Leppotone

Our first Muslim president? 

You see how those people handle elections.

Shit most of the Muslim countries don't even have elections....

JFK and Obama - both exciting young senators with sex appeal!

JFK - first Catholic president; Obama - first Muslim president.

Huckabee will look old, sweaty and nervous in televised debate with Obama.

Obama - prime candidate for assassination! 

As Dick gregory said getting elected isn't a problem for an African American, the issue is getting to the White House in one piece.

This is just my opinion only but I really dont think America is willing to elect a black man or a woman president.   Also if you think the race issue got settled in the civil rights movement, guess again.

Also we have had 43 presidents and only one was a Catholic.  We havent even had a Jewish president yet, so we are far behind.

Lots of very white people came out in Iowa to do the weird caucus dance -- where you have to be at your spot at the right time, and if your guy doesn't get 15% you have to make a second choice, after having others try to convince you to go with their guy. Thousands more came out for this than in 2004, and the Democrats got twice as many people -- many independents and former Republicans -- as the Republicans. Obama brought out a huge crowd in New Hampshire yesterday. He's either tied or getting ten points ahead of Clinton there. Last night he and Edwards did a "change" tag-team on Hillary, made her yell.

It's understandable to think, after growing up in small-town Michigan, that uptight and white won't elect a brother. But I think we're at a point where those who wouldn't vote for a person of African descent are also those who wouldn't elect a Democrat. Also, there are probably many more voters now than in 2004 who would not vote for a Republican, after seeing the results of a Republican majority in the congress and President Fuckhead.

But then, some say Obama isn't black enough. Some imply that he's a secret Muslim, some that he's too liberal, the Republicans hinted that he's going to allow gay marriage, but others say that he was so willing to suck up to the Christian right that he got some anti-gay gospel singer to perform at a rally...

And on and on. Many sides are scrambling to find a way to shoot him down. Even positive-sounding bits can be turned around, make him sound like a not-black black trying to not be black (he surfed in Hawaii!) or just too "exotic" (the "madras" mumblings, his father from Kenya (look at the troubles over there, Chris Matthews kept pointing out Thursday night), the middle name, how Obama is like Osama, etc.)

They put Kerry's medals in doubt, so who knows what they're going to do with Obama. It was kind of amusing last night in the debate where the Republicans were all ready with terms like "Hillarycare," but had to scramble and mutter generalities about how Obama's too liberal when asked about him.

Just be ready for the rain of bullshit -- not only that which tries to get you to vote for someone, but that which tries to keep you cynical, apathetic and unwilling to even study the details (why bother, because they're all crooks and 9/11 was an inside job, right?). Right now I'd be willing to go door-to-door for Obama or Edwards.

Herb and Wiz put this bug in my ear, so I just did some googling and have confirmed. Unless you plan to vote for Gravel or Hillary or Kucinich or some vile Republican, vote "UNCOMITTED" in the primary, Jan. 15.

This has to do with the Michigan primary screw-up. The state wanted it early so we could get more of a voice, but the candidates didn't want to spend the time and money in more states early in the game. They protested, kept names off ballott.

Anyway, all is not lost. You vote "UNCOMITTED" on the Dem ballott, and delegates will be sent who would be free to choose who to side with at the convention.

Michiganders For Obama explains it all:

Michigan Obama Supporters

Vote “UNCOMMITTED”

On January 15, 2008

Primary Election

STEP 1

On January 15, 2008 go to your local voting location and proudly cast your vote for Senator Barack Obama by voting “Uncommitted” on the ballot. 

***If you are voting by absentee ballot be sure to mark the “Uncommitted” box  on your absentee ballot.

STEP 2

DO NOT write Senator Obama’s name anywhere on the regular or absentee  ballot because it will be thrown out as a SPOILED ballot.  Just mark the “Uncommitted” box.

STEP 3

Our goal is to have all Obama supporters join the Michigan Democratic Party by Jan 31, 2008. We need you to become members of the MDP so that after the Primary on January 15th you will then be able to vote to elect "Uncommitted" Obama Delegates at the district level conventions across the state that will be held on March 29, 2008. Only members of the MDP can vote at district conventions.

