Barack Hussein Obama

[chumdawg]

When you sow "Hussein," this is what you reap.

[dude1394]

Yuck...I tihnk I"m gonna puke.

America alone [Mark Steyn]

A reader thinks my column this week "creates problems" for my thesis in America Alone:

Actually, that last point reminds me that, with a little light rewrite, the second edition of America Alone will hold up pretty well. If Obama is elected in November, at G7 meetings, for the first time since time they began, America will have a more left-wing leader than any other member of the group - Canada, Germany, France, Italy, Japan, and Britain (and that's before Gordon Brown loses to David Cameron). Right-of-center government throughout the western world - except Washington.

[dude1394]

VDH...as always greatness..
http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/jumping-ship/

This is becoming a very strange campaign. On CNN this evening both David Gergen and Ed Rollins echoed the current mantra that the “old” noble McCain is gone, and a “new” nastier one has emerged, largely because of his attacks on Ayers, perhaps his planned future ads on Wright, and a few unhinged people shouting at his campaign stops. Recently Christopher Buckley endorsed Obama, likewise lamenting the loss of the old noble McCain. NY Times columnist David Brooks dubbed Palin a “cancer,” and he suggested that Obama’s instant recall of Niehbuhr sent a tingle up his leg as Obama once did to Chris Matthews as well.

A couple of thoughts: the George Bush, Sr. / Willie Horton campaign was far tougher; so were the Bush 2000/2004 efforts. If anything, McCain’s campaign is subdued in comparison to what we’ve seen on both sides in past years. Indeed, McCain as a vicious campaigner is a complete fabrication, but, again, a brilliant subterfuge on the part of Team Obama that, in fact, has run, via appendages, the far more vicious race. Obama and his surrogates have repeatedly engaged in racial politics (as Bill Clinton lamented when in fury he denounced the “race card”); when there was never evidence that McCain was using race as a wedge issue, it was clear Obama most surely was–preemptively, on at least two occasions, warning Americans he would soon be the victim of opposition racial stereotyping. His surrogates like Biden and those in the Senate continue to link legitimate worries about OBama’s past with racism.

Second, for about 3 months all we’ve heard are references to McCain’s age, with adjectives and phrases like confused, can’t remember any more, disturbed, lost his bearings, etc. Moreover, so far, McCain supporters have not broken into Biden’s email, or accused Biden of being a Nazi, or accused anyone of not bearing one of their own children, or photo-shopped grotesque pictures of Obama on the Internet (as in the Atlantic magazine case). I don’t think deranged McCain supporters in Hollywood or television almost daily are quoted as damning Obama in unusually crude terms. Nor are white racist ministers calling McCain a ‘messiah’ or McCain operatives fraudulently swarming voter registration centers. And on and on.

Instead I think what we are seeing again is an interesting phenomenon of the old nice/now mean McCain. A great many moderates and conservatives are worn out and tired of Bush and Bush hatred, the European furor, serial charges of racism and illiberalism, and finally, in their weariness, think that Obama will, in a variety of ways, just make all the ickiness go away–as if he will make all of us be liked abroad and end racial and red/blue fighting at home. They should ask themselves whether Jimmy Carter restored American popularity with his human rights campaigns, praise of left-wing dictators, dialogue during the hostage crisis (cf. “The Great Satan”), boasts of no more inordinate fear of communism, etc., or whether Obama, in his Trinity/Acorn/Pfleger years, brought racial healing and understanding to Chicago

Second, with Obama now with an 6-8 point lead, some in the DC/NY corridor these last three weeks figure it’s time now to jump on, or at least sort of jump, since the train they think is leaving the station and there might be still be some space at the dinner table on the caboose. They also believe as intellectuals that the similarly astute Obamians may on occasion inspire, or admire them as the like-minded who cultivate the life of the mind–in contrast to the “cancer” Sarah Palin, who, with her husband Todd, could hardly discuss Proust with them or could offer little if any sophisticated table-talk other than the chokes on shotguns or optimum RPMs on snow-machines.

