could have picked up some basics? He voted on spending bills without knowing finance or economics? Even the basics? You want to talk scary stupid? Maybe his lobbying pals will take uptheslack. "
girard74 wrote on Mar 28, 2008 7:47 AM:
In two subsequent sentences you offer good, thoughtful reasons why this process should continue.
Could it be that you believe the Democrats' candidates are ready for prime-time and the Republican nominee is not?
I suggest that the majority of American voters would disagree with you on both points.
As far as us having to 'trust' someone - who says so? "
girard74 wrote on Mar 28, 2008 7:25 AM:
Sure, if you've made your decision, fine. However, 'time' is on our side (Rolling Stones) is a good thing here. The more we 'scrutinize' the better - there's no such thing as 'too much' as it pertains to the Presidency.
Don't worry, McCain will get his 'due' during the general election. I stated on a previous blog that perhaps the Republicans had ended their primary too soon; I wasn't kidding.
All of this is good for our country; not bad at all. "
Lodian wrote on Mar 28, 2008 12:25 AM:
"
Cogito wrote on Mar 27, 2008 11:48 PM:
Cogito wrote on Mar 27, 2008 11:46 PM:
Cogito wrote on Mar 27, 2008 11:40 PM:
OTH wrote on Mar 27, 2008 11:20 PM:
McCain is getting a free pass from the Democrats because they're so busy accusing each other of wearing the wrong color underwear.
McCain has no economic policy, he says we will stay in Iraq until we "win", whatever the hell that means. His health could be a factor as well as his age. "
girard74 wrote on Mar 27, 2008 10:20 PM:
And for you that should be perfectly good for anyone else.
However, you aren't running for President of the United States. You don’t want to be the 'Leader of the Free World.' Obama wants this position. In order to convince the majority of the people that he is 'fit' requires that he be trustworthy. More than that, however, is that he must exhibit the character necessary to make real tough decisions. As such, his personal history is open to scrutiny-as it should be. "
Lodian wrote on Mar 27, 2008 9:35 PM:
"
sam wrote on Mar 27, 2008 9:28 PM:
OTH wrote on Mar 27, 2008 8:55 PM:
Having said that I would not for anything throw any one them under a bus in anyway. Friends don't do that to friends.
If Obama says Rev Wright is his friend and he is serious,it's good enough for me. "
girard74 wrote on Mar 27, 2008 8:32 PM:
If, as many now believe very well may occur, Clinton is awarded the nomination by way of these party 'leaders,' we will be witness to a revolution in Denver the likes of which has not been seen at a political event since the summer of '68 in Chicago. (IMHO) "
sam wrote on Mar 27, 2008 5:17 PM:
sam wrote on Mar 27, 2008 5:17 PM:
Don't be afraid to listen and judge for yourself. "
sam wrote on Mar 27, 2008 5:15 PM:
sam wrote on Mar 27, 2008 5:13 PM:
sam wrote on Mar 27, 2008 5:12 PM:
girard74 wrote on Mar 27, 2008 4:27 PM:
'Arguably' being the operative word. There are others who believe that it was one of the best 'side-stepping,' self-serving, issue-evading speeches made in all history. I lean toward the latter. "
scout wrote on Mar 27, 2008 3:42 PM:
scout wrote on Mar 27, 2008 3:42 PM:
"
Bry wrote on Mar 27, 2008 2:12 PM:
Bry wrote on Mar 27, 2008 2:02 PM:
sam wrote on Mar 27, 2008 8:41 AM:
Bry wrote on Mar 27, 2008 3:02 AM:
Gator wrote on Mar 24, 2008 8:49 AM:
other political hack, scratch off the
surface and what do you see?? Just a
silver tongue snake oil salesman.He layed down with the wolves for 20 years so I would say he came away with a few
fleas...So before you all get pithy
I will say The Rev Wright is no better
or worse than Pat Robertson or Jerry
Falwell.None of them follow Jesus's or
Martin Luther Kings teachings which is
total forgiveness. Which if continued
could get them a very warm afterlife
"
Cogito wrote on Mar 23, 2008 9:20 PM:
Cogito wrote on Mar 23, 2008 8:45 PM:
Cogito wrote on Mar 23, 2008 8:41 PM:
Cogito wrote on Mar 23, 2008 8:33 PM:
Cogito wrote on Mar 23, 2008 8:29 PM:
Lodian wrote on Mar 23, 2008 5:49 PM:
Lodian wrote on Mar 23, 2008 5:48 PM:
girard74 wrote on Mar 23, 2008 10:52 AM:
Yeah, and I've heard many things come from Maher that make me afraid about him (Maher). "
WY wrote on Mar 23, 2008 10:34 AM:
WY wrote on Mar 23, 2008 10:33 AM:
WY wrote on Mar 23, 2008 10:33 AM:
WY wrote on Mar 23, 2008 10:32 AM:
WY wrote on Mar 23, 2008 10:31 AM:
HE has Risen...
