OT: Will Hillary concede now?

[sd_matt]

SDEngineer..I smell fringe left from you. You inferred from my comment that I am a republican. I never said whether or not I’m voting for McCain.

Reverend Wright preaches a black version of “Separate but Equal”

If a right wing hack like Hannity can shut up Wright for a few seconds by quoting Dr.King then something just ain’t real about Wright.

And theres the ginormeously stupid comment about the atom bomb….I suppose you too think there was a better alternative. Please indulge me.

[afx114]

As much as Webb seems like a good idea (Secretary of the Navy under Reagan), it won’t be Webb, because the Dems just won his seat in a hard fought battle. They’ll likely lose that seat if he vacates and they need seats in the Senate just as bad as they need the Presidency.

…. BUT, I could see Webb on the Dem ticket in 2012 if things don’t work out this year. And he’ll definitely be on the short list for 2016.

[afx114]

As much as Webb seems like a good idea (Secretary of the Navy under Reagan), it won’t be Webb, because the Dems just won his seat in a hard fought battle. They’ll likely lose that seat if he vacates and they need seats in the Senate just as bad as they need the Presidency.

…. BUT, I could see Webb on the Dem ticket in 2012 if things don’t work out this year. And he’ll definitely be on the short list for 2016.

[afx114]

As much as Webb seems like a good idea (Secretary of the Navy under Reagan), it won’t be Webb, because the Dems just won his seat in a hard fought battle. They’ll likely lose that seat if he vacates and they need seats in the Senate just as bad as they need the Presidency.

…. BUT, I could see Webb on the Dem ticket in 2012 if things don’t work out this year. And he’ll definitely be on the short list for 2016.

[afx114]

As much as Webb seems like a good idea (Secretary of the Navy under Reagan), it won’t be Webb, because the Dems just won his seat in a hard fought battle. They’ll likely lose that seat if he vacates and they need seats in the Senate just as bad as they need the Presidency.

…. BUT, I could see Webb on the Dem ticket in 2012 if things don’t work out this year. And he’ll definitely be on the short list for 2016.

[afx114]

As much as Webb seems like a good idea (Secretary of the Navy under Reagan), it won’t be Webb, because the Dems just won his seat in a hard fought battle. They’ll likely lose that seat if he vacates and they need seats in the Senate just as bad as they need the Presidency.

…. BUT, I could see Webb on the Dem ticket in 2012 if things don’t work out this year. And he’ll definitely be on the short list for 2016.

[SDEngineer]

sd_matt –

Actually, I inferred nothing of the sort – I was simply pointing out that McCain can be directly connected to policies that aren’t playing very well now (by direct quotation), while Obama can only be connected by inference from associations.

McCain, for example, has frequently attended John Hagee’s sermons. Do I think that means he necessarily believes everything that comes out of John Hagee’s mouth (and there have been some doozies)? Of course not.

Certainly you can’t dig up (or at least the right hasn’t been able to dig up, and I have no doubt they’re trying VERY hard) anything which connects Obama directly to those inflammatory opinions of Rev. Wright’s. It’s simply not there, and while we can speculate endlessly on why Obama stuck with Wright as his pastor for many years, it doesn’t appear that those particular opinions have “rubbed off” so to speak on Obama.

I don’t remember a comment about an atom bomb though? Are you referring to his “bomb Pakistan” statement? I don’t believe he mentioned nukes, and I think it was clear from context (said context omitted by the soundbites that most of the right wing talking heads have replayed over and over) that he was referring to limited bombing of known high-value targets – much as Bush has done on actionable intelligence (and Clinton before him, and Bush Sr. before him, and Reagan before him). Our country violating another’s sovereignity has occurred repeatedly by every administration I can recall, as long as there was a very solid reason, and the country who’s sovereignity we violated was unreasonable in attending to an issue related to our national security located within their borders.

EDITED TO ADD: Ok, I found his nukes comment (at least the only one I could find) where he said that “nukes were not on the table” to get terrorists. I don’t really find anything objectionable on that. IMO, using nukes as anything but a last ditch deterrent is a foolish geopolitical move (and very destabilizing).

Oh, and as for fringe-left? Not really. Definitely left-wing on social issues, but center-left on most economic ones. Fringe though on neither, unless you define fringe with a very wide brush.

[SDEngineer]

sd_matt –

Actually, I inferred nothing of the sort – I was simply pointing out that McCain can be directly connected to policies that aren’t playing very well now (by direct quotation), while Obama can only be connected by inference from associations.

McCain, for example, has frequently attended John Hagee’s sermons. Do I think that means he necessarily believes everything that comes out of John Hagee’s mouth (and there have been some doozies)? Of course not.

Certainly you can’t dig up (or at least the right hasn’t been able to dig up, and I have no doubt they’re trying VERY hard) anything which connects Obama directly to those inflammatory opinions of Rev. Wright’s. It’s simply not there, and while we can speculate endlessly on why Obama stuck with Wright as his pastor for many years, it doesn’t appear that those particular opinions have “rubbed off” so to speak on Obama.

