This video is about 11 minutes long and takes a lot of reading and pausing if you want to check the sources of information... but quite interesting.
Original video with different music... apparently Warner Music Group tried to claim copyright because of the music being played in the background (although we can still watch it, so it must not have been an issue after all).
... although... they apparently contributed $338,527 to Barack Obama's campaign.
Here are just a few examples:
* Obama couldn't name one program or issue where he would implement budget cuts or reductions. Not one thing. Obama is the textbook definition of a Liberal Tax and Spender.
* Obama wants more troops in Afghanistan. Using Liberal Logic (not that there is such a thing), this means that Obama is a warmonger, that he loves bloodshed and destruction. Remember, it's the Liberals who say, "war is always wrong," yet his supporters will not hold him to the same standard that they do a Republican who would advocate more Troops being sent to Afghanistan. Never underestimate the ability of Liberals to remain in a deep state of denial.
* At one point, Obama referred to John McCain as, "Tom." Did Obama hit the crack pipe prior to the debate? Could be.
I wondered if I was the only one who noticed he called him Tom. Interesting... I'm quite sure
we could analyize this further if we really wanted to. What was Obama trying to say?
~
Gateway Pundit: NOT BAD... Obama Only Has 7 Major Flip Flops At First Debate
Obama's forceful objection to Russia going into Georgia.
Obama will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems... and yet he believes
we need missile defence because of Iran and North Korea (although he previously stated
that Iran is no great threat). Which is it???
KISSINGER: Well, I am in favor of negotiating with Iran. And one utility of negotiation is to put before Iran our vision of a Middle East, of a stable Middle East, and our notion on nuclear proliferation at a high enough level so that they have to study it. And, therefore, I actually have preferred doing it at the secretary of state level so that we -- we know we're dealing with authentic...Oh, I can see how the Lovely Liberals are using this to say Kissinger is stating we should meet with Iran without preconditions... except if you read the whole statement, he's really saying that he prefers negotiating at the Secretary of State level... NOT the Presidential level; and that is what the argument is about.
SESNO: Put at a very high level right out of the box?
KISSINGER: Initially, yes. And I always believed that the best way to begin a negotiation is to tell the other side exactly what you have in mind and what you are -- what the outcome is that you're trying to achieve so that they have something that they can react to.
Now, the permanent members of the Security Council, plus Japan and Germany, have all said nuclear weapons in Iran are unacceptable. They've never explained what they mean by this. So if we go into a negotiation, we ought to have a clear understanding of what is it we're trying to prevent. What is it going to do if we can't achieve what we're talking about?
But I do not believe that we can make conditions for the opening of negotiations. We ought, however, to be very clear about the content of negotiations and work it out with other countries and with our own government.
ABC News' Kirit Radia Reports: Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger came to the defense of longtime friend Sen. John McCain following Friday's presidential debate saying he "would not recommend the next President of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the Presidential level."
"Senator McCain is right. I would not recommend the next President of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the Presidential level. My views on this issue are entirely compatible with the views of my friend Senator John McCain. We do not agree on everything, but we do agree that any negotiations with Iran must be geared to reality," Kissinger said in statement issued by the McCain campaign.
OBAMA: "Senator McCain mentioned Henry Kissinger, who is one of his advisers, who along with five recent secretaries of state just said we should meet with Iran — guess what? — without preconditions."I'm sure there's more out there...
MCCAIN: "Dr. Kissinger did not say that he would approve face-to-face meetings between the president of the United States and (Iranian President Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad. He did not say that. He said there could be secretary-level and lower-level meetings. I've always encouraged that."
THE FACTS: Obama was right that Kissinger called for meetings without preconditions. McCain was right that Kissinger did not call for such meetings to be between the two presidents.
In a foreign policy forum Saturday, Kissinger said: "I am in favor of negotiating with Iran." He went on to say "I actually have preferred doing it at the secretary of state level" and the U.S. should go into the talks with "a clear understanding of what is it we're trying to prevent. What is it going to do if we can't achieve what we're talking about? But I do not believe that we can make conditions for the opening of negotiations. We ought, however, to be very clear about the content of negotiations and work it out with other countries and with our own government."
(CNN) – Rep. Alcee Hastings told an audience of Jewish Democrats Wednesday that they should be wary of Republican VP nominee Sarah Palin because “anybody toting guns and stripping moose don’t care too much about what they do with Jews and blacks.”