And third, a lot of moderates who would not vote for McCain liked him when he was a sophisticated, ironic maverick loser scoring points against the simplistic Bush and other cardboard-cut-out conservatives. Now he has the onus of winning a campaign and can’t be a noble, tragic loser;so it is easy to say he is no good since he is less than perfect. The sure iconoclastic loser has an attraction that the mainstream conservative possible winner does not.

Obama, as I have said ad nauseam, has brilliantly prepped the battlefield to such a degree that a Farrakhan endorsement or surrogates calling Palin a quasi-Nazi or a bimbo, or smearing McCain as near senile is irrelevant; yet one screamer in a crowd of tens of thousands is proof of McCain’s and Palin’s racism and hatred.

Again, most conservatives know this paradox, but for some, being outraged as the conservative voice of reason, at McCain’s supposed low road ensures a CNN spot, or some future rehabilitation during the expected Obama regnum of the next eight years. I think should I write a column praising Obama’s wit, taste in books, and metrosexuality I would be dubbed principled rather than cynical, ‘even-handed’ rather than self-serving, and a maverick rather than toadish.

Yet for a self-acclaimed conservative to vote Obama would mean that higher taxes, larger government, more entitlements, more of a UN-centered foreign policy, dialogue with an Iran, less coal,oil, and nuclear energy production at home, more “oppression” studies and “reparations”, leftish Supreme Court judges, open borders (I could go on) were the truly conservative positions, or perhaps suddenly truly the ‘right’ positions.

And as far as ethics goes, in fact, a cursory review of the past Obama campaigns would reveal a ruthlessness never seen in any of McCain’s efforts. Obama’s record is far more left than McCain’s is far right. Obama the healer has proven to be the most partisan in the Senate, McCain one of the most bipartisan.

But to believe that truth would be–if we remember that scene in Tolkien’s Two Towers–to trust the grating harsh voice of Gandalf detailing the dangers of Saruman rather than the mellifluous charm of the latter who in soothing tones outlines his own victimhood.

[chumdawg]

This is becoming a very strange campaign. On CNN this evening both David Gergen and Ed Rollins echoed the current mantra that the “old” noble McCain is gone, and a “new” nastier one has emerged, largely because of his attacks on Ayers, perhaps his planned future ads on Wright, and a few unhinged people shouting at his campaign stops. Recently Christopher Buckley endorsed Obama, likewise lamenting the loss of the old noble McCain. NY Times columnist David Brooks dubbed Palin a “cancer,” and he suggested that Obama’s instant recall of Niehbuhr sent a tingle up his leg as Obama once did to Chris Matthews as well.

That's about right.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

you don't see the difference between people such as madonna and sandra bernhardt, and the mccain/palin campaign itself?

only a very partisan viewpoint would equate the two.

If you were half as honest about the left as you are hateful toward the right, you wouldn't attempt the argument that you do here

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

If you were half as honest about the left as you are hateful toward the right, you wouldn't attempt the argument that you do here

Quite right.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

If you were half as honest about the left as you are hateful toward the right, you wouldn't attempt the argument that you do here

"hateful"?

yeah, I'm just a big ball of "hate". that is, if you equate criticism to hate, which is an unbecoming trait of some on the right.

of course, it's easier to deflect that way, and the argument made is true.

absolutely true.

[dude1394]

From Powerline...anyone thinking that obama isn't going to live up to his title as most liberal national politician in the country has another thing coming.

My Examiner column considers Barack Obama's radical associations. It concludes by asking whether these associations portend a radical presidency if Obama is elected:

Perhaps not. Ayers and especially Wright were influential figures in the community where Obama hoped to advance his political career. It’s possible that Obama attached himself to these two figures for purely opportunistic reasons. In this scenario, Obama was deplorably cynical, but not necessarily radical.