...okay, are you going to want to take that last step? Maybe not, but, damn. How many times have you just let the primaries float by without getting involved, and then had to stand back and mutter, "they got THAT guy?!?"

Just to explain it further and show this isn't some odd internet rumor, here's Mark Brewer, Michigan Dem. Party Chair:

Cajun you bring up real interesting points about Barak.   Yeah he will be accused of being  "an uncle Tom" which is a false and inaccurate term to begin with(people really need to read their history), and the whole Islamic thing will be an issue.  Even though I myself am not big on him because I think he needs more experience, but this will be an interesting election.

About Hillary.  She is trying to put on a good front but now that she is not in the top, she is ballistic.  The thing is her ego is so out of control she probably thinks she is already president.  However as I stated before she is always good for laughs

He goes around the country saying he's anti-war, yet he almost always votes for funding the war. Even better, he says there's no contradiction in that. Awesome politician. He truly is the man for reform and change.

Well we can always bring back Nader. 

They all suck. Anybody who wants to be the I'm-not-the-President-I-just -play-one-on-TV for this insane asylum has to suffer from serious brain damage.

Nader ain't the answer to my gripe, which I feel is very vaild. I really want this guy to give me answer. He's going around talking about change,reform, and ENDING THE WAR. Yet he has voted for more funding. He claims it's not a contradiction, but that's just BS. I mean, all jokes aside, the guy doesn't seem that bad. But if you are anti-war, anti-coporation, anti-Fourth Reich, and PRO-HUMANITY, how are those disturbing votes not a set of huge fucking red flags?

I'm sure two defenses are, "Hey man, he's gotta tow the line before he becomes president. Then he'll change things," or, "Democracy is baby steps." But fuckin-A, that money helped kill innocent women and children. I'm not sure that's worth it.

Innocent women and children died. And on the other hand, 3,000 died on 9/11. And don't forget our dead troops. And all those dead Vietnamese. And those killed by guns right here. And all those aborted babies. My point -- it's so easy for any side to start using piles of corpses for rhetorical effect.

But do you want the body count to go down? Really? Then get your ass out there and work for change -- not Obama's change if that's not enough for you. Maybe you can find the candidate that matches your ideology perfectly. But you're not going to have any impact sniping from the sidelines with "They all suck." Well, you might get others to join your cause, then we can have millions sitting it out, looking for the perfect leader but knowing that they all suck, as fanatics deliver more Bush's and corporations grab more control.

Yeah, democracy is baby-steps. But I think we've got some choices that are pretty big steps away from Bush. And if we fail to make any effort in that direction, we'll have Huckabee/Giuliani to bitch about for the next four-to-eight years, and probably more, larger piles of dead.

For clarification: The "they all suck" comment was the cynical QN; the second post was the usually earnest QN. I just don't like any of these candidates outside of the ones who aren't allowed to join the debates. Gravel more than Kucinich, actually, simply because I lived in Cleveland, and I saw Kucinich's handiwork first hand. The dude buried Cleveland even further underground than it already was. How is he going to run an entire nation (if that's what president's actually do).

But do you want the body count to go down? Really? Then get your ass out there and work for change -- not Obama's change if that's not enough for you.

First off, you don't really know how politically active I am. But that's not my point. My point has to do with Obama, specifically. We're on a forum where people TALK,  so somebody please argue why I should vote for him, when his votes to fund the war. Speeches are fine and all, but his record on the war shouldn't be overlooked. He needs to answer for this. He votes for imperial invasion.

Obama did not vote on the original resolution to go to war in 2002 because he wasn't yet in the Senate. 

I said he has repeatedly voted for funding the war, which he has. Check his voting record.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...

Now, granted, I don't believe he's voted for every funding bill. But fuck, one vote is one too many, in my opinion.

