Obama's Fathers Day Speech

[RobMoney$]

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/06/15/politics/fromtheroad/entry4181891.shtml



CHICAGO, IL --Barack Obama delivered a passionate speech on fatherhood today at a south side African American church, where he called on men to take greater responsibility for their families. He spoke from the pulpit at the Apostolic Church of God, while his wife and two daughters sat with parishioners.

“We need fathers to recognize that responsibility doesn’t just end at conception. That doesn’t make you a father,” Obama said to applause and hoots from the parishioners, “What makes you a man is not the ability to have a child- any fool can have a child. That’s doesn’t make you father. It’s the courage to raise a child that makes you a father.”

Obama, whose father abandoned him when he was two years old, said he understands the difficulties of growing up in a single parent home. He added that his father’s absence has taught him how to be a better parent to his two daughters, Sasha and Malia.

“I resolved many years ago that it was my obligation to break the cycle, that if I could be anything in life, I would be a good father to my children; that if I could give them anything, I would give them that rock, that foundation, on which to build their lives.”

He called on parents to instill an “ethic of excellence” in their children, expecting them to strive for the high goals. While recalling a brief speech that he had given to a graduating class of eighth grade girls, Obama said he was surprised by all the “pomp and circumstance” of the ceremony.

“It’s just eighth grade,” he said and later added, “an eighth-grade education doesn’t cut it today. Let’s give them a handshake and tell them to get their butts back in the library.”

He noted that many African Americans didn’t support him initially because they didn’t believe that a black man could be elected president. “What was interesting was how many people would come up to me and say ‘oh Barack, we love you man, we’re rooting for you but we just don’t think that a black man can be elected president,” Obama recalled.

“I mean we had already defeated ourselves before we even started. We didn’t set high enough expectations for ourselves, we believed that somebody else can do it but we can’t do it. And that filters down to our children.”

Obama, who left Trinity United Church almost a month ago, attended the Apostolic Church of God today because of his close relationship to former pastor, Bishop Arthur Brazier. It is the also one of the largest African American churches in Chicago.



I think I liked it better coming from Laurence Fishburne in Boyz In The Hood.

I hear he's also for less Pollution, against Global Warming, and better race relations too.

[funk63]

I hear hes an ecoterrorist

[DroppinScience]

Good for him for saying what needs to be said.

[yeahwho]

Much better than Bush's, McCain's or Clinton's Fathers Day speech.

I know it may seem as if the press is pandering to Obama, but actually he is genius in taking opportunity and exploiting it all the way to the front page.

If I were McCain I'd fire my publicist. The press would of been obligated to share perspective if only he would of had the foresight to speak about Fathers Day.

Clinton is par for the course missing opportunities,

Bush is incompetent and we as a nation think thats cute. Isn't he cute.

[RobMoney$]

Apparently it's ok if Obama says it, but if Bill Cosby says the same thing he's a sell out. Hell, even Farrakhan had the same message (Million Man March) and I don't think that'd qualify him to be president anymore than it does Obama.


How utterly generic and safe of him.

[roosta]

We need a Rob Money / Obamawatch Forum...

[DroppinScience]

Apparently it's ok if Obama says it, but if Bill Cosby says the same thing he's a sell out. Hell, even Farrakhan had the same message (Million Man March) and I don't think that'd qualify him to be president anymore than it does Obama.


How utterly generic and safe of him.

Do you really hate Obama THAT much?

Look, I'd largely consider myself a supporter of him, but even I come up with legitimate and important criticism of him (i.e. the Wal-Mart and his economic policies). All I've seen from you is the most inane and frivolous criticism that basically comes down to "damned if you do, damned if you don't." It really doesn't matter for you because all you want to do is hate him because he defeated your candidate.

If Obama gave a speech on Father's Day that avoided criticizing deadbeat dads in the black community, you'd also jump on him.

[RobMoney$]

I TAKES CARE OF MY KIDS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpUSElgJcyI)

[Dorothy Wood]

yeah, I don't understand what your problem is? what would you have rather he said?

like, oh he's saying things that are good and normal...whoaaaa, that's awful!

my father is a a dead beat dad, so I agree with what he said.

I also agree with boyz in the hood.

[RobMoney$]

My problem is I knew the Obama-trons would be on this story trying to heap praise on Obama for essentially nothing.

[Bob]

i think "obamaton" would be a better insult than obama-tron. because "obamaton" sounds like "automaton" which, in addition to being an actual word, actually describes the state of mind that you're accusing the person you're insulting of having. "obama-tron" just kind of sounds like a superhero

[QueenAdrock]

My problem is I knew the Obama-trons would be on this story trying to heap praise on Obama for essentially nothing.

I didn't see any "Obama-trons" on this story heaping praise. I see you dissing the story, and the supporters coming to his defense. There's a big difference between trying to suck the guy's dick every chance they get, and simply defending him when they believe there's no need for an attack.
I mean, I don't see one "Look at what Obama did that was great" thread on the entire first page; most of the Obama threads are started by you. There's no one really heaping praise on him here every chance they get, just people who agree with him and argue their side when necessary. So, I guess I just don't get where you're coming from.

