08-bama

[piercehawkeye45]

Yeah, my school is posting all these discussion on politics in the dorms and stuff with posters like "Obama is he black? Is he white?"

Tear that shit down or write "who gives a fuck" on it. I believe he is mixed so he isn't white or black, he's gray .

[tw]

Originally Posted by freshnesschronic

My (white conservative pro-Bush Republican) friend the other day made a great point; he said at lunch "it doesn't matter the color of his skin, you vote for the ideology not for the outter shell."

Grab a horizontal rope by its center and raise it. Those two flaying and fraying ends are called the left and right wing. They flay in the wind because they "vote for the ideology". Centrists don't vote for a political agenda because logic does not use ideology when making a decision. Therefore centrists in mass numbers last November voted against the neo-cons, their corruption, and an unjustified war based only in an ideology. Centrists grasp reality - which is why the center of that rope is higher on an intelligence scale. Meanwhile, those two frayed ends are banging on one another as the wind blows because their conflict is only about ideology – only about the wind.

An independent obtains facts from numerous perspectives; which sometimes come even from extremists. As both Ronald Cherrycoke and Urbane Guerrilla demonstrate, such extremists know using a political agenda - their ideology – what they are told to think from Rush Limbaugh, et al - rather than learn from history, reality, science, and the numbers. For example, Urbane Guerrilla posted extensively about his knowledge of Vietnam back in Aug 2005 in a discussion entitled “Understanding terrorism”. UG never even read the Pentagon Papers. But UG knows. His ideology includes ‘evil communists’ rather than first learn perspectives.

Ronald Cherrycoke even posts this extremist myth:

Besides Lee Hamilton commision agreed that Saddam had some ties to terrorist Al-Qaeda included.

Why didn't he cite a source? He knows using ideology. Ideology is sufficient as fact?

Centrists learn and then also learn the 'whys'. Even more important, a centrist wants numbers. Ideologues don't even care ‘why’. Subjective reasoning is too often sufficient. A political agenda machine told 'brown shirts' what to know. Extremists knew Saddam was evil even though Saddam was an American ally. Extremists just know; that latter fact be damned. Even Islamoterrorism is cited as proof.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

If Islamoterrorism is to go away, its sponsors must be finished off. Islamoterrorism doesn't happen without the say-so of Islamic governments or government entities. It keeps transpiring, for a somewhat far-flung instance, that Indonesian Islamoterrorists have covert ties with the Indonesian military. And just how many Islamic nations/governments are on the list of terrorist sponsors?

Classic ideologue reasoning; not what an informed American would say.

Ideologues demand that we hold the rope horizontally rather than in the center. So that extremists can be equal? Why? They could not bother to first learn – a prerequisite for intelligence? One could not even read the Pentagon Papers and yet knows all about Vietnam? One promised to discuss Thomas Barnett’s book on 9 Nov 2006. Then realized Barnett promotes “nation building” which extremists oppose. So he quietly stopped reading it. Only extremists would refuse to learn of things opposed to their ideology.

Meanwhile, a real patriot asks embarrassing questions, pushes out the envelope, constantly questions, demands numbers, has little need for a political agenda, and always wants to know the ‘why’. A patriot sees a world chock full of perspectives and has little tolerance for ‘black and white’, ‘good and evil’ concepts from ideology.

Grab that rope by its center. Notice how its extremist ends flay in the wind. Only an extremist uses ideology to vote.

[cowhead]

yeah, I did mean white america. myself being both 'white' (more of a slightly pale peach colour really. fuzz included) and american. am more than ready for a change.. I'm really sick of old school ivy league skull and bones politically entrenched candidates. but peanut farmer joe down the street is so awash in misinformantion and bias that I don't think it's going to happen. now.. think of the VP as a gateway drug to the 'highest' office.. just getting people used to the idea will go a long way in terms of getting someone other than the aforementioned whitebread,cookie cutter, bland (but not too hard on the eyes) candidates. the system is screwed up and corrupt.. and I'd like to see it change.

[xoxoxoBruce]

But what white President wants a black VP, just a heartbeat(his) away from the Presidency....and vice versa.

[cowhead]

well therein lies the trick.. I mean do you want dick cheney running the place? (all argument aside that he already is) the situation is much more palatable to the general public (as far as i've seen anyway) and geez.. when was the last time a prez got whacked/tossed out of office? Nixon? odds are that it won't be a problem.. sadly enough

[Happy Monkey]

There's nothing Bush did that Cheney didn't do double.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by cowhead

well therein lies the trick.. I mean do you want dick cheney running the place? (all argument aside that he already is) the situation is much more palatable to the general public (as far as i've seen anyway) and gee.. when was the last time a prez got whacked/tossed out of office? Nixon? odds are that it won't be a problem.. sadly enough

I'm less sure about that, there's some awfully crazy people out there. Granted the security for the Dynamic Duo at the top is heavy duty, but short of nobody gets to see them except on TV (which separates the Prez and reality even further), it's almost impossible to stop a serious Rambo.

[elSicomoro]

I like Obama, but I'm concerned that something is going to "give." We saw it with Howard Dean as we grew closer to the Iowa caucuses. Obama has a flaw somewhere, and I fear it could be potentially devastating. Hell, someone has probably already printed it and no one's picked up on it yet...or cared enough.

[cowhead]

true, someone who was dead set on knocking out one or both of the top dogs (as it were) could do it.. but quite a few of the whack-jobs that would be interested in that seem to have a heavy pro-white agenda and EEK! kill the top man and you've got a woman or a black man in charge.. and you only get one shot at something like that.. security is tight now.. but just imagine how tight it would be after an assasination (or attempt) and seeing as how this govt is not particularly pro-active about these sorts of things (or wasn't atleast pre 9/11). anywhoo! I think it would act as a bit of a deterrent.

[xoxoxoBruce]

A hero of song and fable, to rival Bill Brasky.

[elSicomoro]

Goddamn, that is some funny shit. Someone should create a song/video in the vein of "What Would Brian Boitano Do?"

For all I know, it's been done already.

[Undertoad]

On topic, here's 2:47 of Obama, in November 02, on Iraq: practically prescient.

[Undertoad]

Compare/contrast the first 3 minutes of this, Hillary in March 2003.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Compare/contrast the first 3 minutes of this, Hillary in March 2003.

Doesn't play for me in the embedded post. Here's the direct link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_KEWUU33Lg

Obama is certainly more articulate and more to the point in these two clips. Clinton comes across as a wishy washy politician trying to straddle the fence. She's also far more boring in her clip.

[elSicomoro]

Originally Posted by glatt

Obama is certainly more articulate

Okay, Joe Biden.