And He brought the rabit taboot! Now it's time to relax and EAT!
You all have a great Day! >oO; "
sam wrote on Mar 23, 2008 10:30 AM:
He said McCain is a warrior who is dumb about war. Now that is a scary thought. "
girard74 wrote on Mar 23, 2008 10:21 AM:
These are legitimate concerns that his opposition, as well as we, should hold him accountable to answer. "
girard74 wrote on Mar 23, 2008 10:16 AM:
Even if it had been but the one instance, his age would/should give rise to the concern about handing over such responsibility.
Okay, I'll take more flak for this, but there are many who believe Reagan was 'asleep at the wheel' during much of the later years of his presidency. (Hold down the laughter!!)
It is because of just that thought that age has become so important. I've wanted to be president but because of my physical limitations, I resist the urge to run. If it wasn’t because of this old body of mine giving out, I’d be a shoe-in!!! I’d be President G. Oooh, I’d be known as “G” much like “W”!! Whatta ya think? Cool, huh? "
sam wrote on Mar 23, 2008 10:10 AM:
It was not the one time... it happened 3 times on that trip. The same mis comment. That scares me. "
girard74 wrote on Mar 23, 2008 9:27 AM:
Recently in the Middle East, McCain stated something erroneous about Iran and al Qaeda; he immediately corrected himself (granted after Lieberman whispered in his ear). Did that end my concern? No.
Age IS an issue with McCain (one of many, I'm sure). Therefore, it needs to be determined if these 'mistakes' are somehow related to his advanced age and possibly something more serious than just the pressures of being in a campaign. Everything should be evaluated. "
girard74 wrote on Mar 23, 2008 9:17 AM:
First, I’m not offended and I don't believe the statement was a mistake (and I didn’t characterize it as such). Yet, I do believe it will come back to haunt him. Many people will ask if Obama’s grandmother truly is HIS ‘vision' of a white person that he stated as ‘typical.’ It’s a legitimate question. And there ARE those who will use that statement to further their hatred against Obama simply because he IS black.
Second, I am all for the open dialogue. As for who should be the president, it is important to understand a candidate's position on all matters, race included.
If I believe that Obama's (or anyone's) stand on race (or any other matter) runs contrary to my understanding of the qualifications for the job, I must take that into consideration before voting. That’s all. "
sam wrote on Mar 23, 2008 9:03 AM:
sam wrote on Mar 23, 2008 9:03 AM:
"
girard74 wrote on Mar 23, 2008 8:58 AM:
I really 'hope' you don't believe that I wish to avoid the word or the concept.