[yeahwho]

My problem is I knew the Obama-trons would be on this story trying to heap praise on Obama for essentially nothing.

I replied with this,

I know it may seem as if the press is pandering to Obama, but actually he is genius in taking opportunity and exploiting it all the way to the front page.

that is something (not nothing as you essentially think it is in a post you started) the other candidates just don't grasp opportunities like his campaign, right, wrong or indifferent this is how savvy his campaign is. He'll slam dunk the presidency.

[RobMoney$]

I didn't see any "Obama-trons" on this story heaping praise. I see you dissing the story, and the supporters coming to his defense. There's a big difference between trying to suck the guy's dick every chance they get, and simply defending him when they believe there's no need for an attack.
I mean, I don't see one "Look at what Obama did that was great" thread on the entire first page; most of the Obama threads are started by you. There's no one really heaping praise on him here every chance they get, just people who agree with him and argue their side when necessary. So, I guess I just don't get where you're coming from.


I made this thread the evening of Fathers day, probably hours after the story of this speech broke. I didn't really give you guys a chance to make a positive thread about the speech, and that was my intent.

and I was talking about sentiment like this:

Good for him for saying what needs to be said.

Sheep.



And Obamatons does have a better ring to it. I'll use it.

[DroppinScience]

I repeat:

Look, I'd largely consider myself a supporter of him, but even I come up with legitimate and important criticism of him (i.e. the Wal-Mart and his economic policies). All I've seen from you is the most inane and frivolous criticism that basically comes down to "damned if you do, damned if you don't." It really doesn't matter for you because all you want to do is hate him because he defeated your candidate.

I won't hold my breath for a direct reply, but thanks for oversimplifying everything once again.

[QueenAdrock]

I made this thread the evening of Fathers day, probably hours after the story of this speech broke. I didn't really give you guys a chance to make a positive thread about the speech, and that was my intent.

and I was talking about sentiment like this:



Sheep.


You gave us plenty of time to talk about how great it was that he filled sandbags to help with flooding in the midwest, but no one said anything about that. Like I've said, I don't see any threads that really praise him for things he's done well. Most of the Obama threads are criticisms/critiques and ensuing discussions...including Brett's. So I don't get how you can call him a sheep, when he clearly has issues with some of the things that Obama has said/done. A sheep is someone who blindly follows someone or something and is immune to people saying bad things about their candidate. I don't know of anyone on this forum who blindly follows Obama. There are a lot of people who really like Obama here, but that doesn't mean they're sheep who are impervious to any criticisms of their candidate of choice.

[RobMoney$]

During the Democratic Primaries the media and everyone on here was an adamant supporter of Obama. Yeahwho was downright emotional about Hillary refusing to drop out of the race. Now that he's lost a bit of his luster everyone seems to have backed off their original support for Obama, but I'm going to hold you all to it. I was the only one who criticized him from the begining. Now that the rest of the talking heads in TV and Media are starting to see through Obama, you're all following suit.

JUST LIKE THE SHEEP THAT YOU ARE!

And if the media decide to fall in love with him again, so will the majority of the folks who post here I bet.

This is the candidate you and your generation wanted, don't back off of your support for him at the first sign of criticism. I have more respect for sheep than spineless sheep.

[D_Raay]

During the Democratic Primaries the media and everyone on here was an adamant supporter of Obama. Yeahwho was downright emotional about Hillary refusing to drop out of the race. Now that he's lost a bit of his luster everyone seems to have backed off their original support for Obama, but I'm going to hold you all to it. I was the only one who criticized him from the begining. Now that the rest of the talking heads in TV and Media are starting to see through Obama, you're all following suit.

JUST LIKE THE SHEEP THAT YOU ARE!

And if the media decide to fall in love with him again, so will the majority of the folks who post here I bet.

This is the candidate you and your generation wanted, don't back off of your support for him at the first sign of criticism. I have more respect for sheep than spineless sheep.

From my experience on this board you may want to look elsewhere for mindless drones who blindly follow talking points and have no presumptive interest in critical thinking.

You know why we like Obama? Because he is the ONLY legitimate chance for a change, however slight that may be. The working class in this country have been beaten while they are down for a long time now.

Hell, you may be right Rob, it's impossible to tell at this point just what kind of president he would make and if he will followthrough and really cut off special interests in this country, but I am quite certain that the other candidates we were force fed would not.

[abcdefz]

During the Democratic Primaries the media and everyone on here was an adamant supporter of Obama. Yeahwho was downright emotional about Hillary refusing to drop out of the race. Now that he's lost a bit of his luster everyone seems to have backed off their original support for Obama, but I'm going to hold you all to it. I was the only one who criticized him from the begining. Now that the rest of the talking heads in TV and Media are starting to see through Obama, you're all following suit.

JUST LIKE THE SHEEP THAT YOU ARE!

And if the media decide to fall in love with him again, so will the majority of the folks who post here I bet.