That is absolutely some of the most ridiculously elitist twaddle I have ever read.  My brother is in the Air Force and the last thing in the world he is is a 'war criminal'.  Come on.   You may wish to actually read a little bit about World War II as well.  The Nuremburg trials were Nazi leaders, not your average Wehrmacht draftee.  

I have always been against the war in Iraq but the last people I would demonize in this affair are (with a few very notable exceptions) the men and women of the American armed forces.  Blame the politicians that put them there.  Yes, Obama does have a slight responsibility in all this but in the present political environment which is making Joe McCarthy look good voting for a motion that would have passed anyway was probably more desirable than being labeled a traitor.  

Quantum you started out with an interesting arguement but then you had to go insult the troops, that's like stabbing puppies man, you just don't do it.  I'm from a rural area and a LOT of guys I went to highschool with went into the military because moms job at the plastics factory wouldn't pay rent on the mobile home and tuition at junior college.  For many of them this was the only viable way to get out and up on their own feet.  I on the otherhand went into debt by going strait to college, in retrospect I may have been better off going in the military until I had a bit more focus, but that's beside the point.  The point being thank god that there are enough desperate people to enlist that we don't need the draft.  Wait, no, that's not the point.  I remember after 9/11 there were a lot of people ready to go give a little pay back, maybe keep this thing from happening again, do you really think they're all criminals? Surely it's not so clear cut as all that.

Like it or not, we’ve fucked things up, and we’re going to have to stick around for some amount of time to provide the stability to allow those parties involved to come to a fix that works.

I don't understand this logic. We're an invading army. We are an imperialist empire no diff than Hitler invading Poland, Napoleon attempting to conquer Europe, China occupying Tibet. We're not going to fix anything. We are invaders.

 You may wish to actually read a little bit about World War II as well.  The Nuremburg trials were Nazi leaders, not your average Wehrmacht draftee.

True. But the "we're just following orders" defense did not work, just as it doesn work in our very own military courts. If a soldier does something heinous, and it makes CNN (that's the key part), who gets blamed -- the higher ups or the soldier? Answer: The soldier everytime, even he he says he was told to do it.

That is absolutely some of the most ridiculously elitist twaddle I have ever read.

If elitism means questioning all the twaddle being bandied about as patriotism and populism in America these days, then I'm an elitist through and through.

I'm from a rural area and a LOT of guys I went to highschool with went into the military because moms job at the plastics factory wouldn't pay rent on the mobile home and tuition at junior college.  For many of them this was the only viable way to get out and up on their own feet.

But, but, but this is my very point! If a poor person in America kills somebody for money, he/she can't defend themselves by saying, "I have no future. My life sucks. This capitalist society has totally fucked my family over. It was my only option." YET, soldiers  from similar scocioeconomic backgrounds can help invade entire countries and there's absolutely no moral responsibility. C'mon, that's far more elitist than saying, "Both civilan and soldier should be help morally responsible for their actions." It might be misguided. But giving soldiers a free pass for killing innocent humans means you're buying into all the twaddle foisted uopn us by the power elite (i.e., "killing is wrong on the streets, but if you work for the Army, young man, you can kill and not go to jail."

How can such an egregious double standard be justified?

Blame the politicians that put them there.

Blame 'em all! As Curtis once said, "If there's a hell below, we ALL gonna go..."

Your analogy doesn't hold up because soldiers do not have free reign to go off killing anyone they see fit, soldiers have been caught executing "innocents" and been penalized for it.  I bet in this day of cell phone cameras and youtube and instant information you'll begin to see a lot more of it.  Really it would seem that the only free kill is the one your instructed to do or one that falls within the "rules" you've been given. ie. "shoot anyone who tries to run the roadblock".  And I ask you, Is that really freedom?

...anyway, my point with the piles of dead remark is that when you use the piles of dead and the blood-stained hands rhetoric to back up your shit, then you just end up losing it, losing focus of the details, the shadings, the nuances. No matter what side or what you're arguing about. Not that the dead don't matter. They just become a blunt tool, and there are many times with a mallet won't do the job. And labeling all the troops as war criminals -- it's one of the ways the anti-war movement couldn't get the government to get us out of Vietnam.

