"Tom Gardner" wrote:

Do I have this straight?

His father was a black African Muslim from Kenya.

[snip]

Wow. Is this your writing? Nice set of talking points either way.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Tom Gardner" wrote:

Do I have this straight?

His father was a black African Muslim from Kenya.

[snip]

Wow. Is this your writing? Nice set of talking points either way.

Wes

It's not Tom's writing. It's a pack of mostly lies that's circulating on all
the right-wing hate sites.

For example, I've seen several photos of Obama's American family. They
probably don't show them on Faux News, so the righties don't see them. g

Obama attended both a public and a Catholic school in Indonesia. Neither one
was a "Muslim" school.

And so on, and on, and on. Snopes goes into this stuff in detail. The
right-wing slime machine is in top gear, cranking out this stuff for people
like you to believe without question. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Tom Gardner" wrote:

Do I have this straight?

His father was a black African Muslim from Kenya.

[snip]

Wow. Is this your writing? Nice set of talking points either way.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

Nope, somebody sent it to me but, although it's not flattering to Obama, it
shows some points of consideration, most of which is irrefutable. And, like
Gunner points out, is 143 days as a Senator enough experience to lead the
country? He's an empty suit.

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Tom Gardner" wrote:

Do I have this straight?

His father was a black African Muslim from Kenya.

[snip]

Wow. Is this your writing? Nice set of talking points either way.

Wes

It's not Tom's writing. It's a pack of mostly lies that's circulating on all
the right-wing hate sites.

For example, I've seen several photos of Obama's American family. They
probably don't show them on Faux News, so the righties don't see them. g

Obama attended both a public and a Catholic school in Indonesia. Neither one
was a "Muslim" school.

And so on, and on, and on. Snopes goes into this stuff in detail. The
right-wing slime machine is in top gear, cranking out this stuff for people
like you to believe without question. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress




Not my verbiage but, Obama has some serious credibility and background and lack
of background problems that eliminate him from consideration in November even if
he was the Republican candidate and McCain was the Democrat...unless one takes a
BIG gulp of the Kool-Aid. Thirsty Ed!

On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:44:26 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Tom Gardner" wrote:

Do I have this straight?

His father was a black African Muslim from Kenya.

[snip]

Wow. Is this your writing? Nice set of talking points either way.

Wes

It's not Tom's writing. It's a pack of mostly lies that's circulating on all
the right-wing hate sites.

For example, I've seen several photos of Obama's American family. They
probably don't show them on Faux News, so the righties don't see them. g

Obama attended both a public and a Catholic school in Indonesia. Neither one
was a "Muslim" school.

From http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp I quote:

In his 2006 book, IThe Audacity of Hope/I, Obama elaborated on his
early schooling, explaining that he attended both Catholic and Muslim
schools in Indonesia — not out of any particular religious
affiliation, but because his mother wanted him to obtain the best
education possible under the circumstances:

"During the five years that we would live with my stepfather in
Indonesia, I was sent first to a neighborhood Catholic school and then
to a predominantly Muslim school; in both cases, my mother was less
concerned with me learning the catechism or puzzling out the meaning
of the muezzin's call to evening prayer than she was with whether I
was properly learning my multiplication tables."

In his own words, Bama confesses to attending a Muslim school. If
you're going to put down the "right-wing slime machine", at least get
it right, eh? :-\


And so on, and on, and on. Snopes goes into this stuff in detail. The
right-wing slime machine is in top gear, cranking out this stuff for people
like you to believe without question. d8-)

So read the Snopes article, already!

--
Everything I did in my life that was worthwhile I caught hell for.
-- Earl Warren

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:44:26 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Tom Gardner" wrote:

Do I have this straight?

His father was a black African Muslim from Kenya.

[snip]

Wow. Is this your writing? Nice set of talking points either way.

Wes

It's not Tom's writing. It's a pack of mostly lies that's
circulating on all the right-wing hate sites.

For example, I've seen several photos of Obama's American family.
They probably don't show them on Faux News, so the righties don't
see them. g

Obama attended both a public and a Catholic school in Indonesia.
Neither one was a "Muslim" school.

From http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp I quote:

In his 2006 book, IThe Audacity of Hope/I, Obama elaborated on his
early schooling, explaining that he attended both Catholic and Muslim
schools in Indonesia — not out of any particular religious
affiliation, but because his mother wanted him to obtain the best
education possible under the circumstances:

"During the five years that we would live with my stepfather in
Indonesia, I was sent first to a neighborhood Catholic school and then
to a predominantly Muslim school; in both cases, my mother was less
concerned with me learning the catechism or puzzling out the meaning
of the muezzin's call to evening prayer than she was with whether I
was properly learning my multiplication tables."

In his own words, Bama confesses to attending a Muslim school.


Not exactly and I'm surprixed at your conciet Larry.
Apparently, and from your quote, the school was "predominantly Muslim" and
not a "Muslim" school or Madras.
That is about what you would expect from a nation that although not an
Islamic state, and the world's most populous Muslim-majority nation, with
almost 86% of Indonesians declared Muslim according to the 2000 census.

By your logic, it's a testament to his Christian roots that he attended a
Catholic school.

If
you're going to put down the "right-wing slime machine", at least get
it right, eh? :-\

Great idea. Please do so.
There are plenty of real issues that you could have with this guy and you
look like a jerk when you choose to ignore them and select something that
isn't actually even true.

--

John R. Carroll
www.machiningsolution.com

"Tom Gardner" wrote in message
...

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Tom Gardner" wrote:

Do I have this straight?

His father was a black African Muslim from Kenya.

[snip]

Wow. Is this your writing? Nice set of talking points either way.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

Nope, somebody sent it to me but, although it's not flattering to Obama,
it shows some points of consideration, most of which is irrefutable. And,
like Gunner points out, is 143 days as a Senator enough experience to lead
the country? He's an empty suit.

How many days did Ronald Reagan serve in national office, either in the
Senate or the Post Office, before becoming president? I'd ask the same about
George Bush, but that wouldn't make the point. d8-). How about Eisenhower?

--
Ed Huntress

"Tom Gardner" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Tom Gardner" wrote:

Do I have this straight?

His father was a black African Muslim from Kenya.

[snip]

Wow. Is this your writing? Nice set of talking points either way.

Wes

It's not Tom's writing. It's a pack of mostly lies that's circulating on
all the right-wing hate sites.

For example, I've seen several photos of Obama's American family. They
probably don't show them on Faux News, so the righties don't see them.
g

Obama attended both a public and a Catholic school in Indonesia. Neither
one was a "Muslim" school.

And so on, and on, and on. Snopes goes into this stuff in detail. The
right-wing slime machine is in top gear, cranking out this stuff for
people like you to believe without question. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress




Not my verbiage but, Obama has some serious credibility and background and
lack of background problems that eliminate him from consideration in
November even if he was the Republican candidate and McCain was the
Democrat...unless one takes a BIG gulp of the Kool-Aid. Thirsty Ed!

Well, Tom, I sure wouldn't expect you to vote for him. It wouldn't matter
what he had accomplished; you'd find a reason not to vote for anyone that
someone else called "liberal." And I don't think it would matter much who
made the accusation.

And you have a lot of company. As it is, though, you don't have enough
company to reverse the polls. This may be a close election and it still
could go either way. But you won't have any part of it. Neither will Cliff,
Clay, Gunner, Larry, or most of the other people here. They could hand out
your ballots right now, let you vote, and be done with it.

This election will be decided by the center. And those of us in the center
are making up our own minds. The kind of cut-and-paste political arguments
that you posted here are summarily rejected because you don't know if any of
it is true; I doubt if you even went to Snopes to check out those claims.
That's the politics that many of us in the center now reject out-of-hand.
It's the old stuff, which gave us G.W. Bush, monstrous deficits, a war whose
damage to this country won't be repaired in my lifetime [which may not be
all that long d8-)], and an attitude of despair that permeates the whole
country. We're about to bury those old-time attitudes for at least a
generation to come.

Whichever way the center votes, it will be a rejection of the ideologues.
The liberals had their run and the conservatives did too. Both of you are
failures. Now it's time for a fresh look and some shaking up of the old
guard. Obama may be the most likely person to do it in a couple of
generations. Or maybe not. We'll be watching to see, between now and
November, and you and the other partisans will have nothing to do with how
we decide.

