This is an endorsement Obama may not be so happy to get.
In a radio interview in New York on Sunday, Ahmad Yousef, chief political adviser to the 'Prime Minister' of Hamas, announced that his organization supports the candidacy of Barack Hussein Obama for President of the United States.

Yousef said, "We like Mr. Obama and we hope he will win the election." Why? "He has a vision to change America." Maybe Yousef has some insight into what Obama means by all these vague references to "change."

Yousef was asked about Obama's condemnation of Carter's visit with Hamas, but didn't seem troubled by it. Hamas, he says, understands American politics; this is the election season, and everyone wants to sound like a friend of Israel. Nevertheless, he hopes that the Democrats will change American policies when they take office. http://israelmatzav.blogspot.com/2008/04/hamas-endorses-obama.html
Maybe Hamas made the old Obama/Osama mistake? Anyway, here's the audio:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/04/020315.php

well, thats Hamacide for Obama's campaign. Game over.

Yeah, you wouldn't want peace to break out or anything.

I wonder who will endorse Obama next? al Qada? North Korea? Perhaps a personal endorsement from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

Hell, why not ? it's not like he's gonna nuke em ? right ?.
Seriously. Hamas was democratically elected. Get over it.

Hell, why not ? it's not like he's gonna nuke em ? right ?.
Seriously. Hamas was democratically elected. Get over it.

Well, so was Hitler but never mind.

I dont think that this will have any great influence. None of the other "maybe he is not really a Christian" attcks did bite him.

None of the other "maybe he is not really a Christian" attcks did bite him. Yeah they did. Cost him votes in Ohio, Texas, couple of other places.

Someday maybe we'll discover if Hagee's and Parsley's endorsement of McCain, properly sensationalized with quotes about God wanting the US to bomb Iran and hurricanes smiting gay people and terrorists like McVeigh drawing support from affiliated groups, would cost McCain a few votes. I'm sure the fair and balanced news media will get right on it.

Sure they cost him, but nothing which could put him put out of the race. Lets see after today, this is quite exciting.

Lets hope hope you will have a fair and balanced media.

terrorists like McVeigh drawing support from affiliated groups
Ummm. Which terrorists like McVeigh? Has another federal building gone down I never heard about?

Ummm. Which terrorists like McVeigh? Has another federal building gone down I never heard about? Our Patriot Act has prevented their depredations of course, but there's lots of groups we could call terrorists with the proper media cooperation - like the stuff we're getting on Obama.

Here's another way we could even the media coverage up a bit: let's have a three week discussion on whether the Vietnamese Communists brainwashed McCain when he was in prison, and are cooperating with the Chinese to plant him in the White House and betray his country. We could talk about his odd psychological quirks, analyze carefully chosen photos of him losing his temper in strange ways, interview his ex-wife on all the talk shows about the changes in his personality, ask him dozens of times in every interview whether he really remembers what happened to him, ask him to undergo a public CAT scan and EEG evaluation, fill the "news" programs with experts on hypnosis and brainwashing demonstrating all the scary things McCain could be made to do when he hears certain code words, etc etc etc - for weeks on end, this.

Think it might cost him a few votes, here and there ?

Our Patriot Act has prevented their depredations of course, but there's lots of groups we could call terrorists with the proper media cooperation - like the stuff we're getting on Obama.

Here's another way we could even the media coverage up a bit: let's have a three week discussion on whether the Vietnamese Communists brainwashed McCain when he was in prison, and are cooperating with the Chinese to plant him in the White House and betray his country.

Well since nothing like that has ever happened then it is most likely to be an exercise in stupidity. But really, what is your point?

Well since nothing like that has ever happened then it is most likely to be an exercise in stupidity. But really, what is your point? Just an exercise in imagination - what would balanced coverage of the candidates look like, given the past few months of Obama coverage ?

Hamas endorses Obama, an Obama delegate hoaxes the Texas and W administration police, Obama went to a madrassa, Obama's church preacher hates America, Obama's wife despises America, Obama is connected to the Weather Underground, he's an elitist, an Obama supporter in Chicago is a criminal, yadda yadda yadda.

Time for some balance. Three weeks of making McCain repeat that he hasn't been brainwashed, fifteen times a day, with analysis on all the prime time news shows. Let's see if he can hold his temper. If he can't take the heat, he should get out of the kitchen.

I dont see why you want to bring fantasies and imagination into it. Are those things you mentioned in your post true? Personally iceaura your fantasies do not really interest me. so again what is your point?

To be fair, I'm sure McCain has the support of the KKK.

Ku Klux Klan Endorses Obama


KENTUCKY - USA - Imperial Wizard, Ronald Edwards has stated that, "anything is better than Hillary Clinton."



White Christian Supremacist group the Ku Klux Klan has endorsed Barack Obama to be the next President of the United States of America.

Speaking from his Kentucky office in Dawson Springs, the Imperial Wizard exclaimed that anything or anyone is better than having that "crazy ass bitch" as President.

This is the first time in Klan history that any member of the KKK has ever publicly supported an African American candidate for the presidency.

KKK lodges all over America have been gathering and holding rallies supporting the black presidential candidate.


http://www.dailysquib.co.uk/?c=117&a=1227

ehhh...you know this is a hoax, right?

I dont see why you want to bring fantasies and imagination into it. For balance in the media coverage, of course. Obama has been out ther answering all kinds of ridiculous questions born in the fantasies and imaginations of Fox News viewers and given legitimacy by the major corporate media - fair is fair.

Are those things you mentioned in your post true? Who cares ? Are you saying we can't investigate McCain's personal background, that his character and possible secret plans to destroy America are not important matters ? Shouldn't the voters be given both sides of the question, and allowed to make up their own minds ?

For weeks now, this is what we see on the major corporate media: Is Obama a secret Muslim ? Was he schooled in a madrassa ? Does he hang with terrorists ? Did he scream out "God Damnn America!" every week on Sundays for twenty years ? Does he refuse to say the Pledge of Allegiance, and deliberately fail to salute the flag ?

These are the kinds of inquiries you need to balance, in the coverage of McCain. By "balance" I mean with respectful consideration, repeated public questioning, and substantial prime time on all the news programs and talk shows for a few consecutive weeks. Some imagination is going to be necessary - although not as much as one would think, given McCain's verifiable record.

Hamas endorses Obama, an Obama delegate hoaxes the Texas and W administration police, Obama went to a madrassa, Obama's church preacher hates America, Obama's wife despises America, Obama is connected to the Weather Underground, he's an elitist, an Obama supporter in Chicago is a criminal, yadda yadda yadda.

The difference is there is a foundation for these statements, whether you agree with them or not, as most are based on things actually SAID by the relevant people...

Whereas...

Time for some balance. Three weeks of making McCain repeat that he hasn't been brainwashed, fifteen times a day, with analysis on all the prime time news shows. Let's see if he can hold his temper. If he can't take the heat, he should get out of the kitchen.

...is just sheer kookiness dressed up as a legitimate complaint. I mean, do you really expect people to take this seriously? It's deranged.

For weeks now, this is what we see on the major corporate media: Is Obama a secret Muslim ? Was he schooled in a madrassa ? Does he hang with terrorists ? Did he scream out "God Damnn America!" every week on Sundays for twenty years ? Does he refuse to say the Pledge of Allegiance, and deliberately fail to salute the flag ?