Alternatively, Obama may have believed significant amounts of what his leftist associates espoused, only to cast it off over time. In this scenario, Wright and Ayers played Falstaff to Obama’s Prince Hal.

But there are at least six reasons to fear that Obama will govern from the far left.

First, it’s all he really knows. Obama grew up in a left-wing household, attended elite left-wing dominated universities, and spent the remainder of his formative years as a community organizer alongside the likes of Wright and Ayers.

Second, it’s how he votes. In 2007, according to the National Journal, Obama’s voting record was the most liberal of any senator.

Third, it’s what he falls back on. Obama is scripted to be “post-partisan.” But when off-script he’s liable to blurt out that those who resist the leftist agenda bitterly “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to those who aren’t like them.” And when his wife said that, as an adult, she has never been proud of America, Obama defended her statement as applied to American politics. This is “god damn America” lite.

Fourth, it’s what his base wants. There really isn’t much distance between Reverend Wright and Bill Ayers and the “General Betray-Us” crowd.

Fifth, it’s what he can pretend the times demand. When economic hardship causes people lose their faith in free markets, all kinds of radical mischief becomes possible.

Sixth, with the Democrats almost certain to have substantial majorities in both houses of Congress, who would constrain a President Obama?

[Epitome22]

That's the thing though, it won't. I keep hearing about this secret radical agenda Obama has and think "I Wish!" but I know not to be true. We're going to get something a lot more milqtoast and moderate around the edges. Not that wingnuts still won't complain, but if any progressive legislation is gonna get done it will be Congress leading the way. All Obama has to do is sign the bills and everything will be ok.

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

If you were half as honest about the left as you are hateful toward the right, you wouldn't attempt the argument that you do here

Man I am actually having a hard time believeing that ANYONE is xxxxxxxx enough to not see the difference between the strawman of random people here and there yelling that they hate Palin, and being ASSIGNED the role of "mainstream democrat" .... versus an actual CAMPAIGN EVENT with the candidates themselves present.


but... there you have it. Straw man still works. woot woot.

[dude1394]

Heelarious...

MARK STEYN: Obama's still willing to talk to Ahmadinejad without preconditions. But never again will he talk to Joe the Plumber without preconditions.

Joe the Plumber vs. Joe the Hair-Plugger
Put that in your pipe and solder it.

By Mark Steyn

Give a man enough rope line and he’ll hang himself. There was His Serene Majesty President-designate Barack the Healer working the crowd at some or other hick burg, and halfway down the rope up pops a plumber to express misgivings about the incoming regime’s tax plans.

Supposedly, under the Obama tax plan, 95 per cent of the American people will get a tax cut. You’d think that at this point the natural skepticism of any sentient being other than six-week-old puppies might kick in, but apparently not. If you’re wondering why Obama didn’t simply announce that under his plan 112 per cent of the American people will get a tax cut, well, they ran it past the focus groups who said that that was all very generous but they’d really like it if he could find a way to stick it to Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh, Karl Rove and whatnot. So 95 per cent it is.

By the way, like the nightly news shows, this column now has an exclusive lavishly funded Fact Check Unit set up at great expense (a colorful graphic with the words “FACT CHECK ALERT!”) in a lame attempt to pass off our transparent political bias as some sort of scientific exercise. Our accredited credentialed licensed expert Fact Checkers from the University of Factology in the Czech Republic are standing by to rigorously Fact Check the candidate’s claims. We check facts so you don’t have to. All you have to do is sign up to our Fact-Check-Me-Now! service and we’ll send you a daily Fact Check on your Facts Machine, which costs only $79.95 from Radio Shack (sorry, no checks).

Anyway, our Fact Check Unit ran the numbers on the Obama tax-cut plan and the number is correct: “95.” It’s the words “per cent” immediately following that are wrong: that’s a typing error accidentally left in from the first draft. It should read: Under the Obama plan, 95 of the American people will get a tax cut.