--
Ed Huntress

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:44:26 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Tom Gardner" wrote:

Do I have this straight?

His father was a black African Muslim from Kenya.

[snip]

Wow. Is this your writing? Nice set of talking points either way.

Wes

It's not Tom's writing. It's a pack of mostly lies that's circulating on
all
the right-wing hate sites.

For example, I've seen several photos of Obama's American family. They
probably don't show them on Faux News, so the righties don't see them. g

Obama attended both a public and a Catholic school in Indonesia. Neither
one
was a "Muslim" school.

From http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp I quote:

In his 2006 book, IThe Audacity of Hope/I, Obama elaborated on his
early schooling, explaining that he attended both Catholic and Muslim
schools in Indonesia — not out of any particular religious
affiliation, but because his mother wanted him to obtain the best
education possible under the circumstances:

"During the five years that we would live with my stepfather in
Indonesia, I was sent first to a neighborhood Catholic school and then
to a predominantly Muslim school...

The "Muslim" school was a public school. Note that he identified the
Catholic school for what it was -- a religion-based school -- but that he
called the other school "predominantly Muslim." Further investigation shows
that this was a public school with predominantly Muslim students, which,
like secular schools in many countries, offered some Muslim religious
instruction.

If Obama had anticipated what mincemeat the right would make of the facts,
he might have written it differently. In the interest of full disclosure, I
attended Catholic schools for about half of my elementary education. It
doesn't turn one into a Catholic.

; in both cases, my mother was less
concerned with me learning the catechism or puzzling out the meaning
of the muezzin's call to evening prayer than she was with whether I
was properly learning my multiplication tables."

In his own words, Bama confesses to attending a Muslim school. If
you're going to put down the "right-wing slime machine", at least get
it right, eh? :-\

I did get it right. You just didn't dig deeply enough. You're playing the
right-wingers' game here, Larry. Fortunately, as I said in an earlier
message, your opinions will be irrelevant in November. We centrists will let
you know then who your next president will be. d8-)



And so on, and on, and on. Snopes goes into this stuff in detail. The
right-wing slime machine is in top gear, cranking out this stuff for
people
like you to believe without question. d8-)

So read the Snopes article, already!

I did. Along with about six others that deal with other points. You've
hardly begun to unravel the right-wing bull****. But my guess is you've just
reached the end of it.

That's OK. So have I. I reject all of it, from both sides, while I look for
myself. Which elementary school Obama may have attended, or what his
mother's religious beliefs may have been, is only of interest to the wingers
who have already decided who they're voting for and are looking for
ammunition to justify their votes. We're not voting for Obama's teachers and
we aren't voting for his deceased mother. No one who really cares where
Obama may have spent a small fraction of his childhood is part of the body
of voters who will decide this election. He's part of the committed wings.
As I said to Tom, they could save a rush-hour in November by just handing
your ballots out now. You aren't going to make a whit of difference.

--
Ed Huntress

On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 21:49:52 -0700, with neither quill nor qualm,
"John R. Carroll" quickly quoth:

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:44:26 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Tom Gardner" wrote:

Do I have this straight?

His father was a black African Muslim from Kenya.

[snip]

Wow. Is this your writing? Nice set of talking points either way.

Wes

It's not Tom's writing. It's a pack of mostly lies that's
circulating on all the right-wing hate sites.

For example, I've seen several photos of Obama's American family.
They probably don't show them on Faux News, so the righties don't
see them. g

Obama attended both a public and a Catholic school in Indonesia.
Neither one was a "Muslim" school.

From http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp I quote:

In his 2006 book, IThe Audacity of Hope/I, Obama elaborated on his
early schooling, explaining that he attended both Catholic and Muslim
schools in Indonesia — not out of any particular religious
affiliation, but because his mother wanted him to obtain the best
education possible under the circumstances:

"During the five years that we would live with my stepfather in
Indonesia, I was sent first to a neighborhood Catholic school and then
to a predominantly Muslim school; in both cases, my mother was less
concerned with me learning the catechism or puzzling out the meaning
of the muezzin's call to evening prayer than she was with whether I
was properly learning my multiplication tables."

In his own words, Bama confesses to attending a Muslim school.


Not exactly and I'm surprixed at your conciet Larry.

WTF,O? g Conceit? He's the audacious one.


Apparently, and from your quote, the school was "predominantly Muslim" and
not a "Muslim" school or Madras.

A "predominantly Muslim school" _is_ a Muslim school John. That
adjective is merely the legal weasel's way of saying "absolutely
everyone but me", I'm sure. His father was Muslim, he went to school
for awhile in a Muslim school, and I'm sure he has some Muslim
beliefs, whether or not he shares them openly in the Christian-
controlled West. While we're in a war with Muslims, I'm not too comfy
with a person with his upbringing.


That is about what you would expect from a nation that although not an
Islamic state, and the world's most populous Muslim-majority nation, with
almost 86% of Indonesians declared Muslim according to the 2000 census.

By your logic, it's a testament to his Christian roots that he attended a
Catholic school.

For what it's worth, he's likely tainted from that, too.


If
you're going to put down the "right-wing slime machine", at least get
it right, eh? :-\

Great idea. Please do so.
There are plenty of real issues that you could have with this guy and you
look like a jerk when you choose to ignore them and select something that
isn't actually even true.

I just did, John. You might want to check how many fingers are
pointing back at you when you point out jerks in this instance.

[read this sig, please]

--
Deep doubts, deep wisdom; small doubts, little wisdom.
--Chinese Proverb
----

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 21:49:52 -0700, with neither quill nor qualm,
"John R. Carroll" quickly quoth:

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:44:26 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Tom Gardner" wrote:

Do I have this straight?

His father was a black African Muslim from Kenya.

[snip]

Wow. Is this your writing? Nice set of talking points either way.

Wes

It's not Tom's writing. It's a pack of mostly lies that's
circulating on all the right-wing hate sites.

For example, I've seen several photos of Obama's American family.
They probably don't show them on Faux News, so the righties don't
see them. g

Obama attended both a public and a Catholic school in Indonesia.
Neither one was a "Muslim" school.

From http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp I quote:

In his 2006 book, IThe Audacity of Hope/I, Obama elaborated on his
early schooling, explaining that he attended both Catholic and Muslim
schools in Indonesia — not out of any particular religious
affiliation, but because his mother wanted him to obtain the best
education possible under the circumstances:

"During the five years that we would live with my stepfather in
Indonesia, I was sent first to a neighborhood Catholic school and then
to a predominantly Muslim school; in both cases, my mother was less
concerned with me learning the catechism or puzzling out the meaning
of the muezzin's call to evening prayer than she was with whether I
was properly learning my multiplication tables."

In his own words, Bama confesses to attending a Muslim school.


Not exactly and I'm surprixed at your conciet Larry.

WTF,O? g Conceit? He's the audacious one.


Apparently, and from your quote, the school was "predominantly Muslim" and
not a "Muslim" school or Madras.

A "predominantly Muslim school" _is_ a Muslim school John. That
adjective is merely the legal weasel's way of saying "absolutely
everyone but me", I'm sure. His father was Muslim, he went to school
for awhile in a Muslim school....

Hey, Larry, when I was a little kid, initially in public school, we recited
the Lord's Prayer at the start of the day. Does that mean it was a Christian
school?

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Tom Gardner" wrote in message
...
"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Tom Gardner" wrote:

Do I have this straight?

His father was a black African Muslim from Kenya.
[snip]

Wow. Is this your writing? Nice set of talking points either way.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller
Nope, somebody sent it to me but, although it's not flattering to Obama,
it shows some points of consideration, most of which is irrefutable. And,
like Gunner points out, is 143 days as a Senator enough experience to lead
the country? He's an empty suit.

How many days did Ronald Reagan serve in national office, either in the
Senate or the Post Office, before becoming president? I'd ask the same about
George Bush, but that wouldn't make the point. d8-). How about Eisenhower?

I would consider military service a good qualifier.
I don't know about Reagan, but at least he was employed in the private
sector. i.e earned an honest living

"RB" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Tom Gardner" wrote in message
...
"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Tom Gardner" wrote:

Do I have this straight?