These are the kinds of inquiries you need to balance, in the coverage of McCain. By "balance" I mean with respectful consideration, repeated public questioning, and substantial prime time on all the news programs and talk shows for a few consecutive weeks. Some imagination is going to be necessary - although not as much as one would think, given McCain's verifiable record.

I am just saying that your statement to investigate McCain for the statements made by people connected with Obama is ludicrous. How would that be fair? Yet you also say that these things YOU mentioned about Obama should not be looked into. Do you see why that makes no sense at all?

And McCain is not in a race right now, he already won the nomination so why would the press be focusing on him right now? At least be fair.

ehhh...you know this is a hoax, right?

TEE HEE! I thought I might catch someone....:shrug:

The presumption that this is driven by the evil of evil — "Fox News viewers" is somewhat ridiculous, too. The Madrassa story, for example, was pushed by Hillary Clinton, last time I checked, though she denied it.

Now, I will admit that most of the issues the Media has seized on lately are foolishly trivial, and as such, are not something I can endorse. Am I surprised? No. Does it show some kind of lack of balance? No. Obama/Clinton is the only game in town right now — and the Media is hammering them both (see Hillary's Sniper-fire incident).

The coverage is also fairly indicative of the Democratic campaign, which hasn't been about substance for a long, long time. I mean, we have, for example, the Obama camp putting out a story, duly covered last week in the NYT, claiming Obama understands Central Asia politics because he spent a few weeks in Pakistan when he was in college. I'm serious. Google it. My point, I guess, is that Obama/Clinton are largely similar on most of the issues, so they've both made their race about symbolism. The fact the Media, which doesn't think too hard for itself, has gleefully gone along, shouldn't surprise anyone. Nor should it lead to grandiose — and ultimately bankrupt — theories about bias.

I would bet, for example, that if Romney were still around to kick around, the Media would be all over him about this business in West Texas, asking him all sorts of dumb questions about it. Sensationalism sells!

The difference is there is a foundation for these statements, whether you agree with them or not, as most are based on things actually SAID by the relevant people... What "relevant people" would that be, who said that Obama was a secret Muslim schooled in a madrassa, and whose every word is apparently worthy of sensationalized coverage ? What "foundation" ?

Just for one example, featured on the prime time news nationwide.

I can find you plenty of "relevant people" who have questions about the effects of McCain's imprisonment on his psychological stability. There's far more "foundation" there than ignorance about where Obama went to second grade. And with a hyped up Obama-coverage level of sensationalism, I'm sure that kind of inquiry could go a long way toward making up the current coverage imbalance.

.is just sheer kookiness dressed up as a legitimate complaint. I mean, do you really expect people to take this seriously? It's deranged. Let's give it the same kind of coverage the derangement over Obama's madrassa schooling got, and see what happens.

Fair is fair, right ?

Ice, what's the big deal? Mccain's not running against anyone yet. Obama is. If your concerns have true merit, wouldn't they come up in the General Election instead of now?
Still, I think Americans can more easily relate with McCain than Obama.

Let us at least be realistic. The press has been far more critical if Hillary than Obama, it is just blatantly obvious.

What "relevant people" would that be, who said that Obama was a secret Muslim schooled in a madrassa, and whose every word is apparently worthy of sensationalized coverage ? What "foundation" ?

Just for one example, featured on the prime time news nationwide.

I said most. The Madrassa incident, as I mentioned, was pushed by none other than Hillary Clinton. The Wright controversy came about because of remarks made by Wright himself. Obama took his own lapel pin off, did or didn't pledge. And it was Obama's wife who said what she said about the US and Obama who said what he said about religious people and gun owners.

The fact these are being reported — not invented, like your stupid scenario — is all about the "gotcha" nature of president press coverage. Bias has nothing to do with it.

I can find you plenty of "relevant people" who have questions about the effects of McCain's imprisonment on his psychological stability.

No, you can't. You can find me deranged liberals, blovaiting in suspect publications. And again, my point is not about the people who question the incidents — pundits, fuck em' — but the reporting of the incidents themselves. Most of the incidents you named are things that came to light on the trail because the relevant people — namely Obama — did them in the public arena.

And with a hyped up Obama-coverage level of sensationalism, I'm sure that kind of inquiry could go a long way toward making up the current coverage imbalance.

It's a two-edged sword. Obama benefitted from the feckless explosion of Obamania. That this has boomeranged into negative publicity is only natural, in the unnatural media world. The frontrunner always gets this kind of scrutiny. Remember all the crap about Clinton in 1992? Or more recently, the NYT jihad to dig up old dirt on Gilluani? Then, to a much lesser degree, McCain?

Let's give it the same kind of coverage the derangement over Obama's madrassa schooling got, and see what happens.

Fair is fair, right ?

Fair for you, apparently, is obliterating McCain with delusional, richly-imagined scenarios. Sorry, if I don't think that makes sense.

I said most. The Madrassa incident, as I mentioned, was pushed by none other than Hillary Clinton. The Wright controversy came about because of remarks made by Wright himself. Obama took his own lapel pin off, did or didn't pledge. And it was Obama's wife who said what she said about the US and Obama who said what he said about religious people and gun owners.

The fact these are being reported — not invented, like your stupid scenario — is all about the "gotcha" nature of president press coverage. Bias has nothing to do with it.



No, you can't. You can find me deranged liberals, blovaiting in suspect publications. And again, my point is not about the people who question the incidents — pundits, fuck em' — but the reporting of the incidents themselves. Most of the incidents you named are things that came to light on the trail because the relevant people — namely Obama — did them in the public arena.



It's a two-edged sword. Obama benefitted from the feckless explosion of Obamania. That this has boomeranged into negative publicity is only natural, in the unnatural media world. The frontrunner always gets this kind of scrutiny. Remember all the crap about Clinton in 1992? Or more recently, the NYT jihad to dig up old dirt on Gilluani? Then, to a much lesser degree, McCain?



Fair for you, apparently, is obliterating McCain with delusional, richly-imagined scenarios. Sorry, if I don't think that makes sense.

what about his republican friends in congress who don't think he is stable enough to be comander and chief

They didn't make themselve's heard if he's their candidate.

what about his republican friends in congress who don't think he is stable enough to be comander and chief

What about them?

I thought this thread was about Obama?

It was Ice who decided to take us down the route of media bias and unfair treatment. All I've done is respond to that tripe, which is typical for him. He's been spitting bile about McCain — in all sorts of unrelated forums — ever since he became the nominee.

I have questions about McCain's temper, too. But I don't think this thread is about that. Nor do I think the Media is playing "unfair" with Obama. It's just up to its usual sordid tricks — and he's the biggest target around. Case closed.

Let us at least be realistic. The press has been far more critical if Hillary than Obama, it is just blatantly obvious. No, it isn't obvious.
The fact these are being reported — not invented, like your stupid scenario — is all about the "gotcha" nature of president press coverage And the fact that "deranged" (your vocabulary does come in handy) stuff like that is not being "reported" about McCain (and less about Hillary) is exactly my point.

Someone - some "relevant person" apparently - makes bogus,invented claims about Obama, and the sensationalizing and publicizing of them you refer to as "reporting" ?

My stupid scenario would be no more "invented" than the madrassa or half of the Wright controversy, for example: McCain really did spend years in a Vietnam prison, being pressured and abused by his captors. There's plenty of "foundation" for all kinds of sensational speculation and harassment of McCain there. Hagee the fanatical fundie really has endorsed McCain, along with making speeches about the Crusade against Islam and the importance of war with Iran. Lots of opportunity for Obama-level sensationalism, there.