I actually talked to some guy from a radical organization -- formerly from -- in 2002. He told me about how no matter how much they marched, Johnson and then Nixon wouldn't get out of Nam. Eventually, in frustration, this group began militaristic drills and started making bombs. That really didn't help anyone clean any blood-stained hands.

Yeah, there's frustrations in going the other direction -- mainstream politics. Bobby Kennedy got shot, lame-o Humphry gets nominated, McGovern lost due to dirty tricks and a "secret plan" for winning "peace through honor"...  If you're the type to demand ideological perfection before you support anyone, then get into something simpler like sports or fascism (really, most forms of authoritarianism are much more pure, direct and speedy than democracy).

In a perfect world, Bush and Cheney would have been impeached, tried as war criminals, and be given weekend waterboarding sessions. But the country hasn't leapt that far, that fast. Republicans set the agenda and the narrative, fueled by 9/11. I wish all the Democrats could have stood up for reality and reason back in 2002, but with the way things were, they woudl've been toast. Edwards and Clinton voted for the resolution to unleash Bush on Iraq. Edwards, I think, has later said this was a bad idea, Clinton, as far as I know, just kinda said well, everyone said Saddam had WMD, not my fault, etc. Obama, though he was just a state senator, risked his political future by speaking out against the resolution.

2006, Dems just barely get majority in Congress. Bush vetoes everything that Republicans and DINOs don't block and scuttle. Yeah, I wish they fought more. But its a complex game of chicken. Compromises are made. It's the problem with Senators who want to be President -- you can always go back and find some vote where they had to give a little to get a little. Or they had to "support the troops" because it was all they could do to stay alive politically. And then snipers on the sidelines get to piss and moan -- oh, where's the big change the Democrats said would happen?

So Obama voted to fund the war. Does this mean he is bloodthirsty, and that if president he'll keep the war going, maybe invade Iran for kicks? Does this mean he's just as bad as Bush? I think it means that with the power balance in Washington, he and most other Democrats realized that a fight to get Bush to redeploy and bring Iraq to a proper close was one they weren't going to win. And if they held-up funding, they'd be tarred as not "supporting the troops."

With a Democrat as president (take your pick) and more Dems in congress (likely if a presidential candidate gets more excited Dem-leaning people to vote), the situation will shift. Will you be 100% pleased? Probably not. But the alternative is seeing President Rudy send troops into Iran, or President Huck declaring US a Christian nation in every speech and stuffing the Supreme Court with anti-abortion nuts, President McCain nuking Pakistan in a fit of anger...

Or you could get into something simple, like sports, where there is either winning or losing and you don't actually have to participate. Or throw on a Che shirt, pack a bong and forget your troubles.

Quantum -- let's see if you can understand: Countries have militaries. Some just march around in fancy uniforms for ceremonies, others are sent into other countries for no good reason, still others are used to defend their home countries... sometimes all of the above.

Again, shades, nuances -- get a grip on them.

The military is a tool. A hammer. A gun. A missile. The tool user is the government. The leaders. The voters.

There can conceivably be a time when the military is needed to protect the nation's interest. WWII comes to mind. Or to be a deterrent.

In the case of Iraq, that was a major fuckup. We all agree, I assume. Not needed, true motivations may range from pure idiocy to oil to Saddam tried to kill Bush's daddy (that's all up for debate).

Boy, wouldn't it be cool if all the military just rebelled and refused to fight the bad wars? It'd be cool if I could shit gold, too.

Unfortunately, if it were all right for the military to rebel against the bad wars, they'd rebel against other things. Against actions that might be needed. Against laws, presidents, etc. they didn't agree with. You don't really want the people with guns doing stuff like that. Then they put in a general as president for life, and it's over.

It's the President who's responsible for Iraq. Rumsfeld is responsible for the way it was fought. Others should share their jail cell, if that dream day ever arrives.

The people in the military who try to follow orders the best they can in a shit situation? If you're going to blame them, then what's your solution?

