Does the whole question boil down to should Obama associate with people who he disagrees with? Because we have a President who only hangs around with people who think the same way he does, and frankly, it’s not working out that well for me.
For me, it boils down to what those around an empty suit want, expect, and demand of said suit. And when those around, that endorsed and cheered you on – whether you asked for it or not – are the likes of Farrakhan and Wright, it’s concerning.
Bush is an example of an empty suit who is surrounded by all types of nefarious types – which he, presumably, “disagrees” with insofar as he tried to come off like an ‘average joe’ type of guy that voters famously would ‘want to get a beer with’, spoke Spanish on the campaign trail, etc. – that effectively control the government and the agenda through him.
An empty suit with a nonthreatening personality surrounded by more worldly, older, been-through-a-lot-of life (aka experience) types isn’t working out so well for me as it relates to Bush.
I don’t see any reason to think it would work out any better with the first Affirmative Action President either. Particularly because both Bush and Obama deflect criticism and imply the questioners/accusers are being unfair or unreasonable with their grilling.
They’re both certain that they’re right; one is a spoiled child and the other is holier than thou. They’re simply inverse copies of each other.
**Another **neophyte? I’ll pass.
Yeah, you’re on to something there, fer sure, Bush and Obama are really a lot alike. Uh-huh.
You have been unable to provide the one thing I asked for – an example of Obama parsing a sentence. If he does this so much, you should be able to quote his exact words and show your source.
I have previously agreed with you that you have a right to your opinion. That is not being debated.
I did not make any personal insults to you. I attempted to explain what is expected in the General Debates Forum. It is against the rules to make personal insults in this forum. If you can’t debate without taking every argument as an insult and if you can’t make your own points without making it personal, there is no point in trying to debate the issues with you.
What would happen in people just started using their own opinions of the meaning of words? Clinton’s people can have one meaning for delegate and Obama’s supporters can have another. That could make for an interesting evening at the Convention.*
*a freakshow spontaneous occuring every four years
Being inversely related to Bush is bad thing?
Just curious, 9th. Can you give me an example of a successful African-American student, businessperson or politician who’s success is due to hard work, intelligence and/or expertise in their field?
Or are they all just AA benficiaries like Obama.
Thanks,
Pash
Inverse images. Which is not to say, fer sure, that the two images are “alike.” Pay attention.
Asserting that I’m substituting opinions for facts is to accuse me of lying about my assertion that I have provided facts. They were in the linked article. Direct quotes. To suggest that I’m lying is a violation of the rules. I’ve provided you with the article that contained direct quotes. If you don’t see that, too bad. I’m done with trying to convince you of that. Furthermore, did you hear Obama’s speech or do you need that reprinted here in its entirety? The whole thing was parsing. LOL Whole articles have been written with headlines such as “Obama PARSES Wright and wrong.” etc., etc. Whatever, guy.
I have no idea what you’re talking about as it regards meanings of delegates varying between camps. There are pledged delegates and superdelegates.
Moving on!
Depends on your opinion, of course. To me, he’s got opposite political positions of Bush (inverse), but related in that he’s just an empty suit propped up by others from the opposite end of the political spectrum.
This is why I think he has Bush to thank for his success. People are so sick of Bush, they’re willing to go to the opposite (and equally foolish) extreme.
But that’s what human nature always does, it seems: bounce from one extreme to the other and back and forth. From fundamentalist religion to fundamentalist atheism, etc. It’s tiresome, and embarrassing to be human (Kurt Vonnegut).
In this country, or worldwide?
In a country like this one with a fucked up history of race relations and attempted fixes for same, it’d be hard to imagine a scenario where someone’s race isn’t taken into account to some, even minor degree.
That’s the case on both sides of the fence: whites benefit from skin privilege. The opposite question would be can a white student, businessperson or politician be named whose success is due to hard work, intelligence and/or expertise in their field and who didn’t benefit from skin privilege in this country?
Doubtful.
Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), explaining his plan to reduce the influence of special interests, made what sounded like a clear-cut pledge to bar the more than 35,000 registered federal lobbyists from ever working in his administration.
“They won’t **work **in my White House!” Obama has said repeatedly this week on his Iowa bus tour.
The line — a standard in his 25-minute stump speech — draws some of his loudest applause.
…
After reporters sought an explanation from campaign staff Saturday of how he could hold to such a pledge, Obama revised it at the next campaign stop.
“They are not going to **dominate **my White House,” Obama said at a rally in this town northeast of Des Moines.
His pledge with regards taking public financing during the general as McCain has been pressing him on (not that he has clean hands either), is another example of Obama’s parsing.
Hey, all politicians parse. But those that claim to be ‘not the old politics’ and still do the same shit are rather, um, audacious.
So, white people (yes, in America) benefit from being white, and black people benefit from being black. So then, why does Obama’s race matter again?
Now that you seem to (think) you have “inverse” down, maybe you should work on “opposite”.
Perhaps you’re okay with skin privilege, then? Two wrongs make a (W)right for you? 
As for me, I don’t think it’s a good thing when skin privilege helps whites get a job they otherwise wouldn’t get and I don’t think it’s a good thing when it works in the “opposite” direction either. 
Bottom line, Ferraro was right: if Obama was (fully) white, he wouldn’t be in the position he’s in now and would have been dispensed with quite a while ago. He would’ve just been a ‘uniter’ mantra version of Edwards that would seem absurd trying to pepper his speeches with MLK quotes and intonations. (Actually, he still seems like an absurd parody in so doing to some of us.)
“Intonations”? He’s using MLK’s “intonations”? Why, the unmitigated swine!
We should all be grateful to 9th for alerting us to this development. Perhaps he will favor us with some examples? I can certainly see using quotes from a much respected and beloved American, but intonations? No, that’s right out.
Snark free version: whaddaya mean, “intonations”?
Besides, Deval Patrick did it earlier.
Snark version: Yeah, that’s a real mystery isn’t it?
Snark free version: Oh, please. His fake gospelesque voice that he magically invents when he’s around one group or another is just transparent. If you haven’t heard it, a quote in text isn’t going to convey the sound.
Snark version: Yeah, that’s a real mystery isn’t it?
Snark free version: Oh, please. You want examples of a tone of voice…in print? His fake gospelesque voice that he magically invents when he’s around one group or another is just transparent. If you haven’t heard it, a quote in text isn’t going to convey the sound.
I don’t know about ‘unmitigated swine’ but invoking the dead MLK on your campaign’s behalf against someone who actually was in the country at the time, listened to his speeches, discussed and debated them, and went on to a lifetime of service alongside her husband’s political career that was so routinely and regularly praised by African Americans by someone who was 6 years old and in Indonesia at the time of his assassination is a bit ‘audacious.’
Then again, he prides himself on being audacious. Seems to think it’s a qualification for POTUS.
No, it is not.
It is asserting that you have failed in an endeavor in which you believe you have succeeded.
Stop trying to game the rules against calling posters liars and stick to the actual discussion.
[ /Moderating ]
How did you get that out of the text you quoted? Parsing (incorrectly, I might add), perhaps?