His father was a black African Muslim from Kenya.
[snip]

Wow. Is this your writing? Nice set of talking points either way.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller
Nope, somebody sent it to me but, although it's not flattering to Obama,
it shows some points of consideration, most of which is irrefutable.
And, like Gunner points out, is 143 days as a Senator enough experience
to lead the country? He's an empty suit.

How many days did Ronald Reagan serve in national office, either in the
Senate or the Post Office, before becoming president? I'd ask the same
about George Bush, but that wouldn't make the point. d8-). How about
Eisenhower?

I would consider military service a good qualifier.

I wouldn't. It has nothing to do with governing a democratic state. If
anything, it's counterproductive. See Grant, Ulysses S., or Jackson, Andrew.
g

I don't know about Reagan, but at least he was employed in the private
sector. i.e earned an honest living

So did Obama. The claim that he wasn't employed in the private sector is
only made by people so blindingly biased that they won't even read his
biography.

Those are the people who are essentially irrelevant in this election. As
they say on the stock market, they have already been priced-in to the poll
numbers. In other words, they're a given and their numbers won't change
much.

With them priced-in, the situation now is that Obama has a small lead. Any
changes to that will be the result of movement by the center. That's where
all the action is.

--
Ed Huntress

On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 10:15:46 -0500, RB wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:


How many days did Ronald Reagan serve in national office, either in the
Senate or the Post Office, before becoming president? I'd ask the same about
George Bush, but that wouldn't make the point. d8-). How about Eisenhower?

I would consider military service a good qualifier.

Like Grant?

I don't know about Reagan, but at least he was employed in the private
sector. i.e earned an honest living

OK, I nominate Jack Nicholson for president, Christopher Walken as VP.
(Too bad Marlon Brando is dead, he'd make a dandy Secretary of State.)

And I'm not dissing Reagan here, but the argument that a Hollywood
career, even recognizing that Reagan was involved in Hollywood
politics, is good preparation for the presidency is just plain nuts.

--
Ned Simmons

Ed Huntress wrote:
"RB" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Tom Gardner" wrote in message
...
"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Tom Gardner" wrote:

Do I have this straight?

His father was a black African Muslim from Kenya.
[snip]

Wow. Is this your writing? Nice set of talking points either way.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller
Nope, somebody sent it to me but, although it's not flattering to Obama,
it shows some points of consideration, most of which is irrefutable.
And, like Gunner points out, is 143 days as a Senator enough experience
to lead the country? He's an empty suit.
How many days did Ronald Reagan serve in national office, either in the
Senate or the Post Office, before becoming president? I'd ask the same
about George Bush, but that wouldn't make the point. d8-). How about
Eisenhower?
I would consider military service a good qualifier.

I wouldn't. It has nothing to do with governing a democratic state. If
anything, it's counterproductive. See Grant, Ulysses S., or Jackson, Andrew.
g

I didn't say it was the ONLY qualifier, but it's a good start.

I don't know about Reagan, but at least he was employed in the private
sector. i.e earned an honest living

So did Obama. The claim that he wasn't employed in the private sector is
only made by people so blindingly biased that they won't even read his
biography.

Community organizer and practiced as a civil rights attorney, taught
law. None of these involved executive skills.

On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 10:07:21 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 21:49:52 -0700, with neither quill nor qualm,
"John R. Carroll" quickly quoth:
Apparently, and from your quote, the school was "predominantly Muslim" and
not a "Muslim" school or Madras.

A "predominantly Muslim school" _is_ a Muslim school John. That
adjective is merely the legal weasel's way of saying "absolutely
everyone but me", I'm sure. His father was Muslim, he went to school
for awhile in a Muslim school....

Hey, Larry, when I was a little kid, initially in public school, we recited
the Lord's Prayer at the start of the day. Does that mean it was a Christian
school?

Good question, since -all- schools did that back then, all our money
has God on it, all our pledges have God in them, etc. But that
doesn't change the fact that he attended a Muslim school, does it?

Speaking of which, why doesn't your man pledge during the pledge of
allegiance? Is he giving us fair warning of his intentions?

--
Deep doubts, deep wisdom; small doubts, little wisdom.
--Chinese Proverb
----

"RB" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"RB" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Tom Gardner" wrote in message
...
"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Tom Gardner" wrote:

Do I have this straight?

His father was a black African Muslim from Kenya.
[snip]

Wow. Is this your writing? Nice set of talking points either way.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller
Nope, somebody sent it to me but, although it's not flattering to
Obama, it shows some points of consideration, most of which is
irrefutable. And, like Gunner points out, is 143 days as a Senator
enough experience to lead the country? He's an empty suit.
How many days did Ronald Reagan serve in national office, either in the
Senate or the Post Office, before becoming president? I'd ask the same
about George Bush, but that wouldn't make the point. d8-). How about
Eisenhower?
I would consider military service a good qualifier.

I wouldn't. It has nothing to do with governing a democratic state. If
anything, it's counterproductive. See Grant, Ulysses S., or Jackson,
Andrew. g

I didn't say it was the ONLY qualifier, but it's a good start.

I don't know about Reagan, but at least he was employed in the private
sector. i.e earned an honest living

So did Obama. The claim that he wasn't employed in the private sector is
only made by people so blindingly biased that they won't even read his
biography.

Community organizer and practiced as a civil rights attorney, taught law.
None of these involved executive skills.

Let's see. Barack Obama, employment in the private sector: Business
International Corp.; attorney at Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland; founder
and chairman of the board of Chicago Annenberg Challenge; board member of
several other philanthropic and civil rights organizations.

John McCain, employment in the private sector: One year working for his
wife's father's Budweiser distributorship.

Sheesh...

--
Ed Huntress

On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 12:17:21 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, Ned
Simmons quickly quoth:

On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 10:15:46 -0500, RB wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:


How many days did Ronald Reagan serve in national office, either in the
Senate or the Post Office, before becoming president? I'd ask the same about
George Bush, but that wouldn't make the point. d8-). How about Eisenhower?

I would consider military service a good qualifier.

Like Grant?

I don't know about Reagan, but at least he was employed in the private
sector. i.e earned an honest living

OK, I nominate Jack Nicholson for president, Christopher Walken as VP.
(Too bad Marlon Brando is dead, he'd make a dandy Secretary of State.)

I nominate Stallone (in 'Rambo' mode) for SecDef and Richard Marcinko
for Czar of the Department of Homeland Security. Then we wouldn't need
a war. It'd all be black ops (for a million times less money), it'd be
all over and done in a month, and we could then start paying down the
deficit. Hmm, who can we find to start pruning the gov't teat of
agencies? A good libertarian would help. How about Ron Paul?

And let's replace all the aides to CONgress with homeless folks.
They'd put the pompous asses in their places and help them get in
touch with the reality of life on the streets here in the USA for the
first time in their elitist lives.

--
Deep doubts, deep wisdom; small doubts, little wisdom.
--Chinese Proverb
----

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 21:49:52 -0700, with neither quill nor qualm,
"John R. Carroll" quickly quoth:

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:44:26 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm,
"Ed Huntress" quickly quoth:


"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Tom Gardner" wrote:

Do I have this straight?

His father was a black African Muslim from Kenya.

[snip]


Apparently, and from your quote, the school was "predominantly
Muslim" and not a "Muslim" school or Madras.

A "predominantly Muslim school" _is_ a Muslim school John.

Muslim schools or Madras' are run by muslim religious orders in the same way
that Catholic parochial schools are run by Catholic religious orders.
Public high Schools here in the United States for example could not
realistically be refered to as "Christian" in spite of the fact that the
student body is made up overwhelmingly of "Christians".
You seem to be missing the point of your mischaractarization Larry. The only
point you could ossibly want to make is that Barak Obama has terrorist
associations of some sort.

Why not just say that instead of making misleading and untrue
pronouncements?


That
adjective is merely the legal weasel's way of saying "absolutely
everyone but me", I'm sure. His father was Muslim, he went to school
for awhile in a Muslim school, and I'm sure he has some Muslim
beliefs, whether or not he shares them openly in the Christian-
controlled West. While we're in a war with Muslims, I'm not too comfy
with a person with his upbringing.

