I can no more disown him than I can disown my white grandmother, a woman who had helped raise me, a woman who had sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves any thing in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed her by on the street and on who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe. These people are part of me. And they are part of America, this country that I love.
He should have also added a propos his grandmother “…a woman who I am about to out as a racist before an international audience!” Poor grandma. Anyhow, Obama didn’t drop his Gs so I am assuming this speech was aimed at white folks. But wow was that weak! You cannot choose your grandmother, but you sure as heck can choose the man whose Church you’re going to attend for 20 years. You can choose who it is that is going to officiate at your wedding and you can choose who it is that is going to be your spiritual adviser and inspiration. Imagine a Jewish politician whose Rabbi was say, Meir Kahane. We’d be all over him like flies on shit. And rightly so! Why is Obama worthy of getting a pass on this one? I am and remain completely unimpressed. Barack should have disowned Reverend Wright a long time ago, that he didn’t is a testament to his loyalty, his hubris and his lack of decisiveness. Y’all want that dude as your next president?
The image above was taken from ObeyGiant where you can purchase other Obama swag characterized by hip, pretty illustrations and resonant phrases like “Change!” and “Hope!” and “Progress!” Also, you should really check out Jamie Kirchick’s take on the whole Reverend Wright thing.
- Hawk Tuah Girl Haliey Welch is Not Jewish. Probably. - 8/9/2024
- Jews Blessed by their High Priests - 10/14/2022
- Foolproof Mufletta Recipe & Muflettapalooza / Mimouna Invite! - 3/26/2021
Thank you for great article. ????????????? ????????????? b??????? ?????av????
Casinomaxi Canl? Casino · The Faces of Freya · Reel desire · Dragons Fire InfiniReels · Adventures of Doubloon Island · TikiPop · Gates Of Olympus · East Coast Vs West …
Thank you for great content. php shell , php shell archive , php shell download , php shell indir , shell indir , web shell indir , shell download
Thank you for every other informative blog.
Thank you great posting about essential oil.
Thank you for every other informative blog.
uluslararas? evden eve nakliyat
https://edenarcade.org
Good article. I will be going through many of these issues as well..
konyaalt? escort hatun bulma sitesine herkesi bekleriz
kad?köy dedektif
Thank you great post. . -_- . Kiral?k Depo . Websitemize Göz atabilirsiniz.. https://www.aisreality.com/
instagram takipçi hilesi
Oyun Çeviri
Kartal koltuk y?kama
https://wg89.vip/
The very next time I read a blog, Hopefully it won’t fail me just as much as this particular one. After all, Yes, it was my choice to read through, nonetheless I genuinely believed you would probably have something helpful to talk about. All I hear is…
free stresser
Let me show you the most professional locksmith in London and Surroundings!
Fisher and price would be the best, the toys and baby accessories are the best and last for ages. I have a 10yr old and get toys I’m now using for my recent addition. Blue polka dot in size medium please.
I had no idea how to approach this before-now I’m locked and loaded.
This blog by Yvette Register is definitely a Must Read! I strongly believe in personal development because it encourages you to make responsible choices for your future. I also had the opportunity to attend Dr. Loretta Faith Harris’ “Developing the Business Professional Workshop” at Nova Southeastern University in Orlando on July 21, 2012 which proved to be a very positive and rewarding experience!
MUL,
Your predictions of fascistic doom and gloom, created by the “slippery slope” of NSA wire taps, are no more credible than those of the “gun nuts” or people like me who hear a candidate talking about taking their guns away, thereby defaulting on the 2nd Amendment. Unless you have a signed affidavit from The Psychic Friends Network or Nostradamus, your predictions are no more actualized than theirs. I’ll call it a wash, and you can go onto other threads with your condescending badgering. That and you can keep supporting your racist and unqualified candidate who was sooo right about Missile Defense that NATO endorsed it today, thereby making him look like the ignorant fool he is. Maybe he needed to consult with Dionne Warwick first.
Wow Alex. I’m trying – I mean, I’m really trying – to take seriously your contention that it’s as important to interpret the 2nd amendment in the broadest and least restrictive possible terms as it is to disregard limitations on the power of the government in incriminating its citizens. But it’s hard. I guess both I and Obama, professor of constitutional law at the conservative University of Chicago, have that unfortunate disadvantage of seeing life in a gulag as more than just a minor inconvenience. I mean, I know the gun nuts think we’re just one tactic away from being inconveniently disadvantaged when it comes to forcing every criminal lurking right around the corner, and the government – with its tanks, nukes, Tridents, Predator Drones, infantry, Tomcats, etc., – into submission. But somehow I’d like to think that ensuring basic due process and criminal procedure might be a good preventive measure before the U.S. Armed Forces get to the point where they feel the need to be put to the test against our very own state militias and self-styled survivalist commandos – as formidable a fighting force as they must surely be.
MUL said,
“I mean, I love being lectured to by someone, who is one generation removed from being accustomed to a culture of freedom, on which parts of The Bill of Rights I should value and which I shouldn’t. The 4th amendment? Who needs it? Screw it all. Pretty soon we can do away with the Rules of Evidence altogether, and then, and then, no more trial by jury! ”
Well, I find it funny being lectured about the Constitution by an Obama supporter knowing full well that Obama does not agree with and probably wants to overturn the Second Amendment:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9269.html
Of course he lied about ever being involved in this survey, but we’ve come to expect that from the New Type of Politician. 🙂
“During his first run for elected office, Barack Obama played a greater role than his aides now acknowledge in crafting liberal stands on gun control, the death penalty and abortion — positions that appear at odds with the more moderate image he has projected during his presidential campaign.
The evidence comes from an amended version of an Illinois voter group’s detailed questionnaire, filed under his name during his 1996 bid for a state Senate seat.
