Barack Hussein Obama

[Leafless]

I believe the rules prohibit name-calling (i.e., you are a racist). But there is no rule against identifying particular philosophies, such as the philosophy that individuals of a certain race should be prohibited from taking part in the democratic process, as racist philosophies. And that is a racist philosophy in its purest form.

I don't really understand what you are saying especially in the light of the ongoing political dysfunctionality in this country that has allowed a minority to destroy majority concerns and to allow a government to advance that minority on the basis of language is so racially repulsive it destroys all faith in the democratic process.

I would not wish this to happen to the U.S. or ant other democratic country and that is why I suggested that for ANY given minority to run a member of its group for president or prime minister should be only allowed if their population numbers represent at least 50% of the largest cultural majority of that country.

This is not a racist statement but only one to control potential minority cultural abuse of the system.

BTW, what are the forum rules about threatening to kick someone in the head, as you did earlier this week? I notice the thread got removed, likely because such threats are illegal. Why are you still here?

You started the process aimed at me by posting a statement that amounted to 'defamation of character' and since I seen you were still posting other condescending post aimed at me and you were not removed, so I dealt with it on my own terms.

Who the hell do you think you are?

[BubberMiley]

This is not a racist statement but only one to control potential minority cultural abuse of the system.

You would deny other Canadians the right to take part in democracy based on their race.

You started the process aimed at me by posting a statement that amounted to 'defamation of character' and since I seen you were still posting other condescending post aimed at me and you were not removed, so I dealt with it on my own terms.

Goodness, I don't even know how I could defame your character since I have no idea who you even are. But sometimes internet-speak is misinterpreted as angry when it's really meant to be humourous, or condescending when it's just meant to be explicit and clear.

I assure you, I have equal regard for all anonymous internet ramblings, yours included.

Edited February 10, 2008 by BubberMiley

[bush_cheney2004]

You would deny other Canadians the right to take part in democracy based on their race.

Why did you bring up Canada in a thread about Senator Obama? Is he Canadian?

[BubberMiley]

Why did you bring up Canada in a thread about Senator Obama? Is he Canadian?

Sorry. I'm always getting Canada and the U.S. mixed up.

[Leafless]

You would deny other Canadians the right to take part in democracy based on their race.

Simply suggesting cultural safeguards TO PROTECT MAJORITY CONCERNS if you know what that means in a democratic society.

DO YOU????

Goodness, I don't even know how I could defame your character since I have no idea who you even are. But sometimes internet-speak is misinterpreted as angry when it's really meant to be humourous, or condescending when it's just meant to be explicit and clear.

We will allow management to decide that and not a hateful, arrogant person like you.

[BubberMiley]

Simply suggesting cultural safeguards TO PROTECT MAJORITY CONCERNS if you know what that means in a democratic society.

Democracy safeguards majority concerns by definition.

[Melanie_]

I don't really understand what you are saying especially in the light of the ongoing political dysfunctionality in this country that has allowed a minority to destroy majority concerns and to allow a government to advance that minority on the basis of language is so racially repulsive it destroys all faith in the democratic process.

I would not wish this to happen to the U.S. or ant other democratic country and that is why I suggested that for ANY given minority to run a member of its group for president or prime minister should be only allowed if their population numbers represent at least 50% of the largest cultural majority of that country.

Leafless, before you respond to this, please take the time to read it carefully, think about what I'm saying, and then respond rationally.

How do you determine someone's culture? Culture isn't something that is readily apparent about someone, so it takes a fair bit of personal knowledge to really know what culture they belong to. Saying that someone's culture should determine whether or not they can run for office means that you need to set up an entirely new government department to vett candidates based on a complex set of personal variables.

Or are you more concerned about race? Obama was born in the US, is a Christian, and on the surface has a culture no different from most Americans, but you object to him based on the fact that he is black (race, not culture). You also have some wild theories about him being Muslim, without any facts to back you up. You've made up a life story for Obama that isn't supported by any facts, and convinced yourself that it is real.

[Leafless]

Democracy safeguards majority concerns by definition.

Not in Canada!

[Leafless]

How do you determine someone's culture?