See my comment above.
Also, we aren't in a "war" with anyone, certainly not Muslims Larry. We are
suffering from the hangover of cowardice.
Nothing more.



That is about what you would expect from a nation that although not
an Islamic state, and the world's most populous Muslim-majority
nation, with almost 86% of Indonesians declared Muslim according to
the 2000 census.

By your logic, it's a testament to his Christian roots that he
attended a Catholic school.

For what it's worth, he's likely tainted from that, too.


If
you're going to put down the "right-wing slime machine", at least
get it right, eh? :-\

Great idea. Please do so.
There are plenty of real issues that you could have with this guy
and you look like a jerk when you choose to ignore them and select
something that isn't actually even true.

I just did, John. You might want to check how many fingers are
pointing back at you when you point out jerks in this instance.

[read this sig, please]

I did and there is another wording of the same sentiment that I prefer. As
it happens, I couldn't agree more.
I'm not sure exactly what a President Obama would end up meaning nor am I
sure how a President McCain would play out. I'm convinced of is - the
chances of getting to the bottom of 8 years of a Republican administration
that has elevated themselves, men, to a position above the law in a country
founded on the principals of equal justice under the law and one law for all
men is a bigger issue than Barak Obama's fantasy Muslim life or education.


--

John R. Carroll
www.machiningsolution.com

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 10:07:21 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 21:49:52 -0700, with neither quill nor qualm,
"John R. Carroll" quickly quoth:
Apparently, and from your quote, the school was "predominantly Muslim"
and
not a "Muslim" school or Madras.

A "predominantly Muslim school" _is_ a Muslim school John. That
adjective is merely the legal weasel's way of saying "absolutely
everyone but me", I'm sure. His father was Muslim, he went to school
for awhile in a Muslim school....

Hey, Larry, when I was a little kid, initially in public school, we
recited
the Lord's Prayer at the start of the day. Does that mean it was a
Christian
school?

Good question, since -all- schools did that back then, all our money
has God on it, all our pledges have God in them, etc. But that
doesn't change the fact that he attended a Muslim school, does it?

Yeah, I think it does change that "fact." The school was a public school,
not a religious school. Like my kindergarten, they said prayers in there. We
talked a lot about God and Jesus, too.


Speaking of which, why doesn't your man pledge during the pledge of
allegiance? Is he giving us fair warning of his intentions?

What the hell are you smoking now?

--
Ed Huntress

On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:21:02 -0700, with neither quill nor qualm,
"John R. Carroll" quickly quoth:

Apparently, and from your quote, the school was "predominantly
Muslim" and not a "Muslim" school or Madras.

A "predominantly Muslim school" _is_ a Muslim school John.

Muslim schools or Madras' are run by muslim religious orders in the same way
that Catholic parochial schools are run by Catholic religious orders.

And religion is pushed on you while there. I went to Trinity Cathedral
(an Episcopal school) in Little Rock in 2nd grade. They didn't push
much, 1/2 hour chapel IIRC, but there was an air of religion the whole
day through.

Since Islamic law comes directly from their religion, I'd be willing
to bet that a Muslim school pushes religion much more heavily. Sisters
with rulers ain't got nuttin' on dem. g And his father was Muslim,
providing more influence in his young, formative life.


Public high Schools here in the United States for example could not
realistically be refered to as "Christian" in spite of the fact that the
student body is made up overwhelmingly of "Christians".
You seem to be missing the point of your mischaractarization Larry. The only
point you could ossibly want to make is that Barak Obama has terrorist
associations of some sort.

The man said, in print, that he went to a predominantly Muslim school.
Who the hell are we to argue with him?


Why not just say that instead of making misleading and untrue
pronouncements?

Because that's not true. I had intimated that I mistrust/have doubts
about the man due to his background. Now I've stated it in clear
English. Ya grok?


That
adjective is merely the legal weasel's way of saying "absolutely
everyone but me", I'm sure. His father was Muslim, he went to school
for awhile in a Muslim school, and I'm sure he has some Muslim
beliefs, whether or not he shares them openly in the Christian-
controlled West. While we're in a war with Muslims, I'm not too comfy
with a person with his upbringing.

See my comment above.
Also, we aren't in a "war" with anyone, certainly not Muslims Larry. We are
suffering from the hangover of cowardice.
Nothing more.

Oh, right. It's a "civil action" with 3k+ dead, similar to the "police
action" of Vietnam. My mistake.

If we're not at war with terrorists, -all- of whom seem to be fanatic
fundamentalist Muslims, what do you want to call it? BTW, I'm not
anti-Muslim, I'm anti-fundamentalist and anti-terrorist. What bugs me
is that I'm _not_ sure that Obama isn't one of them. He bothers me on
many levels, one of which is that (given the few sound bites I've
heard of him) he sounds and acts just like a black version of Slick
Willie. Scary.

Please explain your phrase "hangover of cowardice."


[read this sig, please]

I did and there is another wording of the same sentiment that I prefer. As
it happens, I couldn't agree more.

Bueno, bwana.


I'm not sure exactly what a President Obama would end up meaning nor am I
sure how a President McCain would play out.

Unfortunately, neither am I. Once again, we're faced with making a
decision for President who is the lesser of two possible evils.


I'm convinced of is - the
chances of getting to the bottom of 8 years of a Republican administration
that has elevated themselves, men, to a position above the law in a country
founded on the principals of equal justice under the law and one law for all
men is a bigger issue than Barak Obama's fantasy Muslim life or education.

Both are extremely important issues to be dealt with, and SOON!

--
Deep doubts, deep wisdom; small doubts, little wisdom.
--Chinese Proverb
----

Do I have this straight?

His father was a black African Muslim from Kenya.

[snip]

Wow. Is this your writing? Nice set of talking points either way.

Wes

It's not Tom's writing. It's a pack of mostly lies that's circulating on
all
the right-wing hate sites.

For example, I've seen several photos of Obama's American family. They
probably don't show them on Faux News, so the righties don't see them.
g

Obama attended both a public and a Catholic school in Indonesia. Neither
one
was a "Muslim" school.

And so on, and on, and on. Snopes goes into this stuff in detail. The
right-wing slime machine is in top gear, cranking out this stuff for
people
like you to believe without question. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress




Not my verbiage but, Obama has some serious credibility and background and
lack
of background problems that eliminate him from consideration in November
even if
he was the Republican candidate and McCain was the Democrat...unless one
takes a
BIG gulp of the Kool-Aid. Thirsty Ed!


You think that we should be afraid of what Obama might do if he's elected
president? You should be more afraid of what John McCain will do if he's
elected president? If you look at all the major issues you will find that
McCain agrees with the position that Bush has on at least 90% of them.
McCain is not an agent of change he's someone who will continue the course
we've been on for the last eight years. He might make a few changes around
the margins but will mainly be very much like Bush. In case you haven't
noticed the country is in a real mess and that is after two terms of
republicans making all the decisions. But you are more worried about what
Obama might do when you know that McCain will keep doing what has put us
where we are now. That makes no sense. I'm sorry, but a rational person
would be far more fearful of another four years of what we have now than of
anything Obama might do. And I don't know about you but the 19% drop in the
stock market is enough for me to want to see another administration running
the White House than one where McCain is in charge. And by the way, McCain
has never held anything in his life but government jobs and has zero
experience in any kind of administrative position, so don't assume he'll be
any better at it than Obama would.

Hawke

Ed Huntress wrote:
"RB" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"RB" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Tom Gardner" wrote in message
...
"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Tom Gardner" wrote:

Do I have this straight?

His father was a black African Muslim from Kenya.
[snip]

Wow. Is this your writing? Nice set of talking points either way.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller
Nope, somebody sent it to me but, although it's not flattering to
Obama, it shows some points of consideration, most of which is
irrefutable. And, like Gunner points out, is 143 days as a Senator
enough experience to lead the country? He's an empty suit.
How many days did Ronald Reagan serve in national office, either in the
Senate or the Post Office, before becoming president? I'd ask the same
about George Bush, but that wouldn't make the point. d8-). How about
Eisenhower?
I would consider military service a good qualifier.
I wouldn't. It has nothing to do with governing a democratic state. If
anything, it's counterproductive. See Grant, Ulysses S., or Jackson,
Andrew. g
I didn't say it was the ONLY qualifier, but it's a good start.