Joe the Plumber expressed his misgivings about the President-in-waiting’s tax inclinations, and the O-Man smoothly reassured him: “It’s not that I want to punish your success,” he told the bloated plutocrat corporate toilet executive. “I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they’ve got a chance for success too. I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

In that sentence about you spreading the wealth around, there’s another typing error: that “you” should read “I, Barack.” “You” will have no say in it. Joe the Plumber might think he himself can spread it around just fine, but everyone knows “trickle-down economics” don’t work. So President-presumptive Obama kindly explained the new exquisitely condescending “talking-down economics:” Put that in your pipe and solder it.

Evidently the O-Mighty One was not happy after his encounter with Joe. He’s still willing to talk to Ahmadinejad without preconditions. But never again will he talk to Joe the Plumber without preconditions. Outraged at the way the right-wing whackos were talking up Joe the Plumber as if he were an authentic regular Joe like Joe Biden, the O-Bots of the media swung into action. Vast regiments of investigate reporters were redeployed from the Wasilla Holiday Inn back to the Lower 48.

“We need you down here checking out this Joe the Plumber,” editors barked to journalists.

“But I’m this close to wrapping up the Wasilla Town Library banned-book investigation!”

“Forget it! The Atlantic Monthly is claiming Joe the Plumber is Trig’s real father. We can’t get behind on this. Get to Minneapolis Airport. Joe the Plumber was seen in the bathroom with Senator Larry Craig.”

“Yes, but he was installing a stopcock…”

“Look, you went to Columbia School of Journalism. This is what we bold courageous journalists do. We’re the conscience of the nation. We speak truth to plumber.”

“Er, shouldn’t that be ‘Speak truth to power’?”

“That’s the old edition of the handbook. Now we speak truth to power-tool operators. Joe the Carpenter, Joe the Plasterer, Joe the Electrician… When you’re building utopia, you don’t want any builders getting in the way.”

Alas, as a result of this massive investment of journalistic resouces, no investigative reporter will be free to investigate ACORN voter-registration fraud or Obama’s ties to terrorist educator William Ayers until, oh, midway through his second term at least.

Under the headline “Is ‘Joe The Plumber’ A Plumber? That’s Debatable”, John Seewer of the Associated Press triumphantly revealed that Joe is not a “licensed” plumber. In fact, he doesn’t need to be licensed for the residential plumbing he does, but isn’t that just typical of Bush-McCain insane out-of-control deregulation? It wouldn’t surprise me to discover that most of these subprime homeowners got Joe in to plumb their subprime bathrooms. Next thing you know, the entire global economy goes down the toilet. Coincidence?

Joe is now the most notorious plumber in American politics since the Watergate plumbers. And they weren’t licensed, either. It turns out Joe doesn’t even make 250 grand, and it’s only the 250-thousand-a-year types who’ll be paying more (please, no tittering) under Good King Barack. Joe Biden — that’s Joe the Bluecollar Senator — said that he didn’t know any 250,000-dollars plumbers in his neighborhood, or even in the first-class club car on Amtrak he rides every night to demonstrate his bluecollar bonafides. On Good Morning America, Diane Sawyer emphasized this point, anxious to give the apostate plumber one last chance to go with the flow:

“Well, I just want to ask you now about the issue that was raised, because it’s been a little confusing to me as I try to sort it out here. To get straight here, you’re not taking home $250,000 now, am I right?”

“No. No. Not even close,” confessed Joe.

So what’s he got to be worried about?

The heart of the American Dream is aspiration. That’s why people came here from all over the world. Back in eastern Europe, the Joe Bidens and Diane Sawyers of the day were telling Joe the Peasant: “Hey, look, man. You’re a peasant in the 19th century, just like your forebears were peasants in the 12th century and your descendants will be peasants in the 26th century. So you’re never gonna be earning 250 groats a year. Don’t worry about it. Leave it to us. We know better.” And Joe the Peasant eventually figured that one day he’d like to be able to afford the Premium Gruel with just a hint of arugula and got on the boat to Ellis Island. Because America is the land where a guy who doesn’t have a 250-grand business today might just have one in five or ten years’ time.