Late last year, in response to a Politico story about Obama’s answers to the original questionnaire, his aides said he “never saw or approved†the questionnaire. ”
“Both versions of the 1996 questionnaires provide answers his presidential campaign disavows to questions about whether Obama supports capital punishment and state legislation to “ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns.â€
He responded simply “No†and “Yes,†respectively, to those questions on both questionnaires. “
Sorry to rain on your parade Middle, but the majority of out-in-the-open anti-semitism in this country, with the exception of supporters of “right wing” kooks like Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan, happens to be coming from the left wing. You find stronger supporters of the Jewish people and Israel than conservatives. But I agree with you that Zeke is a moron.
Israel’s best interests ARE America’s best interests. Israel is and has always been America’s strongest ally, strongest technology and information transfer partner, and a buffer to Islamist Extremism. It’s the only civilized and sane place in the hornet’s nest known as the Middle East and people like Zeke are lucky for having Israel there in the first place.
As an American Jew (from Russia), I always vote for America’s AND Israel’s best interests simultaneously. It’s not a hard choice.
Hey Zeke, you sound like one of those extremist
right wingmorons who thinks Jews vote as a group or as a fifth column. Next time, at least try to get some of your information right. Moron.And what’s that Walt? To cut and run from Iraq, announcing defeat to the terrorists, and leaving chaos and a civil war behind?
i wish canadian-israeli zionists would but the eff out of our electoral process. what nerve! the issue here isn’t that obama wouldn’t disown his pastor (whose statements about white america are entirely accurate and whose hostility is entirely warranted). the issue isn’t that he purportedly threw his grandmother under the bus (which is an interpretation that began with right-wing talk show hosts). the issue is that barack obama isn’t seen as a psychotic right-wing zionist ready to give israel a blank check and license to kill as many arabs as it takes to stay on top. well guess what? this is AMERICA, not israel. and, seeing full well what happened to america when jews, last time around, voted for the candidate purportedly best for israel (who also pressed israel to give away gaza and continue ceding further land for peace), this time around i for one will be voting for what’s in AMERICA’s best interests, not israel’s.
To begin, the Rabbi’s Lenin comment is just silly and pedantic. To begin with, Obama has nothing to do with Marxism-Leninism. Even a cursory knowledge of Marxism, Lenin’s thoughts on state and revolution, Trotsky’s notion of permanent revolution, etc. would completely remove any comparison. Barack Obama is a capitalist through and through, not to worry.
The Democratic Party is a bourgeois party the same as the Republican party and as such, any candidate coming from either party cannot be Marxist.
Now, by all means let the right-wing inanity continue. Alex, DigitaL, Ben-David…that’s your cue.
It might take a few more generations, but perhaps someday your parents might have descendants who value actually making sense as much as you value freedom of expression. I mean, I love being lectured to by someone, who is one generation removed from being accustomed to a culture of freedom, on which parts of The Bill of Rights I should value and which I shouldn’t. The 4th amendment? Who needs it? Screw it all. Pretty soon we can do away with the Rules of Evidence altogether, and then, and then, no more trial by jury! That’ll be a real hoot! It’ll be a lesson in the art of The Totalitarian Survivor/Refugee’s Guidebook to Extolling Bravado in the Face of Abuses of Power by the Government. What did the Founding Fathers know anyway, those pussies! They should have just shut their capitalist mouths and weathered it out in the Gulag with the other freedom-loving dissidents before going on about unreasonable search and seizure! Those guys had the good sense to fight for their rights once they were already taken away instead of outlining them beforehand. Well, thank you very much, Alexandr, but I prefer my government with its powers limited.
And then, with the telecoms’ collusion with the government in the face of this abuse of the 4th amendment, “Alex” has the intellectual, uh, daring to proclaim that it’s his lack of trust in the telecoms that’s important. Of course, it conveniently helps that he proclaims the 4th amendment to be worthless, in the first fu%$*^g place. But private sector, federal government, it’s all the same when it comes to the circuitous reasoning of a neophyte for liberty – well, liberty minus that retarded Bill of Rights bullshit. Ladies and Gentlemen, there you have it.
MUL,
“The fact that the majority still see the initial decision to invade as a mistake is what matters.”
According to whom? You? As far as I know, this is nothing more than your opinion. And a wrong one at that.
Please tell me what year in the early 40’s the Marshall Plan was considered a success exactly. Frankly, whether the Iraq War was a good or bad decision in reality, won’t be known until years if not decades after the end of the war, no matter how politically expedient it is of both Democrats to poo-poo on it. I’m still breathlessly waiting for Hillary to publically kiss Betrayus’s ass at the next hearings. You know the other day, she called him “great”.
I’m still waiting on proof of denial of civil liberties by the way. Hope you didn’t just leave that out by accident. Just give me a couple of names and I’ll google them.
Sorry MUL, but my family chose to live here and I continue to do so. Why would I want to live in a country that I considered belligerent? I have a hunch, and it has something to do with enjoying the quality of life and benefits of living in a country that I can freely curse (out of bad taste IMO). I don’t understand why you wouldn’t rather live in a country you consider more docile. Unlike my family was, you are free to leave, and are allowed to actually take more than a suitcase of silverware with you on the way out.
Warrantless wiretaps? Sure, Go For It. What do I care? I’m not a suspected terrorist nor do I run a drug ring. As far as I’m concerned, I don’t trust AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, Sprint, or Mama Bell any more than I trust the government. Do you own the phone lines or spectrum of bandwidth that phones operate on? No? Well until you do, you shouldn’t consider it some private space where you are free to plot nefarious activities or schedule time with high priced hookers. Just like you rent that medium as a renter rents a home from a landlord, you shouldn’t consider it your private property. If you want some sort of encrypted communications medium for you and your buddies, family, or hookers, then I suggest you invest in carrier pigeons. I heard they are so 2009!