I don't know about Reagan, but at least he was employed in the private
sector. i.e earned an honest living
So did Obama. The claim that he wasn't employed in the private sector is
only made by people so blindingly biased that they won't even read his
biography.
Community organizer and practiced as a civil rights attorney, taught law.
None of these involved executive skills.

Let's see. Barack Obama, employment in the private sector: Business
International Corp.; attorney at Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland; founder
and chairman of the board of Chicago Annenberg Challenge; board member of
several other philanthropic and civil rights organizations.

John McCain, employment in the private sector: One year working for his
wife's father's Budweiser distributorship.

Sheesh...

Come one, Ed, you of all people I would expect to be evenhanded here.
How can you possibly think that is an equitable portrayal of their
respective resumes? I have no love lost for McCain, but his resume is
about as impressive as any candidate for the office in my lifetime. The
closest comparable resume is JFK, except McCain has a couple decades
more experience.
OTOH, Obama's is the weakest. I am just amazed he has gotten as far
as he has. I think it's a sad reflection on the American electorate -or
perhaps the public education system.

You sure don't sound very centrist here.
I suspect you are more like the rest of us, in that no matter where your
views fall in the political spectrum, you see yourself as centrist.

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 12:17:21 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, Ned
Simmons quickly quoth:

On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 10:15:46 -0500, RB wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:
How many days did Ronald Reagan serve in national office, either in the
Senate or the Post Office, before becoming president? I'd ask the same about
George Bush, but that wouldn't make the point. d8-). How about Eisenhower?
I would consider military service a good qualifier.
Like Grant?

I don't know about Reagan, but at least he was employed in the private
sector. i.e earned an honest living
OK, I nominate Jack Nicholson for president, Christopher Walken as VP.
(Too bad Marlon Brando is dead, he'd make a dandy Secretary of State.)

I nominate Stallone (in 'Rambo' mode) for SecDef and Richard Marcinko
for Czar of the Department of Homeland Security. Then we wouldn't need
a war. It'd all be black ops (for a million times less money), it'd be
all over and done in a month, and we could then start paying down the
deficit.

Don't laugh too hard. We made the most progress in Afghanistan when the
Army Special forces and the CIA were working with the Afghan Northern
Army (?). They basically had the war won with a few hundred pairs of
boots backed up by air and logistics, using Afghans to do their own
dirty work. Then we brought in NATO and regular troops, and progress
slowed.

"RB" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"RB" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"RB" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Tom Gardner" wrote in message
...
"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Tom Gardner" wrote:

Do I have this straight?

His father was a black African Muslim from Kenya.
[snip]

Wow. Is this your writing? Nice set of talking points either way.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller
Nope, somebody sent it to me but, although it's not flattering to
Obama, it shows some points of consideration, most of which is
irrefutable. And, like Gunner points out, is 143 days as a Senator
enough experience to lead the country? He's an empty suit.
How many days did Ronald Reagan serve in national office, either in
the Senate or the Post Office, before becoming president? I'd ask the
same about George Bush, but that wouldn't make the point. d8-). How
about Eisenhower?
I would consider military service a good qualifier.
I wouldn't. It has nothing to do with governing a democratic state. If
anything, it's counterproductive. See Grant, Ulysses S., or Jackson,
Andrew. g
I didn't say it was the ONLY qualifier, but it's a good start.

I don't know about Reagan, but at least he was employed in the private
sector. i.e earned an honest living
So did Obama. The claim that he wasn't employed in the private sector
is only made by people so blindingly biased that they won't even read
his biography.
Community organizer and practiced as a civil rights attorney, taught
law. None of these involved executive skills.

Let's see. Barack Obama, employment in the private sector: Business
International Corp.; attorney at Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland;
founder and chairman of the board of Chicago Annenberg Challenge; board
member of several other philanthropic and civil rights organizations.

John McCain, employment in the private sector: One year working for his
wife's father's Budweiser distributorship.

Sheesh...

Come one, Ed, you of all people I would expect to be evenhanded here.
How can you possibly think that is an equitable portrayal of their
respective resumes?

That wasn't the issue. What you said was that "at least [Reagan] was
employed in the private sector," and then, when it was pointed out that
Obama had worked in the private sector for Business International and as an
attorney, you switched the field to "executive skills," for which Obama was
an executive for several organizations, including founder and chairman of
one, while McCain was a mid-level military officer.

Where are you switching the field to now, RB?

I have no love lost for McCain, but his resume is about as impressive as
any candidate for the office in my lifetime.

What in the hell are you talking about? Navy captain with no sea command?
Good job, but a couple of levels down. Senator? Not an executive position.

The closest comparable resume is JFK, except McCain has a couple decades
more experience.
OTOH, Obama's is the weakest. I am just amazed he has gotten as far as
he has. I think it's a sad reflection on the American electorate -or
perhaps the public education system.

You sure don't sound very centrist here.
I suspect you are more like the rest of us, in that no matter where your
views fall in the political spectrum, you see yourself as centrist.

Try knocking McCain and see what happens. d8-)

I said earlier that I'm favoring Obama at this point, but I want to watch
carefully through the rest of the campaign. I'm sure about Obama on foreign
policy but not yet sure about domestic.

I like both of these guys. I just think that McCain's locked into some
Republican postures that would be disastrous. For example, continuing these
tax cuts while we're running deficits is close to insanity, but McCain won't
be able to make any significant reductions in the budget as long as this war
continues. That could just bury our economy in another few years.

What I see is a lot of justification for decisions already made. I'm not so
interested in defending Obama as in correcting some of the record (a futile
thing when people ignore the fact that McCain has no experience in the
private sector, and then criticize Obama for having little of it...are we
all paying attention here?). Most of all, I like to reflect on the fact that
I'm not hearing the sounds of people rolling over the options. I'm hearing
the sounds of people justifying their purchases. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

Do I have this straight?

His father was a black African Muslim from Kenya.
[snip]

Wow. Is this your writing? Nice set of talking points either
way.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller
Nope, somebody sent it to me but, although it's not flattering to
Obama, it shows some points of consideration, most of which is
irrefutable. And, like Gunner points out, is 143 days as a Senator
enough experience to lead the country? He's an empty suit.
How many days did Ronald Reagan serve in national office, either in
the Senate or the Post Office, before becoming president? I'd ask
the
same about George Bush, but that wouldn't make the point. d8-). How
about Eisenhower?
I would consider military service a good qualifier.
I wouldn't. It has nothing to do with governing a democratic state.
If
anything, it's counterproductive. See Grant, Ulysses S., or Jackson,
Andrew. g
I didn't say it was the ONLY qualifier, but it's a good start.

I don't know about Reagan, but at least he was employed in the
private
sector. i.e earned an honest living
So did Obama. The claim that he wasn't employed in the private sector
is only made by people so blindingly biased that they won't even read
his biography.
Community organizer and practiced as a civil rights attorney, taught
law. None of these involved executive skills.

Let's see. Barack Obama, employment in the private sector: Business
International Corp.; attorney at Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland;
founder and chairman of the board of Chicago Annenberg Challenge; board
member of several other philanthropic and civil rights organizations.

John McCain, employment in the private sector: One year working for his
wife's father's Budweiser distributorship.

Sheesh...

Come one, Ed, you of all people I would expect to be evenhanded here.
How can you possibly think that is an equitable portrayal of their
respective resumes?

That wasn't the issue. What you said was that "at least [Reagan] was
employed in the private sector," and then, when it was pointed out that
Obama had worked in the private sector for Business International and as
an
attorney, you switched the field to "executive skills," for which Obama
was
an executive for several organizations, including founder and chairman of
one, while McCain was a mid-level military officer.

Where are you switching the field to now, RB?

I have no love lost for McCain, but his resume is about as impressive as
any candidate for the office in my lifetime.

What in the hell are you talking about? Navy captain with no sea command?
Good job, but a couple of levels down. Senator? Not an executive position.

The closest comparable resume is JFK, except McCain has a couple decades
more experience.
OTOH, Obama's is the weakest. I am just amazed he has gotten as far
as
he has. I think it's a sad reflection on the American electorate -or
perhaps the public education system.