My life is based upon 'hope.' Hope that my cancer won't return. Unfortunately, I know that just 'hope' won't guarantee that for which I want; reality often dishes out something entirely different. "
sam wrote on Mar 23, 2008 8:57 AM:
sam wrote on Mar 23, 2008 8:56 AM:
OTH wrote on Mar 23, 2008 8:56 AM:
girard74 wrote on Mar 23, 2008 8:56 AM:
sam wrote on Mar 23, 2008 8:55 AM:
I need to stop blogging and enjoy the jammie mode. "
OTH wrote on Mar 23, 2008 8:55 AM:
Instead of saying you don't believe Kennedy should be used as an example.
Nothing wrong with it you chose to use the same word you wanted to avoid.
I'm off to watch Russert. I'll be back.:) "
girard74 wrote on Mar 23, 2008 8:53 AM:
sam wrote on Mar 23, 2008 8:52 AM:
HA ha ha...
"
sam wrote on Mar 23, 2008 8:51 AM:
see:
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://images.crateandbarrel.com/is/image/CrateandBarrel/ContemporaryNS12InchWok%3F%24lg%24&imgrefurl=http://www.crateandbarrel.com/family.aspx%3Fc%3D490%26f%3D2151&h=290&w=290&sz=8&hl=en&start=3&um=1&tbnid=oWVNpc0XxgLm1M:&tbnh=115&tbnw=115&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dwok%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dsafari%26rls%3Den-us%26sa%3DN
"
girard74 wrote on Mar 23, 2008 8:47 AM:
girard74 wrote on Mar 23, 2008 8:46 AM:
No, a wok is what you throw at the wabbitt. "
girard74 wrote on Mar 23, 2008 8:45 AM:
Of course not!! Hope is wonderful thing; it's essential for humans to have hope in order to get from one day to the next.
In the political arena hope is just as valuable; however, such 'hope' must be tempered by common sense and an acceptance of reality. "
OTH wrote on Mar 23, 2008 8:45 AM:
OTH wrote on Mar 23, 2008 8:42 AM:
We settle for the SSDD candidate every time?
I for one get tired of looking over the ballot at all the candidates names and saying "Is that all there is?" And then you start thinking okay which is the lesser of 2 evils? "
girard74 wrote on Mar 23, 2008 8:41 AM:
sam wrote on Mar 23, 2008 8:41 AM:
AWKKKKKKKKKKKKKK "
sam wrote on Mar 23, 2008 8:39 AM:
Perfect !! "
sam wrote on Mar 23, 2008 8:38 AM:
Then he asked me what "Oral Sex" was. At 6 years old. I decided to throw it back to him asking what he thinks it is. He said he figured it was like oral reading, you just talk a lot while having sex. Works for me. But again the dialogue started and continued from there. "
girard74 wrote on Mar 23, 2008 8:37 AM:
girard74 wrote on Mar 23, 2008 8:36 AM:
Hey, I love PBS. That's where I got my latest Glen Campbell CD. "
OTH wrote on Mar 23, 2008 8:35 AM:
I know, I know PBS is a left wing commie outfit. So What?:) "
sam wrote on Mar 23, 2008 8:34 AM:
I talked to them separately, one being a boy and the youngest a girl.
The girl was easy. "Oh thats what those dogs are doing. The boy shoots babies into the the girl with his penis gun." Sounds good to me. We kept that dialogue open for the next 26 years. "
girard74 wrote on Mar 23, 2008 8:32 AM:
I was hoping that Kennedy would not be used as an example.
Yes, Kennedy ran on a 'hope' platform. He was eloquent, handsome and young. He spoke well, even with that Boston accent.
We'll never know just how 'great' he might have been. His legacy is not in his greatness; it is in his sacrifice – he is revered for all that he gave up at the hands of his assassin.
Let’s not forget that the only reason Kennedy was in Texas in November of 1963 was because he was in trouble; he had to shore up the southern vote to insure his re-election the following year. Remember the Bay of Pigs; was that not a fiasco?