I don’t remember a comment about an atom bomb though? Are you referring to his “bomb Pakistan” statement? I don’t believe he mentioned nukes, and I think it was clear from context (said context omitted by the soundbites that most of the right wing talking heads have replayed over and over) that he was referring to limited bombing of known high-value targets – much as Bush has done on actionable intelligence (and Clinton before him, and Bush Sr. before him, and Reagan before him). Our country violating another’s sovereignity has occurred repeatedly by every administration I can recall, as long as there was a very solid reason, and the country who’s sovereignity we violated was unreasonable in attending to an issue related to our national security located within their borders.

EDITED TO ADD: Ok, I found his nukes comment (at least the only one I could find) where he said that “nukes were not on the table” to get terrorists. I don’t really find anything objectionable on that. IMO, using nukes as anything but a last ditch deterrent is a foolish geopolitical move (and very destabilizing).

Oh, and as for fringe-left? Not really. Definitely left-wing on social issues, but center-left on most economic ones. Fringe though on neither, unless you define fringe with a very wide brush.

[SDEngineer]

sd_matt –

Actually, I inferred nothing of the sort – I was simply pointing out that McCain can be directly connected to policies that aren’t playing very well now (by direct quotation), while Obama can only be connected by inference from associations.

McCain, for example, has frequently attended John Hagee’s sermons. Do I think that means he necessarily believes everything that comes out of John Hagee’s mouth (and there have been some doozies)? Of course not.

Certainly you can’t dig up (or at least the right hasn’t been able to dig up, and I have no doubt they’re trying VERY hard) anything which connects Obama directly to those inflammatory opinions of Rev. Wright’s. It’s simply not there, and while we can speculate endlessly on why Obama stuck with Wright as his pastor for many years, it doesn’t appear that those particular opinions have “rubbed off” so to speak on Obama.

I don’t remember a comment about an atom bomb though? Are you referring to his “bomb Pakistan” statement? I don’t believe he mentioned nukes, and I think it was clear from context (said context omitted by the soundbites that most of the right wing talking heads have replayed over and over) that he was referring to limited bombing of known high-value targets – much as Bush has done on actionable intelligence (and Clinton before him, and Bush Sr. before him, and Reagan before him). Our country violating another’s sovereignity has occurred repeatedly by every administration I can recall, as long as there was a very solid reason, and the country who’s sovereignity we violated was unreasonable in attending to an issue related to our national security located within their borders.

EDITED TO ADD: Ok, I found his nukes comment (at least the only one I could find) where he said that “nukes were not on the table” to get terrorists. I don’t really find anything objectionable on that. IMO, using nukes as anything but a last ditch deterrent is a foolish geopolitical move (and very destabilizing).

Oh, and as for fringe-left? Not really. Definitely left-wing on social issues, but center-left on most economic ones. Fringe though on neither, unless you define fringe with a very wide brush.

[SDEngineer]

sd_matt –

Actually, I inferred nothing of the sort – I was simply pointing out that McCain can be directly connected to policies that aren’t playing very well now (by direct quotation), while Obama can only be connected by inference from associations.

McCain, for example, has frequently attended John Hagee’s sermons. Do I think that means he necessarily believes everything that comes out of John Hagee’s mouth (and there have been some doozies)? Of course not.

Certainly you can’t dig up (or at least the right hasn’t been able to dig up, and I have no doubt they’re trying VERY hard) anything which connects Obama directly to those inflammatory opinions of Rev. Wright’s. It’s simply not there, and while we can speculate endlessly on why Obama stuck with Wright as his pastor for many years, it doesn’t appear that those particular opinions have “rubbed off” so to speak on Obama.

I don’t remember a comment about an atom bomb though? Are you referring to his “bomb Pakistan” statement? I don’t believe he mentioned nukes, and I think it was clear from context (said context omitted by the soundbites that most of the right wing talking heads have replayed over and over) that he was referring to limited bombing of known high-value targets – much as Bush has done on actionable intelligence (and Clinton before him, and Bush Sr. before him, and Reagan before him). Our country violating another’s sovereignity has occurred repeatedly by every administration I can recall, as long as there was a very solid reason, and the country who’s sovereignity we violated was unreasonable in attending to an issue related to our national security located within their borders.

EDITED TO ADD: Ok, I found his nukes comment (at least the only one I could find) where he said that “nukes were not on the table” to get terrorists. I don’t really find anything objectionable on that. IMO, using nukes as anything but a last ditch deterrent is a foolish geopolitical move (and very destabilizing).

Oh, and as for fringe-left? Not really. Definitely left-wing on social issues, but center-left on most economic ones. Fringe though on neither, unless you define fringe with a very wide brush.

[SDEngineer]

sd_matt –

Actually, I inferred nothing of the sort – I was simply pointing out that McCain can be directly connected to policies that aren’t playing very well now (by direct quotation), while Obama can only be connected by inference from associations.