Let's see some of it. For balance.
Fair for you, apparently, is obliterating McCain with delusional, richly-imagined scenarios. Sorry, if I don't think that makes sense. It hasn't obliterated Obama. If McCain can't take the heat, he shouldn't be in the kitchen.

Iceaura, your seeing things through a biased perspective. The media tore into Clinton early on for the most inane reasons. "How did you feel about that BJ" - "Remember when your husband got that **?" - "Do you think Bill getting a ** was a good thing?":crazy:

Now when some dirty laundry is coming out on another candidate you say "their picking on him:bawl:" - "the media should stop asking about these things". Well i am on the fence about Obama and there is the possibility he would make a great P:resident but frankly i am not really excited about any of them. Well I do like Hillary because i think she is really smart and the prospect of a female President is appealing to me.

I keep hearing "the prospect of a female/black president is so appealing to me" as one of the deciding factors of who people are voting for and it pisses me off to no end. It's such a terrible stupid uninformed way to pick the leader of our country, the person who sets the tone for policy decisions across the board. And that person is picked because of one of the few things they have no control over? Eurgh.

What about Hilary's policies do you like over Obama's and McCain's John99?

I keep hearing "the prospect of a female/black president is so appealing to me" as one of the deciding factors of who people are voting for and it pisses me off to no end. It's such a terrible stupid uninformed way to pick the leader of our country, the person who sets the tone for policy decisions across the board. And that person is picked because of one of the few things they have no control over? Eurgh.

What about Hilary's policies do you like over Obama's and McCain's John99?

I agree. What are people thinking?

Wait!? Obama is black!!??

Wait!? Obama is black!!??

He is 50-50. But appearantly was raised by his white grandma during formative years. HTH's.

He is 50-50. But appearantly was raised by his white grandma during formative years. HTH's.

...oh ok then:o

What about Hilary's policies do you like over Obama's and McCain's John99?

They're very similar, AFAIK. Difference, for me, is i know the cards that will be played in Presidential election should she win. Obama, i think...i dont know but he is going to have an uphill battle.

Now when some dirty laundry is coming out on another candidate you say "their picking on him" - "the media should stop asking about these things". It's not dirty laundry, it's ordinary laundry mucked up with invention and slander and sensationalism. It's dirtied, not dirty.

Reporting on McCain's first marriage, the general ugly facts, would be dirty laundry.

Publicizing some "relevant person's" accusations that he probably beat her, and asking him repeatedly in public interviews on prime time TV whether he beat her, and interviewing experts on PTSD and spousal abuse who speculate on the matter, and then when the facts come out continuing to run the accusations and the quotes and stuff under the premise of denying them and "setting the story straight", would be the sort of thing we are taking as normal from the Obama coverage.

I have nowhere claimed that Hillary has not come in for a great deal of such abuse. And I'm sure if she were the Dem frontrunner, it would be she rather than Obama getting the lion's share of it now (actually, Obama's candidacy would be yesterday's news if his campaign had gone as hers has. She has been getting lots of help from the media). But she isn't, and it hasn't been.

And the people dealing the abuse, under the guise of "reporting" shit that doesn't exist outside their "reports", are well aware of the actual election at stake here - the comparison is with McCain's coverage.

It's not dirty laundry, it's ordinary laundry mucked up with invention and slander and sensationalism. It's dirtied, not dirty.



OK. how is it slander to report facts and events in an election? I think your just emotionally tied to a candidate and it is just your perception.

OK. how is it slander to report facts and events in an election? Is it your view that coverage of Obama's secret Muslim identity from his schooling in a madrassa, his spritual belief that God should damn America, his refusal to say the Pledge of Allegiance or salute the flag or sing the anthem, his endorsement of his wife's out of context writings in a graduate level university thesis on an irrelevant topic, his endorsement of the political stances of the Weather Underground based on his cordial relations with a former member of it,

and so forth and so on, 24/7/ going on 365 here

is "reporting" on "facts and events" ?

personally i think if hamas is trying to influence the us election like other terrorist groups. they are endorsing obama to ensure a republican gets elected like bush or mccain gets elected because that is better for them.

I have seen it brought up about his 'secret Muslim identity' brought up one or twice. What did you think it would'nt come up or people are not allowed to ask questions? I think your just bein overly sensitive towards Obama. For me, i think Bill Clinton was in top three of all time U.S Presidents so thats where i am coming from.

No, it isn't obvious.

Sure, it is — if you ever bothered to peer over the cover of your World Socialist Quarterly, or whatever it is you always link to. Heck, even Saturday Night Live made fun of the Media — and Hillary's reaction to them — and its obsession with cosying up to Obama.

Leave the bubble. You might learn something.

And the fact that "deranged" (your vocabulary does come in handy) stuff like that is not being "reported" about McCain (and less about Hillary) is exactly my point.

You mean like McCain's S&L involvement? The faux Sex Scandel? Or Hillary's sniper incident? Her daughter's campaigning style? Bill's campaigning style? The numerous reportage about Hillary's lack of likability? Yeah, Obama is the ONLY candidate who suffers from shallow attempts to scandalize...

My stupid scenario would be no more "invented" than the Wright controversy, for example: McCain really did spend years in a Vietnam prison, being pressured and abused by his captors. There's plenty of "foundation" for all kinds of sensational speculation and harassment of McCain there.

You're still trying to present this as rationale? What one man actually SAID versus your bizarre theory and inferences? Ok. Sure. Whatever...

Hagee the fanatical fundie really has endorsed McCain, along with making speeches about the Crusade against Islam and the importance of war with Iran. Lots of opportunity for Obama-level sensationalism, there.

I've had this argument with you, don't care to have it again. Hagee doesn't work for McCain's campaign, isn't McCain's philosophical mentor, etc. And, despite our mutual disgust with his remarks, I'd wager that Hagee's are far more palatable to the masses, who have love for neither Islam or Iran, than Wright's lies, demagogery and rabid anti-Americanism.

I know it's tough for liberals like yourself to understand, but Americans don't like hearing bad shit about their country. Period.

Sure, it is — if you ever bothered to peer over the cover of your World Socialist Quarterly, or whatever it is you always link to. Heck, even Saturday Night Live made fun of the Media — and Hillary's reaction to them — and its obsession with cosying up to Obama.

Leave the bubble. You might learn something.



You mean like McCain's S&L involvement? The faux Sex Scandel? Or Hillary's sniper incident? Her daughter's campaigning style? Bill's campaigning style? The numerous reportage about Hillary's lack of likability? Yeah, Obama is the ONLY candidate who suffers from shallow attempts to scandalize...



You're still trying to present this as rationale? What one man actually SAID versus your bizarre theory and inferences? Ok. Sure. Whatever...



I've had this argument with you, don't care to have it again. Hagee doesn't work for McCain's campaign, isn't McCain's philosophical mentor, etc. And, despite our mutual disgust with his remarks, I'd wager that Hagee's are far more palatable to the masses, who have love for neither Islam or Iran, than Wright's lies, demagogery and rabid anti-Americanism.

I know it's tough for liberals like yourself to understand, but Americans don't like hearing bad shit about their country. Period.

better idea you leave your bubble.
and because conservatives like you don't want to talk about what is wrong in the states nothing gets done about it. I know its tough for conservatives like yourself to understand ignoring something isn't the same as doing something about it.