“If Sarah Palin isn’t enough of a reason for you to get over whatever your problem is with Barack Obama, then you damn well had better pay attention,” Rep. Alcee Hastings of Florida said at a panel about the shared agenda of Jewish and African-American Democrats Wednesday. Hastings, who is African-American, was explaining what he intended to tell his Jewish constituents about the presidential race. “Anybody toting guns and stripping moose don’t care too much about what they do with Jews and blacks. So, you just think this through,” Hastings added as the room erupted in laughter and applause.
I... uh... hmmm... well, now. I guess if I think REAL HARD and focus on the speck on the wall, I can begin to see why someone who owns a gun and hunts would not care about Jews and blacks. Ya... I can see it now.
NOT!!!
To quote a well used phrase... WTF??
So does this mean there are NO Jews and NO blacks who own guns or hunt? Really? Interesting... and false.
This makes no sense what-so-ever but someone out there will say something stupid like "it's about time someone put those things together".
It's just one more way for the left to look at something and come up with an unreasonable connection to nothing.
Someone stated that it isn't known that those who broke into O'Reilly's website are actually leftists since wikileaks isn't a leftist sight. My respone is below.
Well you can bet that if these hackers were breaking into Obama's website the Left would come out and say it was a right wing conspiracy. It doesn't matter what their political position is... by breaking the law in this manner and striking out at one particular group, they are making a statement... even if it's not what they intended.
These people are insecure little twits who just want attention in the only way they know how to get it. I'm sure there are those who disagree but what would you call someone who sneaks in to another person's house and either takes things or moves things or leaves things that are unwanted? Oh ya... I would be calling that person a criminal and calling the police.
It doesn't matter their affiliation... they are breaking the law and at the moment they are striking out against republicans and conservative websites. They are making a political statement.
If all these hackers do is break into sights that are conservative and/or republican... guess what... they're making a political statement.
Bug9/21/2008 8:25:02 AM
Thank you for this article. The last few months has shown us exactly where people stand. I feel every woman has the same rights as men and should be given the same opportunities, etc. I'm confused by those who state the same thing but then slam someone down if they don't fall into the mold they wish her to fall into. It proves that it's not that "every" woman should have these rights and go forth and succeed... its that "every" woman should go forth and succeed the way liberals and feminists WANT them to; and only if they are on their side. It's unfortunate that they can't see that Sarah stood up for herself and did what they state every woman should do. If Sarah was running on the democratic ticket I have a strong sense that all of this would be different and she would be considered a hero.
Again... the hypocrisy of the liberal left (including most democrats apparently and definitely including the feminists) is sickening. They only want women to succeed in the way they WANT them to succeed. If you were to put two women side by side who accomplished the same goals but had a different political stance... the woman who didn't think like the liberals would be considered sub-human. It's a disgusting mockery of humanity.
An excellent article: Feminists against Palin - shame on you
The nomination of Sarah Palin for vice president is a big step forward for women, but a long backward step for the movement we have been taught to call feminism.
That is obvious from the anguish, indeed the fury, of feminist commentators. They are so intemperate in their criticism that they are incoherent. Men who are clueless about feminism naively think all women should be cheering. Sarah Palin is a woman who has done it all; she has a successful and even more promising career, five children and a supportive husband.
She crashed through the ultimate layer of the feminist fiction -the "glass ceiling" - and she joined those very few women destined to be known only by their first names. What more could any woman want?
The denunciations of Sarah can't be only because she appears to be a conservative Republican, and the feminists want only liberal Democrats to win. In this era of independent voters and respect for a maverick, surely the milk of bipartisanship should soften feminist angst about Sarah.
But, no. Feminist anger against Sarah has exposed the fact that feminism is not about women's success and achievement. If it were, feminists would have been bragging for years about self-made women who are truly remarkable achievers, such as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, or former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, or Sen. Elizabeth Dole, or even Margaret Thatcher. Feminists never boast about these women because feminism's basic doctrine is victimology. Feminism preaches that women can never succeed because they are the sorry victims of an oppressive patriarchy. No matter how smart or accomplished a woman may be, she's told that success and happiness are beyond her grasp because institutional sexism and discrimination hold her down.
When Hillary Rodham Clinton failed to get the Democratic nomination for president or vice president, she and her allies rained a torrent of tears all over the media about the injustice of it all, ranting that rampant sexism denied her the nomination she was due. The aging Gloria Steinem opined on CNN that it is "clear that there is profound sexism." She whined that Hillary couldn't crack the "glass ceiling" because there are "still barriers and biases out there."
