Savage Pacer - Obama - hope of the entire world?!? - Comments

Change. What Change? Obama

Robert Thibodeaux — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 10:53:03 -0500

Change. What Change?
Obama was praised as this new kind of politician, but has shown he is just another opportunistic, say what he needs to say to get elected, same old politician. Obama the idea was what people liked. As people have gotten to know Obama the candidate, they have seen that he is just a bad 70's flashback (think Jimmy Carter's on oil and foreign policy).
I don't have a problem with candidates changing their mind over time (the whole flip-flop things is blow way out of proportion) But for someone with as little experience as Obama to be bouncing back from one statement to another just confirms what many have know for a while - Obama is just another liberal politician. Some people like that (thus the democratic party) and some don't, but I think everyone is starting to get over the notion that there is nothing "special" about him.

Good article explaining the

Savage Guy — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 10:45:44 -0500

Good article explaining the different ways the picture was received. Many of us received it for what it was: satire.

http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/07/15/self-satisfied-new-york...

Likewise, even though I won't vote for him, I don't hold Franken's past satire against him now that he is running for the US Senate, unlike his "friends" in the Democratic Party. We have become so politically correct that it is indeed career threatening to tell a joke!

Change is not a four-letter

Nancy Huddleston — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 10:42:15 -0500

Change is not a four-letter word.

Obama the flip

Savage Guy — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 10:38:44 -0500

Obama the flip flopper.

http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.html?playerId=videolandingpage&stream...

Others were offended with

Nancy Huddleston — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 10:24:52 -0500

Others were offended with the image -- including John McCain.

Obama the offended According

Savage Guy — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 13:10:24 -0500

Obama the offended

According to news reports today like the one below (click on link), Obama is very offended by the picture of him and his wife on the cover of "The New Yorker".

http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/07/14/new-yorkers-obama-cover...

Thus, the double standard for Democrats continues. When Gary Trudeau daily lampoons President Bush in his cartoon strip "Doonesbury", that is free speech. When someone satirizes the Democratic presidential nominee, it is deeply offensive and never should have been printed.

When a crucifix is dipped in urine, it's art and protected free speech, according to Democrats. When a creche is place on the lawn of a public building (arguably a work of art with historical significance since Jesus actually lived on the earth) as it has been for decades, that is a violation of the fictitious "church and state" clause in the Constitution (it doesn't exist), again, according to Democrats.

So, the double standard continues. The irony here is "The New Yorker" was trying to pick on conservative Republicans for trying to portray Obama as a Muslim. Turns out satire is okay when you are portraying a Republican but NOT when you are portraying a Democrat..........at least, according to Democrats!

OK, so why aren't we

Mark Nesvig — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 16:34:30 -0500

OK, so why aren't we leaving?

I, for one, am glad to hear

Nancy Huddleston — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 12:57:33 -0500

I, for one, am glad to hear that Iraq wants troop withdrawals because that means they are growing up and taking responsibility for their own country -- which is what the U.S. wanted from the beginning. As far as the comment about the U.S. currently "occupying a sovereign nation," that's a stretch. There are U.S. and United Nations troops in the country working with government in Iraq, not against it. The whole idea is to get the country stablized and back on its feet -- plain and simple. The fact that the Iraqi government is asking for a troop withdrawal is a sign that they are doing just that.

But this isn't a matter of

Mark Nesvig — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 07:18:29 -0500

But this isn't a matter of politics or of doing what's popular. It's a matter of occupying a sovereign nation against its will. I don't see how you can be in favor of that. I can understand it if you think it would be a bad idea for us to leave Iraq now. You're certainly entitled to your opinion on that, and many people would agree with you, but it's not up to us. It's not our country. If they want us to leave, don't we have to leave?

Actually Germany requested

Robert Thibodeaux — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 22:34:10 -0500

Actually Germany requested us to leave at many time through out its history, but the point still stands.

Thinking about today, without regards for tomorrow has been a common mistake in foreign policy.

Right now during conflicts and after, people want the US out - but as time has shown, a US presence usually brings about peace in the long term.

Another good example is Regan.
People (including Germany) were complaining about Regan's foreign policy and tough talk was going to cause a Nuclear war and demand he stopped it.
Many democrats called him a cowboy who would cause the end of the US. Instead it was his firm conviction that lead to the tearing down that wall in Germany.

Politicians (of both parties) who make decisions based on what is politically popular now, without looking to its consequences long term are not leaders.

Again a look at history, Chamberlin was able to keep Britain out of those nasty conflict is the rest of Europe by getting a promise of peace with Hitler.
Politically popular with both countries at the time - not good long term.

Actually, Obama, the leader

Mark Nesvig — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 21:44:25 -0500

Actually, Obama, the leader of the Democratic party, has said a few thousand times now that he will not negotiate with terrorists. So your claim simply isn't true.
But if you're going to liken the position that half or more of this country's citizens currently hold as being in line with that of terrorist organizations, I guess I don't know what else to say.

But we're not talking about

Mark Nesvig — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 21:39:49 -0500

But we're not talking about what Germany wanted half a century ago. We're talking about what Iraq wants now. And what Germany wants now, for that matter. I don't see the relevance in what Germany wanted after WWII... unless it's your stance that the Bush administration knows better than the Iraqi government and can do whatever it wants in foreign nations. What I don't understand is that there were all these claims that we'd leave as soon as the Iraq government told us to. But now that they have, we say we're not leaving.

I always stand by

Robert Thibodeaux — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 20:45:26 -0500

I always stand by statements.

Do I think the democratic party is setting car bombs and blowing up people - no.

Do I believe the democrats want to negotiate with Terrorists because they think that somehow talking with them will change their mind - yes, they said so.
Do I believe that the requests of the terrorist match up with the stated policy the democrats have laid out - yes.
Do I believe that the same language used by terrorist for US troops have been used by democratic leaders in congress and their supporters - yes.
So as I stated the policies of the political arms of terrorist organizations match up with policies statements of a US political party.

Please remember that history

Robert Thibodeaux — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 20:20:26 -0500

Please remember that history is more than the last 10 years.
Following the end of WWII and afterwards, various German officials have asked the US to close its bases.
And I am pretty sure that all those troops in East Germany would have appreciated the US leaving too.

In fact, Germany has been

Mark Nesvig — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 19:30:43 -0500

In fact, Germany has been begging U.S. troops to stay as we've pulled some out to send to Iraq. The withdrawl of U.S. troops from Germany would be a huge blow to the German economy. So maybe they asked us to leave before (I don't know if they have or not), but they're not telling us to leave now. They're begging for us to stay. Again... Iraq is not.

Obama - hope of the entire world?!?

Savage Guy — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 09:48:00 -0600

With friends like Farrakhan, Obama doesn't need any enemies! According to this story (click on link below), Farrakhan sees Obama as the "hope of the entire world". Coming from the leader of the Nation of Islam, that endorsement begs the question as to whether Obama is really a Muslim in Christian clothing. If he is Muslim, he should come out and say it. If not, say that also. The voters deserve to know. http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/02/25/farrakhan-praises-obama-as-hope-of-entire-world/ May 19, 2008 Update