You sure don't sound very centrist here.
I suspect you are more like the rest of us, in that no matter where your
views fall in the political spectrum, you see yourself as centrist.

Try knocking McCain and see what happens. d8-)

I said earlier that I'm favoring Obama at this point, but I want to watch
carefully through the rest of the campaign. I'm sure about Obama on
foreign
policy but not yet sure about domestic.

I like both of these guys. I just think that McCain's locked into some
Republican postures that would be disastrous. For example, continuing
these
tax cuts while we're running deficits is close to insanity, but McCain
won't
be able to make any significant reductions in the budget as long as this
war
continues. That could just bury our economy in another few years.

What I see is a lot of justification for decisions already made. I'm not
so
interested in defending Obama as in correcting some of the record (a
futile
thing when people ignore the fact that McCain has no experience in the
private sector, and then criticize Obama for having little of it...are we
all paying attention here?). Most of all, I like to reflect on the fact
that
I'm not hearing the sounds of people rolling over the options. I'm hearing
the sounds of people justifying their purchases. d8

Of course that is what you are hearing. You are hearing from hard core right
wingers. What do you expect them to be saying? They like to pretend that
they are reasonable and make decisions on the facts but the truth is that
they only vote for republicans. Doesn't matter if it's Bob Dole, George
Bush, one or two, or McCain. They only vote republican. They start out
knowing where they are going to end up and along the way they cherry pick
anything that supports their choice. They also look for and support every
argument against every other candidate. They are very diligent in finding
every possible flaw with everyone else but they let giant faults slide when
it comes to the republican candidate. They're just are not that smart. It's
all emotions for them. It doesn't matter what the facts are because they
will twist them every which way to make their party's candidate sound great.
They are not reasonable and they choose a candidate emotionally not
rationally. That's why they are republicans. The other thing is that they
are all afraid to admit the truth that none of them would ever vote for a
black person. They would deny that and say if a black republican was running
they would not have a problem voting for him. But deep down they know there
will never be a black republican candidate for president in their lifetimes.
They think that makes their racism seem less obvious. But it's still a fact
they won't vote for a black man, period. They're voting republican. When you
get down to it nothing matters to them but that. So there is no point trying
to talk to them about it. Their minds have been made up since they were in
their teens. The term for those guys is pig headed.

Hawke

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:21:02 -0700, with neither quill nor qualm,
"John R. Carroll" quickly quoth:

Apparently, and from your quote, the school was "predominantly
Muslim" and not a "Muslim" school or Madras.

A "predominantly Muslim school" _is_ a Muslim school John.

Muslim schools or Madras' are run by muslim religious orders in the
same way that Catholic parochial schools are run by Catholic
religious orders.

And religion is pushed on you while there. I went to Trinity Cathedral
(an Episcopal school) in Little Rock in 2nd grade. They didn't push
much, 1/2 hour chapel IIRC, but there was an air of religion the whole
day through.

Since Islamic law comes directly from their religion, I'd be willing
to bet that a Muslim school pushes religion much more heavily. Sisters
with rulers ain't got nuttin' on dem. g And his father was Muslim,
providing more influence in his young, formative life.


Public high Schools here in the United States for example could not
realistically be refered to as "Christian" in spite of the fact
that the student body is made up overwhelmingly of "Christians".
You seem to be missing the point of your mischaractarization Larry.
The only point you could ossibly want to make is that Barak Obama
has terrorist associations of some sort.

The man said, in print, that he went to a predominantly Muslim school.
Who the hell are we to argue with him?

Actually, the unredacted version was this and not what you are infering:

"During the five years that we would live with my stepfather in
Indonesia, I was sent first to a neighborhood Catholic school and then
to a predominantly Muslim school; in both cases, my mother was less
concerned with me learning the catechism or puzzling out the meaning
of the muezzin's call to evening prayer than she was with whether I
was properly learning my multiplication tables."





Why not just say that instead of making misleading and untrue
pronouncements?

Because that's not true. I had intimated that I mistrust/have doubts
about the man due to his background. Now I've stated it in clear
English. Ya grok?


What I "grok" is that your understanding of his background is both limited
and pretty selectively so.
You'll be out there really researching this if he's elected and that will be
a shame.
The time to learn about a candidate is while they are candidates and not
after they've been elected.



That
adjective is merely the legal weasel's way of saying "absolutely
everyone but me", I'm sure. His father was Muslim, he went to school
for awhile in a Muslim school, and I'm sure he has some Muslim
beliefs, whether or not he shares them openly in the Christian-
controlled West. While we're in a war with Muslims, I'm not too
comfy with a person with his upbringing.

See my comment above.
Also, we aren't in a "war" with anyone, certainly not Muslims Larry.
We are suffering from the hangover of cowardice.
Nothing more.

Oh, right. It's a "civil action" with 3k+ dead, similar to the "police
action" of Vietnam. My mistake.

You are mistaking a crime for something else, that's all.


If we're not at war with terrorists, -all- of whom seem to be fanatic
fundamentalist Muslims, what do you want to call it? BTW, I'm not
anti-Muslim, I'm anti-fundamentalist and anti-terrorist.

Let me help you out here Larry.
"Some of my best friends are black".
How's that?
LOL


What bugs me
is that I'm _not_ sure that Obama isn't one of them. He bothers me on
many levels, one of which is that (given the few sound bites I've
heard of him) he sounds and acts just like a black version of Slick
Willie. Scary.

Please explain your phrase "hangover of cowardice."

Not right now and it isn't necessary. You understood my remark and the truth
underlying it.
I've just finished a one day trip from LA to NASA Glenn and back.
You can take solice in the fact that my transportation was a Falcon 50 so
I've created a large enough carbon footprint today for both of us.

BTW, Colin Powell has been asked to keynote at the Dem convention. I think
he'll accept and if that happens you can run his remarks side by side with
Zell Millers 2004 convention adress and you will see in short order what the
practical implications of courage vs cowardice are.


--

John R. Carroll
www.machiningsolution.com

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
snip
Whichever way the center votes, it will be a rejection of the ideologues. The
liberals had their run and the conservatives did too. Both of you are
failures. Now it's time for a fresh look and some shaking up of the old guard.
Obama may be the most likely person to do it in a couple of generations. Or
maybe not. We'll be watching to see, between now and November, and you and the
other partisans will have nothing to do with how we decide.

--
Ed Huntress


Actually, I don't know IF I'll vote. It depends on the local stuff. I may
posture as a Conservative but I don't drink that Kool-Aid either. Whoever is
elected, I have contingencies to prevent too much of an impact...I hope.

"Hawke" wrote in message
.. .

Do I have this straight?

His father was a black African Muslim from Kenya.

[snip]

Wow. Is this your writing? Nice set of talking points either way.

Wes

It's not Tom's writing. It's a pack of mostly lies that's circulating on
all
the right-wing hate sites.

For example, I've seen several photos of Obama's American family. They
probably don't show them on Faux News, so the righties don't see them.
g

Obama attended both a public and a Catholic school in Indonesia. Neither
one
was a "Muslim" school.

And so on, and on, and on. Snopes goes into this stuff in detail. The
right-wing slime machine is in top gear, cranking out this stuff for
people
like you to believe without question. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress




Not my verbiage but, Obama has some serious credibility and background and
lack
of background problems that eliminate him from consideration in November
even if
he was the Republican candidate and McCain was the Democrat...unless one
takes a
BIG gulp of the Kool-Aid. Thirsty Ed!


You think that we should be afraid of what Obama might do if he's elected
president? You should be more afraid of what John McCain will do if he's
elected president? If you look at all the major issues you will find that
McCain agrees with the position that Bush has on at least 90% of them.
McCain is not an agent of change he's someone who will continue the course
we've been on for the last eight years. He might make a few changes around
the margins but will mainly be very much like Bush. In case you haven't
noticed the country is in a real mess and that is after two terms of
republicans making all the decisions. But you are more worried about what
Obama might do when you know that McCain will keep doing what has put us
where we are now. That makes no sense. I'm sorry, but a rational person
would be far more fearful of another four years of what we have now than of
anything Obama might do. And I don't know about you but the 19% drop in the
stock market is enough for me to want to see another administration running
the White House than one where McCain is in charge. And by the way, McCain
has never held anything in his life but government jobs and has zero
experience in any kind of administrative position, so don't assume he'll be
any better at it than Obama would.