2006, Dems just barely get majority in Congress. Bush vetoes everything that Republicans and DINOs don't block and scuttle. Yeah, I wish they fought more. But its a complex game of chicken. Compromises are made. It's the problem with Senators who want to be President -- you can always go back and find some vote where they had to give a little to get a little. Or they had to "support the troops" because it was all they could do to stay alive politically.

This ties in with my biggest problem with the Dems. I actually think more folks would vote for them, if they didn't compromise as much. As you say, the Dems are on a survival kick, and everyone smells it, and that's why they barely won back Congress and why there's no gurantee that they'll win the presidency. For better or for worse, Americans want winners, they want leaders with vision. They want a John Wayne type figure, who will go down fighting. This goes all the way back to pre-colonial times, when Christians and explorers "settled" the "new eden." Sure, it's a crock of shit, but that mythology is in our cultural DNA. And you know what, the Republicans tap that. They are crooks, but they are crooks who fight and have a vision for the world (nevermind that it's self-destructive and psychotic). Plus, they act on it.

Dems haven't done this in a long, long time, and that just might be their biggest issue. They come off like a bunch of hemming-n-hawing brats who can't stand the heat, who don't fight. And sure you can say that politicals is all about nuance and compromise, but they even suck at that! None of them are savvy.

With a Democrat as president (take your pick) and more Dems in congress (likely if a presidential candidate gets more excited Dem-leaning people to vote), the situation will shift.

But you can't be sure -- far from it, actually. All we have to go on is talk (which is cheap when dealing with politicians) and past actions (voting records, activism, etc). And the past actions of the "big three" Dems looks awfully suspect. I mean, I wish I could have your faith, but what I see is an incredibly dire situation. These are folks who say one thing and do another, not just on small things, but huge issues. If we were talking anything less than global imperialism, I would agree more. But Christ, these folks are playing political survival games with millions of lives in the balance. It's hard for me to trust someone who would do that. (This gets back to my original cynicism: The sanest folk would never run for office, so default we're electing madman/women.) 

...anyway, my point with the piles of dead remark is that when you use the piles of dead and the blood-stained hands rhetoric to back up your shit, then you just end up losing it, losing focus of the details, the shadings, the nuances. No matter what side or what you're arguing about. Not that the dead don't matter. They just become a blunt tool, and there are many times with a mallet won't do the job.

If the dead become a "blunt tool" for you, then so be it. I understand your point. But they don't for me. The fact that people are being murdered is a very painful, very real issue that gnaws at my brain every day. I don't think it oversimplifies things to keep them in mind.

Or they had to "support the troops" because it was all they could do to stay alive politically. And then snipers on the sidelines get to piss and moan -- oh, where's the big change the Democrats said would happen?

Snipers? The Dems were the ones who trumpeted big change (however vague). That's how they got elected. So they either lied or didn't realize just how impotent they really were. Either way, folks have a right to get in their faces as say, "What the hell happened?" We can't simply shut up because we think they're vaguely better than the Republicans.

Your analogy doesn't hold up because soldiers do not have free reign to go off killing anyone they see fit,

There's no draft. The soldier volunteered for duty, just as the average street criminal "volunteers" to go hold up a liquor store. The social/economic pressures in both situations are identical. It's just that one form of murder has been deemed legal and the other illegal. The analogy totally holds up.

In the case of Iraq, that was a major fuckup. We all agree, I assume. Not needed, true motivations may range from pure idiocy to oil to Saddam tried to kill Bush's daddy (that's all up for debate).

It wasn't a fuckup. It was a premeditated imperial invasion tied to several geopolitical/global financial reaons, with some family hubris sprinkled on top.

Boy, wouldn't it be cool if all the military just rebelled and refused to fight the bad wars? It'd be cool if I could shit gold, too. Unfortunately, if it were all right for the military to rebel against the bad wars, they'd rebel against other things. Against actions that might be needed. Against laws, presidents, etc. they didn't agree with. You don't really want the people with guns doing stuff like that. Then they put in a general as president for life, and it's over.