Alex, I’m sorry we cannot provide Cyrillic letters…
You got some nice poll results from polico. If it’s seen as a success, we’ll get support for staying. The fact that the majority still see the initial decision to invade as a mistake is what matters. Not that you would have looked into that.
Oh, I’m such a liberal!
Alex, you know not of what you speak. I’m not really interested in having side by side, across the street protests/counter-protests in favor of versus against Iraq. I actually have sympathies regarding Iraq that are probably closer to your own than you imagine. I apologize if it confuses you, however, to draw a distinction between whether policies related to those sympathies are or were a success or failure politically, as well as strategically. And if you’re ok with warrantless wiretaps, then Go For It. Just don’t pretend it’s not a rather liberal violation of civil liberties as far as they’ve been understood. And whatever the principle of violating civil liberties has to do with success on the GWOT is,.. is… well, anyone’s guess? I dunno, you tell me how, if it hypothetically benefits the GWOT, that makes it NOT a violation of civil liberties.
The move to Canada “Ahole” thing shows some real intellectual maturity.
MUL,
“in an alternative universe, where the Iraq war is popular with Americans,”
“According to late February polling conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, 53 percent of Americans — a slim majority — now believe “the U.S. will ultimately succeed in achieving its goals†in Iraq. That figure is up from 42 percent in September 2007.”
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=A553EE3A-3048-5C12-00094F73CEC7BAD1
“where American belligerency is seen by ordinary Americans to have wrought trememendous dividends to American security,”
These ordinary Americans sound like real patriots with jobs. Actually, no, they sound like professional protesters and anti-American actors and so do you. I have one thing to say to any American that considers their country belligerent: Move to Cuba, China, or Canada Ahole and scream from your government supplied perch at the Big Satan. Or get a job at the UN.
“where civil liberties weren’t put at odds with the GWOT, perhaps your POV might be more meaningful.”
Yeah, I know this plays great in the movies but I have seen no definitive proof nor evidence of any civil liberties being violated by the GWOT. Please feel free to dig some up, though. Would you prefer we didn’t fight against terrorism MUL?
——
Sorry, but if you think Obama is some sort of new type of politician that won’t do the politically expedient thing like throw granny under the bus or his minister of 20 years, then I have news for you. You are gullible, naive, ignorant of his history, and/or probably a first time voter or a combination of all of those.
Lastly, being that I will be voting against Hillary or Obama, I’m enjoying all of this liberal infighting. It’s sort of like the “who’s more ghetto” argument white rappers face in high school. It’s really touching actually. 🙂
Anyway, when you’re ready to get back to Ferraro, let me know. But it would be nice if you could first acknowledge a difference between fighting for something politically at one time – and having an eternally unshakeable commitment to the everything good asked for by the constituency that was assumed to have benefitted from that stance later. I mean, that would be real nice.
(CBS) Appearing on CBS News’ Face The Nation, Democratic president candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton sought to dispel criticism of her husband for making comments on the campaign trail that some have called inflammatory.
“I think it’s human nature,” she told host Bob Schieffer. “I think that the spouses of all three of us have, you know, been passionate and vigorous defenders of each of us, and maybe got a little carried away.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/27/ftn/main3756327.shtml
Middle, Hillary disagrees with you about there being no difference between his passion for something politically and who it helps or hurts in the process. I know her campaign didn’t do well in S.C., but here she’s actually responding to comments that were called inflammatory – charges to which she apparently didn’t raise disagreement.
Oy.
Oy.
And she said that after South Carolina. I wonder what she meant by that remark, Middle?
Middle, you are shifting the argument to Bill Clinton – who had nothing to do with Geraldine Ferraro. Now I know Toni Morrison called Bill the first black president, but apparently she’s taken that back. She’s taken favor of someone who doesn’t condescend to blacks, despite both living among them and having the experience of actually being physically regarded as one of them. Clinton’s not Tweed. Clinton sees political expediency in everything though, and like you at times, doesn’t see the difference between that and true conviction. That can be a good thing and a bad thing.
You can’t look at something like Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and DOMA and tell me, with a straight face, that Bill doesn’t use gays on one hand and sells them out with the other. Gays aren’t blacks, I know. They’re just the handiest example of Bill’s unintentioned machiavellianism. Even his wife said that sometimes his passion gets the better of him.
See what I mean?
I didn’t realize that was a new development, fraulein. But you could always either: 1. Put forward an actual argument if you have one to make, or 2. Respond w/something better than a self-pitying request for me to personally e-mail the publisher. As it stands, your one Spotlight source was never followed up by an actual citation, despite the request by a subsequent individual on that thread to back up what you said. If arguments or opinions unnapproved by the editors are not welcome here, just say so. I don’t need to incite group solidarity merely by saying the wrong thing about Obama, race, Boss Tweed, and the like, but if those topics – or the wrong stance on them (or on anything else) are verboten – just let me know.
Whatever you say, MUL. Next time, Bill Clinton should set up his offices in Aspen instead of Harlem. After all, a retired white President needs to act from politically expedient motives when dealing with black folks against whom he had always condescended after decades of faking friendship.
I can’t believe how low Obama supporters have to stoop to protect him from the “monster” Hillary.
Middle, I’ve given up replying to MUL for good reason.
Sorry, you seem to not understand the difference between a true friend and a political ally.
What I’m talking about is your arrogant and inane insistence on how doing fancy political favors for a certain constituency forever absolves that politician from charges of condescending to that constituency later. No matter what credible circumstances surround that charge. In your world, I suppose Boss Tweed is a champion of Irish American and other immigrant groups. We can ignore the idea that, far from that, he just had a politically expedient convergence of interests with them. You seem to not understand the idea of a true friend and a political ally. So you can call what I’ve written “stupid” all you want. But the fact is that your stunning ignorance on how African Americans have for the better part of centuries felt used by politicians who later “put them in their place” should they demand too much, is on display for all to see. And it happens all the time to nearly every constituency under the sun.