I love Kennedy as much as anyone. I was in 1st grade in New Jersey on that day. I remember the whisper from the principal to my teacher; her leaving the room in tears and the announcement that school was ending early and that we were to go straight home. Those of us who had the capacity to remember will never forget. "
OTH wrote on Mar 23, 2008 8:31 AM:
So far I haven't seen the Wascally Wabbit but my cats are looking awful smug this morning. Maybe I'm wrong.:) "
OTH wrote on Mar 23, 2008 8:27 AM:
sam wrote on Mar 23, 2008 8:27 AM:
I hope so too.
Hey, Happy Easter to you... and happy first weekend of Spring !! "
OTH wrote on Mar 23, 2008 8:25 AM:
When something like Rev. Wrights speech which is brutally honest hits people in the face they think "oh no hate speech. Racism." Why is it when we as white's say those things, it's free speech? When a black, Hispanic or any other race says them it's hate speech?
We can't have it both ways. And the hatemongers like the gasbag Limbaugh need to be dethroned. "
girard74 wrote on Mar 23, 2008 8:25 AM:
Accepted. I believe, however, based upon what I now know of the man, and how other 'great men' (not to the exclusion of women) have started their political careers, Obama will probably not be included in that esteemed category.
I could, however, be wrong. Wow, did I really say that? Remember how Fonzie couldn't say 'wwrro...'? "
girard74 wrote on Mar 23, 2008 8:19 AM:
But as a father of daughters, there were some things that I was so thankful my wife took care of; the first period; the ‘training’ bra; etc. Yet, there was one subject that I could not pawn off onto anyone else – sex. As my girls got older if I even used the word ‘sex’ in their presence their eyes would grow wide, their noses would crinkle and they’d hold their hands over their ears exclaiming, ‘No daddy, don’t say that word!’ It was a dilemma for me because regardless of their embarrassment and incessant denials to listen, I simply HAD to talk with them. So, whenever it was necessary to bring up the subject I would simply start by saying, ‘Sex, sex, sex, sex, sex.’ And for awhile they’d react as they always did. But after some time, just the ‘word’ was accepted into their lexicon (between they and I) and more importantly, my being able to utter the word opened the door for me to discuss the subject with them. Unfortunately, as they grew older, I learned possibly more than ‘I’ wanted to due to the relaxed nature of our relationship. But I wouldn’t change those relationships for anything.
Such is the nature of ‘racism.’ As long as we continue to exhibit our fear by saying ‘N’ word (as one example) during what should be rational, open discussions of the subject, how can we ever expect to resolve the problems at its heart? When Jeremiah Wright’s sermons were first aired, the ‘N’ word was permitted to be heard; yet after a short while the familiar ‘bleep’ was inserted so as to preserve our sensibilities (translated, ‘diminish our fears’). Gee, did the ‘bleep’ remove the word? Or better yet, did the ‘bleep’ dispose of its meaning? Did the ‘bleep’ solve the problem? No answer from me is necessary.
As long as we ‘bleep’ over these issues, we’ll never get a ‘bleeping’ thing done. (IMHO) "
OTH wrote on Mar 23, 2008 8:17 AM:
OTH wrote on Mar 23, 2008 8:13 AM:
I hardily agree we have come a long way and still have a long way to go towards racial equality or whatever you want to call it. The us and them mentality no longer works in this country other to be devisive.
Is Obama the one to help facilitate that beginning? I for one would like to think so.
When you talk to people who remember what it was like with John Kennedy, the hope people felt. I'm not comparing the men, I'm comparing the feelings of hope people had. "
sam wrote on Mar 23, 2008 8:10 AM:
I also believe there will be more speeches on the topic. Racism is alive in this country. It has improved with time... or is it just well hidden?? "
sam wrote on Mar 23, 2008 8:05 AM:
"His one statement about his grandmother being a ‘typical white woman’ is going to haunt him unlike anything else."
His words accuarately discribe my Mother, my Mother-in-Law, my Grandma, my Aunts and most females (yes white) I know over 70.