Oh, the unfairness of it all! Steinem bemoaned that women find it so "difficult to be competent and successful and be liked." Au contraire, Hillary and women like her are not disliked because they are competent and successful, but because they are chip-on-the-shoulder feminists, living in an unhappy world of their own making and spreading their discontent like a virus. Feminists convey a notion of entitlement, as though they deserve special privileges today because of wrongs in past years that no one any longer can remember, such as women not having the right to vote. The bad attitude of victimhood is indoctrinated in students by the bitter feminist faculty in university women's studies courses and even in some law schools. Victimhood is nurtured and exaggerated by feminist organizations using their tactic called "consciousness raising," i.e., retelling horror stories about how badly some women have been treated until small personal annoyances grow into societal grievances. The feminists resent Sarah because she's the exact opposite of Hillary Clinton. When the liberal media sharpened their knives against Sarah, some chivalrous McCainiacs cried foul about media unfairness, but we didn't hear any whining from Sarah. Sarah has been successful because of hard work and perseverance, not because she's a woman, and she's not going to pull any crybaby act now. Sarah didn't need any Equal Rights Amendment, which Hillary is still promoting even though it was declared dead by the Supreme Court 26 years ago.
The feminist tirades against Sarah are mostly so tiresome, but one line of their complaints is really funny. After 40 years of telling wives and mothers to get out of the home (which Betty Friedan called "a comfortable concentration camp"), put their children in day care (tax-funded, of course) and join the workforce, these same feminists now tell Sarah to stay home with her children.
Sarah doesn't need feminist approval for her lifestyle; the only person whose OK she needs for her double career as mother and politician is her husband's, and he seems very happy with Sarah.
Sarah Palin is an exemplar of a successful, can-do woman, and the feminists simply don't know how to deal with her. I hope she will usher in a new era where conventional wisdom recognizes that feminist negativism is ancient history and American women are so fortunate to live in the greatest country on Earth.
Phyllis Schlafly is president of Eagle Forum, an attorney, and the author of 20 books, including "Feminist Fantasies." Contact us at insight@sfchronicle.com.
This article appeared on page G - 2 of the San Francisco Chronicle
Obama requests that his supporters argue and get in the faces of those who don't agree with him... he asks that they make phone calls and knock on doors to do the same.
He claims his supporters are his ambassadors.
Well, Mr. Obama... your ambassadors are not welcome to knock on my door or get in my face to argue with me about "your case". It's up to you to make your case and change my mind. It's pathetic that you're so desperate that you have to request that the average, every day citizen go out and do your work for you.
This is a request for violence, Mr. Obama. Both you and the "lovely" Sandra Bernhard are requesting confrontation and, inevitably, violence. I have no use for your "changes" because it's clear to me that you want a civil war, no matter how it's obtained. You want it through reasons of race or reasons of guns or reasons of taxes or reasons of whatever flip-flop issue you can get your hands on.
I don't mind talking to others who think differently than me, Mr. Obama... what I mind is if they come to me and start screaming in my face or calling me all sorts of obscenities because you requested that they do so. You're a user and a horrible leader. You're not blind... you can see and read the news just like any other person on this planet. You know things are tense out in the real world and you know SOME of your supporters were hoping for a request for face-to-face confrontations because now they can say "well, Mr. Obama asked me to do it... I'm working FOR HIM".
No, Mr. Obama... you are another Hitler looking to abolish those who appose you and I am sickened by your ideals and your methods. I read people stating "it's politics so stop being such a wussy". Really? Why is it politics needs to get nastier and nastier with each generation?
Update: I began to think on this again a few hours later. You know... I don't mind phone calls and I don't mind visits or people stopping to talk to me. What I mind is when those people become jerks and start to lecture me or get angry if that same lecture doesn't change my mind. Those are the types of people who push me away and make me stronger in my own beliefs. They are foolish.
Text:
ANNCR: What Obama says…
BARACK OBAMA: It would be unacceptable for executives of these institutions to earn a windfall.
ANNCR: …Is not what he does.
Meet Jim Johnson, former Fannie Mae CEO. Fannie cooked the books and Johnson made millions.
Then Obama asked him to pick his VP. And raise thousands for his campaign.
Barack Obama. More empty words.
And now is the time to keep the promise of equal pay for an equal day's work, because I want my daughters to have exactly the same opportunities as your sons.