Hawke



Like I told Ed, I may not vote. Whoever is elected, I think I'm prepared.

"Tom Gardner" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
snip
Whichever way the center votes, it will be a rejection of the ideologues.
The liberals had their run and the conservatives did too. Both of you are
failures. Now it's time for a fresh look and some shaking up of the old
guard. Obama may be the most likely person to do it in a couple of
generations. Or maybe not. We'll be watching to see, between now and
November, and you and the other partisans will have nothing to do with
how we decide.

--
Ed Huntress


Actually, I don't know IF I'll vote. It depends on the local stuff. I
may posture as a Conservative but I don't drink that Kool-Aid either.
Whoever is elected, I have contingencies to prevent too much of an
impact...I hope.

There's an allowance in the statistics for people who won't vote. d8-)

I don't know what it is you want in a president, Tom. What you have here is
two of the best candidates we've had in a very long time. This is one
election in which I don't think we'll be voting for the least-worst. I just
want to be sure I've done my best to pick the better of the two.

--
Ed Huntress

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:21:02 -0700, with neither quill nor qualm,
"John R. Carroll" quickly quoth:


If we're not at war with terrorists, -all- of whom seem to be fanatic
fundamentalist Muslims, what do you want to call it? BTW, I'm not
anti-Muslim, I'm anti-fundamentalist and anti-terrorist. What bugs me
is that I'm _not_ sure that Obama isn't one of them. He bothers me on
many levels, one of which is that (given the few sound bites I've
heard of him) he sounds and acts just like a black version of Slick
Willie. Scary.

Please explain your phrase "hangover of cowardice."


Here you go Larry. You can find real courage by having a look at the address
Washington made to those assembled at Newburg church. We've seen exactly the
sort of mutiny against the country and constitution in our own time but by
the Executive, not the military.


http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache...k&c d=1&gl=us

Conclusions



Government by democracy necessarily entails the danger of mob rule
because majorities are given lots of power in democratic government.
However, in the United States the tyranny of the majority has been combated
by the Bill of Rights, which outlines certain protections for all citizens,
and by the creation of an extended republic in which multiple interests
exist making tyranny of any one interest more difficult. However, irrational
majorities seeking to infringe on the rights of the targeted minority group
have throughout its history overcome the United States. Our examination of
the history of mob violence in America, the treatment of those with
unpopular ideological beliefs, and those whose race becomes identified with
the "enemy" all illustrate how easily a "frightened mob" can be formed and
how tenuous our constitutional protections become in the face of such a mob.

Courts and legislators have worked hard to identify what constitutes a
riot or mob and have tried to strike a reasonable, unprejudiced balance
between maintenance of order and protection of individual liberties.
However, the men and women who serve on the courts do not live outside of
their times; they read the newspaper and interact with society just as all
other people. This interaction then makes judges and Justices susceptible to
the propaganda and feelings of hysteria that may occur at any given time.
Although judges and Justices are charged with protecting the rights of the
minorities when they are threatened sometimes the judges and Justices are
unable to recognize the existence of a "frightened mob" and are influenced
by the hysteria the mob creates.

Clearly, the treatment of Communists and socialists throughout much of
this nation's history demonstrates how weak constitutional protections are
for those whose views are unpopular or labeled "dangerous." In addition,
treatment of the Japanese during World War II shows how easily minorities
can be denied even their most basic freedoms when a "mob" is given unchecked
influence in deciding their fate. In each of these cases a certain group
whether it be communists, socialists, or the Japanese was viewed as a threat
to the social order and so their rights were taken away.

The greatest measure of a free society is how well it maintains those
freedoms under periods of stress. It is easy to guarantee freedoms when
there is no risk involved but it is during times of war, great change, or
controversy that our fundamental freedoms take on their greatest
significance because they can be used to guarantee our participation in the
movement at hand. However, as our examination of the effects of the
frightened mob upon the law has demonstrated, the United States does not
have a strong record of defense of those fundamental rights during times of
stress. It takes simply an irrational majority to deny the rights of a
minority. When the guardians of the law and the Constitution fail to prevent
these denials of rights the sanctity of the Constitution and the democratic
system are weakened.



--

John R. Carroll
www.machiningsolution.com

"Tom Gardner" wrote in message
...

"Hawke" wrote in message
.. .

Do I have this straight?

His father was a black African Muslim from Kenya.

[snip]

Wow. Is this your writing? Nice set of talking points either way.

Wes

It's not Tom's writing. It's a pack of mostly lies that's circulating
on
all
the right-wing hate sites.

For example, I've seen several photos of Obama's American family.
They
probably don't show them on Faux News, so the righties don't see
them.
g

Obama attended both a public and a Catholic school in Indonesia.
Neither
one
was a "Muslim" school.

And so on, and on, and on. Snopes goes into this stuff in detail. The
right-wing slime machine is in top gear, cranking out this stuff for
people
like you to believe without question. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress




Not my verbiage but, Obama has some serious credibility and background
and
lack
of background problems that eliminate him from consideration in
November
even if
he was the Republican candidate and McCain was the Democrat...unless
one
takes a
BIG gulp of the Kool-Aid. Thirsty Ed!


You think that we should be afraid of what Obama might do if he's
elected
president? You should be more afraid of what John McCain will do if he's
elected president? If you look at all the major issues you will find
that
McCain agrees with the position that Bush has on at least 90% of them.
McCain is not an agent of change he's someone who will continue the
course
we've been on for the last eight years. He might make a few changes
around
the margins but will mainly be very much like Bush. In case you haven't
noticed the country is in a real mess and that is after two terms of
republicans making all the decisions. But you are more worried about
what
Obama might do when you know that McCain will keep doing what has put us
where we are now. That makes no sense. I'm sorry, but a rational person
would be far more fearful of another four years of what we have now than
of
anything Obama might do. And I don't know about you but the 19% drop in
the
stock market is enough for me to want to see another administration
running
the White House than one where McCain is in charge. And by the way,
McCain
has never held anything in his life but government jobs and has zero
experience in any kind of administrative position, so don't assume he'll
be
any better at it than Obama would.

Hawke



Like I told Ed, I may not vote. Whoever is elected, I think I'm prepared.

Yeah, that is the fundamental weakness in our system, what do you do when
you don't like the candidates of either party? This time we have a choice of
a stay the course candidate or an unknown new guy we have no idea how he'll
govern. Great choices. Pick one or stay home. Doesn't make democracy seem
all that great does it?

Hawke

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Tom Gardner" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
snip
Whichever way the center votes, it will be a rejection of the
ideologues.
The liberals had their run and the conservatives did too. Both of you
are
failures. Now it's time for a fresh look and some shaking up of the old
guard. Obama may be the most likely person to do it in a couple of
generations. Or maybe not. We'll be watching to see, between now and
November, and you and the other partisans will have nothing to do with
how we decide.

--
Ed Huntress


Actually, I don't know IF I'll vote. It depends on the local stuff. I
may posture as a Conservative but I don't drink that Kool-Aid either.
Whoever is elected, I have contingencies to prevent too much of an
impact...I hope.

There's an allowance in the statistics for people who won't vote. d8-)

I don't know what it is you want in a president, Tom. What you have here
is
two of the best candidates we've had in a very long time. This is one
election in which I don't think we'll be voting for the least-worst. I
just
want to be sure I've done my best to pick the better of the two.

Come on, Ed. It's an easy choice.

Hawke

Hawke wrote:
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Tom Gardner" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
snip
Whichever way the center votes, it will be a rejection of the
ideologues. The liberals had their run and the conservatives did
too. Both of you are failures. Now it's time for a fresh look and
some shaking up of the old guard. Obama may be the most likely
person to do it in a couple of generations. Or maybe not. We'll be
watching to see, between now and November, and you and the other
partisans will have nothing to do with how we decide.

--
Ed Huntress


Actually, I don't know IF I'll vote. It depends on the local
stuff. I may posture as a Conservative but I don't drink that
Kool-Aid either. Whoever is elected, I have contingencies to
prevent too much of an impact...I hope.