I’m with Joe the Plumber, not Joe the Hair-Plugger. He’s articulated the animating principles of America better than anyone on either side in this campaign. Which is why the O-Bots need to destroy him. As Obama’s catchphrase goes:

“Joe the Plumber!

Can we fix him?

Joe the Plumber!

Yes, we can!”

For the record, I am not a government-licensed pundit. But I expect they’ll fix that, too.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...k3ZjhjYTdlZjI=

[dude1394]

Obama gets the endorsement he's been waiting for!!

http://www.scrappleface.com/?p=3161

ScrappleFace Editorial Board Endorses Barack Obama
by Scott Ott for ScrappleFace · 8 Comments

Barack Obama, shown here effectively using the dispassionate detachment that has inspired so many to get behind him.

Rarely has one man so captivated a nation with his readiness to prepare to serve.

That’s why the editorial board at ScrappleFace, on behalf of the vast editorial staff, today endorses Barack Obama for the office of junior senator from Illinois.

Although the prospect of an Obama presidency, from a satirical perspective, represents a hopeful future of full employment, the editors of ScrappleFace cannot let their own needs stand in the way of the needs of the Senate, or indeed, of the people of the world.

Barack Obama’s temperament makes him ideally suited to an institution that President George Washington reportedly once called ‘the cooling saucer’ of the Republic. Evidence of Mr. Obama’s suitability for this role is manifold…

According to friends (who he calls ‘Obam-associates’) , Barack Obama is so cool…

* The only reason he doesn’t smoke very often is that the flame on his cigarette keeps going out.
* Once, during a conference committee meeting, Rep. Barney Frank borrowed Sen. Obama’s pen, and immediately got his tongue stuck to its frosty surface. Even then, Sen. Obama was so cool, he just reached over and snapped the pen from Rep. Frank’s mouth, leaving the grateful Congressman with no lasting effect but a barely-noticeable speech impediment.
* At a recent concert and political rally, when Bruce Springsteen got ‘The Fever’, he skipped the Tylenol, because his friend Barack was there. When The Boss sang ‘I’m on Fire’, Sen. Obama extinguished him.
* When his wife Michelle, his former pastor Jeremiah Wright, or a guy in his neighborhood named Bill Ayers, occasionally let loose with fiery outbursts of anger, just being near Barack Obama allows them to ‘chill’ like a typical white grandmother, shivering because she just saw a black man.
* Despite his elite education in private schools and substantial wealth acquired through individual initiative, he calmly tells fellow African-Americans that their only hope lies in dependence upon union bosses and government social programs.
* When pondering the fate of an aborted infant, accidentally born alive, he can dispassionately discourse on whether the mother’s right to privacy, under the Roe v. Wade amendment to the Constitution, should continue until the baby’s first, or second, bounce on the delivery room floor.

All told, we find a man with a public personality that forgoes the messy ‘person’ part. He’s a man who connects with the emotions of a crowd, like a magnet attracts its polar opposite, because his heart is a lean and pure blood-pumping muscle, unhindered by emotion.

Barack Obama’s experience with, and oft-stated appreciation of, John McCain’s decades of service, will make him a leader among his senate colleagues in reaching out to President McCain to write new sentences in his own multi-paragraph history of ‘Great Acts of Bipartisanship’.

Sen. Obama’s sparse record of writing legislation means only two things…
1) as they say in baseball, “He’s due” (a significant bill could emerge from his pen any minute), and
2) he’s rested, ready to craft laws that will shape our future.

Sen. Obama’s legislative track record makes the so-called ‘do-nothing Congress’, by comparison, seem like a beehive of activity and accomplishment. With its historically-low approval ratings, Congress needs someone who will make it look good.