I think Sandra misses the pink meat barrel and is taking her lesbo-frustration out on attractive, smart and successful women like the lovely Sarah Palin. It's no more than jealousy on Bernhard's part. I mean come on, if you had a face like hers, wouldn't you too be a frustrated, hate-mongering lezbo? Sure you would.I definitely agree... Sandra is jealous in ways the normal American can not understand. It's hard for a person like Sandra to accept the fact that other women might actually like Sarah Palin and not want to spend hours upon hours feeling bitter and hateful.
When Sandra warns Sarah Palin not to come into Manhattan lest she get gang-raped by some of Sandra’s big black brothers, she’s being provocative, combative, humorous, and yes, let’s allow, disgusting.I'm sorry... how is that provocative and humorous? That sounded much like a threat to Sarah and a dare to her "big black brothers" living in Manhattan.
Every white woman I know is positively horrified. Wait, that's not exactly true. It's more accurate to say that every thoughtful or liberal or intuitive or open-minded white woman I know worth her vagina monologue and her self-determination and two centuries of nonstop striving for equal rights and sexual freedom and exhaustive patriarchal unshackling is right now openly horrified, appalled at what the addition of shrill PTA hockey-mom Sarah Palin seems to have done for the soggy, comatose McCain campaign -- that is, make it not merely remotely interesting and melodramatic, but aggressively hostile to, well, to all intelligent women everywhere.I love how this guy makes stuff up and expects women to swoon over his words. I do not believe that Sarah hates me nor am I selling myself out or other women because I favor her over Hilary.
Truly, among women in the know and especially among those who fought so hard to bring Hillary Clinton to the brink of history, nausea and a general recoiling appear to be the universal reactions to Palin's sudden presence on the national stage, stemming straight from the idea that there's even a slight chance in hell such an antagonistic, anti-female politico could be within a 72-year-old heartbeat of becoming the most powerful and iconic woman of all time.
They say: You've got to be kidding me. They say: This is what we get? This could be our historic role model? Two hundred years (OK, more like 2000) of struggle, only to have this nasty caricature of femininity try to hijack and mock and undermine it all?
It cannot be true, they say. The universe must joking, would not dare dump such a homophobic, Creationist evangelical nutball on us, this anti-choice, God-pandering woman who's the inverse of Hillary, this woman of deep inexperience who abhors birth control and supports abstinence education and shoots exhausted wolves from helicopters and hates polar bears and actually stands for everything progressive women have resented since the first pope Swift-Boated Eve.
But now, the truly bizarre part. Despite this defiant outcry, a great many pundits and reports have suggested that, just after the Palin VP announcement, a sizable chunk of predominantly white women nevertheless abandoned their tentative support for Obama and leapt into the lyin' arms of McCain, presumably simply because of Palin's gender and PTA momhood.
And thus did the harrowing wail go out: WTF? Could it be true? Are cadres of formerly Obama-leaning white women really so enchanted by Palin's gender and motherhood status that they openly ignore the fact that she basically wants to shove women's rights back about five decades? Can it be so simple, crude, sad?
Let us analyze. Let me, being a straight white male and therefore only capable of gazing in awe at the spectacle that is the indecipherable female intuitive response, foolishly attempt to decipher some of it anyway, and explain why in hell some women might jump to Palin, despite the fact that she essentially hates them.
NEW YORK (CBS) ― Hillary Clinton won't be speaking at Monday's anti-Iran rally at the United Nations -- and neither will Republican Sarah Palin or any other politicians for that matter.
The reason? A heated behind the scenes tug-of-war.
Sources tell CBS 2 HD that a decision to disinvite Palin from the high profile rally after Clinton pulled out in a huff came as the result of intense pressure from Democrats.
"This is insulting. This is embarrassing, especially to Gov. Palin, to me and I think it should be to every single New Yorker," Assemblyman Dov Hikind, D-Brooklyn, told CBS 2 HD.
Sources say the axes were out for Palin as soon as Sen. Clinton pulled out because she did not want to attend the same event as the Republican vice presidential candidate.
"I have never seen such raw emotion -- on both sides," said someone close to the situation.
The groups sponsoring the rally against Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speaking at the UN were reportedly told, "it could jeopardize their tax exempt status" if they had Palin and not Clinton or Democratic VP candidate Joe Biden on hand.
So all politicians were disinvited, most prominently, Palin.
"It's an absolute shame that this has happened," Hikind said. "To threaten organizations … to threaten the Conference of Presidents that if you don't withdraw the invitation to Gov. Palin we're going to look into your tax exempt status … that's McCarthyism."