Dude, I have no idea what you’re talking about. It sounds stupid, though.
Oh Middle, I’m sure you’re not angry. Just feeling underappreciated. I know you’re well aware of all the things those good whites benefactors do for their adorable little black constituents. You just want them to feel appreciated for those things. I mean, if blacks didn’t show enough appreciation for all the things whites did for them, they might start doing things for themselves – like running for president and doing better than Jesse Jackson, and… – oh well.
Alex, in an alternative universe, where the Iraq war is popular with Americans, where American belligerency is seen by ordinary Americans to have wrought trememendous dividends to American security, where civil liberties weren’t put at odds with the GWOT, perhaps your POV might be more meaningful. But since we live in a democracy where you’re not the only one with a vote, taking account of the direction in which public opinion was pushed by the failed Bush administration, and the impact that had on all of these considerations, might make sense. Your deceitful exaggerations of Obama’s alleged absolute pacifism notwithstanding.
The warrior-martyr thing is so 2004.
“I just can’t for the life of me understand why you assume McCain beats Obama on Iraq.”
Are you f’in kidding man? One guy was in war, tortured by the enemy, while the other is a kid pretending to be a grownup, who has never had anything to do with or in the military. On top of that, he is against ALL war, never thinks there is justification for it, wants to talk to Iran, and plans on cutting and running from Iraq, solidifying a US loss and the repercussions from that at a time when more than half of the American public believes the war was a mistake, BUT that success in Iraq is now possible. Are you serious?
Yep, I’m a typical white person. Montana, in light of the discussion I’m having in the other post, your final paragraph is making Tom laugh his angry white ass off.
Adam Hyman – Obama was NOT in the Senate when they voted to go to war. Therefore he did not vote for or against the Iraq war. He only said he opposed the war from the top of his soapbox. The media never mentions this.
Middle, you typical white person, you.
Iraq and the economy will well be important issues, Middle. I just can’t for the life of me understand why you assume McCain beats Obama on Iraq. Some voters like McCain’s position on it, many don’t. And many more are willing to punish the incumbent party’s successor merely because the incumbent’s administration is seen as a failure. It is all but a truism in presidential politics that 2008 is – barring something extraordinary – the Democrats’ year to win simply due to how Bush’s presidency is viewed. You do understand that much, do you?
We must have a different defintion for experience. I look at successes, or failures you learn from, as experience. Not unprecedentedly disastrous failures (health care, losing congress) under the guise of a novel “apprenticeship” presidency that don’t count while all of the master to the apprentice’s successes, somehow do. Especially when the majority of those successes were either politically motivated, triangulated abdications of conviction, or incidental (a peaceful post-cold war world that Clinton didn’t create, an information economy and ensuing private sector gains in labor productivity that Clinton merely presided over). He receives the credit for those things merely because he was in office. So that leaves my assessment of the judgment offered in the course of Hillary’s “experience” at…. not much. That does not mean that people don’t see her as more experienced in a way that counts to them – but that’s me making a distinction between what others see and what I see.
As for your last paragraph, you believe what you want to believe. But this is not the year for angry white resentment. So you can paint blacks as racist for no longer accepting that their achievements can be belittled to purchase the “representation” of their White, self-appointed political saviors, that their political leaders can be condescended to as figures of nothing more than race lest they become too popular, or you can get with the slightly more enlightened course that’s being charted by Americans who have something more to offer and ask for than the checks and balances of sectarian resentments and the demands of pork barrel style identity politics. But only if you want to, of course. I wouldn’t want to see you leaving the 19th century kicking and screaming or anything.
Montana, every election revolves around a couple of key issues. This one will be no different. Since McCain will neutralize some of the Dem candidate’s natural advantages because he is perceived as a moderate, what will be on the table are Iraq and the economy. I don’t think the public will buy that either party has the economic solution so that’s a wash. This leaves Iraq as a key sticking point and it will be made to be the issue by the Republicans. Wait and see.
I’m sorry that you think I care enough about Hillary or Obama to invent conspiracies. You should reread your comment #25 here: https://jewlicious.com/?p=4149 and tell me whether you are referring to the Clintons as a couple that share responsibilities and especially whether you are referring to Hillary’s experience which you have now denied that she possesses. Let me know.
And Obama’s team definitely created the brouhaha in S. Carolina, just as Obama’s key adviser, Axelrod, went after Ferraro as a racist bigot despite her lifetime’s work trying to heal racial division. Which is exactly what Obama’s campaign did to the Clintons.
Middle, it takes a huge creativity deficit to think that the only area in which McCain and Obama – or any two presidential candidates for that matter – could compete, is when it comes to Iraq.
“I like how today you’re in the camp of “Hillary did nothing and has no experience.†Last time you were here representing your guy, you told us that she is intensely disliked and is a divisive candidate because she was so active. You added, for good measure that the Clintons are a couple and just as American got a couple last time, they would end up with Bill Clinton this time as well.”
This is an interesting way of cutting and pasting something I might have said with a whole bunch of things that have very little to do with anything I said. It appears you may be lumping together things said by anyone who has – gasp – made favorable comments about Obama. Is it 3 am already? Time to call Hillary or find something to do about the paranoid conspiracies. If you want to know what someone else said or meant, here’s an idea, ask them. Or don’t if that interferes with your game plan. But at least know that there are consequences to dishonesty.
You are still talking about Obama “trott(ing) out the race attacks in S. Carolina and put(ting) the issue on the table”. What utter baloney. What attacks? More paranoia. Clinton’s team said things, people in general (you know, 3rd parties, bystanders) had reactions, and you blame Obama for orchestrating it all. As Bill would say, you’re nuts. Or at least you think his wife is more infallible than he would.