While critics contend that his entire Senate tenure has been little but a series of tactical maneuvers in a carefully-calculated strategy to become president, Obam-associates know that his aspiration to higher office makes him a better senator because he’s likely to avoid controversy as he cultivates his reputation, thus fostering a more civil atmosphere at the Capitol.

The Senate’s leisurely pace (he once called it ‘glacial’) also provides the ideal setting for writing — perhaps that eagerly-awaited third memoir, tentatively entitled “Brush with Greatness: Ordinary American’s Stories About Meeting Barack Obama.”

[Mavdog]

barack steve obama.

priceless.

[dude1394]

yea..
http://engram-backtalk.blogspot.com/...dorsement.html

Obama's Judgement and Powell's Endorsement.

Many believe that Obama is intelligent and that, therefore, he will show good judgment as president. My own feeling is that, although he is intelligent, his one big test of judgment was a colossal miscalculation, one that shows that he is more of a liberal reflex machine than a man whose intellect translates into sound judgment. The main test of Obama's judgment came when we faced a choice point in Iraq back in the fall of 2006. Al Qaeda's foreign leadership in Iraq was directing its steady stream of foreign suicide bombers to slaughter innocent Shiites, and the Shiite militias were responding in the way that al Qaeda intended by executing Sunni males in Baghdad by the thousands every month. What to do? That was the question, and the answer reflects on the judgment of our political leaders.

Obama's idea was to withdraw our forces as quickly as possible, and he introduced a bill in January of 2007 to do just that. Bush's idea was to order a troop surge, in part to capitalize on the fact that the Sunnis were showing signs of turning against al Qaeda in Iraq. The results are evident in civilian casualties figures:

[Mavdog]

there are many people who drink the mccain kool aid about the primacy of the "surge" in the turnaround in iraq,

as petraeus himself said in an interview ths part august:

Petraeus is careful not to credit all the progress to the surge of U.S. troops in 2007. The sea change came last year from a series of movements now known as the Awakening, when Sunnis, organizing around traditional tribal leaders, decided to turn on Al Qaeda as "an organization that embraces an extremist ideology, employs indiscriminate violence, and practices oppressive social customs," in the general's words. One of those customs was a ban on smoking. "That was the turning point when they cut the fingers off the first person who was smoking," he jokes. "Can you imagine an Anbar sheik being told he can't smoke?" So would the Sunni Awakening have succeeded without the surge? Possibly, he concedes, but the surge came at that time and helped empower Sunni leaders, paying their fighters and backing them up on the streets. This is where Seneca the Younger comes in: "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity."

http://www.newsweek.com/id/154587/output/print

therefore opposition to the concept of the surge does not reveal of an error in judgement.

[mary]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

When you sow "Hussein," this is what you reap.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHrExRHZnm0


And in other news, I heard a democrat gave someone a dirty look.

[fluid.forty.one]

Originally Posted by mary

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHrExRHZnm0


And in other news, I heard a democrat gave someone a dirty look.

this says something about all republicans, including McCain.. right dude?

[bernardos70]

At this point, the mud-slinging will only do one thing: cause division. This battle's a loss, Republicans... all you're doing is making sure the country is divided in the worst way possible about the next president. You'll have people genuinely thinking the (inevitable) next president of the United States is running around with terrorists! If that's what you want to accomplished, then "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" (for real this time...)

[Big Boy Laroux]

Originally Posted by mary

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHrExRHZnm0


And in other news, I heard a democrat gave someone a dirty look.

Add the guy with the curious george doll to the racist thread.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by mary

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHrExRHZnm0


And in other news, I heard a democrat gave someone a dirty look.

I hate people. Just in general.

[rabbitproof]

Who changed the topic?

And who changed it back?

I want to know who is a good mod and who is a bad one. Um, thanks.