McCain, for example, has frequently attended John Hagee’s sermons. Do I think that means he necessarily believes everything that comes out of John Hagee’s mouth (and there have been some doozies)? Of course not.

Certainly you can’t dig up (or at least the right hasn’t been able to dig up, and I have no doubt they’re trying VERY hard) anything which connects Obama directly to those inflammatory opinions of Rev. Wright’s. It’s simply not there, and while we can speculate endlessly on why Obama stuck with Wright as his pastor for many years, it doesn’t appear that those particular opinions have “rubbed off” so to speak on Obama.

I don’t remember a comment about an atom bomb though? Are you referring to his “bomb Pakistan” statement? I don’t believe he mentioned nukes, and I think it was clear from context (said context omitted by the soundbites that most of the right wing talking heads have replayed over and over) that he was referring to limited bombing of known high-value targets – much as Bush has done on actionable intelligence (and Clinton before him, and Bush Sr. before him, and Reagan before him). Our country violating another’s sovereignity has occurred repeatedly by every administration I can recall, as long as there was a very solid reason, and the country who’s sovereignity we violated was unreasonable in attending to an issue related to our national security located within their borders.

EDITED TO ADD: Ok, I found his nukes comment (at least the only one I could find) where he said that “nukes were not on the table” to get terrorists. I don’t really find anything objectionable on that. IMO, using nukes as anything but a last ditch deterrent is a foolish geopolitical move (and very destabilizing).

Oh, and as for fringe-left? Not really. Definitely left-wing on social issues, but center-left on most economic ones. Fringe though on neither, unless you define fringe with a very wide brush.

[sd_matt]

You didn’t watch Wrights videos. “….Americas chickens are coming home to roost….We bombed Hiroshima, We bombed Nagasaki…and we didn’t bat an eye…”

Anyone who has read a page of history knows that it was the Atom bomb or a land invasion that would left the only remaining living Japanese at Manzanar, not to mention the 500k American soldiers that were saved.

I just watched Hagees sermons. Clearly he doesnt like the Catholic Church or Islam. But where are the conspiracy theories?

If a pastor was ranting about what the “Queers are doing to the soil….” would you give him 20 years? I wouldn’t give him 20 seconds.

I don’t deny that the Bautistas, Mobutu, Hussein, the Shah, and so on were nice people to support. What does that have to do with Wrights conspiracists comments? Hagees comments are nutty just as would be those from the local Imam or Rabbi. Again where are the conspiracy comments?

[sd_matt]

You didn’t watch Wrights videos. “….Americas chickens are coming home to roost….We bombed Hiroshima, We bombed Nagasaki…and we didn’t bat an eye…”

Anyone who has read a page of history knows that it was the Atom bomb or a land invasion that would left the only remaining living Japanese at Manzanar, not to mention the 500k American soldiers that were saved.

I just watched Hagees sermons. Clearly he doesnt like the Catholic Church or Islam. But where are the conspiracy theories?

If a pastor was ranting about what the “Queers are doing to the soil….” would you give him 20 years? I wouldn’t give him 20 seconds.

I don’t deny that the Bautistas, Mobutu, Hussein, the Shah, and so on were nice people to support. What does that have to do with Wrights conspiracists comments? Hagees comments are nutty just as would be those from the local Imam or Rabbi. Again where are the conspiracy comments?

[sd_matt]

You didn’t watch Wrights videos. “….Americas chickens are coming home to roost….We bombed Hiroshima, We bombed Nagasaki…and we didn’t bat an eye…”

Anyone who has read a page of history knows that it was the Atom bomb or a land invasion that would left the only remaining living Japanese at Manzanar, not to mention the 500k American soldiers that were saved.

I just watched Hagees sermons. Clearly he doesnt like the Catholic Church or Islam. But where are the conspiracy theories?

If a pastor was ranting about what the “Queers are doing to the soil….” would you give him 20 years? I wouldn’t give him 20 seconds.

I don’t deny that the Bautistas, Mobutu, Hussein, the Shah, and so on were nice people to support. What does that have to do with Wrights conspiracists comments? Hagees comments are nutty just as would be those from the local Imam or Rabbi. Again where are the conspiracy comments?

[sd_matt]

You didn’t watch Wrights videos. “….Americas chickens are coming home to roost….We bombed Hiroshima, We bombed Nagasaki…and we didn’t bat an eye…”

Anyone who has read a page of history knows that it was the Atom bomb or a land invasion that would left the only remaining living Japanese at Manzanar, not to mention the 500k American soldiers that were saved.

I just watched Hagees sermons. Clearly he doesnt like the Catholic Church or Islam. But where are the conspiracy theories?

If a pastor was ranting about what the “Queers are doing to the soil….” would you give him 20 years? I wouldn’t give him 20 seconds.

I don’t deny that the Bautistas, Mobutu, Hussein, the Shah, and so on were nice people to support. What does that have to do with Wrights conspiracists comments? Hagees comments are nutty just as would be those from the local Imam or Rabbi. Again where are the conspiracy comments?

[Author]

Posts