youtube.com— Discussion in the House of Representatives about the relationship between the cost of oil and threat of war with Iran, highlighting the irresponsible foreign policy that threatens to escalate the problem.
Jun 26, 2008View in Crawl 4
What's "lived ages ago" have to do with it anyway? Isn't a lot of what we consider important today from people who lived "ages ago"? He hasn't really been dead that long anyway. I guess you'd also suggest tossing out the Bill of Rights and Constitution since they are from ages ago.
"Ugh.I never said Paul wrote them. I said EITHER he wrote them, OR he's so unbelievably incompetent that he shouldn't be a Congressman, let alone President." --solistusAnd Obama, by that same standard, must be so unbelievably incompetent that he shouldn't be a Senator, let alone President. He attended this racist church, had this person as his spiritual advisor, and etc. Too incompetent when it comes to being a judge of character? Maybe that's why he has so many questionable people on his campaign staff."His staffers published horrific things under his name, ghost written as if by him with personal details about his family, signed with his name, and distributed it to lists of his supporters in Texas, and he didn't even bother to read it occasionally?" --solistusThe signature on the newsletters and Ron Paul's signature do not match. I've not read through them, but it sounds like it was more of a case of a staffer using his position to push through this staffer's own ideas, and occasionally, considering I've only seen a few quotes put forward it doesn't sound like the main focus of the newsletter was racism. He probably had these staff and these ghost writers because he was very busy in the first place. In other words, if you put them all together it would probably be like trying to find a few phrases in a large book and not so hard to miss. You say how he couldn't have missed this, yet Obama could have easily missed his race/hate filled speeches at his church? I know people sometimes fall asleep at church but..."The Ron Paul Survival Report was very popular in some of the backwater towns in Texas where that kind of racism is not only tolerated but agreed with. It's real classy of him to run a campaign that would resort to distributing racist tracts to dredge up the lowest common denominator of political support. So, if he, in fact, did not write the Report, that only shows that he has terrible judgment, surrounding himself with unscrupulous people and then not monitoring them in the slightest. Sound familiar?" --solistusYes, it does sound familiar. Sounds like a mistake Obama made as well that you want to overlook. And if the area is as you say, it shows how easy it was for such a person to get on his staff and put out theses views at times without any outrage."Obama attended the church. He didn't express agreement with everything his pastor said. Are you saying you've never participated in a religious or cultural institution in which some people expressed views you disagree with? That's not a reasonable standard by any means." --solistusSo attending a church where the reverend is spewing hate towards America and racially divided speech is not a good reason to take action? He should just keep showing up with his attendance support and I'm assuming financial support? You see nothing wrong with that? Obama seems to have thought it was a huge mistake to do so considering he distanced himself from Wright and left the church. So it isn't a good idea for him to continue to do so now, but it was back then.... that's more spin. According to you then, I guess there is no issue if he goes back and starts giving financial support (again)."Onto your example of Wright's racism. He makes a passing endorsement of SOMEONE ELSE who said some radical things during the civil rights movement and that's the best you can come up with? First of all, you ripped ALL of the context out of those quotes while arbitrarily claiming you were discussing religion in context. I'm not particularly well read on black liberation theology, but I know enough to know that pulling some rhetorically charged lines out of the entire body of work is a gross mischaracterisation." --solistusThe lines I quoted are just as bad if not worse than the lines I've seen from the newsletters, not that those weren't terrible either. ("... Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy.") Funny how you immediately want to dismiss it in one case but not the other. And if you think those aren't terrible.. well, wow, I guess there is not much else to say about that. I'd not suggest ever defending such things or downplaying them."I'm not going to launch into a whole theoretical dicussion about black liberatory thought and the distinction between militancy against 'whiteness' as an institutional structure and violence against white people, because you obviously don't care to understand the school of thought and are just interested in some flamebait quotes. Do you work for Fox News, by any chance?" --solistusAnd yours were not flamebait statements? You began with the personal attacks, let me remind you. I guess that makes *you* more similar to Fox News. Of course, no, when Fox News does it it's a crime against humanity but when you do it's no big deal. Both are terrible."You clearly didn't understand Obama's position on race, either. Not surprising, as it seems you haven't done much reading or thinking on the subject. I feel like I'm talking to a (very annoying) child." --solistusThere are those Fox News like attacks again you are supposedly opposed to. Well, if I don't, then nor do you understand Ron Paul's position about race since you are not well read one what he actually wrote.. did you find anything outside of the newsletters yet? Maybe this will help."Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans only as members of groups and never as individuals. Racists believe that all individual who share superficial physical characteristics are alike; as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their intense focus on race is inherently racist, because it views individuals only as members of racial groups." --Ron Paul, December 24, 2002Now *you* can better understand Ron Paul's school of thought!Sadly, I see just this sort of thing from the Obama campaign all of the time. It always seems to be white this or black that. How about he change it to people this and Americans that, at least? Much less divisive than "typical white person.""Black America will wake up and get it." --Michelle Obama. "White America will wake up and get it." --hypothetical. Why make such racially divisive comments at all? This is not rare for the Obama campaign. I find both deplorable. Imagine, the audacity of holding racially divisive statements to an equal standard."Racism is not just overt forms, consciously associating negative things with a certain race. It is also subconscious. It is well documented that even nice, not overtly racist people have implicit connections on a subconscious level that express themselves in a variety of ways. Harvard's Project Implicit is the definitive behavioural study on this currently going on, but there have been many others." --solistusAre you implying Obama's racism is subconscious when he makes statements like "typical white person"?"The idea that racism is a thing of the past masks significant racial tensions that remain in the subconscious of perfectly well-meaning people. That's what Obama meant about his grandmother; she was not hostile toward black people, but she made certain unconscious assumptions and connections, such as avoiding a black man on the street. She didn't consciously think black people were all dangerous criminals, but her unconscious biases led her to fear them irrationally. Likewise, her use of racial stereotypes was not due to consciously believing these things, but a sort of "Freudian slip." Nuances and complexities like this, as well as the simplistic and ignorant understandings of race of most people, are why most politicians are afraid to broach the subject. That's part of what makes Obama interesting; he's not." --solistusThis doesn't excuse Obama using racially divisive speech like "typical white person" just as "typical black person" is of no benefit to anyone."At any rate, I like how you engage in a bunch of muckraking to try to prove that Obama is more racist than Paul or some such stupid s**t, then tell ME to focus on the issues. The fact that you think racism is not one of "the issues" to be focusing on is also quite telling." --solistusI'm only exposing your hypocrisy. You attack Ron Paul over an issue that you are eager to overlook when Obama has connections to a similar issue. Are you the one who brought it up? Yes, I'm pretty sure that was you. See, I am not the one who engages in Fox News type behavior by going into Obama threads and yelling "Obama is a muslim" or "Obama's is part of the racist church!!!11!!" I discuss statements put forth by him and his campaign on the issues. You brought the subject up and now when I point out parallel and more recent problems Obama is having with this issue you want to cry foul.What I meant is that it is not an issue for Ron Paul. Try reading his beliefs on it. <a class="user" href="http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/racism/">http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/racism/</a> (see the quote above and below). Now, if you wanted to disagree with his actual policy, that'd be another matter. But wanting to impose that people must discuss a policy he thoroughly rejects and wants no part of is not very useful. How about we take a look at his beliefs all the way back in 1988?"It is commonplace for politicians and those desiring special privileges to refer to: black rights, minority rights, women's rights, gay rights, (...) etc." "Until all these terms are dropped and we recognize that only an individual has rights, the solution to the mess in which we find ourselves will not be found." --Ron Paul, 1988It'd be nice if the Obama campaign did more of this and used less of their racially divisive language. If you think going to threads to post things like "Ron Paul is a racist," "Obama is a racist," "Hillary is a racist," "McCain is a racist" is the best way to discuss the issues, then I'd say you were the one with the problem. I'd say that you attempting to dismiss Obama's connections to racism is far more telling. For example, unlike Ron Paul's Newsletters, Obama's decision to support the Patriot Act, the FISA bill, Obama and Paul's views on the war(s) are going to affect hundreds of millions if not billions of people. Ron Paul's newsletters, Obama's church, and etc, are distractions more than anything else. I've seen no evidence Ron Paul is pushing racist policies -- quite the opposite. If Ron Paul begins to push racism and advocate it, then yes it will be a huge issue. RIght now? I don't see that happening. So yes, I will continue to focus on more pertinent issues until that changes. I'm sure if I went into Obama threads posting "OBAMA ATTENDED A RACIST CHURCH!!! I HATE HIM FOR THAT!!" you'd find it just as ridiculous.