[DirkFTW]

Well, what do you know, political supporters are not a collective hive mind where a sample of one douche is enough...

[Big Boy Laroux]

DirkFTW, thanks for posting that. That was actually a great thing to watch. Kudos to those McCain supporters going against that guy.

[rabbitproof]

I echo BBL.

Thank you for posting and props to those McCain supporters who want to get past those types of politics.

[jthig32]

Those people disgust me. At least have SOMETHING to support your ridiculous views and your reason for being there handing out racist propoganda. Just being there is embarassing, but when someone asks you to simply support your viewpoint, and all you've got are stammers and excuses, you're an embarassment to the human race.

[DirkFTW]

Originally Posted by Big Boy Laroux

DirkFTW, thanks for posting that. That was actually a great thing to watch. Kudos to those McCain supporters going against that guy.

I loved watching the guy walk away in defeat.

[rabbitproof]

And the bigger point behind all that, I think, which Colin Powell pointed out this week, is that there is nothing wrong with being Muslim.

Being a decent family man and an Arab/Muslim are not mutually exclusive.

Being an excellent US President and an Arab/Muslim are also not mutually exclusive.

[Silk Smoov]

That was a great video. And I am glad to see people now seeing that calling Obama a muslin and mud slinging his middle name is racist. I applaud the video and the last few posts..I am glad to see we all are moving forward, and I think now it allows the real racists to stick out here a bit more. I think we are starting to unite to just support our candidate and what they bring to the table on being the next president. Again, I applaud the efforts of the board to try to curtain the racism here on the message board. Now, it really appears that we could be down to 2 or 3 people here who appear racist. It is very clear, because posters from both sides are taking part on when posters cross the lines.

[Big Boy Laroux]

Silk - I think you're kind of missing the point. It SHOULDN'T be an insult to call Obama a Muslim. It's a misconception based on his name, yes. And of course it is inaccurate. But the resulting hate here is toward Muslims - assuming that calling someone a Muslim is a negative thing. It is bigotry towards Muslims first.

[rabbitproof]

this is the pic powell was talking about:

[Silk Smoov]

Originally Posted by Big Boy Laroux

Silk - I think you're kind of missing the point. It SHOULDN'T be an insult to call Obama a Muslim. It's a misconception based on his name, yes. And of course it is inaccurate. But the resulting hate here is toward Muslims - assuming that calling someone a Muslim is a negative thing. It is bigotry towards Muslims first.

No, I am not missing the point It all comes down to racism, and to me it adds a double meaning when you factor in Obama is black as well. IMO.

I see it as a way to call him a Radical, terriorist and a negative form of calling him Black as well. I think it is all lumped in together, and each part is wrong in any sense. I think people use it in two ways and both are racist. One, is being racist by thinking Muslims are all terrorists and radicals, and the other is to call him a negative form of black, without actually saying it. IMO. Both meanings is racist and wrong.

[u2sarajevo]

So..... if you call some one a Muslim you are a racist?

[Big Boy Laroux]

Silk, I agree that many negative things have been said about Obama, and I definitely voted for him, but you're very quick to raise the racist flag.

Since when is "muslim" a derogatory term for a black person?

You are correct with the statement "One, is being racist by thinking Muslims are all terrorists and radicals". That's the racist part.

[Silk Smoov]

Originally Posted by Big Boy Laroux

Silk, I agree that many negative things have been said about Obama, and I definitely voted for him, but you're very quick to raise the racist flag.

Since when is "muslim" a derogatory term for a black person?

You are correct with the statement "One, is being racist by thinking Muslims are all terrorists and radicals". That's the racist part.

I spent about two hours watching a whole show on this issue, and I have watched, listened to alot of talk, and my conclusion is that by calling Obama a Muslim has two meanings. First to assume all muslims are terrorists, and the 2nd reason to say he is a "Muslim" is to give an excuse to say you wont vote for him because he is black. Either way that is racist. There have been several media pieces on this and especially in PA. They even had parts of a big Union out there knocking on doors, and all those issues came out. I am calling those who use "Muslim" in those two ways racist. Thats my point. Would you say there have been many racist statements made against Obama?