Another Jewish group tried to step into the breach by inviting Palin to a different protest a day earlier.
"I'm absolutely appalled at the behavior of the Democrats," said Bob Kunst of Defenders.net. "I'm a Democrat and for the first time in my life I'm going to vote Republican. I can't take it anymore."
As for Sen. Clinton, she brushed right past CBS 2 HD's Lou Young when he tried to ask her about the issue on Thursday night.
Lou Young: "Were the organizers of Monday's rally right to depoliticize it?"
Clinton walked past Young, said "Thank you all very much" and started hugging people.
Clinton's people tell CBS 2 HD she intends to make some statement of support for the protestors. She is also expected to attack Ahmadinejad's pro-nuke, anti-Israel stance.
Democrats threaten to kneecap Jewish nonprofits - So if'n all of this stuff is true, how can the liberals look at themselves in the mirror and tell themselves that the conservatives or Republicans are the fascists? How can they even stand to be in the same room smelling the hypocrisy coming from their own pores?
It really wasn't until the last couple of years that the stench reached my nostrils. Republican, Democrat, Conservative, Liberal, etc. - it really didn't matter much to me. That is, until I realize that the Democrats and Republicans of "yesterday" have washed away into silence. Where are they? Are they hiding under a rock somewhere hoping things will turn out for the best?
The Democrats seem to be spending too much time trying to be socialist and the Republicans are spending too much time trying to be mini-liberals. Everyone is leaning left in order to please "just enough people" to get elected. I don't want false profits... I want real leaders who aren't afraid to straighten things out with a huge crowbar. We need a group of people who will slap a few faces and kick a few butts up and down the political hallway.
Every single abortion proponent in the United States Senate at the time they voted on this, the roll call vote was in 2001, every single one is more protective of human life in its early stages and more respectful of human life in its early stages than is Senator Obama based on his voting record. Article found here.
Taking the gloves off is not the same thing as completely deceiving people with misleading information. Obama slips into the gutter and swims around to get nice and slimy."They want us to forget the insults we’ve put up with, the intolerance,” the announcer says in one of the ads as a picture of Limbaugh appears onscreen and the talk show host is quoted saying, “Mexicans are stupid and unqualified” and “Shut your mouth or get out.”
“They made us feel marginalized in a country we love so much,” the announcer continues. “John McCain and his Republican friends have two faces. One that says lies just to get our vote, and another, even worse, that continues the failed policies of George Bush that put special interests ahead of working families.” Article found here."It is offensive and dishonest for Barack Obama to lie about John McCain’s record on immigration and years of support for the Hispanic community, when it was Barack Obama himself who voted for ‘poison pill’ amendments that killed the effort at immigration reform. Instead of making false ads with baseless attacks, Barack Obama should be apologizing to the Latino community,” said Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart, a Cuban-American lawmaker from Florida. Another article on this issue.
CNNPolitics
Sarah Bell September 17th, 2008 5:29 pm ET
What is Sarah Palin hiding???? The American people deserve to know. And we demand an explanation as to why John McCain selected someone under investigation for corruption?? How is he getting away with this? Would Obama get away with picking Eliot Spitzer as his running mate??? Oh yea, I forgot about the whole "white privilege" thing. I smell BS.
Yasriel September 17th, 2008 5:36 pm ET
Why would a state governor use Yahoo to conduct state business?The more I hear about this woman, the scarier it becomes. She is a fraud, a wacko evangelical and a liar.
Abby September 17th, 2008 5:40 pm ET
I think this is a set up, a diversion. The real emails are destroyed or unavailable and these are just innocent stand ins.Concerned Teen, Ga September 17th, 2008 5:42 pm ET
The republicans are probably going to blame this on the democrats like they always do. Gosh. So may skeletans in the republican closet! Wake up people! Please do what REALLY is the best for our country! Get up and vote for Obama/Biden on election day! Change we can believe in!
REAL Change September 17th, 2008 5:45 pm ET
This woman is full of DRAMA………..Isn't this what she did to the former Mayor of Alaska? Just a ideal maybe she can give the name of the person she used in Alaska
America did not strike America... YOU know who did it and you're afraid. You know that America will not strike at you if you say crap about us; we are not that type of people.
Oh... but you know who the enemy is and you know that the enemy will strike at you and you're afraid... afraid... afraid. And instead of saying... shhhhhh, don't say this too loudly... Al-Qaeda... you blame America.