Oy.You know damn well what I mean. "Attack Pakistan" means using the military to attack the government of the nation of Pakistan. Obama wants to attack terrorists in Pakistan."Act of War" is a bulls**t term. War is when Congress declares it; no more, no less. We've pursued criminal targets in uncooperative regimes before. The US attacking targets in eastern Pakistan would indeed have 'blowback,' but that blowback would not include military conflict between the nations of the United States and Pakistan, which is what you're still trying to spin out of it. Give it up.I've already explained my views on AIPAC. It was vague pandering without committing to a policy change. None of your quotes change my opinion there.I am more uncomfortable with Israel having nukes (which they almost certainly already do) than the prospect of Iran getting them. Israeli nukes are more advanced than Iran is likely to have for decades, and Israel seems more likely to be tempted to use them than Iran, because, unlike Iran, they would not immediately be obliterated by the US for doing so. All it would take is for Netanyahu to win the elections and we could be looking at WWIII. At any rate, if Ahmadinejad said such a thing, I would have a similar interpretation to my reading of Obama's statements: that it was pandering to a political base without actually committing to anything concrete.
So if China flies military jets over the U.S. and drops a few bombs (without permission, of course) on suspected terrorists inside of the U.S., you do not consider that an act of war?So, according to you, one nation can now attack another as long as it's some remote area of that nation. Wow, so *that's* how the world works today. It is hopeful that countries such as Russia, China, and etc, do not share your view and start carrying out their own attacks on nations. (This whole idea of pre-emptive war has set a new precedent, after all.) An attack on any part of a nation is an attack on that nation. I hope for this nation's sake that Obama doesn't share your view, either. Sadly, it seems he might.As for no blowback, just Obama's mere mention of this action led to demonstrations."Pakistani protesters burn a U.S. flag to condemn U.S. presidential hopeful Barack Obama's remarks, in Karachi, Pakistan, Friday."<a class="user" href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-08-03-pakistan-obama_N.htm">http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-08-03-paki ...</a>It could cause massive instability in Pakistan, as *many* have noted, and of course it could lead to some retaliation in the U.S. Even if not in the U.S., you don't consider a possible breakdown in Pakistan a very dangerous thing for the region? Escalate, escalate, escalate.It's amazing how this crisis will be solved with more of the same actions which helped to create it.As to your last point:"You should always assume that when I cast a vote or make a statement it is because it is what I believe in," Obama said.The baseless, and failed, "Move to the Center" cliche - Glenn Greenwald (salon.com)<a class="user" href="http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/29/center/index.html">http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/29/ ...</a>So it seems your argument comes down to "Yes, Obama may bomb areas of Pakistan without permission from Pakistan, but don't you dare imply he'd carry out bombings in areas of Iran without permission"? Amazingly, somehow Obama, and I guess you, already know that Pakistan would not consider that an act of war?By the way, "Everything in my power -- EVERYTHING" is not vague.
hypertensionJun 28, 2008
Do you have any friends at all?
Closed AccountJun 28, 2008
tl;dr
illmonkeyJun 28, 2008
WOW - amazing talk! As the reverend predicted gas prices have reached $4 at gas pumps. Insightful.Now I gotta read his book.
yookjiJun 28, 2008
Why is the *only* person on Digg with a basic understanding of economics dugg down?
bobangitanov2Jun 29, 2008
Thomas Jefferson lived ages ago. You can't leave people perish - they'll turn against you, plus you won't have anybody to make money off of.