[Flacolaco]

Would you say there have been many racist statements made against Obama?

Of course there have been, but that's such a small, insignificant and ignorant part of the electorate that it's hardly worth worrying about when the election is already a given.

I'd say there have been far more racist statements made about people who don't support Obama because of his policies; which is to say calling people racist, is racist.

[rabbitproof]

Silk,

You're connecting too many dots.

Calling him a muslim is two things:
1) incorrect
2) fear-mongering- the "he's an..... Arab" woman

Now, there is definitely an anti-black thing going (see the video of the guy with the stuffed monkey animal) but I'd say there are two different elements of racism/discrimination going on: one is related to his name and the other to his father's blood. The video DirkFTW posted was about the Muslim rumors and his middle name than his African bloodlines and his physical appearance.

I'd say it's a little more "socially acceptable" to do the Muslim thing (palling around with terrorists!!) so perhaps people are disguising the anti-black thing with the Islamic stuff but we can only talk about the wrongs actually committed.

[Big Boy Laroux]

of course racist statements have been made. The guy is african-american, and there are numerous racist people in this world. He's the first legitimate african-american candidate for president. Of course race is an issue.

I'm just wondering when "muslim" became synonymous with "black". To me, it's not, and never will be. Are some Muslims black? Yes. But the majority are not.

Saying "Obama is Muslim" in a negative connotation is bigoted toward Muslims, not black people.

[rabbitproof]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

Of course there have been, but that's such a small, insignificant and ignorant part of the electorate that it's hardly worth worrying about when the election is already a given.

I'd say there have been far more racist statements made about people who don't support Obama because of his policies; which is to say calling people racist, is racist.

The fact the McCain has felt the need to reiterate things about his middle name, religious beliefs over and over leads me to believe it's not "insignificant".

But "ignorant", yes!

And people who call others racist for policy-disagreements don't even make sense.

[Silk Smoov]

Originally Posted by rabbitproof

You're connecting too many dots.

Calling him a muslim is two things:
1) incorrect
2) fear-mongering- the "he's an..... Arab" woman

Now, there is definitely an anti-black thing going (see the video of the guy with the stuffed monkey animal) but I'd say there are two different elements of racism/discrimination going on: one is related to his name and the other to his father's blood. The video DirkFTW posted was about the Muslim rumors and his middle name than his African bloodlines and his physical appearance.

I'd say it's a little more "socially acceptable" to do the Muslim thing (palling around with terrorists!!) so perhaps people are disguising the anti-black thing with the Islamic stuff but we can only talk about the wrongs actually committed.

Yes, you hit it on the head, and there were several people shown who first used the "Muslim" card then came back to say, they could not vote for him because he is black. Yes, that is what I see is going on alot of times, is that they dont want to appear as racist, so the next best thing to somewhat sound 'socially acceptable" is to call him a Muslim. Either way, it is racist. Now, not all are doing it, but I am talking about those who do it as a socially acceptable way instead of just saying you cant vote for Obama because he is black.

[Big Boy Laroux]

ok, if that's the point you were trying to make, Silk, it sure took you a while to get to it. I agree with that.

there are TONS of excuses people will make to hide the fact that they don't want to vote for him cause he's black:

"There's just something about him"
"I just don't like him for some reason"
"He's Muslim" (yes, I can see how using this fallacy is an excuse)
"He doesn't respect the flag"
"He doesn't love America"
"He doesn't put his hand over his heart"
"he was sworn in as a senator with his hand on the Quran"


all the "statements" like that could easily be disproven just by doing 5 seconds worth of research. But people hear something negative and it gives them a reason/excuse for not voting for Obama other than "he's black".