Again, talking Black and White is difficult. "
sam wrote on Mar 23, 2008 8:01 AM:
"truly great men didn’t speak of things that were ‘easy’ or that simply made those who listened ‘feel’ good. The really great ones exhibited the courage and resolve to speak those things which, while uncomfortable and repulsive to our ears, simply needed to be said."
"
girard74 wrote on Mar 23, 2008 8:00 AM:
I submit that had Obama not found himself in the quandary he is now in, that speech would never have been conceived, written or delivered. He believed he HAD to make that speech in order for him to continue on his quest to become the President of the United States; not to ‘lift up’ Americans; not to further any just cause; no, he spoke simply to further his political aspirations. This is not the hallmark of any great man.
The amazing thing is that Obama simply didn’t need to make the speech at all. Regardless of the pundits OR the opinion polls; if Obama truly believed that he had done nothing wrong, why would he have felt the need to speak? If he truly believed that he ‘is’ the right man to be the president, why could he have not simply relied upon those very characteristics and qualifications that he has been insisting make him so qualified?
Nevertheless, that speech will prove to be much more than a ‘distraction’ if Obama is to become the Democrats’ nominee. His one statement about his grandmother being a ‘typical white woman’ is going to haunt him unlike anything else. For a man who, up until recent events, tried so desperately to ignore (or at the very least separate) race as an issue in this election, those three words have virtually guaranteed that much of the tenor of the general election will certainly be focused on racial issues. Irony is ironic, isn’t it? (IMHO) "
girard74 wrote on Mar 23, 2008 7:41 AM:
Wright’s mindset on race, while opinion, are also factual. I’ve listened to what he claims; there IS a history of government-sanctioned infecting of blacks with terrible diseases; who can say for certain that HIV/AIDS or any other disease is not transmitted in a similar fashion. I don’t believe it, but who can deny that it may just be possible.
One of the more disturbing statements by Wright was his ‘God Damn America’ speech. I HAVE listened to it and regardless of how he intended it to be received, Wright was absolutely accurate. There are many of us who actually believe that God, for whatever reason, has seen fit to bestow his own personal ‘blessing’ on America to the exclusion of all other nations on earth. Personally, I would like to believe that at the very least, the concept of our nation is something that God approves. But Wright, unlike many of us, believes that God doesn’t just look at what we would ‘like’ to be; He looks at who we are. And we have done and continue to do appalling things individually and as a nation. No, Wright wasn’t even suggesting that God ‘has’ damned America. One doesn’t even need to listen very closely to understand exactly what he is ‘asking’ God to do. Because of all the injustice, hatred, hypocrisy, etc., Wright was actually uttering an ‘open-eyed’ prayer ASKING that God damn America. It is clear (to me) that Wright was ‘suggesting’ that perhaps if God were to somehow change how the majority of us believes He views us, maybe we’d begin to institute some real change.
Free thought and speech, the cornerstone of this Democracy, is often taken for granted. Yet our history is clear that the truly great men didn’t speak of things that were ‘easy’ or that simply made those who listened ‘feel’ good. The really great ones exhibited the courage and resolve to speak those things which, while uncomfortable and repulsive to our ears, simply needed to be said. This is precisely what Reverend Wright has done in his church in Chicago. Reverend Wright is a true American in every sense of the word. "
sam wrote on Mar 22, 2008 10:48 PM:
girard74 wrote on Mar 22, 2008 10:42 PM:
Promise? What promise? "
sam wrote on Mar 22, 2008 10:36 PM:
Good night. Sweet dreams about all those yummy candies that rascally rabbit is bringing you... now that you promised not to make stew out of him. "
girard74 wrote on Mar 22, 2008 10:34 PM:
sam wrote on Mar 22, 2008 10:31 PM:
But if you are tired, just say good night. "
girard74 wrote on Mar 22, 2008 10:26 PM:
Now, I'll shut up. "
girard74 wrote on Mar 22, 2008 10:24 PM:
If correct, Limbaugh actually led his followers to possibly give Texas to Clinton a few weeks ago. By instructing them to vote for her in order to throw the Democrats into chaos was irresponsible and incredibly immature.