PJ your ignorance — on just about every issue you attempt to discuss on this site — generally matches your command of the language.

MY ignorance you if something is conservative to you it must be wrong. i look at many sources of a range of views to get my info. you probably just listen to shit that confirms what you want to believe.

and because conservatives like you don't want to talk about what is wrong in the states nothing gets done about it. I know its tough for conservatives like yourself to understand ignoring something isn't the same as doing something about it.

You continue to see everything in black and white terms and continue to label people — even though you haven't demonstrated an ability to understand the labels you so casually toss around...

For the record: Don't confuse an assessment of reality with approval and participation. I'm all for looking at America's problems and discussing them on the way to finding positive solutions.

That being said, I stand by my statement that most Americans don't want to see or read bad shit — usually the shit is biased, too — about their country. This is human thing, replicated the world-over. Look around you, evidence to support my claim isn't hard to find. See the failure of Hollywoood's shambolic anti-War films, the reaction to Wright's stupid comments or the Move-On ad last year blasting Petraeus. Rabid anti-American commentators can't sell books, can't get on television, can't get a foothold in the Media anywhere. The reason is simple. Nobody, except likeminded rabid zealots, wants to listen to them. I'm sorry the country — and the world, for that matter — is not to your liking. But I didn't make it this way.

I have seen it brought up about his 'secret Muslim identity' brought up one or twice. What did you think it would'nt come up or people are not allowed to ask questions? I think major media news sources bringing it up on national media outlets and publicizing it as a real question worthy of consideration, is unforgivably bad "reporting" - and symptomatic of deep problems with those news sources.

But if they're willing to do the equivalent to McCain, someday soon, no problem - I mean no problem other than the evisceration of the possibility of participatory democracy on the national level in the US, and the further revelation of the facade that has been concealing the travesty the news media has become around here, but that seems to be already in the works.

Meanwhile - be interesting to see how 'Ol Redass handles some Obama level "heat" coming at him for a couple of months consecutive. May as well have some entertainment, if we can't get information. Does McCain's girlfriend lobbyist have a confidante we can wiretap ?

Heck, even Saturday Night Live made fun of the Media — and Hillary's reaction to them — and its obsession with cosying up to Obama. I've said it before - you can't parody this shit.

Of course Hamas endorses Obama, the far-left has been an ally of the terrorists for a long time. Not a direct ally, but a propoganda ally. The radical left has been blaming the U.S. for terrorist bombings for a long time. Every time a terrorist blows up a 100 innocent people, you can always count on the far-left to basically go "Oh my god, look what the U.S. has done again" !
The terrorist groups LOVE this, free propoganda from the radical left around the world.
Seeing how Obama is the furthest to the left in this election, and wants to help the terrorists in Iraq, of course Hamas (and other terrorist groups no doubt) endorse Obama.

You continue to see everything in black and white terms and continue to label people — even though you haven't demonstrated an ability to understand the labels you so casually toss around...

For the record: Don't confuse an assessment of reality with approval and participation. I'm all for looking at America's problems and discussing them on the way to finding positive solutions.

That being said, I stand by my statement that most Americans don't want to see or read bad shit — usually the shit is biased, too — about their country. This is human thing, replicated the world-over. Look around you, evidence to support my claim isn't hard to find. See the failure of Hollywoood's shambolic anti-War films, the reaction to Wright's stupid comments or the Move-On ad last year blasting Petraeus. Rabid anti-American commentators can't sell books, can't get on television, can't get a foothold in the Media anywhere. The reason is simple. Nobody, except likeminded rabid zealots, wants to listen to them. I'm sorry the country — and the world, for that matter — is not to your liking. But I didn't make it this way.

i get it so only you get to throw fucking labels around. get off you high horse. I understand the fucking labels. and your liberal your wrong attitude toward me shows a very black and white view. i understand far better. i dumb views for people like you.

i get so only through fucking labels get off you high horse. I understand the fucking labels.

What?

Exactly. Mommy and Daddy really need to get him off the internet so the adults can chat.

Of course Hamas endorses Obama, the far-left has been an ally of the terrorists for a long time. Y'know, at some point the incompatibility of "Islamofascist" and "far left" needs to be at least cursorily examined in the light of reality, by the Ranters.
For the record: Don't confuse an assessment of reality with approval and participation. And don't confuse assessment of reality with realistic assessment, either.

Rabid anti-American commentators can't sell books, can't get on television, can't get a foothold in the Media anywhere. The reason is simple. Nobody, except likeminded rabid zealots, wants to listen to them. Which brings up an interesting situation, when almost everyone who has a handle on reality is a "rabid anti-American commentator".

When major aspects of ordinary reality accurately described can't get a foothold in the Media anywhere, what does the News end up looking like ? I think we know.

Exactly. Mommy and Daddy really need to get him off the internet so the adults can chat.

unlike you my parents had the decency to teach how to think. and how to view things from all sides before forming an opinoin

Y'know, at some point the incompatibility of "Islamofascist" and "far left" needs to be at least cursorily examined in the light of reality, by the Ranters.

I agree. The two don't match up, ideologically, in any arena — save for one: Anti-Americanism. Here, the gel together quite nicely.

And don't confuse assessment of reality with realistic assessment, either.

So you think the majority of Americans want to hear biased attacks — or painful truths — about their country? What, pray tell, is your basis for this? I mean, the people you hang around might relish such things...

Which brings up an interesting situation, when almost everyone who has a handle on reality is a "rabid anti-American commentator".

I know you really think that — and in a way it's sweet. I used to believe in Santa Claus, you know?

When major aspects of ordinary reality accurately described can't get a foothold in the Media anywhere, what does the News end up looking like ? I think we know.

No, you THINK you know.

Look, the Media does a poor job on many fronts, but I can't and won't subscribe to your childish notion that because you don't see Socialist swill in the Media that reflects your warped appreciation of the world that it is somehow not reflecting reality. In other words, it's high time you realize most people don't share your beliefs and aren't interested in them. It's also high time you realize that arguing FOR a bias that reflects your own is nothing more than a different version of the bias you claim to detect. The goal should be to expunge ALL biases, not demand one closer to our own.

But as usual, you're most interested in yourself.

I agree. The two don't match up, ideologically, in any arena — save for one: Anti-Americanism. Here, the gel together quite nicely.



So you think the majority of Americans want to hear biased attacks — or painful truths — about their country? What, pray tell, is your basis for this? I mean, the people you hang around might relish such things...



I know you really think that — and in a way it's sweet. I used to believe in Santa Claus, you know?



No, you THINK you know.

Look, the Media does a poor job on many fronts, but I can't and won't subscribe to your childish notion that because you don't see Socialist swill in the Media that reflects your warped appreciation of the world that it is somehow not reflecting reality. In other words, it's high time you realize most people don't share your beliefs and aren't interested in them. It's also high time you realize that arguing FOR a bias that reflects your own is nothing more than a different version of the bias you claim to detect. The goal should be to expunge ALL biases, not demand one closer to our own.

But as usual, you're most interested in yourself.

the far left is no more anti-american than the far right.

the far left is no more anti-american than the far right.

They are BOTH anti-American.

What is with the guilt by association problem here, If hamas said 2+2=4 does that make it untrue: if hamas likes obama does that mean obama is a bad candidate? If obama were muslim (which is not) would that make him a terrorist or terrorist sympathizer?

if hamas likes obama does that mean obama is a bad candidate?


No, it just means Hamas is picking the candidate that would be most favorable for helping their cause.