Ben David as always the voice of reason and welcome nice to see Morrissey on this side of the fence as well. You know what really scares me how all these people (especially yuppie Jews) are proclaiming that Obama is this larger then life character whose going to bring “change.” Well Stalin, Mao, and Hitler brought change. Now I’m not saying that he even remotely compareable to the above stated, but everyone throwing around this word change like he has glitter shooting from his ass and magic unicorn unification powers is really making lose upchuck my hamentashens. Please, he’s just like the rest, and what makes you think he’s better for the economy, please.. Chag Sameach to all and to hope your fast is going well. I’ve been thinking about a lot this Purim.
bravo! I agree whole-heartedly with Ben David (and Tom) again. Very on point.
No offense to Rabbi Yonah of course, but I’m looking to the day where a candidate doesn’t have to address religion at all and more importantly, doesn’t have to have a religious leader in his/her life. In fact, I’d like church from state to be extremely separated while knowing that too much atheism can lead to cold, socialist/communist societies like my family escaped from.
In today’s world, with Al Goracle’s internut and with the other technologies and access we have to information, a person can form their own identity and morals without the need to be talked down to or guided by religious leaders. I think religion and congregations are great for the masses, but for the leaders of our country, whom we would hope were smarter than the masses, should be intelligent enough to use reason, science, logic, and education on their own for their identity and political views.
Personally IMO, a presidential candidate and potential commander in chief, needs the following:
– high level service in the military, as in a leadership position.
– post graduate educational experience, an MS at least, and in something that matters, like law, economics and/or business and not an art degree for example.
– experience in the private sector, as in owning and/or operating a successful business
– previous experience in government at a national level
– no felonies. IMO, drug use is fine, perversion is fine, and atheism is fine.
– a firm grasp of American and world history, and some test should be administered to prove this requirement…………………………..
that one disappeared too… bummer. Maybe WordPress doesn’t like me no mo
trying one more time:
bravo! I agree whole-heartedly with Ben David (and Tom) again. Very on point.
No offense to Rabbi Yonah of course, but I’m looking to the day where a candidate doesn’t have to address religion at all and more importantly, doesn’t have to have a religious leader in his/her life. In fact, I’d like church from state to be extremely separated while knowing that too much atheism can lead to cold, socialist/communist societies like my family escaped from.
In today’s world, with Al Goracle’s internut and with the other technologies and access we have to information, a person can form their own identity and morals without the need to be talked down to or guided by religious leaders. I think religion and congregations are great for the masses, but for the leaders of our country, whom we would hope were smarter than the masses, should be intelligent enough to use reason, science, logic, and education on their own for their identity and political views.
Personally IMO, a presidential candidate and potential commander in chief, needs the following:
– high level service in the military, as in a leadership position.
– post graduate educational experience, an MS at least, and in something that matters, like law, economics and/or business and not an art degree for example.
– experience in the private sector, as in owning and/or operating a successful business
– previous experience in government at a national level
– no felonies. IMO, drug use is fine, perversion is fine, and atheism is fine.
– a firm grasp of American and world history, and some test should be administered to prove this requirement.
still not showing up….
Bravo! I agree whole-heartedly with Ben David (and Tom) again. Very on point.
No offense to Rabbi Yonah of course, but I’m looking to the day where a candidate doesn’t have to address religion at all and more importantly, doesn’t have to have a religious leader in his/her life. In fact, I’d like church from state to be extremely separated while knowing that too much atheism can lead to cold, socialist/communist societies like my family escaped from.
In today’s world, with Al Goracle’s internut and with the other technologies and access we have to information, a person can form their own identity and morals without the need to be talked down to or guided by religious leaders. I think religion and congregations are great for the masses, but for the leaders of our country, whom we would hope were smarter than the masses, should be intelligent enough to use reason, science, logic, and education on their own for their identity and political views.
Personally IMO, a presidential candidate and potential commander in chief, needs the following:
– high level service in the military, as in a leadership position.
– post graduate educational experience, an MS at least, and in something that matters, like law, economics and/or business and not an art degree for example.
– experience in the private sector, as in owning and/or operating a successful business
– previous experience in government at a national level
– no felonies. IMO, drug use is fine, perversion is fine, and atheism is fine.
– a firm grasp of American and world history, and some test should be administered to prove this requirement.
I can not understand where my post is disappearing to? I’ve tried to submit three paragraphs several times and different ways and nothing shows up. Grrr. Unstable software!!! 🙁
Bravo! I agree whole-heartedly with Ben David (and Tom) again. Very on point…..
No offense to Rabbi Yonah of course, but I’m looking to the day where a candidate doesn’t have to address religion at all and more importantly, doesn’t have to have a religious leader in his/her life. In fact, I’d like church from state to be extremely separated while knowing that too much atheism can lead to cold, socialist/communist societies like my family escaped from.
In today’s world, with Al Goracle’s internut and with the other technologies and access we have to information, a person can form their own identity and morals without the need to be talked down to or guided by religious leaders. I think religion and congregations are great for the masses, but for the leaders of our country, whom we would hope were smarter than the masses, should be intelligent enough to use reason, science, logic, and education on their own for their identity and political views.
Personally IMO, a presidential candidate and potential commander in chief, needs the following:
– high level service in the military, as in a leadership position.
– post graduate educational experience, an MS at least, and in something that matters, like law, economics and/or business and not an art degree for example.
– experience in the private sector, as in owning and/or operating a successful business
– previous experience in government at a national level
– no felonies. IMO, drug use is fine, perversion is fine, and atheism is fine.
– a firm grasp of American and world history, and some test should be administered to prove this requirement….
bravo! I agree whole-heartedly with Ben David (and Tom) again. Very on point.
No offense to Rabbi Yonah of course, but I’m looking to the day where a candidate doesn’t have to address religion at all and more importantly, doesn’t have to have a religious leader in his/her life. In fact, I’d like church from state to be extremely separated while knowing that too much atheism can lead to cold, socialist/communist societies like my family escaped from.