There's an allowance in the statistics for people who won't vote.
d8-)

I don't know what it is you want in a president, Tom. What you have
here is two of the best candidates we've had in a very long time.
This is one election in which I don't think we'll be voting for the
least-worst. I just want to be sure I've done my best to pick the
better of the two.

Come on, Ed. It's an easy choice.

It really isn't.
Also, what's the rush? These two have miles to go before they are done and
will face each other in public debates.
There will be plenty left to see and digest and lots of time to do it.
For example, if Obama doesn't outright demolish McCain in their first
meeting, McCain will be percieved as the winner.
It's as easy for McCain to exceed expectations as it will be for Obama to
fall short.

Hillary Clinton is a very recent and high profile example of a presumed
winner falling right on her ass, and in less than four months.
Have you forgotten that lesson already?

--

John R. Carroll
www.machiningsolution.com

"Hawke" wrote in message
. ..

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Tom Gardner" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
snip
Whichever way the center votes, it will be a rejection of the
ideologues.
The liberals had their run and the conservatives did too. Both of you
are
failures. Now it's time for a fresh look and some shaking up of the
old
guard. Obama may be the most likely person to do it in a couple of
generations. Or maybe not. We'll be watching to see, between now and
November, and you and the other partisans will have nothing to do with
how we decide.

--
Ed Huntress


Actually, I don't know IF I'll vote. It depends on the local stuff. I
may posture as a Conservative but I don't drink that Kool-Aid either.
Whoever is elected, I have contingencies to prevent too much of an
impact...I hope.

There's an allowance in the statistics for people who won't vote. d8-)

I don't know what it is you want in a president, Tom. What you have here
is
two of the best candidates we've had in a very long time. This is one
election in which I don't think we'll be voting for the least-worst. I
just
want to be sure I've done my best to pick the better of the two.

Come on, Ed. It's an easy choice.

Hawke

We'll see for sure when Obama's domestic policy ideas get a good airing.

--
Ed Huntress

Whichever way the center votes, it will be a rejection of the
ideologues. The liberals had their run and the conservatives did
too. Both of you are failures. Now it's time for a fresh look and
some shaking up of the old guard. Obama may be the most likely
person to do it in a couple of generations. Or maybe not. We'll be
watching to see, between now and November, and you and the other
partisans will have nothing to do with how we decide.

--
Ed Huntress


Actually, I don't know IF I'll vote. It depends on the local
stuff. I may posture as a Conservative but I don't drink that
Kool-Aid either. Whoever is elected, I have contingencies to
prevent too much of an impact...I hope.

There's an allowance in the statistics for people who won't vote.
d8-)

I don't know what it is you want in a president, Tom. What you have
here is two of the best candidates we've had in a very long time.
This is one election in which I don't think we'll be voting for the
least-worst. I just want to be sure I've done my best to pick the
better of the two.

Come on, Ed. It's an easy choice.

It really isn't.
Also, what's the rush? These two have miles to go before they are done and
will face each other in public debates.
There will be plenty left to see and digest and lots of time to do it.
For example, if Obama doesn't outright demolish McCain in their first
meeting, McCain will be percieved as the winner.
It's as easy for McCain to exceed expectations as it will be for Obama to
fall short.

Hillary Clinton is a very recent and high profile example of a presumed
winner falling right on her ass, and in less than four months.
Have you forgotten that lesson already?

Nope. But come election day it's going to come down to pick one from column
A or one from column B. If you want four more years like the last eight you
take McCain. If you want something different you take the other guy. To me
that's as simple as it gets. Hell, I only get two to choose from!

Hawke

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Hawke" wrote in message
. ..
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
"Tom Gardner" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
snip
Whichever way the center votes, it will be a rejection of the
ideologues.
The liberals had their run and the conservatives did too. Both of you
are
failures. Now it's time for a fresh look and some shaking up of the
old
guard. Obama may be the most likely person to do it in a couple of
generations. Or maybe not. We'll be watching to see, between now and
November, and you and the other partisans will have nothing to do with
how we decide.

--
Ed Huntress

Actually, I don't know IF I'll vote. It depends on the local stuff. I
may posture as a Conservative but I don't drink that Kool-Aid either.
Whoever is elected, I have contingencies to prevent too much of an
impact...I hope.
There's an allowance in the statistics for people who won't vote. d8-)

I don't know what it is you want in a president, Tom. What you have here
is
two of the best candidates we've had in a very long time. This is one
election in which I don't think we'll be voting for the least-worst. I
just
want to be sure I've done my best to pick the better of the two.
Come on, Ed. It's an easy choice.

Hawke

We'll see for sure when Obama's domestic policy ideas get a good airing.

--
Ed Huntress



Ed, Do you see any VP choice that McCain can make that will actually
gain him votes? From here it looks like picking a more moderate VP will
chase out the base, and a conservative choice will kill the appeal he
has with some centrists. He seems to need an economics person most, but
that isn't a place for real "sexy" running mates. On the other side,
Obama needs a foreign policy person, or an older more seasoned
Statesman, and somebody like Richardson could really bring him a bunch
of foreign policy respect.

Stuart

"Stuart Wheaton" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Hawke" wrote in message
. ..
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
"Tom Gardner" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
snip
Whichever way the center votes, it will be a rejection of the
ideologues.
The liberals had their run and the conservatives did too. Both of you
are
failures. Now it's time for a fresh look and some shaking up of the
old
guard. Obama may be the most likely person to do it in a couple of
generations. Or maybe not. We'll be watching to see, between now and
November, and you and the other partisans will have nothing to do
with
how we decide.

--
Ed Huntress

Actually, I don't know IF I'll vote. It depends on the local stuff.
I
may posture as a Conservative but I don't drink that Kool-Aid either.
Whoever is elected, I have contingencies to prevent too much of an
impact...I hope.
There's an allowance in the statistics for people who won't vote. d8-)

I don't know what it is you want in a president, Tom. What you have
here
is
two of the best candidates we've had in a very long time. This is one
election in which I don't think we'll be voting for the least-worst. I
just
want to be sure I've done my best to pick the better of the two.
Come on, Ed. It's an easy choice.

Hawke

We'll see for sure when Obama's domestic policy ideas get a good airing.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed, Do you see any VP choice that McCain can make that will actually gain
him votes? From here it looks like picking a more moderate VP will chase
out the base, and a conservative choice will kill the appeal he has with
some centrists. He seems to need an economics person most, but that isn't
a place for real "sexy" running mates.

I don't have a clue, Stuart. I'm not paying much attention to the
right-of-center coalitions that are lining up (or not) behind McCain. I
don't fully understand the right's objections to him. He looks like a pretty
solid conservative to me, although he's still a bit of a maverick. I can't
believe those people would shoot themselves in the foot by staying home, but
I can't really identify with their thinking, anyway.

On the other side, Obama needs a foreign policy person, or an older more
seasoned Statesman, and somebody like Richardson could really bring him a
bunch of foreign policy respect.

I suspect he'd pick a good cabinet, as would McCain. Neither one of those
guys is so helpless that he'd be a pawn of his own cabinet, the way Bush has
been.

--
Ed Huntress

John R. Carroll wrote in article
...

It really isn't.
Also, what's the rush? These two have miles to go before they are done
and
will face each other in public debates.
There will be plenty left to see and digest and lots of time to do it.
For example, if Obama doesn't outright demolish McCain in their first
meeting, McCain will be percieved as the winner.
It's as easy for McCain to exceed expectations as it will be for Obama to
fall short.

Hillary Clinton is a very recent and high profile example of a presumed
winner falling right on her ass, and in less than four months.
Have you forgotten that lesson already?



Like MOST DUMBocrats, Tweety Bird is a slow learner......He rode in the
short schoolbus as a child......

Hawke wrote in article
.. .



Yeah, that is the fundamental weakness in our system, what do you do when
you don't like the candidates of either party? This time we have a choice
of
a stay the course candidate or an unknown new guy we have no idea how
he'll
govern. Great choices. Pick one or stay home. Doesn't make democracy seem
all that great does it?

Hawke




Or, you could do the counbtry a favor and officially become an expatriot.

I say "officially" because you exhibit all the characteristics of
anti-American behaviour and thought.