No, it just means Hamas is picking the candidate that would be most favorable for helping their cause.

Or picking the candidate least likely to continue fucking with the middle east, which you have to admit has been a mostly thankless endeavour costing us trillions of dollars and thousand of lives.

It's looking like Obama is going to win the Democratic nomination. Based on his performance in the primaries and all the crap that continues to come out about him, McCain is going to crush him.

It's looking like Obama is going to win the Democratic nomination. Based on his performance in the primaries and all the crap that continues to come out about him, McCain is going to crush him.

I would not say "crush", but generally McCain is going to win. The real factor for McCain victory is the few percent of democrats pissed off by Hillary's losses that don't vote or vote for him, that going to tip the scale to Mccain. Even in a voltron combined ticket against Mccain enough damage has been done and if Mccain puts Rice on his ticket he will have negated the minority factor.

It's looking like Obama is going to win the Democratic nomination. Based on his performance in the primaries and all the crap that continues to come out about him, McCain is going to crush him.

lol? the "crap" that has been coming out about obama is just that crap no one has yet to attack him on anything of substance. mccain chances aren't good

Or picking the candidate least likely to continue fucking with the middle east, which you have to admit has been a mostly thankless endeavour costing us trillions of dollars and thousand of lives.

The U.S. isn't causing all the problems in the middle east, the radical muslim terrorist groups are.

I know, I know, until the U.S. military stops strapping bombs around U.S. military members chests and blowing them up in crowds of civilians, this won't stop. Bad U.S. military, Bad U.S. military !! :rolleyes:
/end sarcasm

lol? the "crap" that has been coming out about obama is just that crap no one has yet to attack him on anything of substance.

It's "not of substance" to people on the far-left, because people on the far-left are empathetic to Obama having a racist anti-American reverend for 20 years. If anything, that made the radical left in America even more proud of Obama, so it's no issue to them.

The U.S. isn't causing all the problems in the middle east, the radical muslim terrorist groups are.

I know, I know, until the U.S. military stops strapping bombs around U.S. military members chests and blowing them up in crowds of civilians, this won't stop. Bad U.S. military, Bad U.S. military !! :rolleyes:
/end sarcasm

Who do you think gave those terrorist power? Who gave them money and weapons in the 70-80's only to have them bite the 'hand that feed them' in the 80-90's and today? Who keeps the Saudis in power despite them being a repressive theocratic monarchy and not a democracy? Who turned Iraq from a secular country ruled by a mad man (apparently fear of death by psychopathic dictator is the only thing that held these people together), into a divided country returning to theocracy and breeding terrorists and resent for the vary people that are blowing huge amounts of money to keep Iraqis "free"?

Who do you think gave those terrorist power? Who gave them money and weapons in the 70-80's only to have them bite the 'hand that feed them' in the 80-90's and today? Who keeps the Saudis in power despite them being a repressive theocratic monarchy and not a democracy? Who turned Iraq from a secular country ruled by a mad man (apparently fear of death by psychopathic dictator is the only thing that held these people together), into a divided country returning to theocracy and breeding terrorists and resent for the vary people that are blowing huge amounts of money to keep Iraqis "free"?


Funny how the left always digs back in history until they can find a U.S. connection, just so they can pin the blame on the U.S. rather than the people at present that are doing all the terrorist bombings.

LOL, "the U.S." keeps the Saudis in power.............I suppose it was U.S. CIA agents that fertilized the parents of the monarchy of that country..:rolleyes:

Funny how the left always digs back in history until they can find a U.S. connection, just so they can pin the blame on the U.S. rather than the people at present that are doing all the terrorist bombings.

LOL, "the U.S." keeps the Saudis in power.............I suppose it was U.S. CIA agents that fertilized the parents of the monarchy of that country..:rolleyes:

No history no future. Where do you think the F-15s, and the money to buy them came from ?.

Who do you think gave those terrorist power? Who gave them money and weapons in the 70-80's only to have them bite the 'hand that feed them' in the 80-90's and today? Who keeps the Saudis in power despite them being a repressive theocratic monarchy and not a democracy? Who turned Iraq from a secular country ruled by a mad man (apparently fear of death by psychopathic dictator is the only thing that held these people together), into a divided country returning to theocracy and breeding terrorists and resent for the vary people that are blowing huge amounts of money to keep Iraqis "free"?

As usual, your views are jaded and somewhat ignorant of actual history.

No history no future. Where do you think the F-15s, and the money to buy them came from ?.

The F-15s came from the US, which sells them to all kinds of friendly states. Canada has some, too. So what's your point? The money for the Saudis F-15s came from the Saudi oil, which is there by the will of God or a freak of nature, dependent on your point of view. So again, what's your point?

Two incompatible takes:
So you think the majority of Americans want to hear biased attacks — or painful truths — about their country?
- - - -
Look, the Media does a poor job on many fronts, but I can't and won't subscribe to your childish notion that because you don't see Socialist swill in the Media that reflects your warped appreciation of the world that it is somehow not reflecting reality. I see the past few months you have loyally picked up on the latest Ranter trend, phasing out "partisan" and replacing it with "socialist". Dictionaries are apparently still out of fashion.

The ability of the apologists for recent media behavior to keep both of these often contradictory scenarios in mind simultaneously, bouncing from one to the other depending on which best deflects the issue at hand, is evidence of considerable effort.

But the question - completely appropriate for this thread btw - remains: what is a media that must classify so many truths, painful and otherwise, as "socialist swill", and therefore not present them, going to do for "news" ?

In addition to the obvious corporate-right bias, this provides another explanation for what we see on TV these days: simple entropy - the same factor that piles the dust under the bed. Something has to go into the news "hole", and if the important plain facts and developments with ordinary competent reportage are unacceptable then the choice is trivia or invention - ideally both.

Two incompatible takes: I see the past few months you have loyally picked up on the latest Ranter trend, phasing out "partisan" and replacing it with "socialist". Dictionaries are apparently still out of fashion.

I choose the word "socialist" because you have linked me to silly socialist publications literally dozens of times, if not more, during my time here. Oftentimes the link is to refute a claim made in the main stream media, which at least claims to strive for objectivity, or to advance a counter-claim of your own. So applying the term in the discussion here seems apt. You bemoan — or at least, have bemoaned — the media for not seeing the sort of tripe you read in Socialist publications in the MSM. That's you. Not me.

The ability of the apologists for recent media behavior to keep both of these often contradictory scenarios in mind simultaneously, bouncing from one to the other depending on which best deflects the issue at hand, is evidence of considerable effort.

Now I am an apologist for the Media? Wow. That's the second time in the span of 7 days I've been called an apologist — all because I can't agree with someone else's bias or kooky appreciation of the world.

And it's equally funny how people of your particular bent, both here and in the real world, rush to try to affix that word to anyone who doesn't accept their goofy claims. Over in one of the many 9/11 threads, for example, I've been called an "apologist" for the powers that be, because I don't concur with baseless conspiracy theories about who "really" brought those buildings down.

Here, as is the case there, the label — and the claim it is based on — have little or no connection to reality. But hey, when has that ever stopped you — or your ilk?

I think, for example, that even a cursory glance at my record on this issue shows that I am extremely critical of how the media handles politics. I think if you look back through this thread, you will see that I have talked about the Media eschewing substance in favor of sensationalism. The only difference is that you seem to think the sensationalism is all one-side, despite the list of examples I provided to the contrary...