Sean Hannity may very well be stupid. His constant railing about Wright has long since lost its luster. One needs to realize that once their point is made, wisdom dictates when they should shut up.
I'll shut up now. "
sam wrote on Mar 22, 2008 10:21 PM:
"
voter wrote on Mar 22, 2008 10:18 PM:
sam wrote on Mar 22, 2008 10:16 PM:
girard74 wrote on Mar 22, 2008 10:12 PM:
I would expect, if it was revealed that I placed a very high level of respect on such a 'host' that at the very least my judgment would be questioned, yes.
Would YOU vote for a man who consistently listed to Limbaugh, was a 'premium member' and had welcomed him into his home time after time?
Is Obama no less than a 20-year-'premium member' of his church which espouses certain beliefs? Shouldn't we evaluate his judgment? "
girard74 wrote on Mar 22, 2008 10:00 PM:
On all of the networks over the past two weeks any time someone has attempted to address the issue of 'integrity' and 'fitness for the job,' 'racism' has nearly always reared its ugly head - by both blacks and non-blacks. The non-blacks based upon their political orientation.
Who is Obama (or anyone) kidding? Does he really believe that there can be rational discourse about race in this campaign? Now, that's naïve. "
voter wrote on Mar 22, 2008 9:53 PM:
girard74 wrote on Mar 22, 2008 9:51 PM:
How can one accuse another of racism when they practice an identical form of racism as an attack against it? Confusing? You bet it is; but think about it.
It wouldn’t be so confusing if we could all simply discuss it. But we aren’t there yet. "
girard74 wrote on Mar 22, 2008 9:46 PM:
I didn't state otherwise. Read my post closely. I asked you if that statement was racist. There is an ellipse before the quote to save words. I stand by the rest of my post.
The swimming example is raised simply to illustrate that it is somehow ‘illegal’ to even discuss the prospect; even if it discards it.
There are, however, certain things which are inherently racial. "
sam wrote on Mar 22, 2008 9:31 PM:
voter wrote on Mar 22, 2008 9:29 PM:
voter wrote on Mar 22, 2008 9:23 PM:
girard74 wrote on Mar 22, 2008 7:59 PM:
How is this racist? This is a sentiment advanced not only by our government, but by everyone who believes that illegal aliens should be granted immunity. If this is not true, then that argument ('arguably' a strong one in many folks' opinion not to deport 12 million people) is destroyed. What then?
Yeah, we've got a very, very long way to go before we're able to sit down and have a serious conversation on race and racial issues. "
girard74 wrote on Mar 22, 2008 7:45 PM:
Yet, as I've stated below, there are those who lay the blanket completely over groups of people as racist, often because they don't share the same political affiliation or ideology.
I'm not looking for 'fairness' here - I'm searching desperately for 'right' and 'wrong.' "
girard74 wrote on Mar 22, 2008 7:41 PM:
When I lived in North Philadelphia (90% black), it was understood that most (black people) didn't like to swim. Now, that was not to mean that ALL black people didn't like to swim. Yet, it was a 'fact' as it existed there. To mention this 'fact' is now considered racism. Things are crazy!
I raise these absurd examples because I believe that most of the ‘racism’ being leveled back and forth is just that, absurd. Unless, of course, the ‘racism’ card is used to advance one political party over another – then it’s treated seriously by certain news outlets. All Republicans are racist. Liberals are unifying. Republicans-bad; Liberals-good. Is that not discrimination by itself.
The madness goes on and on.