We won't kill you in the streets, slice off your heads or torture you to death. And guess what, if you aren't on our side... then you must be on their side, right?
Well, lets get this perfectly straight. If you aren't on our side, then that means YOU will let THEM in your front door and once they are inside... they will beat you, rape you, slice you, take your children as slaves, kill you if you're homosexual or don't agree with their religion, cover your wife's face while they rape her again and probably... just for kicks... slice off your testicles.
Why? Well, because... you were foolish enough to let them in the front door. How VERY foolish of you; not like you were ever warned... oh wait, you were! {I would appologize for being over dramatic but I'm probably down-playing this way too much}
But who will you eventually hold your hands out to and beg for help? America, that's who. And who will come to your aide? America, that's who. And who amongst you will thank America when we save you?
*cricket*
The answer is no one.
By then we will be considered pirates, villains and conquerors. We are too forgiving, too giving, too helpful and at the same time the world says we are selfish brats. Interesting... perhaps you should fight your own battles and stop asking America, the selfish brats that we are, for help.
Leave our family alone and take care of your own. One can only turn the other cheek so many times before they just can't take it any longer.
9/8/08 9:50 AM
Anonymous said...
I don't watch Oprah....but I have to agree that I really am scared about the ignorance of the American people. Some simple facts: Oprah did have Obama on her show once after the 2004 DNC and before he ran for senate and again after he won his senate seat and before he announced his decision to run for president. In both cases he was an incumbent (ie already in a position) and he was not being veiwed as someone running for anything. Another fact: She has openly supported Obama but not on her show only at rallies, fundraisers etc.....and the last time a checked every American no matter who they are or how well they are known has the right to support whom ever they want. Lastly, she also states that she is willing to have Palin on her show after Nov. 4. Whether some of you know this or not she would therefore have to have Obama on her show if she invited Palin or even McCain on her show prior to Nov. 4th.
Two last comments as a woman of color I am so insulted to here people calling Oprah racist because she supports a different candidate than you do....also maybe some of you don't realized that most of the people on her show are not black and she has had even Hillary Clinton on her show but again not when she was running for office. Her show has always been a show about entertainment and education and the argument most of you have about why gov. Palin should be on the show is very very valid however, no one can answer the question as to how the validity of this argument is diminished in anyway after Nov. 4.
I also awed by those who said that they have stopped watching her show because of the fact that she supports Obama. My only response to those people is how very narrowed minded of you. Again does she not have the right to support any candidate she wants. Believe it or not there have always been celebrities supporting candidates on campaigns, does that mean that you stop watching their movies and shows as well. Honestly if you only listen to what people on the right say or only to people on the left...its no wonder our country seems so divided and screwed.
11:32 AM
Bug said...
I feel it is Oprah’s right to choose whom she wants to come on her show… it IS her right. I am addressing the post made regarding how upset one of the commenters is that people are suggesting that Oprah is racist… I would like to point out that I, as a white woman, am appalled at how many times I see fingers pointing and people saying that those who are not black (especially whites) are racist because they don’t want to vote for Obama when there is no justification for such an accusation. Oh, there may be those who are, but they aren’t as common as its being made out.
I am not voting for Obama because I do not agree with his policies nor do I think he is qualified nor ready to be president. I do not care; as I have said in numerous places on the web, if the man is purple with green polka dots… it means NOTHING to me what color his skin happens to be.
My point is… the anger you feel towards others claiming that Oprah is racist because she is supporting Obama and not a white candidate is exactly what so many people are feeling when they are accused of racism because they don’t want Obama as their president. It’s insulting, obnoxious and just another way of trying to coerce people into doing something they don’t want to so they won’t be labeled.
I’m sick of it!
I will defend myself valiantly that I am not racist in any manner and I do not believe in any way whatsoever that a person who defends themselves against such an accusation is therefore exactly what they are fighting against being called. I will not turn the other cheek, I will not be called something I am not and just stand here and say “maybe you’re right… maybe I really am a bad person”.
NO!! No more!!
I care for people whom I wish to care for and it matters not what they look like… it matters what is in their heart and in their mind. Those who point their fingers and scream “racist” must be racist themselves for noticing these differences… I have no more time for these individuals than for criminals.
So with that in mind, it isn't appropriate to call Oprah racist either... no one should be accused of such an act unless there is undeniable proof. Now... with Obama's book, there is a lot of doubt about whether or not HE is racist and HE has put it out there right in front of our noses. I have my questions about his thoughts and it worries me a great deal.
catsum 09.07.08 11:06I like this... educate yourself and don't vote for someone BECAUSE he is black, vote for him based upon his experience. How revolutionary!! This person hit it right on!