Closed AccountJun 29, 2008
What's "lived ages ago" have to do with it anyway? Isn't a lot of what we consider important today from people who lived "ages ago"? He hasn't really been dead that long anyway. I guess you'd also suggest tossing out the Bill of Rights and Constitution since they are from ages ago.
Closed AccountJun 29, 2008
"Ugh.I never said Paul wrote them. I said EITHER he wrote them, OR he's so unbelievably incompetent that he shouldn't be a Congressman, let alone President." --solistusAnd Obama, by that same standard, must be so unbelievably incompetent that he shouldn't be a Senator, let alone President. He attended this racist church, had this person as his spiritual advisor, and etc. Too incompetent when it comes to being a judge of character? Maybe that's why he has so many questionable people on his campaign staff."His staffers published horrific things under his name, ghost written as if by him with personal details about his family, signed with his name, and distributed it to lists of his supporters in Texas, and he didn't even bother to read it occasionally?" --solistusThe signature on the newsletters and Ron Paul's signature do not match. I've not read through them, but it sounds like it was more of a case of a staffer using his position to push through this staffer's own ideas, and occasionally, considering I've only seen a few quotes put forward it doesn't sound like the main focus of the newsletter was racism. He probably had these staff and these ghost writers because he was very busy in the first place. In other words, if you put them all together it would probably be like trying to find a few phrases in a large book and not so hard to miss. You say how he couldn't have missed this, yet Obama could have easily missed his race/hate filled speeches at his church? I know people sometimes fall asleep at church but..."The Ron Paul Survival Report was very popular in some of the backwater towns in Texas where that kind of racism is not only tolerated but agreed with. It's real classy of him to run a campaign that would resort to distributing racist tracts to dredge up the lowest common denominator of political support. So, if he, in fact, did not write the Report, that only shows that he has terrible judgment, surrounding himself with unscrupulous people and then not monitoring them in the slightest. Sound familiar?" --solistusYes, it does sound familiar. Sounds like a mistake Obama made as well that you want to overlook. And if the area is as you say, it shows how easy it was for such a person to get on his staff and put out theses views at times without any outrage."Obama attended the church. He didn't express agreement with everything his pastor said. Are you saying you've never participated in a religious or cultural institution in which some people expressed views you disagree with? That's not a reasonable standard by any means." --solistusSo attending a church where the reverend is spewing hate towards America and racially divided speech is not a good reason to take action? He should just keep showing up with his attendance support and I'm assuming financial support? You see nothing wrong with that? Obama seems to have thought it was a huge mistake to do so considering he distanced himself from Wright and left the church. So it isn't a good idea for him to continue to do so now, but it was back then.... that's more spin. According to you then, I guess there is no issue if he goes back and starts giving financial support (again)."Onto your example of Wright's racism. He makes a passing endorsement of SOMEONE ELSE who said some radical things during the civil rights movement and that's the best you can come up with? First of all, you ripped ALL of the context out of those quotes while arbitrarily claiming you were discussing religion in context. I'm not particularly well read on black liberation theology, but I know enough to know that pulling some rhetorically charged lines out of the entire body of work is a gross mischaracterisation." --solistusThe lines I quoted are just as bad if not worse than the lines I've seen from the newsletters, not that those weren't terrible either. ("... Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy.") Funny how you immediately want to dismiss it in one case but not the other. And if you think those aren't terrible.. well, wow, I guess there is not much else to say about that. I'd not suggest ever defending such things or downplaying them."I'm not going to launch into a whole theoretical dicussion about black liberatory thought and the distinction between militancy against 'whiteness' as an institutional structure and violence against white people, because you obviously don't care to understand the school of thought and are just interested in some flamebait quotes. Do you work for Fox News, by any chance?" --solistusAnd yours were not flamebait statements? You began with the personal attacks, let me remind you. I guess that makes *you* more similar to Fox News. Of course, no, when Fox News does it it's a crime against humanity but when you do it's no big deal. Both are terrible."You clearly didn't understand Obama's position on race, either. Not surprising, as it seems you haven't done much reading or thinking on the subject. I feel like I'm talking to a (very annoying) child." --solistusThere are those Fox News like attacks again you are supposedly opposed to. Well, if I don't, then nor do you understand Ron Paul's position about race since you are not well read one what he actually wrote.. did you find anything outside of the newsletters yet? Maybe this will help."Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans only as members of groups and never as individuals. Racists believe that all individual who share superficial physical characteristics are alike; as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their intense focus on race is inherently racist, because it views individuals only as members of racial groups." --Ron Paul, December 24, 2002Now *you* can better understand Ron Paul's school of thought!Sadly, I see just this sort of thing from the Obama campaign all of the time. It always seems to be white this or black that. How about he change it to people this and Americans that, at least? Much less divisive than "typical white person.""Black America will wake up and get it." --Michelle Obama. "White America will wake up and get it." --hypothetical. Why make such racially divisive comments at all? This is not rare for the Obama campaign. I find both deplorable. Imagine, the audacity of holding racially divisive statements to an equal standard."Racism is not just overt forms, consciously associating negative things with a certain race. It is also subconscious. It is well documented that even nice, not overtly racist people have implicit connections on a subconscious level that express themselves in a variety of ways. Harvard's Project Implicit is the definitive behavioural study on this currently going on, but there have been many others." --solistusAre you implying Obama's racism is subconscious when he makes statements like "typical white person"?"The idea that racism is a thing of the past masks significant racial tensions that remain in the subconscious of perfectly well-meaning people. That's what Obama meant about his grandmother; she was not hostile toward black people, but she made certain unconscious assumptions and connections, such as avoiding a black man on the street. She didn't consciously think black people were all dangerous criminals, but her unconscious biases led her to fear them irrationally. Likewise, her use of racial stereotypes was not due to consciously believing these things, but a sort of "Freudian slip." Nuances and complexities like this, as well as the simplistic and ignorant understandings of race of most people, are why most politicians are afraid to broach the subject. That's part of what makes Obama interesting; he's not." --solistusThis doesn't excuse Obama using racially divisive speech like "typical white person" just as "typical black person" is of no benefit to anyone."At any rate, I like how you engage in a bunch of muckraking to try to prove that Obama is more racist than Paul or some such stupid s**t, then tell ME to focus on the issues. The fact that you think racism is not one of "the issues" to be focusing on is also quite telling." --solistusI'm only exposing your hypocrisy. You attack Ron Paul over an issue that you are eager to overlook when Obama has connections to a similar issue. Are you the one who brought it up? Yes, I'm pretty sure that was you. See, I am not the one who engages in Fox News type behavior by going into Obama threads and yelling "Obama is a muslim" or "Obama's is part of the racist church!!!11!!" I discuss statements put forth by him and his campaign on the issues. You brought the subject up and now when I point out parallel and more recent problems Obama is having with this issue you want to cry foul.What I meant is that it is not an issue for Ron Paul. Try reading his beliefs on it. <a class="user" href="http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/racism/">http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/racism/</a> (see the quote above and below). Now, if you wanted to disagree with his actual policy, that'd be another matter. But wanting to impose that people must discuss a policy he thoroughly rejects and wants no part of is not very useful. How about we take a look at his beliefs all the way back in 1988?"It is commonplace for politicians and those desiring special privileges to refer to: black rights, minority rights, women's rights, gay rights, (...) etc." "Until all these terms are dropped and we recognize that only an individual has rights, the solution to the mess in which we find ourselves will not be found." --Ron Paul, 1988It'd be nice if the Obama campaign did more of this and used less of their racially divisive language. If you think going to threads to post things like "Ron Paul is a racist," "Obama is a racist," "Hillary is a racist," "McCain is a racist" is the best way to discuss the issues, then I'd say you were the one with the problem. I'd say that you attempting to dismiss Obama's connections to racism is far more telling. For example, unlike Ron Paul's Newsletters, Obama's decision to support the Patriot Act, the FISA bill, Obama and Paul's views on the war(s) are going to affect hundreds of millions if not billions of people. Ron Paul's newsletters, Obama's church, and etc, are distractions more than anything else. I've seen no evidence Ron Paul is pushing racist policies -- quite the opposite. If Ron Paul begins to push racism and advocate it, then yes it will be a huge issue. RIght now? I don't see that happening. So yes, I will continue to focus on more pertinent issues until that changes. I'm sure if I went into Obama threads posting "OBAMA ATTENDED A RACIST CHURCH!!! I HATE HIM FOR THAT!!" you'd find it just as ridiculous.