Even here, the blanket statement about ‘talk show hosts’ and how they’re going to now respond to a black and Hispanic (actually, Mexican was stated) on the same ticket. Does no one see the hypocrisy in that? "
girard74 wrote on Mar 22, 2008 7:33 PM:
My position with Obama has always been about his 'integrity' and his 'fitness to be the president.' I've never addressed Wright's words as racist, because I don't think they were. I believe some were un-American. It was based upon these beliefs that I question Obama's judgment.
Obama's not being candid about this entire episode goes to the heart of his 'integrity.'
Yet, it seems everything gets right back to 'race.' How can we have dialogue when we're not permitted to talk? "
voter wrote on Mar 22, 2008 7:18 PM:
voter wrote on Mar 22, 2008 7:15 PM:
voter wrote on Mar 22, 2008 7:11 PM:
girard74 wrote on Mar 22, 2008 7:05 PM:
I'm no racist. Yet just the 'fear' of being labeled such is so great that there simply cannot be an intelligent discussion about it.
We haven't evolved very far, have we? Either a slip of the tongue or an innocent word or someone repeating, verbatim, what a black person may have said is branded racist because he/she is not black and not 'permitted' to say such a thing. We've got a long way to go. "
girard74 wrote on Mar 22, 2008 6:53 PM:
On the issue of 'Halfrican American,' if one simply takes a step back, breathes deeply for a moment and then examines this clearly. What do we get from this?
Is this truly racist? It is true that Barack is 'half' black and 'half' white. There is no politically correct term to describe a person with such a heritage. Certainly we wouldn't want to refer to this aspect of the man by the old term, would we?
Limbaugh is a satirist- he doesn’t ‘discriminate’ against anyone. All are fair game in his humor. I suppose the problem with Limbaugh, in particular, is that many of his fans take what he says too seriously. I never have. In fact, as he began showing true signs of hypocrisy (unrelated to race, because I have yet to uncover any signs there) in his personal life, I moved away from listening to him.
There ARE racists among us and the majority of them are not as identifiable as we might like to believe. Their racism is much deeper and darker. Limbaugh is a clown – everything is right out in the open. "
sam wrote on Mar 22, 2008 6:41 PM:
By the logic of the clip, tara is just calling herself white trash, if her Mom is white.
I guess racism is alive and thriving. It is so sad and so pathetic. "
voter wrote on Mar 22, 2008 6:36 PM:
voter wrote on Mar 22, 2008 6:12 PM:
girard74 wrote on Mar 22, 2008 6:01 PM:
Even while many scream about taking Wright's comments into 'context,' there is refusal by those same folks to apply that to anyone else.
While provocative and outlandish, songs like the one referred to here have only attempted to reveal the thoughts and actions of those who claim not to be racist; Sharpton, Biden and others.
I'm not a Limbaugh fan, having other issues with his character, but delving deeper the title of a song, he clearly is not racist. (IMHO) "
voter wrote on Mar 22, 2008 4:32 PM:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200704120010
"
sam wrote on Mar 22, 2008 4:31 PM:
sam wrote on Mar 22, 2008 4:27 PM:
sam wrote on Mar 22, 2008 4:26 PM:
I can just hear him now. He may need to increase his oxycontin.
G, I used to love listening to Rush, many years ago. Then he went from wierd to really wierd. Or, maybe I grew up. "
voter wrote on Mar 22, 2008 4:26 PM:
girard74 wrote on Mar 22, 2008 4:03 PM:
What do YOU think they would 'say?' I've listened to talk radio for years. Never, and I mean NEVER has race been the subject unless it was being discussed because it 'exists' (the existence of race) or to condemn racism. This notion that radio commentators are race-baiting, radical-right conservatives is nonsense. It simply is not true.