I am sitting here reading these responses and this is why too I had to sign up for an account tonight. Most of you people on here are smart and thank GOD that you are using the brain that you have been given. To the VERY few of you that think what he has done is ok, you need to pick up a book and educate yourself. First off, whether you like Bush or not, he was elected by the AMERICAN people for both terms. You people that just follow the media and people such as this yahoo, is the reason you think Obama is the right direction. He should not be elected just because he is black. He should be elected because he stands for great things and has a proven track record, which he does not. I do not care if someone is black, brow, purple or a monkey, I vote for the best person for the job is based on experience. Before you speak, educate yourself on the truth. Shame on you people and shame on MTV for not speaking the truth about what the world needs. You speak about Obama, next time speak about a real hero and the person who needs to run the country, JOHN MCCAIN! As for the comments about teenage pregnancy and abstinence, how dare he say these comments against the Jonas Brothers. Thank God there are still kids in today’s society like the Jonas Brothers and Jordan Sparks that have respect for themselves and don’t let idiots like this guy detour them from them.
"Life is sacred to me on all levels. Abortion does not compute with my philosophy."but she also said...
"Execution as punishment is barbaric and unnecessary." [When speaking of the death penalty.]And since the character Janeway is based upon a feminist writer... that would indicate Kathryn Janeway, if she were a real person, would favor Obama, right? I read a bit about Elizabeth and it wasn't completely clear what type of feminist writer she was however, she was a director of the National Organization for Women's legal and education fund. I have visited the NOW sight and I know where they stand. I guess the question is... was the organization the same when Elizabeth was a part of it as it is now?
Mulgrew is also an opponent of abortion as well as capital punishment. She received an award from Feminists for Life, a pro-life feminist group. She is quoted as saying "Execution as punishment is barbaric and unnecessary" and "Life is sacred to me on all levels. Abortion does not compute with my philosophy"
This "tribute" which served to only throw fear into the political discourse and frighten voters was shown at the 2008 Republican National Convention. Keith Olbermann spoke for many of us at the sickening images used for political gain.Go here to watch the video... and here for disussion by Glenn.
Very true... it bothers me that we are "protected" from this sight. What happened was brought about by terrorists and evil people who want to enslave every country they can get their hands on. It is disturbing and it does bring a tear to my eyes... but it also reminds me what we're fighting for and why we are fighting still today. These evil people will continue to try to kill anyone that does not think like them... I do not wish to be their servants.Of course, I go back now and that negative mark is gone... not sure how that worked out, but whatever. I made another post and we'll see how many get mad at me. I DO understand why the videos of 9/11 upset them... they upset me... but there is a difference. I watch them and feel compassion and pain for those who have died and I want to make sure it doesn't happen again by destroying terrorism. Others feel compassion and pain but for some reason want to let the terrorists kill more of our Americans. They feel sending troops is going to cause more deaths... there will be troops who die and it is a horrible, horrible thing. If we don't destroy terrorism then millions of us will die.
ATTENTION! I apologize for any inconvenience, but I have been receiving way too many negative comments and people arguing with and insulting each other in comments on this video. After a lot of hard thought, I have decided to disable comments on my video. I may or may not turn them back on again, we'll have to see. Again, I'm sorry, but you can thank the people who decided to turn this into a debate forum. Thank you for your time, and I apologize again to those of you who didn't do anything wrong.
"We are proud of the CODEPINK women who did civil disobedience to show their outrage at the Bush and McCain policies and the nomination of Sarah Palin," said co-founder Medea Benjamin. "In the face of over 100 riot police they put their bodies on the line as a show of their determination to elect leaders in this country who stand for peace."And I wonder how much more proud they would have been if those bodies had actually been harmed or in some way these women became martyrs? Does it remind you of any other group... say... those who tie bombs to women and children in order to "move their cause forward". Their agenda is not for peace... they are the same as Jesse Jackson and the like. If they got their way... it would all end for them and they can't have that... their self-inflicted misery would be washed away and they would be forgotten.
Code Pink ladies say, 'We're not scary'
Singing "Sarah Palin, we know what you stand for, you'll save a fetus in the womb and send it off to war," a couple of dozen pink-clad members of Code Pink, a women-led peace organization, took a short protest march this afternoon from the St. Paul Hotel to Rice Park.