Race is a component of culture and what we are talking about here is the effect of a minority race/culture group, causing havoc to majority cultural concerns, like what happened in Canada relating to undemocratic, discriminatory actions by government.

It is to bad you don't feel controls are required in this area especially in a country that is 'officially multicultural', or would you prefer for all hell to break loose in a country no longer able to afford the staggering cost to maintain its discriminating policies and neglecting other primary responsibilities.

Or are you more concerned about race? Obama was born in the US, is a Christian, and on the surface has a culture no different from most Americans, but you object to him based on the fact that he is black (race, not culture). You also have some wild theories about him being Muslim, without any facts to back you up. You've made up a life story for Obama that isn't supported by any facts, and convinced yourself that it is real.

For the last time, I have posted all the relevant facts that could cause a 'conflict of interest situation' resulting in a similar cultural situation happening in the U.S. as what DID happen in Canada.

Why are you so against safe guarding national interest?

Edited February 10, 2008 by Leafless

[bush_cheney2004]

.... For the last time, I have posted all the relevant facts that could cause a 'conflict of interest situation' resulting in a similar cultural situation happening in the U.S. as what DID happen in Canada.

Why are you so against safe guarding national interest?

Canada is not the United States, which is a constitutional republic. It took time, but the majority could not continue tyranny over minorities. No need to project your domestic fears (real or imagined) to the United States. Our "culture" rarely copies things from Canada...usually it is the other way around.

Barack Obama is a senator from the American state of Illinois. He was democratically elected according to law. He took an oath to uphold the US Constitution, not the Qu'ran.

[Melanie_]

The "relevent facts" you have posted are that he is black and that his father was Muslim. In your mind this could potentially be a problem, so you think he should be denied the opportunity to run for president. If we ban everyone who could potentially be a problem, no one will be left to run! You have invented a problem where none really exists, and want to restrict someone from the political arena based on the fiction you have created.

I'm not against safe guarding national interest. I just disagree with you when you say that your analysis has anything to do with national interest. The most "undemocratic, discriminatory actions" I can think of are the ones you are advocating - discriminating against someone, denying them the right to participate in democracy, because of their race.

[Leafless]

I'm not against safe guarding national interest. I just disagree with you when you say that your analysis has anything to do with national interest. The most "undemocratic, discriminatory actions" I can think of are the ones you are advocating - discriminating against someone, denying them the right to participate in democracy, because of their race.

I do not suggest or advocate the denial to participate in democracy but only suggest proper representation of any particular race/culture to protect national interest from minority cultural abuse.

For example in Canada, do you actually think it is legitimate politically speaking for a minority of less than 25% of the majority English speaking culture to develop a racist Charter against the larger minority culture utilizing undemocratic actions of PM's from that minorities province?

[Melanie_]

I do not suggest or advocate the denial to participate in democracy but only suggest proper representation of any particular race/culture to protect national interest from minority cultural abuse.

For example in Canada, do you actually think it is legitimate politically speaking for a minority of less than 25% of the majority English speaking culture to develop a racist Charter against the larger minority culture utilizing undemocratic actions of PM's from that minorities province?

You are assuming that a minority will abuse the power they get if they are elected to office, which is pessimistic and biased. You are placing too much emphasis on someone’s culture/race, rather than looking at what that person can do as an individual.

As for the second part of your post….you’ve twisted your interpretation of the Charter to fit your political agenda, which is to promote English and remove French from the public sphere. It really has no bearing on this thread.

[August1991]

Interesting.

[Carinthia]

Interesting.

Yes, very. Interesting that he didn't stay long at the strip pub. Thanks for the link, enjoyed it.

[GostHacked]

Interesting.

I don't trust reformed 'I found god again' former alcoholics like Bush. Big deal, Obama had a few at a stag night. It's a stag. And he likes to look at the ladies. OMG !!!! Scandelous. Ahem, it was a STAG !!!

Can I get my 8 minutes back?

[Moonlight Graham]

Not in Canada!

Ahahaa. You bring up some interesting info about Obama in this thread, but i think your conclusions are mostly severe paranoia blown way out of proportion.