In today’s world, with Al Goracle’s internut and with the other technologies and access we have to information, a person can form their own identity and morals without the need to be talked down to or guided by religious leaders. I think religion and congregations are great for the masses, but for the leaders of our country, whom we would hope were smarter than the masses, should be intelligent enough to use reason, science, logic, and education on their own for their identity and political views.
Personally IMO, a presidential candidate and potential commander in chief, needs the following:
– high level service in the military, as in a leadership position.
– post graduate educational experience, an MS at least, and in something that matters, like law, economics and/or business and not an art degree for example.
– experience in the private sector, as in owning and/or operating a successful business
– previous experience in government at a national level
– no felonies. IMO, drug use is fine, perversion is fine, and atheism is fine.
– a firm grasp of American and world history, and some test should be administered to prove this requirement…..
bravo! I agree whole-heartedly with Ben David (and Tom) again. Very on point.
No offense to Rabbi Yonah of course, but I’m looking to the day where a candidate doesn’t have to address religion at all and more importantly, doesn’t have to have a religious leader in his/her life. In fact, I’d like church from state to be extremely separated while knowing that too much atheism can lead to cold, socialist/communist societies like my family escaped from.
In today’s world, with Al Goracle’s internut and with the other technologies and access we have to information, a person can form their own identity and morals without the need to be talked down to or guided by religious leaders. I think religion and congregations are great for the masses, but for the leaders of our country, whom we would hope were smarter than the masses, should be intelligent enough to use reason, science, logic, and education on their own for their identity and political views.
Personally IMO, a presidential candidate and potential commander in chief, needs the following:
– high level service in the military, as in a leadership position.
– post graduate educational experience, an MS at least, and in something that matters, like law, economics and/or business and not an art degree for example.
– experience in the private sector, as in owning and/or operating a successful business
– previous experience in government at a national level
– no felonies. IMO, drug use is fine, perversion is fine, and atheism is fine.
– a firm grasp of American and world history, and some test should be administered to prove this requirement….
bravo! I agree whole-heartedly with Ben David (and Tom) again. Very on point.
No offense to Rabbi Yonah of course, but I’m looking to the day where a candidate doesn’t have to address religion at all and more importantly, doesn’t have to have a religious leader in his/her life. In fact, I’d like church from state to be extremely separated while knowing that too much atheism can lead to cold, socialist/communist societies like my family escaped from.
In today’s world, with Al Goracle’s internut and with the other technologies and access we have to information, a person can form their own identity and morals without the need to be talked down to or guided by religious leaders. I think religion and congregations are great for the masses, but for the leaders of our country, whom we would hope were smarter than the masses, should be intelligent enough to use reason, science, logic, and education on their own for their identity and political views.
Personally IMO, a presidential candidate and potential commander in chief, needs the following:
– high level service in the military, as in a leadership position.
– post graduate educational experience, an MS at least, and in something that matters, like law, economics and/or business and not an art degree for example.
– experience in the private sector, as in owning and/or operating a successful business
– previous experience in government at a national level
– no felonies. IMO, drug use is fine, perversion is fine, and atheism is fine.
– a firm grasp of American and world history, and some test should be administered to prove this requirement.
Lindsey:
Both O and Hill are running campaigns emotionally fueled by identity politics – striking outdated stances and championing groups whose “victimhood” is, to most American’s eyes, largely behind us and trumped up for the cameras.
There haven’t been any significant social or structural barriers to black or female acheivement for almost a generation. A black middle class has arisen (which Michelle Obama either willfully ignores or else is “not proud of”), more women than men get college degress, and many Americ ans feel that there is no longer any need for affirmative action or set-asides – that the way to move forward to a really race-less society is to stop keeping track, to stop policies that perpetuate ANY sort of differential treatment.
But the Dems are still flogging Marxist class-envy – including 60’s-era Black Panther victimology politics – in the most wide-open, economically mobile country in the world.
Following on a 3-decade financial boom born of small-government reforms.
This is the real “insanity of doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results” – and it applies to then entire emo-Demo party.
MUL, cut it out. Obama has already put his foot in it when he spoke about what he would do in Iraq if elected. McCain jumped on it immediately and hasn’t let it slip since. If Obama is the Dem nominee, the election will be about who should lead the country in wartime. McCain will trot out his “moderate” stripes and neutralize Obama on many other topics but on this one he has a clear advantage.
I like how today you’re in the camp of “Hillary did nothing and has no experience.” Last time you were here representing your guy, you told us that she is intensely disliked and is a divisive candidate because she was so active. You added, for good measure that the Clintons are a couple and just as American got a couple last time, they would end up with Bill Clinton this time as well.
In other words, no matter what, you’re on the Hillary bashing side. Frankly, this side of the Obama campaign is the reason he had to make this race speech now. His campaign trotted out the race attacks in S. Carolina and put the issue on the table. Well, those chickens are comin’ home to roost.
grandmuffti – you greatly misunderstand “Falwell and co.” The 911 association was quite a stretch, agreed, but are you really able to accuse and judge these people for hate without knowing them? I’ve found them to be the most loving and forgiving of any group I know, only nuts have ever mouthed words of hate – not their 99% majority, and I think it is a great wrong and reflection on you to so accuse them (and publicly).
I understand the rampant ignorance about what G-d has said in scripture (yes, the Pentatuch – same to Jews and Christians) about *His* feelings AND REACTION to gays and murder (abortion in the context of the Supreme ct. reference you made).
Give them a break and judge them not. If they truly believe the scriptures are God’s WOrd to us all, and the places where God says He does put judgment and condemnation upon the land for what He pronounces as vile acts and unpunished murder, you can see quickly why they might make some associations. Most of Falwell’s demonization came from his campaign to dare fight the spread of pornography. What a terrible guy.
