Oh, for the love of...really? This your usual way of framing uncertainty? http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=6643070&postcount=151 (Countless others. Pleeeeeeease). No, he wasn't, but then you know that, as this has been dealt with over hundreds of posts over numerous months by numerous people already. He also went to a catholic school, during those same years. The "muslim school" he went to in fact was a multicultural institution, that respected childrens' family faiths, but then you know that, as this has been dealt with over hundreds of posts over numerous months by numerous people already. His dad was a typical Indonesian muslim, which apparently combines Islam with traditional Indonesian animistic and traditional beliefs. All detailed in Obama's book - you know, if you actually read something worthwhile, beyond "Getmesumsmears.com". Beyond, and more to your point, my dad was a worshipper of the corvus corax. Halloween sucked, since all we got were feathers to wear. Your point? Yeah, yeah, we know - Al Qaeda plant, overthrow of the U.S., got it. Believe me, we got it. Course, the Jewish folks on Obama's team must really be either duped, stupid, or self-loathing, but, as usual, Jer, great point....yeah! He...he...had a disagreement with a Jewish guy????? Seeeeeeeeeeeee? Confession to make, I once tossed my high-school girlfriend Beth Karlsberg a nasty stare, once, for not taking the schmatte off the charoses I just made. What a nudnick I was! Finally, and again: The above notwithstanding, WHO CARES IF HE IS OR ISN'T A MUSLIM? Cannot Muslims be Americans, loyal and loving to their land? During WWII, was it right and proper to dispossess, disenfranchise, uproot and imprison thousands of Japanese-Americans, simply on the basis of their Japanese ancestry? Is there ever a justification in American life for denying rights - to include running for the highest office in the land - supposedly available to any citizen, on the basis of anything approaching your fear of Islam (and, apparently, Mormons, and a host of other religions), or a person's race, for godsakes? What the hell does being American mean to you, Jeremy? Seriously?
I am British and although i would not fight in Iraq or Afghanistan as I feel the wars are unjustified and the enemy pose no threat, but if anyone invaded us I would serve the British army and defend my country.
#1 While it looked close - it actually was NOT that close. You see the Democrats use a proportion system not a "winner take all" system like the Republicans - and precisely because of that the lead which looked not that large actually was very large. Clinton stood next to chance of winning after Obama won the 10 or 11 states in a row he won after Super Tuesday. Clinton would have needed a huge move to catch up, and that was never in the cards. If the media was honest they would have reported the truth - that while the numbers looked close - Clinton's chances to actually win were tiny. #2 NO SHE DID NOT WIN THE POPULAR VOTE. Another example of the pathetic media not calling Clinton out on her BS. She LIED over and over again about this and some Clinton supporters and right wing trolls (not naming any names) have been parroting that BS since as a way to discredit Obama. It's absolute nonsense. The only way she "wins" the popular vote is by counting Michigan where Obama was not even on the ballot. That's so ridiculous it's hard to imagine anyone actually thinking this is a reasonable thing to say. And even more importantly - the popular vote is absolutely MEANINGLESS in a nomination process like the Dems use (and in the Republican system as well) --- the popular vote has never meant anything in the nomination process. Look up in 1968. Ronald Reagan beat Nixon in the popular vote and Hubert Humprhey was in 8th place in the popular vote. Yes, you read that right, 8th place. He had 2% of the popular vote to McCarthy's 38%. Do you know how much difference that made? NONE. --- If the media was doing their job everyone would know these facts. Instead they never truly called Clinton out on how ridiculous everything she was saying actually was. Her campaign was dead for ages and the media kept it on life support. It's absolute bizarro world nonsense to act like the media is what pushed her out. SHE LOST, that's what pushed her out.
Don't say the media influenced the election, or LogicFlux won't give you a ride in his black helicopter.
Technically, Germany was a non-threat. British policy made them a threat. We have to be careful evoking the Nazis constantly. WWI and WWII were much more complicated than bad guys, good guys. After all, we put Stalin in a position after the war where he nearly ruled the world. As with most wars, it was not fought for the common man, but for profit and for power.
With all due respect, using a logic like that is like saying that people that get raped, or murdered and attempted to defend themselves somehow made those people do what they did. While I will agree that the rise to power and angst the German people had in WWII is likely a direct result of the policies enacted post WWI, though blaming British policy alone on a dictator that had every intention of world domination and a world without Jews is hardly fair.
Will America (of all colors) accept this kind of nonsense: McCain says bringing home troops from Iraq: "Not That Important."
You really need to watch the video longer than 2 seconds... All one needs is about 10 seconds to put the statement into context.... Nice try. Typical Obama Camp word twisting. McCain explains what IS important is the "Casualties" both US and Iraqis, and the successes taking place that are opening up a time table for eventual with drawl. That was a pretty lame attempt at diversion.
Apparently Obama supporters are so diluted they will accept this... http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20080608_the_iran_trap/
No, it really isn't. You should watch Pat Buchanan's interview on Colbert from last week. He's got a new book out about Churchill and Hitler. A world without Jews or homosexuals. But Hitler wasn't the world's lone madman. We worked with Stalin, who was probably a bigger POS and responsible for more deaths and suffering. WWII was much, much more complicated than just "Hitler bad guy". The policies of Chamberlain and Churchill unintentionally helped nudged him towards war.
I saw that, unfortunately I have not yet purchased the book... I'm still working my way through "Flags of our Fathers". NO, he was not. Hell, Henry Ford and as much as 92% of the US population pretty much were shall we say, content with Hitler's opinions on those subjects. I don't know that he was nudged towards war. He did ignore just about every stipulation placed on Germany, post WWI, from having no navy/air force, to name a few to reclaiming land that was taken away. The UK did sit back for a time and let a lot of this happen. I really do not believe their foreign policy kicked in fully until around 1939' or shortly thereafter. For the most part, Hitler's German was left to do whatever they wanted for quite some time. No one can deny a lot of the good that came out of Hitler's German, things like the autobahn, banned smoking on buses and trains. Refused to issue ration coupons for tobacco for pregnant women. Hitler was likely the first to crack down on tobacco advertising and forbid cigarette ads that associated smoking with certain things like sports. Hell, Saddam had a pretty good health care system. Many dictators and bad people alike did a lot of good things. The trouble is, they accomplished much of this on the foot heals of all the bad and wrong doing, things like murder, rape, medical experiments, gas, firing squads, stealing... The list goes on. I just don't think that provoking a bully can be justification for a bully attacking you. Nor do I believe defending yourself from a bully is justification for that bully continuing to attack you. I'm sure in his own way Charles Manson is a good guy too...
I dunno about the first sentence, but I agree with the second. If you're out to provoke someone, or looking for trouble, you will likely find it. That's what I would like to avoid. That not approving of A, means I must be for B. No one is saying Hitler was a good guy, but it's not so simple as Hitler was pure evil and the Allies were pure goodness. I see that all of the time here, where I will say something about Bush, then say something about Clinton and the conservatives will call me a liberal and the liberals will call me a conservative, when in reality, I'm neither.
I guess that was meant more towards the pre-emtive approach to heading off the inevitable. Either way, bullies need to be knocked down from time to time. I think you could argue that a great many of Hitler's generals were pure evil. Sure, there was bad and good on both sides, but ultimately, in the end hind sight being what it is, I think the right decisions were made all around, the end eventually justified the means. Now you know how O'reilly feels.
If you're talking about Bill-Oh, I don't like him. He's an idiot. A bad parody of what people overseas think Americans are like.