I won't suggest to those who believe this tripe to just listen to a broadcast because I know they won't listen. "
real facts wrote on Mar 22, 2008 4:01 PM:
butt out and mind your own business.
you have "transfered" other conversations into other blogs, so don't be a hypocrite "
T & C wrote on Mar 22, 2008 4:00 PM:
sam wrote on Mar 22, 2008 3:51 PM:
voter wrote on Mar 22, 2008 3:40 PM:
sam wrote on Mar 22, 2008 3:21 PM:
You too, G, if you read this. I liked the chemistry of the two together. "
sam wrote on Mar 22, 2008 2:58 PM:
Glad to make you "smile". "
voter wrote on Mar 22, 2008 2:53 PM:
sam wrote on Mar 22, 2008 2:52 PM:
... and what is a typical white man church? "
sam wrote on Mar 22, 2008 2:50 PM:
voter wrote on Mar 22, 2008 2:40 PM:
Bry wrote on Mar 22, 2008 2:34 PM:
nylodian wrote on Mar 22, 2008 1:58 PM:
nylodian wrote on Mar 22, 2008 1:57 PM:
My support for Obama waned a bit about a month ago when I felt (IMHO) there was a blatant bias against her by the media. We all form our opinions based on our perspectives, and vice versa. "
girard74 wrote on Mar 22, 2008 1:42 PM:
real facts wrote on Mar 22, 2008 1:36 PM:
voter wrote on Mar 22, 2008 1:29 PM:
voter wrote on Mar 22, 2008 1:21 PM:
girard74 wrote on Mar 22, 2008 1:10 PM:
Okay. I see this as an opportunity for a network to identify a problem, evaluate the problem and hopefully institute corrections if the problem is verified. I see this as an incredible place to work; the ability to stand up against something; keep your job; and perhaps be instrumental in instituting change? It can't be more American than that.
I'd like to see this happen at CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC or anywhere else. They're either too afraid, or they simply don't care. "
nylodian wrote on Mar 22, 2008 1:07 PM:
nylodian wrote on Mar 22, 2008 1:06 PM:
nylodian wrote on Mar 22, 2008 1:02 PM:
I've said this several times - the fact is, they have been talking about Wright for a year now, but some here have closed their minds, which is limits one from being truly informed.
"
girard74 wrote on Mar 22, 2008 1:00 PM:
Understandable. Yet it also frightens me that people would simply accept what a candidate states without investigating further. Clinton, Obama and McCain are vying for the most coveted position on the planet - and the most powerful. Those who cast their vote simply on the way someone speaks, looks or sings not only wastes their vote, but they may go a long way in handing over all this power to someone not qualified to handle it. That’s scary! "
voter wrote on Mar 22, 2008 12:57 PM:
voter wrote on Mar 22, 2008 12:50 PM:
girard74 wrote on Mar 22, 2008 12:43 PM:
I would think then that one would view such disagreements about their 'own' network with positive criticism about FoxNews. Surely, I would never expect this kind of dissention at conventional network or other cable-news stations.
A good question to ask is, did anything adverse happen (by FOX) to Kilmeade OR Wallace for their oppositional stances? Does this not indicate integrity? "
girard74 wrote on Mar 22, 2008 12:37 PM:
By adding that one parenthetical, you've changed much of the 'flavor' of your previous post. While I still disagree (to a lesser extent now), I can now see that you have not limited the scope of your investigation to one news outlet. "
voter wrote on Mar 22, 2008 12:37 PM:
voter wrote on Mar 22, 2008 12:33 PM:
sam wrote on Mar 22, 2008 12:21 PM:
girard74 wrote on Mar 22, 2008 11:54 AM:
This is patently absurd. What, we're not supposed to investigate the integrity and background of ALL those desiring to become the President? Doing so labels one (individual, group, news outlet, etc.) as 'racist'?
Those who do not want to know all they can about the person entrusted with incredible power in order to make an informed decision are the 'undereducated.' And frankly, I don't judge people on where they shop. (IMHO) "
voter wrote on Mar 22, 2008 11:21 AM:
Leonard wrote on Mar 22, 2008 9:32 AM:
Lets attack Obama for responding to the viscous mudslinging of Clinton's attack dogs.
What a load of nonsense. "
Comments on this story are now closed.