I'm not calling for a coup. I actually want the military dismantled. But I'm all about soldiers refusing duty. Anti-authoritarian action is really quite needed in an age of overt facism. Furthermore, the military is already doing that stuff, aren't they? I mean, they're sworn to protect the Constitution, but all they've done is set it ablaze year after year for the past seven years. So in a way, they've already rebeled against the we-the-people government and our laws.

Quantum -- let's see if you can understand: Countries have militaries. Some just march around in fancy uniforms for ceremonies, others are sent into other countries for no good reason, still others are used to defend their home countries... sometimes all of the above.

Again, shades, nuances -- get a grip on them

I understand your points; I just disagree on several key issues. People are allowed to think differently around here, right? I mean, I'm not dumb simply because I don't agree, correct? Just want to clarifiy...

I mean, beyond talk of political compromise and survial, WHY should I vote for THIS guy? What makes him, specifically, the candidate I should vote for?

Nope, the analogy still doesn't hold up.  A street thug still gets to independantly choose who and who not to grease.  The soldier only gets to choose to elect for the opportunity to potentially grease someone, and if they elect to grease someone outside of the rules--drill seargent, 2nd lieutenant, etc.--then they will pay a price for this freedom of choice.  Lots of guys go into the service and don't get to kill anyone.  .... Bummer

I'm with Q on this one. Why, exactly, should I vote fot his guy? Sure, he's got a certain amount of charisma, and a nice professional polish... but I'm not getting a feel for his substantive political makeup. Maybe I need to read/research a little more thoroughly... but on prima facie, he's just not doing it for me. I mean, Mike Gravel is about half nuts and old as the hills---but every interview I've read/heard with him, his policy stances seem clear. There also seems to be a sense when I listen to Gravel (I only use him as an example) that the clearness of his politcal message is in itself anathema. He appears to be intimating---just in the directness of his presentation---that what he is doing is inappropriate... that pulling no punches politically---while philosphically pure and good ol' fashioned founding-father-y---will send his popularity reeling and  have anyone who really knows "how politics really are" beating the hastiest of retreats from his camp. It's probably most pollyannish to even imagine that a "this is my position fuck you if it doesn't float your boat" politician can gain ANY toehold in our craphole system.

It's probably most pollyannish to even imagine that a "this is my position fuck you if it doesn't float your boat" politician can gain ANY toehold in our craphole system.

Worked for Bush in 2004.

Is Gravel not popular specifically because of this "fuck you" position? That's a really important and interesting question. To make it more general, could a Dem adopt Bush's approach and win election (i.e., i'm for peace and the einvironment and fuck off if you ain't with me. This is the 21-century after all, time to evolve!") There's some drama in that, but you get my point. And I don't think it's a total pipe dream. Look at Ron Paul for example: Now, mind you, I'm not crazy for the guy. I won't vote for him. But he actually has people in the mainstream asking intriguing questions about the Federal Reserve, IRS, CIA, war, oil, and the very nature of American imperialism. That was inconceivable even just a few years ago. I see that as a sign that there's true potential for a hugely popular candidate who is liberal /Dem, substantial like Gravel, yet who possesses that extra something that speaks to American mythmaking.

I'm with Quannum and Jass in that I don't believe I should settle for a candidate. Personally, Obama appeals to me more than Gore and a hell of a lot more than Kerry but I have a hard time voting for someone just because there's no better choice. I know that in order to make that happen I need to get out there and stump for the person who speaks to me the most but I haven't and probably won't therefor I should shut the fuck up. I didn't vote for Kerry because he didn't speak to nor was I convinced that he would do better than Bush and he struck me as a real dildo. I couldn't justify it with myself to vote for him. What if come November I still feel the same about the Dem candidate?  I guess what's better: not voting or voting yet not voting for coke and pepsi?

No, Quantum, you're not allowed to have differing viewpoints here. That's why people were mean and disagreed with you.