Group co-founder Jodie Evans complained that police response to her group's protests this week have been "snarky" and "violent" including an arrest of one member Monday night. She also said mounted police pushed her group away from Palin's Minneapolis hotel Wednesday with their horses.
"How scary do we look? It's a really mean way to treat women dressed in pink," Evans said.
First of all... these two ladies ARE scary. Look a them!
Second of all... if wearing pink indicates that you are not scary... how long will it take criminals to start wearing pink and claiming in court that they were "treated poorly" because they were "wearing pink" and CLEARLY that means they are good people and we shouldn't have to worry about them doing something wrong.
Oh... and here are a couple of examples. These two dudes truly ARE NOT as scary as the pictures of the Code Pink "ladies" and they ARE committing crimes... so how do you expect us to feel when these scary women come at us yelling and waving their arms at us?
THAT IS SCARY... and it wouldn't matter if this woman was wearing what she has on or a little pink jumper suit. She is a threat and she is scary. And I did watch the video to this and it was ended fast... but even a brief moment with someone coming at you head on, waving their hands and yelling things is scary.
UPDATE: This is wrong. As you can see if you look at the list of component budgets here (2007) and here (2009), funding for the Alaska Challenge Youth Academy was broken out into its own budget category, which accounts for the drop in funding for the original item. I regret the error. Thanks to rory in comments.END UPDATE.All brought to you by the liars at this horrible site which will not be named any more in my posts nor will they get a label on my site!
So my mother is left to listen to the "real" media on the TV and on the radio that is coming from these "professional" journalists who are getting their garbage news from blogs. Hell, I can make anything up and put it on here... but if it's fake, it is my responsibility to say so. What is happening out there is that bloggers are making up stories by either lying by saying they are posting real news or falling back on the "well, I thought it MIGHT be real but wasn't sure... I was just taking a chance; ooooops". In the mean time, they ruin lives and laugh about it because they love the attention.
"Look at me... I made up this story and US or Newsweek actually believed me and published the information so now... now others think it's true... mwahahahaha! And guess what people... I BROUGHT IT TO YOU FIRST!"Let's see. It goes on and on and on. Then he says, the irony for me, of course, is that despite making over 50 short political videos with a clear progressive point of view, I was banned on the Daily Kos for saying what seemed reasonable that John Edwards was seen at the Beverly Hilton late at night.
To be sure, some on Daily Kos pointed up the numerous problems with the Palin story, but the community in large part embraced it and it is part of a trend. The election hasn't even been won yet and there is already liberal hubris developing. Progressive standard bearers such as the Daily Kos and Keith Olbermann...
[...]
... have been showing signs lately of a nasty tendency towards stifling dissenting opinions and promoting the sorts of crazy rumors usually associated with the right than the real based community. It's not effective, it's not progressive, and it's not good or accurate reflection on Barack Obama or the Democratic party.
Olberman reports facts and only facts. Get your story right buster.
Three teenage girls have been buried alive by their tribe in a remote part of Pakistan to punish them for attempting to choose their own husbands, in an "honour" killing case.
After news of the deaths emerged, male politicians from their province Balochistan defended the killings in parliament, claiming the practice was part of "our tribal custom".
The girls, thought to have been aged between 16 and 18, were kidnapped by a group of men from their Umrani tribe.
They were driven to a rural area and then injured by being shot. Then, while still alive, they were dragged bleeding to a pit, where they were covered with earth and stones, according to the findings of Human Rights Watch, the international campaigning group.
Praise be to Allaah.
The woman does not have the right to refuse her husband, rather she must respond to his request every time he calls her, so long as that will not harm her or keep her from doing an obligatory duty.[...]
The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “If a man calls his wife to his bed and she refuses, and he spends the night angry with her, the angels curse her until morning.”
[...]
So the wife should be admonished first, and warned against defiance (nushooz) and of the anger of Allaah and the curse of the angels. If she does not respond, then the husband should forsake her in her bed, and if she does not respond to that, then he may hit her in a manner that does not cause injury. If none of these steps are effective, then he may stop spending on her maintenance and clothing, and he has the right to divorce her or to allow her to separate from him by khula’ in return for some financial settlement, such as giving up the mahr.
Similarly a slave woman does not have the right to refuse her master’s requests unless she has a valid excuse. If she does that she is being disobedient and he has the right to discipline her in whatever manner he thinks is appropriate and is allowed in sharee’ah.
And Allaah knows best.