But the question - completely appropriate for this thread btw - remains: what is a media that must classify so many truths, painful and otherwise, as "socialist swill", and therefore not present them, going to do for "news" ?

And this is proof of your bias. You accept said swill as truth without providing a scrap of proof as to why you do. And should anyone prompt you or question you on this, or on any particular claim of "truth," they would, based on my experience with you, get little more than opinion and subjective arguments. Your entitled to this, of course, but your inability to comprehend that the other "side" or "sides" can muster the same for its "truth" still amazes me.

Meanwhile, as is often the case, your esoteric response avoids a relevant answer to what you were asked. That is, "So you think the majority of Americans want to hear biased attacks — or painful truths — about their country?"

Cazzo,

Hey please do kill the terrorist, by all means, I'm just asking that we stop buying their oil and paying them, hopefully it will be a matter of history some day but we are paying them now!

You don't need to sire a royal family to keep them in power, in fact siring them would do nothing, now paying them...

countezero,

I could say the same about you. But I think stating counter arguments is better then just white washing it as simply ignorance, if you have a problem with my statement then specify it.

Cazzo assumes America can do no wrong, and that doesn't lead to improvement. Obama's ex-pastor was a Marine, I don't call that anti-American. He earned the right to criticize his own country. In any case, he is not Obama, but Obama will be unfairly swift-boated for it.

I choose the word "socialist" because you have linked me to silly socialist publications literally dozens of times, if not more, during my time here. Yeah, I remember. They started out "liberal" and "socialist", Wall Street Journal and all, and graded into "socialist". But then few months ago they started becoming "partisan", and they stayed pretty much "partisan" - with an occasional foray into "leftist" or "liberal" - for a bit, and then recently they started becoming "socialist" again.

So IIRC the Daily Kos was "socialist", and then the Lancet was "partisan", and Juan Cole was both, and "anti-American" also, as was the guy who supplied the most reliable info about the location and timeline of the Iranian/British sailor crisis (did you notice, last week, the Brits released documents verifying the "socialist" and "anti-American" physical facts of the event ? Not that they weren't obvious - - ), and The New York Times was "leftist" and "liberal", and by direct inference "anti-American".

It was somewhere in there I suggested the purchase of a good dictionary. I also suggested the incorporation of factual reality and historical reliability into one's evaluation of sources, rather than the other way around, and a general avoidance of irrelevant a priori classification schemes for sources of information.

But then I twigged to the larger context - the fad usage in Rightyrant mediaworld - and realized that dictionaries were pretty much irrelevant in the matter.

So they're "socialist" again - and by amazing coincidence, William Kristol has returned to that word, and a couple of "intellectuals" in the wingnut sphere have been explicitly recommending the use of the word to pick up the slack as "liberal" loses its punch.

You're cutting edge, count.
Now I am an apologist for the Media? Wow. That's the second time in the span of 7 days I've been called an apologist — all because I can't agree with someone else's bias or kooky appreciation of the world. Nah, what makes you an apologist is your attributing their obvious propaganda tilt to relatively innocent motives and considerations, without regard to their responsibilities. They're just pandering, sensationalizing, etc - the slant of all that pandering is jsut how the chips fall, apparently.

Yeah, I remember. They started out "liberal" and "socialist", Wall Street Journal and all, and graded into "socialist". But then few months ago they started becoming "partisan", and they stayed pretty much "partisan" - with an occasional foray into "leftist" or "liberal" - for a bit, and then recently they started becoming "socialist" again.

Arguing about arguing, again?

Seriously, your ability to spout bullshit appreciation — minus any sort of context, of course — as evidence never ceases to amaze. I have no idea what you're talking about. I used the world socialist because you refer me to socialist bullshit all the time. Or at least you used to until you realized how little an impression it made on me.

But if you want to attach "liberal", "partisan," and "leftist" to yourself, too, then go right ahead. I wouldn't object to any of those labels, regarding your bias...

So IIRC the Daily Kos was "socialist", and then the Lancet was "partisan", and Juan Cole was both, and "anti-American" also, as was the guy who supplied the most reliable info about the location and timeline of the Iranian/British sailor crisis (did you notice, last week, the Brits released documents verifying the "socialist" and "anti-American" physical facts of the event ? Not that they weren't obvious - - ), and The New York Times was "leftist" and "liberal", and by direct inference "anti-American".

Again, I honestly have no idea what you're talking about, and I refuse to take your appreciation of whatever you're talking about as factual, given your obvious dislike for me and your suspect motives. The NYT "anti-American?" What are you talking about? I read the NYT! And while I would say there are slightly Leftist and probably partisan, I don't think they are anti-American.

Plus, all of this has NOTHING to do with what this thread is about and what we're talking about. You asked why I used the word socialist, and I have explained it. Whether you accept the explanation or not, I don't care. But let's move on. Let's no rehash battles from months ago and end up arguing about arguing, a situation you somehow manage to bring about in just about every single thread where someone challenges your opinions — opinions that are wrongly stated as facts.

It was somewhere in there I suggested the purchase of a good dictionary. I also suggested the incorporation of factual reality and historical reliability into one's evaluation of sources, rather than the other way around, and a general avoidance of irrelevant a priori classification schemes for sources of information.

Yeah. I'll make a note of that, being that your opinion means so much to me and I totally accept your characterization of me. Sure. OK.

You're cutting edge, count.

And you're a tired, hackneyed version of every little fist ever beat against a chest somewhere, so what's your point?

Nah, what makes you an apologist is your attributing their obvious propaganda tilt to relatively innocent motives and considerations, without regard to their responsibilities. They're just pandering, sensationalizing, etc - the slant of all that pandering is jsut how the chips fall, apparently.

It's not obvious. Or at least it's not obvious to people who don't read socialist publications.

And you haven't proven your "slant" at all. You've merely shown people you believe there is one. Again, the possibility that they can reach difference conclusions still alludes your noteworthy faculties.

To reiterate, I posted a list of hammerings doled out to Clinton and McCain. In regards to the latter, we have another today, courtesy of the LA Times, which has decided to question whether McCain is a viable candidate because he is on disability.

But as someone else has already brilliantly suggested, perhaps the reason we're seeing little on McCain at the moment is because he is a non-figure in the "big" game in town: The Democratic primaries. McCain has won. There's little chance for sensationalistic crap there — at least, not until the general election. Yet, this simple, stupid motive alludes you, because you'd rather rant about corporate media and complicated conspiracies. You know what conspiracy there is? Making money. And fights — what with their requisite crap and all — sells. Duh.

It's "not of substance" to people on the far-left, because people on the far-left are empathetic to Obama having a racist anti-American reverend for 20 years. If anything, that made the radical left in America even more proud of Obama, so it's no issue to them.

its not of substance because its irrelavant to his ability to lead.