Obama... has "that extra something that speaks to American mythmaking." I remember walking in and seeing his 2004 speech, telling BMJ that we just saw the first black president. Not like I feel I have to support my prognostications. But people are flipping out over his speeches, packing places so he's got to do two speeches, one inside and one out to the crowd waiting. It's like they're excited to see this alternative to the "blah blah blah" of Gore and Kerry, and the "Hamanahamanaterristshamanafreedom and that's why Ahm th' decider" from that fucktwit. You may say that pretty speeches don't mean much, but then, setting the national narrative, the tone, is a damn important part of that job. Again, see noted "fucktwit" and his twin towers of fear and the implication that secretive authoritarianism is what we need to protect freedom.

The communication skill is also important for dealing with other countries. He's for opening up diplomacy and for getting out in a reasonable fashion from Iraq -- then again I think all Democrats are saying this. Richardson has the best past experience for this.

Clinton has too many connections with monied folks. Edwards is all about being anti-corporate, a plus for him, but he's going to have to fight because of it. Obama leans towards Edwards' populism, manages to convince people he's a uniter without trying to take bits of the Republican platform (yeah, the anti-gay gospel singer sang at a rally, but has Obama started with the "family is a man and a woman" type speak?).

I sat through both debates on ABC Saturday night -- slept through most of the Republican section, woke up as they were all sticking barbs in Romney. I wish there was more on the economy, but they were under the rule of Charlie Gibson, who's first question for the Democrats was on the number one threat facing America: NUCLEAR TERRORISM!!! (again, setting the narrative, some in the media do their part). But Obama and Edwards made much of rearranging tax cuts and such to boost the middle class. Lots of chatter on medical stuff, national health insurance, etc. Democrats talking of the serious need to get healthcare to people who can't afford it, Republicans making cracks about Hillarycare and threatening comments about Canadians.

You want the details? That's the problem with campaigns now -- a politician gives details in their speechifying, they get tuned out like Al Gore or Kerry or Hillary (interesting video here on Obama vrs. Hillary rallies, in one she went so deep into details that supporters got bored and wandered off).

My list goes Obama, Edwards, Richardson. I'd vote for Hillary against any of the republicans, but I wouldn't be smiling.

The theme of "change" and how all the Democrats keep repeating that is being seen as a joke, but really -- any move away from Bush Republicanism is one we got to push for. Big move, or if that won't happen, small move.

Anybody want to stand for someone, or a side in the running, or are you chicken? It's really too easy to say you're waiting for the "better man" to come along. Bawk, bawk, bawk. What, afraid someone might disagree?

Anybody want to stand for someone, or a side in the running, or are you chicken? It's really too easy to say you're waiting for the "better man" to come along. Bawk, bawk, bawk. What, afraid someone might disagree?

What is this...sports?

I'll check it out. -J

you are all gay/.

what does any of this have to do with presidential erections?!

The Dems are suppose to be better than the Republicans, but they're the ones behind this resolution 1955, which just passed through the House. Here's some info:

http://wordpress.com/tag/hr-1955/ (Apparently, Obama is in favor of 1955)

http://gnn.tv/headlines/16359/Thinki...

http://www.informationclearinghouse....

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/11...

As per Obama, if he does support this bill, which is headed to the Senate, then my issues w/him are far bigger than just disagreeing w/him on a few issues. I mean, really, this has nothing to do with my fear of supporting people who don't think just like me. This is to do w/the erosion of our fundamental liberties. If you don't know about resolution 1955, please read into it.

Who's your team, Quantum?

baseball: Red Sox (i'm from new york and most of the family are yankees fans, so go figure...i did live in boston for several years)

basketball: Knicks (since childhood, but Isiah and owner James Dolan embarass me)

football: Jets (because I grew up in NY, but I don't really follow football)

college basketball: Syracuse (this is the most emotional one for me. go orange!)

Damn another argument and this Mickey person is nowhere in sight.   The only thing I am going to add to this is about the war.  If you are against the war blame the goverment, blame the President, but please dont blame the soldiers.  They were called to serve their country and they are doing it, even if they are there for the wrong reasons and should be home with their familes.  That is the mistake we made in Vietnam when are soliders were ridiculed and blamed for taking part in that war.  That cant happen in America!!!!!