C'mon man. First you say they're problems because of his church. Then problems because he's (apparently) a Mulslim.

You say Obama's father being born Muslim makes Obama a Muslim will cause problems if he is President. What problems? If Obama is traveling to Saudi Arabia is their gov't going to chop off his hands or kill him for not practicing Islam?

It doesn't really matter, because we will all find out the truth when the inevevitable smear campaigns come out in full force if Obama is nominated the Democratic candidate

[August1991]

Big deal, Obama had a few at a stag night.

It's no big deal. Rather, it's kind of cute and that's why I posted the link.

The most one can say is that even in 1997, Obama was thinking of his reputation and how things would appear. (He was elected to the Illinois senate in 1996.)

I suspect that Obama is an overachiever and many people have placed alot of hope, expectations and pressure on him to succeed. Like Clinton and Kennedy, Obama's the dutiful (if not prodigal) son. Obama is a product of affirmative action so there are many people who have a moral investment in his success.

[August1991]

It doesn't really matter, because we will all find out the truth when the inevevitable smear campaigns come out in full force if Obama is nominated the Democratic candidate

There are two already.

Obama's house in Chicago:

Rezko was already under investigation at the time of the property deal, but it's unclear whether Obama knew this. But by the time of the purchases Chicago newspapers had run dozens of stories detailing Rezko's questionable business deals and relationship with political figures, and the city's papers have reported that he was widely known to be under investigation.

Obama has since acknowledged the deals were an error.

"I consider this a mistake on my part, and I regret it," he told the Chicago Sun-Times in November 2006, just months before launching his presidential campaign. "I am confident that everything was handled ethically and above board. But I regret that while I tried to pay close attention to the specific requirements of ethical conduct, I misgauged the appearance presented by my purchase of the additional land from Mr Rezko."

Obama - The Manchurian Candidate:

Over the past few months, it's become clear that there are some shady people out there bent on spreading the claim----completely, inarguably, demonstrably false--that Obama is a "crypto-Muslim Manchurian candidate."

It started with a set of untraceable viral emails, which say that "Barack Hussein Obama has joined the United Church of Christ in an attempt to downplay his Muslim background" and ask "Can a good Muslim become a good American?" (the answer, they add, is no). And it has continued with trolls like "HolyRoller," a monomaniacal individual now infecting the "He's One of Us Now" comment board, where he's busy posing questions like "To all you Obama supporters: Is he Shiite or Sunni?" and lamenting "how foolish we have become" now that "a large segment of our population wants one of the [islamic] devils to be their President"--despite the fact that my article had nothing whatsoever to do with Obama's religious background.

Between the two, the house story may have more legs simply because it has more substance. Then again, it's also boring and convoluted. (You can see the house here on Google Earth.)

Other possible scandals? Maybe a journalist will track down the people who snorted lines of coke with Obama.

BTW, I don't think McCain likes truly rough and tumble politics. (The Bushes are competitive bast**ds and the Clintons aren't shy of playing dirty to win.)

Edited February 12, 2008 by August1991

[BubberMiley]

Other possible scandals? Maybe a journalist will track down the people who snorted lines of coke with Obama.

I don't know if the drug story will have a strong effect considering he admitted to it long before the campaign and it is, therefore, old news. But perhaps they could go with the story that he overstated his drug use to make it seem like he overcame more adversity than he really did.

http://www.jointogether.org/news/headlines...r-if-obama.html

Edited February 12, 2008 by BubberMiley

[Moonlight Graham]

It's no big deal. Rather, it's kind of cute and that's why I posted the link.

The most one can say is that even in 1997, Obama was thinking of his reputation and how things would appear. (He was elected to the Illinois senate in 1996.)

I suspect that Obama is an overachiever and many people have placed alot of hope, expectations and pressure on him to succeed. Like Clinton and Kennedy, Obama's the dutiful (if not prodigal) son. Obama is a product of affirmative action so there are many people who have a moral investment in his success.

Ya, thats the most scandalous thing he's done with another woman? Quickly leave a stag party after a stripper arrives? He looks like Jesus Christ next to JFK or Clinton.