The NYT "anti-American?" What are you talking about? I read the NYT! And while I would say there are slightly Leftist and probably partisan, I don't think they are anti-American. And so your numerous and repetitive ascriptions of anti-American bias to Left (in your calssification system) entities, including for example your little comment up there about the Islamofascists and the Left having anti-Americanism in common, is just another one of those things you say that aren't meant to be taken seriously the way you say them. Of course.
Plus, all of this has NOTHING to do with what this thread is about and what we're talking about. It has everything to do with what you are talking about, which as usual is other posters and their (bad) character, style (boring) of arguing, grasp (inferior) of reality, and so forth. You asked why I used the word socialist, and I have explained it. No I didn't. Why would I ? It's perfectly obvious why you use "socialist", and under what circumstances. It's when you want to talk disparagingly in righty-code about how other people argue, your favorite subject, at great length, and you find such code labels convenient.
But as someone else has already brilliantly suggested, perhaps the reason we're seeing little on McCain at the moment is because he is a non-figure in the "big" game in town: The Democratic primaries. McCain has won. There's little chance for sensationalistic crap there McCain is not a non-figure in the Dem primaries by some kind of natural way of things - the main purpose of them is to choose the most effective opponent for him, and his stances, politics, etc, ought to be front and center and used for comparison all the time. And there are plenty of chances for sensationalism, cutting into his fundraising, etc. Or there would be. He's certainly included in the commentary arena - where his "non-figure" status translates into immunity, not invisibility.

Cazzo assumes America can do no wrong, and that doesn't lead to improvement. Obama's ex-pastor was a Marine, I don't call that anti-American. He earned the right to criticize his own country. In any case, he is not Obama, but Obama will be unfairly swift-boated for it.


That's not true.
GWB has increased the national debt greatly like an idiot, pollution needs to be controlled more, and our roads need better repairs. Just a few problems in the U.S.

I just like to pick on the radical left more because they're a bigger problem than some of America's other problems.

Like I say, the reason leftists brush off Obama's 20 year relation with his anti-American pastor, is because they're empathetic with his pastor's views.

That's not true.
GWB has increased the national debt greatly like an idiot, pollution needs to be controlled more, and our roads need better repairs. Just a few problems in the U.S.

I just like to pick on the radical left more because they're a bigger problem than some of America's other problems.

Like I say, the reason leftists brush off Obama's 20 year relation with his anti-American pastor, is because they're empathetic with his pastor's views.
To even insist the pastors views had no credibility,or were not the on the minds of millions of others is simple delusion usually resulting from conservatives feeling guilty,there pathethic patriotism which are pathethic superiority complexes being struck when someone expresses anger that totally is a result from the issues with the operation of the government and etc.Pastor Wright is saying what Thousands of black,white,young and even old citizens have been saying for years.

You think Pastor Wright views are disturbing,you would have a heart attack speaking to Alex Jones.Not only does he present his argument in a professional manner,the man will back his argument up to the point any conservative or ultra conservative such as ANN RICE illogical ass would not dare attempt to debate.

That's not true.
GWB has increased the national debt greatly like an idiot, pollution needs to be controlled more, and our roads need better repairs. Just a few problems in the U.S.

I just like to pick on the radical left more because they're a bigger problem than some of America's other problems.

Like I say, the reason leftists brush off Obama's 20 year relation with his anti-American pastor, is because they're empathetic with his pastor's views.

Except for the AIDs thing, I don't see what JW said that was wrong. You obviously aren't black, and don't know the experience they have had in this country. They go fight our wars and then come home to be treated like second-class citizens.

Except for the AIDs thing, I don't see what JW said that was wrong. You obviously aren't black, and don't know the experience they have had in this country. They go fight our wars and then come home to be treated like second-class citizens.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Except for the AIDs thing, I don't see what JW said that was wrong. You obviously aren't black, and don't know the experience they have had in this country. They go fight our wars and then come home to be treated like second-class citizens.

Yea, tell that to Supreme Court Justice Thomas, Condolezza Rice, or General Colin Powell................
Oh, I know, I know, they're associated with Republicans, that means they're not black anymore....

To even insist the pastors views had no credibility,or were not the on the minds of millions of others is simple delusion usually resulting from conservatives feeling guilty,there pathethic patriotism which are pathethic superiority complexes being struck when someone expresses anger that totally is a result from the issues with the operation of the government and etc.Pastor Wright is saying what Thousands of black,white,young and even old citizens have been saying for years.

You think Pastor Wright views are disturbing,you would have a heart attack speaking to Alex Jones.Not only does he present his argument in a professional manner,the man will back his argument up to the point any conservative or ultra conservative such as ANN RICE illogical ass would not dare attempt to debate.

Whoa, like I said, some people are empathetic with his pastor's message, that's why it's a non-issue with them. Your post proves my point.

I would tell that to them, they probably agree.

Yea, tell that to Supreme Court Justice Thomas, Condolezza Rice, or General Colin Powell................
Oh, I know, I know, they're associated with Republicans, that means they're not black anymore....

Oh they are black,however how much they loved? Not much because they are on the side that has a history of consistently putting those of there skin color with financial issues down while lifting themselves up.Your inconsideration is so common and typical of a conservative.:rolleyes:

Except for the AIDs thing, I don't see what JW said that was wrong. You obviously aren't black, and don't know the experience they have had in this country. They go fight our wars and then come home to be treated like second-class citizens.

Yea, tell that to Supreme Court Justice Thomas, Condolezza Rice, or General Colin Powell................
Oh, I know, I know, they're associated with Republicans, that means they're not black anymore....

oops, double post.

Oh they are black,however how much they loved? Not much because they are on the side that has a history of consistently putting those of there skin color with financial issues down while lifting themselves up.Your inconsideration is so common and typical of a conservative.:rolleyes:


So a black person isn't a true black if they're not a leftist ? Or they're a traitor to their race if they're conservative ?
People like Condolezza Rica, Judge Thomas, and Gen. Powell should be condemned for working hard and being acheivers in society ?

:rolleyes:So a black person isn't a true black if they're not a leftist ? Or they're a traitor to their race if they're conservative ?
People like Condolezza Rica, Judge Thomas, and Gen. Powell should be condemned for working hard and being acheivers in society ?

DID YOU JUST READ ANYTHING OF WHAT I SAID? OR ARE YOU SO FOCUSED ON BEING RIGHT IT IS BLINDING YOUR INABILITY TO COMPREHEND??

McCain's buddy Pastor Hagee said that Hurricane Katrina was God's punishment for gayness.

:rolleyes:

DID YOU JUST READ ANYTHING OF WHAT I SAID? OR ARE YOU SO FOCUSED ON BEING RIGHT IT IS BLINDING YOUR INABILITY TO COMPREHEND??

I did read what you wrote :
"Oh they are black,however how much they loved? Not much because they are on the side that has a history of consistently putting those of there skin color with financial issues down while lifting themselves up"

To which I responded :
"So a black person isn't a true black if they're not a leftist ? Or they're a traitor to their race if they're conservative ?
People like Condolezza Rica, Judge Thomas, and Gen. Powell should be condemned for working hard and being acheivers in society ?"

I think you're just angry because you know I'm right.
You're condemning successful blacks because of just that, they're successful, and it defies you're stereotype that blacks are victims of the U.S. society. And those successful blacks aren't left-wing radicals.

Bad logic. Not all blacks are victims of US society, there is a growing black middle class, but there is also plenty of reason for them to be critical of the US, even the successful ones.

Whoa, like I said, some people are empathetic with his pastor's message, that's why it's a non-issue with them. Your post proves my point.

Bad logic. Not all blacks are victims of US society, there is a growing black middle class, but there is also plenty of reason for them to be critical of the US, even the successful ones.

I always laugh at how these conservatives insist that just because someone is black and sucessful they should not complain about oppression or the fucked up operation of there government,as if they dont have cousins who are struggling,or family members,friends,or as if they themselves did not come from dirt poor,no matter how rich you are open arms are always for the individual that is willing to make a change in a positive way.Silly conservs,and they wonder why they are such a dying breed in todays politics.