Whether you think believing the scriptures as G-d’s Word and direction to us is stupid, consider not insulting those who do.
Below I’ve put 2 links that they believe quote G-d on these 2 topics in the Hebrew scriptures in case that’s helpful.
homosexuality
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2018:22;%20Leviticus%2020:13;%20Judges%2019:22-23;&version=49;
(Leviticus 18:22; Leviticus 20:13; Judges 19:22-23;)
abortion
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs%2024:11-12;%20Psalm%20139:13-16;%20Exodus%2020:13;%20Jeremiah%201:4-5;%20Isaiah%2044:2;%20Psalm%2082:3-4;&version=49;
(Proverbs 24:11-12; Psalm 139:13-16; Exodus 20:13; Jeremiah 1:4-5; Isaiah 44:2; Psalm 82:3-4)
I think Obama is dangerous. I think the reason Obama voted against the Iraq war had nothing to do with intelligence or weapons of mass destruction….. which was the reason other liberals gave at the time for not voting for the war. Obama is against ALL WAR.
Obama would have voted against war with Japan after Pearl Harbor……. just as Ghandi was against America fighting Japan.
Hillary and McCain are straight up politicians who’ll say and do anything to get elected. They have basically no principals, and instead decide their beliefs based on the polls.
As distasteful as that is, its much better than Obama.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results and unfortunately I think that’s what Hilary represents with all her experience the same old thing.
Ben David do you think Hillary transcends race when she speaks in her faux black voice/speech pattern, in front of predominantly black audiences? As for Obama’s granny not being able to go his church I beg to differ. Because of the old one drop rule, the “black community” has quite a few members who are basically white especially in the upper classes. Go to any old wealthy black congregation and you will see white black people, so granny’s appearance wouldn’t necessarily render her out of place. I mean look at the black nationalist pastor himself I bet you that he’s genetically whiter than Obama.
Show me one, single poll where she’d fare better against McCain.
I haven’t seen one, but the challenge is there. I’ve got at least half a dozen that say otherwise.
Obama can simply fight McCain on a playing field that Clinton can’t engage. McClinton are too tied to the same political game. Honestly, I heard sound bites today that suggest McCain has more innovative ways of communicating his ideas than does Clinton.
The training wheels presidency experience is busting my gut. I mean, Monica Lewinsky was with Clinton for about a good year or so, at least – with all the internship experience and whatnot. Maybe she’s about 1/8th as qualified as Hillary for the presidency – which is more than you’d expect for a potential Revlon employee and handbag designer. But hey, she did have some really important ideas regarding education, right? She tried to tell Clinton about them, but it was not easy to talk when her mouth was full.
Or are we just talking political longevity? On that score, Robert Byrd is so wayyyy more qualified than Clinton. Why don’t the Dems go with him?
Sorry, I couldn’t resist.
Oh come on, Hillary is way more qualified than Obama, speech or no speech. She’ll also fare better against McCain.
Gimme a break Tom. Hillary wins the states she was always poised to win and she wins the uneducated “beer, not latte, thank you – drinkers” she was always poised to win. I can’t believe you’re still finding her a more impressive and qualified candidate at this point. I mean, her training wheels presidency is a nice qualification, I suppose, but not the way she qualifies her no-blame/all-the-credit for it.
As for the original post, I’m amazed at how this race and his speech is bringing out all the armchair African American Experience-living experts from around the blogosphere. I suspect that this time, it’s they who won’t be “out of touch” necessarily, but out of touch with things that finally have a chance to matter in 2008. I mean, I know choosing a rabbi and congregation is JUST LIKE choosing the most effective leader of your average and just as wealthy and just as enfranchised African American congregation, but that’s because I know enough about race to pretend that distinctions of race and class don’t exist and don’t matter in America. Oh wait, nevermind.
I wish I was so narrow-minded as to believe that blood was the most important criterion, I mean, the only criterion, for defining one’s family.
OK, we got Ben-David.
Ephraim…. Oh, Ephraim?
Scared to admit that I finallly agree with Morrissey.
Sheela: it is not obsessing, it cuts to the core of O’s campaign – he claims that he offers America an example of transcending race, and that he is a unifier. Now we find out that, for all his grandstanding about his white granny, Obama sought out a church in which she would not be welcome – in which vicious racial disunity was preached.
Also, presidential nominees are evaluated primarily on character, since we don’t know what will happen in the next 4 years. So now we know:
– that he’s a weasely politician just like the rest, who first denied he heard “those” sermons, then waffled.
– that he’s a terrible liar! (“I’ve attended the church for 20 years, but was not aware of the pastor’s opinions”…. yeah, right, I want this guy negotiating with Iran and Syria)
– that he’s a very poor judge of character
– that he’s not much of a long-term strategist (assuming he isn’t running for President on a whim – what was he thinking?)
– that there are glaring gaps in his humanitas – or he’s more of an ideologue than we thought: what do his children think of their grandparents after hearing those speeches?
What do his parents think after the inevitable slips of the tongue?
– that rather than transcending race, he is still very conflicted about his own identity – Why would he want to hear these things about the people who raised him?
But Tom, I still have to disagree. It’s just as absurd to obsess over a presidential candidate’s religion while the economy’s tanking as it is to mull the nuances of grandma’s racial attitudes.
It’s all their fault, ck. Yep, the people who gave us Capt. Dreyfus and the Maginot Line. I think Edith Piaf was actually a gay guy in drag.
Tom: And that would be… France?
Good point, you heresiarch, Muffti. If Obama were a conservative, he could at least constructively propose to end terrorism by sending gays back where they came from.