[August1991]

Most scandalous? No, saying "Yes, we can" over and over and over again is scandalous, except when he tries to say something of substance and just sounds like John Edwards.

Good column on Obama vs. McCain:

The conventional critique of Sen. Obama has held that his pitch is perfect but at some point he'll need to make the appeal more concrete.

I think the potential vulnerability runs deeper. Strip away the new coat of paint from the Obama message and what you find is not only familiar. It's a downer.

Up to now, the force of Sen. Obama's physical presentation has so dazzled audiences that it has been hard to focus on precisely what he is saying. "Yes, we can! Yes, we can!" Can what?

Listen closely to that Tuesday night Wisconsin speech. Unhinge yourself from the mesmerizing voice. What one hears is a message that is largely negative, illustrated with anecdotes of unremitting bleakness. Heavy with class warfare, it is a speech that could have been delivered by a Democrat in 1968, or even 1928.

Here is the edited version, stripped of the flying surfboard:

"Our road will not be easy . . . the cynics. . . where lobbyists write check after check and Exxon turns record profits . . . That's what happens when lobbyists set the agenda. . . It's a game where trade deals like Nafta ship jobs overseas and force parents to compete with their teenagers to work for minimum wage at Wal-Mart . . . It's a game . . . CEO bonuses . . . while another mother goes without health care for her sick child . . . We can't keep driving a wider and wider gap between the few who are rich and the rest who struggle to keep pace . . . even if they're not rich . . ."

WSJ

This is John Edwards with charisma.

Worse:

"We are not standing on the brink of recession due to forces beyond our control," he told workers at a General Motors assembly plant in Janesville, Wis.

"It was a failure of leadership and imagination in Washington - the culmination of decades of decisions that were made or put off without regard to the realities of a global economy and the growing inequality its produced," he said.

"It's a Washington where decades of trade deals like NAFTA and China have been signed with plenty of protections for corporations and their profits, but none for our environment or our workers who've seen factories shut their doors and millions of jobs disappear."

Obama didn't propose ending free trade, saying "we can't stop every job from going overseas," but he made a strong pitch for fair trade, promising that any new deal include protections for the environment and American workers.

He also pledged to pass an act to end tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas if he becomes president.

CanWest

This is demagogic and pandering. It's not leadership at all. (Admittedly, Obama's aiming for Democratic votes in Ohio now but this rhetoric will classify him.

This is not how Bill Clinton and Al Gore won in 1992 or 1996.

[BubberMiley]

This is demagogic and pandering.

To be a demagogue, you must be lying or leading people to a false conclusion. Everything he said there is (or what he likely believes to be) the truth.

[August1991]

To be a demagogue, you must be lying or leading people to a false conclusion. Everything he said there is (or what he likely believes to be) the truth.

Like Gore and Clinton, Barack Obama is smart enough and educated enough to know that free trade is good for America and good for the world. When Obama questions NAFTA and talks about jobs (when America has about the lowest unemployment rate in 30 years), he's just pandering.

In 1992, Al Gore took on Ross Perot's ignorance and won the trade debate. That's leadership.

More generally, when he talks about "change" and "yes, we can", Obama is appealing to the "hate America" crowd. For the mainstream, this is ultimately not a message of hope. It's depressing. It states that America as it exists now is not good and everything mainstream Americans believe in is wrong.

George McGovern was the last major presidential candidate who had a similar message.

[BubberMiley]

Like Gore and Clinton, Barack Obama is smart enough and educated enough to know that free trade is good for America and good for the world. When Obama questions NAFTA and talks about jobs (when America has about the lowest unemployment rate in 30 years), he's just pandering.

Not if you're one of the millions and millions people who are employed but trying to support a family on $10 an hour.

More generally, when he talks about "change" and "yes, we can", Obama is appealing to the "hate America" crowd. For the mainstream, this is ultimately not a message of hope. It's depressing. It states that America as it exists now is not good and everything mainstream Americans believe in is wrong.

Americans are not so foolish to think that by claiming that what is wrong can be made better, one is "hating" America as it exists now. You don't really think that do you? Do you think the 80% or so who indicate they want change hate their country? That's ridiculous.