As usual, your views are jaded and somewhat ignorant of actual history.



The F-15s came from the US, which sells them to all kinds of friendly states. Canada has some, too. So what's your point? The money for the Saudis F-15s came from the Saudi oil, which is there by the will of God or a freak of nature, dependent on your point of view. So again, what's your point?

Exactly, and who is the largest buyer of saudi oil ? Which is what props them up.
So, if you put your money where your mouth is , and claim to support democracy and freedom, then why don't you switch supply to Iran, which is democratic ish...Oh wait, they threw your puppet out didn't they ? .
My point is, it is history that led to a hostile Iranian nation, It is history that led to a lot of things. You can't just dismiss it out of hand.

And so your numerous and repetitive ascriptions of anti-American bias to Left (in your calssification system) entities, including for example your little comment up there about the Islamofascists and the Left having anti-Americanism in common, is just another one of those things you say that aren't meant to be taken seriously the way you say them. Of course.

You're generalizing my remarks, trying to make them fit your pattern.

There are plenty of people on the Left who are not anti-American, but yes, the Left is where most of the anti-Americanism resides. It's an outgrowth of the Left's vitriol for business, capitalism, what it calls imperialism and generally a product of rampant post-colonial modes of thought that took hold in the 1960s and ascribed a ridiculous level of immorality to the West and its actions, based on politically untenable Kantian ethics.

And whether you like it or not, socialism, and its bellicose criticism of western life and capitalism, echoes much of the anti-American and anti-Western sentiment espoused from people who are radical Muslims. That's not to say I view the two in similar terms. I don't, and I said as much in a previous post. I merely said they match up in certain areas. I mean, we have posters on this site who say things eerily similar to what bin Laden does, but I don't think they're terrorists. Get it?

No I didn't. Why would I ?

You're right. I looked back. You didn't ask. But you attempted to tell me why I used it, which is a cheap rhetorical ploy, and attempted to lump me in with people I haven't the slightest fondness for and typically ignore. Now I've explained it, so you can cease with such assumptions and put away your clumsy brush.

It's perfectly obvious why you use "socialist", and under what circumstances.

Well, I think so, too. You always hold suspect socialist sources up as "truth." If you don't want to be ridiculed about them, don't mention them.

It's when you want to talk disparagingly in righty-code about how other people argue, your favorite subject, at great length, and you find such code labels convenient. [/QUOTE

Oh, please. Stop with this tripe. You think everyone who isn't a Leftist, that is everyone who isn't out there, bobbing in the ocean with you nearer to the coast of China than California, talks in "righty-code," whatever the fuck that means. When will you realize that disagreement with you doesn't equal agreeing with something else? That ideology isn't either or? Not anytime soon, I suspect.

[QUOTE=iceaura;1832898] McCain is not a non-figure in the Dem primaries by some kind of natural way of things - the main purpose of them is to choose the most effective opponent for him, and his stances, politics, etc, ought to be front and center and used for comparison all the time.

Well, that's up to the candidates isn't it? And although they do attack McCain from time to time, they spend more time attacking each other, throwing dirt or talking about specious things like "leadership" or "change." It's not the Media's job to shape the debate.

And there are plenty of chances for sensationalism, cutting into his fundraising, etc. Or there would be. He's certainly included in the commentary arena - where his "non-figure" status translates into immunity, not invisibility.

Look, when the Media's golden boy, Obama, squares off against McCain, you'll start to see the Media get all over the latter...

Exactly, and who is the largest buyer of saudi oil ? Which is what props them up.

I don't know who buys the most oil from the Saudis: But is the US now responsible for the political situation with every country it trades with? What sort of foreign policy can be crafted with such absolutist positions? And have you ever considered what Saudi Arabia would be like if the US and the rest of the world wasn't buying the oil there?

So, if you put your money where your mouth is , and claim to support democracy and freedom, then why don't you switch supply to Iran, which is democratic ish...Oh wait, they threw your puppet out didn't they ? .

They also took a bunch of Americans hostage and have been conducting terrorist attacks on Americans (and others) for more than 20 years.

My point is, it is history that led to a hostile Iranian nation, It is history that led to a lot of things. You can't just dismiss it out of hand.

You weren't even talking about Iran before, were you?

could we manage to wander the fuck back on topic please

They also took a bunch of Americans hostage and have been conducting terrorist attacks on Americans (and others) for more than 20 years.


Regrettable, but not unexpected. Any person could have seen that coming after an angry cleric took out a dictator.


You weren't even talking about Iran before, were you?

I was responding to his point that history was irrelevant, Iran was used as an example.

could we manage to wander the fuck back on topic please The OP is a triviality - not capable of supporting a long discussion without major digression.
Well, that's up to the candidates isn't it? And although they do attack McCain from time to time, they spend more time attacking each other, throwing dirt or talking about specious things like "leadership" or "change." It's not the Media's job to shape the debate. The media is shaping the debate. And the shape they have imposed has consequences, effects.
There are plenty of people on the Left who are not anti-American, but yes, the Left is where most of the anti-Americanism resides. One the one hand, it depends on who's handing out that dumbass "anti-American" label.

There are people who think decorated military veteran, devour Christian, and certified patriot Pastor Wright's comments after 9/11 were "anti-American", for example. Do these people think that US Middle East oil policy - such as propping up the Saudis and fortifying the Israelis to the great profit of multinational corporations and the great harm visited on many people - has been "pro-American" ? Probably.

And on the other hand, it depends on who one considers "the Left" in the US. There are people who label any reality based criticism of the military/industrial complex as coming from the "Left" . They even label the Clintons as "Left". But the people who sling the BS about the "Left" regard disrespect of their slippery little codes as unwarranted.

So the "anti-Americanism" - if the term means anything at all - of the corporate Right, the Christian Right, the Confederate Right, the PNAC Right, etc, is only a minor factor, we are to assume.

So it comes down to frame. Analogy (famous one): "Our mother drinks too much, and when she drinks she shoplifts. We should do something."

Response: "You can't prove she's a drunk. You have no blood tests, no evidence. It's just your opinion that she stole that stuff - those store clerks are jealous, trying to get more money out of her. You anti-maternalists are always the unemployed children hanging around the house - if you had a good job, you would appreciate your mother more."

The OP is a triviality - not capable of supporting a long discussion without major digression.
Really? It seems one of Obama's major fundraisers used to run a "charity" that was closed down for raising money for terrorism. More specifically, for Hamas. Even better, Obama's wife is listed as one of this terror fundraiser's "friends".
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pictures/20080423ElHadyObama.jpg
Of course, once word got out Obama removed his wife from the guy's friends list and then deleted the page altogether.
There’s a lot of talk about William Ayers and his connections to Obama, but please note that in El-Hady we have someone who is apparently connected with Hamas—not decades ago, but as recently as 2006. Here’s our post at the time, including a press release from the Justice Department detailing the Hamas connections of El-Hady’s organization, Kindhearts for Charitable Human Development: ’Kind Hearts for Charitable Human Development’ = Hamas.

And now the Obama campaign has silently removed Michelle Obama’s name from El-Hady’s page, thinking no one would notice—and probably hoping against hope that the story won’t get picked up by the media. http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/29729_Michelle_Obamas_Name_Removed_from_Terrorist_ Fundraisers_Web_Page
So we not only have an endorsement from Hama, we have one of their fundraisers now working for Obama and, apparently, he's a "friend" of Obama's wife.