I could believe in what the furthest-left blogs tell me, or I could look it up myself...

...looks like it passed the house. Has not been voted on in the senate. Who knows if it's been debated in the senate, or if Obama has seen it, made any statements about it. The bill seems to only prevent advocating the use of violence against the government or social/political groups.

The two basic limitations on free speech is the old "you can't yell fire in a crowded theatre," and you can't advocate for the violent overthrow of the government. The law gets concerned if you threaten violence against individuals and groups as well. This bill would seem to group general advocation of violence against groups, race, religions (from a range of  neo-nazis to jihadists and those behind the Oaklahoma City bombing) in with the "homeland security" issue.

Actual text is here. Here's a summary:

Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 - Amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to add provisions concerning the prevention of homegrown terrorism (terrorism by individuals born, raised, or based and operating primarily in the United States). Directs the Se more...cretary of Homeland Security to: (1) establish a grant program to prevent radicalization (use of an extremist belief system for facilitating ideologically-based violence) and homegrown terrorism in the United States; (2) establish or designate a university-based Center of Excellence for the Study of Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the United States; and (3) conduct a survey of methodologies implemented by foreign nations to prevent radicalization and homegrown terrorism. Prohibits the Department of Homeland Security's efforts to prevent ideologically-based violence and homegrown terrorism from violating the constitutional and civil rights, and civil liberties, of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents.

... I would say it's not needed, and would be a waste of money with this creation of a Center for Blahblahblah. Would it be a violation of the first amendment, a violation of free speech?

...and if you follow the link and actually read the text, Obama's e-mail response to bill 1955/1959 is directly quoted. In fact, he is on the Senate committee that will look over this bill before its moved on to the senate floor. Again, follow the links. These are leftists. In fact, it's a high school kid from Illinois who first asked Obama about his position on this bill.

...but, y'know, if you want to think you're the only one in America who reads, go for it.

There are leftists=These aren't leftists.

In fact, the guy who runs Guerilla News Network recently wrote a book called Wolves in Sheep's Clothing," which is about the "liberal menace" in America.

http://www.wolvesbook.com/

Oh, and here’s an update on another war criminal…

http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2008/01/honore_nation_hasnt_learned_fr.html

The Kurds? Western imperialism is the source of all their problems. The boundaries of Iraq and neighboring countries were carved up so the Kurds, Shi'ites, and Sunnis would be divided up and mishmashed into a hodge podge of societies that really had no right being together. They've been denied self-determination first from the UK and now the US for most of the century. Furthermore, we sell an insane about of weapons to Turkey, a total tyrant who has killed and tortured Kurds for decades now (we're now giving Turkey the RIGHT to enter Iraqi airspace). We also put Hussein in power, another tyrant who also practiced genocide on the Kurds. We're not helping the Kurds AT ALL.

And now we're on our second invasion of the region since 1989, which is for oil!!! The world's largest military --which is designed for one thing: IMPERIALISM -- now occupies the region. Why is it so outlandish to think that the wolrd just might be able to function a little better without the Untied States' imperial military (and all the myriad toys it sells to the world) breathing down their necks. We are death, nothing more.

If the US really wants to help people, it shoud stop funding despots, remove its imperial army, and start help funding schools, universities, hospitals, and folks native to the region who really want democracy and self-determination. Lets start sending professors, researchers, and teachers around the world. Of course, that's never going to happen because none of this is about freedom. It's about oil. Plus, look at our , uh,"defense budget." That why we're building an embassy in the middle of Baghdad that looks like the Pentagon junior. That's why we're building an military base near the border of Iran. These are some of the biggest military-imperial structures on earth. The army ain't there for freedom. They're there to conquer and control. That's what it's design to do. That's why they've also taken over more and more duties that use to belong to diplomats.

Maybe I'm crazy but I think positive things in this world can be accomplished without the use of  a Hummers, fatigues, missles, and assault rifles. Christ. Is it really that strange?