What has amazed Muffti in all this is just how smart Falwell and co. were at framing things. He had his causes for 9-11: gays, feminists, the ACLU, the supreme court, congress when democrats sit in it…but he loves AMERICA, despite hating a huge chunk of the population of AMERICANS. Wright’s mistake was framing it in terms of America rather than Americans. If he’d just says ‘man has white america given us a bad ran and let the CIA sell drugs in our neighbourhood’ no one would bat an eye and Obama could calmly say he thinks all the more reason he is the candidate to reconcile the bad feelings of the ‘two americas’.
This is why liberals these days have problems connecting with the public. The concerns of Barack-voting, highly-educated lefties are not those of Joe Sixpack. Bill Clinton was onto something when he talked about “wanting” a president versus “needing” one. The folks who need one want to know why Bear Stearns gets a bailout, and they don’t.
Look at Hillary. Finally, she understood that “experience”, comparing resumes, was about her, not about the voter. She’s rolled up her sleeves and tried to address what’s on peoples’ minds. Her campaign took off as a result. Barack, if anything, has gone in the opposite direction.
“I mean, people are losing their homes left and right, the economy’s tanking. And we’re mulling the nuances of grandma’s racial attitudes. Hello?”
That’s funny. And sadly true.
She’s more qualified and an altogether more impressive candidate than Obama, Middle, this current contretemps aside. I respect Obama’s smarts and political skills, but it’s not his time (in a perfect world, not the one we live in).
The saddest and most depressing thing about the Wright business is that Obama chose to link himself to a shopwarn vision of race relations that I thought we’d left behind with the likes of Bobby Seale. Is Obama really something new under the sun? Wright, the speech, all of it suggests that the answer is, sadly, no.
I mean, suppose a Catholic candidate had sought out some rightist fanatic priest who held Jews responsible for deicide. Forty, fifty years ago, there were such people. But today? Barack chose this guy, make no mistake.
And, btw, I think the politics of this, net-net, will hurt him. I’m reminded of Romney’s speech on Mormonism. It’s off-message; it brings to the fore issues beloved of the latte liberal set who love a good identity-politics circle jerk. I mean, people are losing their homes left and right, the economy’s tanking. And we’re mulling the nuances of grandma’s racial attitudes. Hello?
This should benefit Hillary in PA.
Just replace the picture with Lenin and viola – Socialist Realism and all its trappings of cult of personality.
Personally, I have lost Obama Dream.
Wright is a racist
So Tom is voting for Hillary?
Forget “disowning” Wright. Here’s a simpler solution. One thing about us American Christians, there are a shitload of us. Go ahead, try counting all the churches in your hometown. Think Wright’s the only black minister in Chicago? Think all black ministers thought 9/11 a form of justice?
I’m sure a different ministerial approach was just a short drive away in the Windy City. Why didn’t you go someplace else, Barack? Did you need to build Wright to build street cred? Or did he, in fact, reflect your view of the world? Is his perversion of Christian values your vision of our common faith, Senator?
Just my two cents, but I’m pretty much with the middle and “a” on this one. The affiliation with Wright doesn’t bother me much as he’s consistently repudiated the racist and bigoted comments he’s made. He’s also been consistent in his support for Israel, and done more than any other candidate to reach out to the American Jewish community without blatant pandering. (Just my opinion, of course.) He can’t force every single one of his friends and associates to think exaclty the way he does, and heaven help us if any one of us were to be judged by what every one of our colleagues/associates says. (You do realize John McCain referred to the Vietnamese as “gooks” in 2000?)
I thought the speech was pragmatic and honest, a little heavy on the emotion for my taste, but at least (I hope) he finally put the issue to rest, by giving it context and substance.
That being said, I agree with the sentiment that this “Obamania” is getting pretty ridiculous. Women swooning at his speeches? The Great Unifier who’s gonna turn this country around? Please.
Bottom line? I love Hillary, I think she’s got what it takes to stand up to those who would keep this country on its disastrous course for the next four to eight years. BUT, when it comes to issues that matter most to me )foreign policy, social justice, the economy) I find myself agreeing more with what Obama’s planning to do. So I pulled the lever for him in the primary. Could’ve gone either way, I’m getting behind whoever wins regardless.
I just hope emotion doesn’t trump common sense in November.
I’ve never been this glad to get paid in Euros… Will change, hope, progress and unity suffice to strengthen the US economy or will those catchphrases eventually suffer the fate of pasta when boilt too long?
Any Israeli (or Jew) offended by Condi Rice’s recent comments suggesting an equivalence between Jim Crow and Pali suffering would do well to ponder this speech very carefully. Here’s a master at the moral-equivalence game, someone immersed in a culture of warmed over, black-nationalist romanticization of victimhood– and not just at home, but abroad, too. After all, Barack’s spiritual mentor blames whitey for Palestinian statelessness (not to mention the death of Jesus).
Forewarned is forearmed. If y’all want to vote like Puerto Ricans again this fall, no bitching and moaning when (as Rev. Wright likes to say) the chickens come home to roost.
ck makes a good suggestion– take “Wright” out and fill in the blanks. What if McCain (whose brother, btw, is noted for his anti- anti-semitic activism) had a pastor who spewed this stuff? What if the Catholic Church or the local imam had made such comments?
I don’t know. At one shul, I don’t like to politics of the rabbi. Too right wing, and says things I wouldn’t want on utube if I was running for office. (lucky for him, there’s no recording on shabbat). But I personally like him a lot, and i continue to be a member.
Then there is the other shul I go to. The congreation tries to be too left wing. I don’t like some of the things said from the bima there either. But overall, I like rabbi and I like the movement (plus I’ve been a member for a long time). So I continue to be a member.
The nice part of Obama’s speech was 1) he dealt with a difficult issue directly, admitting he was aware of the Rev’s position and 2) he directly criticized his Rev, particularly the part where he emphasized that the US isn’t in the same place as it was twenty or forty years ago.
panem et circenses et commutatio et progressio et spes