solistusJun 29, 2008
Oy.You know damn well what I mean. "Attack Pakistan" means using the military to attack the government of the nation of Pakistan. Obama wants to attack terrorists in Pakistan."Act of War" is a bulls**t term. War is when Congress declares it; no more, no less. We've pursued criminal targets in uncooperative regimes before. The US attacking targets in eastern Pakistan would indeed have 'blowback,' but that blowback would not include military conflict between the nations of the United States and Pakistan, which is what you're still trying to spin out of it. Give it up.I've already explained my views on AIPAC. It was vague pandering without committing to a policy change. None of your quotes change my opinion there.I am more uncomfortable with Israel having nukes (which they almost certainly already do) than the prospect of Iran getting them. Israeli nukes are more advanced than Iran is likely to have for decades, and Israel seems more likely to be tempted to use them than Iran, because, unlike Iran, they would not immediately be obliterated by the US for doing so. All it would take is for Netanyahu to win the elections and we could be looking at WWIII. At any rate, if Ahmadinejad said such a thing, I would have a similar interpretation to my reading of Obama's statements: that it was pandering to a political base without actually committing to anything concrete.
Closed AccountJun 30, 2008
So if China flies military jets over the U.S. and drops a few bombs (without permission, of course) on suspected terrorists inside of the U.S., you do not consider that an act of war?So, according to you, one nation can now attack another as long as it's some remote area of that nation. Wow, so *that's* how the world works today. It is hopeful that countries such as Russia, China, and etc, do not share your view and start carrying out their own attacks on nations. (This whole idea of pre-emptive war has set a new precedent, after all.) An attack on any part of a nation is an attack on that nation. I hope for this nation's sake that Obama doesn't share your view, either. Sadly, it seems he might.As for no blowback, just Obama's mere mention of this action led to demonstrations."Pakistani protesters burn a U.S. flag to condemn U.S. presidential hopeful Barack Obama's remarks, in Karachi, Pakistan, Friday."<a class="user" href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-08-03-pakistan-obama_N.htm">http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-08-03-paki ...</a>It could cause massive instability in Pakistan, as *many* have noted, and of course it could lead to some retaliation in the U.S. Even if not in the U.S., you don't consider a possible breakdown in Pakistan a very dangerous thing for the region? Escalate, escalate, escalate.It's amazing how this crisis will be solved with more of the same actions which helped to create it.As to your last point:"You should always assume that when I cast a vote or make a statement it is because it is what I believe in," Obama said.The baseless, and failed, "Move to the Center" cliche - Glenn Greenwald (salon.com)<a class="user" href="http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/29/center/index.html">http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/29/ ...</a>So it seems your argument comes down to "Yes, Obama may bomb areas of Pakistan without permission from Pakistan, but don't you dare imply he'd carry out bombings in areas of Iran without permission"? Amazingly, somehow Obama, and I guess you, already know that Pakistan would not consider that an act of war?By the way, "Everything in my power -- EVERYTHING" is not vague.
hiddenperilJul 2, 2008
Get paid to "digg" <a class="user" href="http://www.pyrachat.com">http://www.pyrachat.com</a> Free market of information!