This is the candidate you and your generation wanted, don't back off of your support for him at the first sign of criticism. I have more respect for sheep than spineless sheep.



What the fuck are you talking about?

[QueenAdrock]

The media didn't tell Brett that Obama's economic policies/Wal-mart support was something to be shunned. I haven't heard a damn thing from the media about that. That's Brett's own brain processing something he read and having an opinion about it.

talking heads in TV and Media are starting to see through Obama, you're all following suit.

JUST LIKE THE SHEEP THAT YOU ARE!

That is absolutely laughable. You are the one who constantly quotes criticisms of Obama that you see in the media. You saw something about Reverend Wright on TV and people bashing on it, you post it up and criticize Obama. You see something about elitism in the news and the media asking whether he's a good candidate because of that, you post it up and criticize Obama. You see that Hamas endorses Obama and the media saying it could potentially harm him, you post it up and criticize Obama. You hear from the media that Obama could have possibly plagarized a speech, you post it up and criticize Obama. I haven't seen one article/talking point that you have brought up that hasn't been brought up and beaten to death by Fox News first. None of your criticisms of Obama are original. Yet you still somehow think that you have authority to call other people sheep.

Not only that, you say he's a sheep if he praises Obama, and he's a sheep if he criticizes Obama. Which one is it?

don't back off of your support for him at the first sign of criticism.
I don't know of ANYONE in this forum who has backed off of their support of Obama due to criticisms. We have discussions over what we heard, what we believe, how it affects our views, etc. Not one person here has said "I don't know if I want to support him because of X,Y,Z." You may not agree with everything that your candidate says while still supporting him. I've said that I don't agree with everything he's said/done, but I absolutely still support him 100% because he's the best choice for our country, out of everyone who was running during the primary.

If you think criticism is a sign of wavering support for a politician, you should join the Bush Camp. They won't allow any kind of criticisms of their candidate or decisions; doing so means you're a traitor.

[yeahwho]

During the Democratic Primaries the media and everyone on here was an adamant supporter of Obama. Yeahwho was downright emotional about Hillary refusing to drop out of the race.

Sometimes I may have a bit of emotion in my writing, which I'll take as a compliment, but overall I did support Obama completely and have absolutely no regrets for doing so. He was thoroughly impressive when he made statements about Pakistan (http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0132206420070801) and Hillary Clinton's objections only emboldened my decision.

In August 2007, for instance, Obama said: "There are terrorists holed up in [Pakistan's] mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. ... If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and [the Pakistani government] won't act, we will."

This is one such instance of enlightened thinking that it surprised me how anyone can actually say Obama will coddle the terrorists, he said it, later he was proved correct (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/28/world/asia/28pakistan.html) beyond Clinton's, Bush's and McCain's criticisms. He stood out head and shoulders above his opponents as much more savvy on the war on terrorism.

So yes not only will I accept your hyperbole of emotion, I'll add it to my balance and foresight to realize which candidate will best navigate us out of the fucking mess left from the great GWB policies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq), and the sheep that blindly followed him.

[DroppinScience]

So no matter what we do, no matter what we say, RobMoney has trapped us in his game.

If we heap nothing but praise for Obama, we're sheep with no critical thinking skills. If we find something to criticize about Obama (thus, exercising critical thinking skills), we're not just sheep... we're *gasp* spineless sheep!

I guess it's time to throw in the towel. RobMoney, you win. :rolleyes:

[yeahwho]

So no matter what we do, no matter what we say, RobMoney has trapped us in his game.

If we heap nothing but praise for Obama, we're sheep with no critical thinking skills. If we find something to criticize about Obama (thus, exercising critical thinking skills), we're not just sheep... we're *gasp* spineless sheep!

I guess it's time to throw in the towel. RobMoney, you win. :rolleyes:

Trapped (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXArxxN1qKE) in phobic isolationist view of the singular political mind. Utopianism in anyone leader is the reason for balance and checks in our society, it's never going to happen. In a democracy, each citizen should be profoundly unhappy with the person they're voting for. We should all feel compromised. Why? Because our government is representative and should be as wonderful, wicked, magical, inefficient, benevolent, and contradictory as any one American.

[DroppinScience]

This is the candidate you and your generation wanted, don't back off of your support for him at the first sign of criticism. I have more respect for sheep than spineless sheep.

Ok, this is something I wish to address directly. If I or others criticize Obama for such things as Wal-Mart connections or pandering to Israel or whatnot, my disappointment isn't necessarily for the man Obama himself, for my discontent is much larger than any one man or woman (because keep this in mind, the likes of McCain or Clinton do these very same things, if not more blatantly). It is for the system as a whole that forces good men like Obama to do these things in order to be elected.

You oversimplify the matter and are simply just looking for things to tear apart, regardless of whether it's valid or not. For you, things are only black and white, while the rest of us see the shades of grey.

[RobMoney$]

Ok, this is something I wish to address directly. If I or others criticize Obama for such things as Wal-Mart connections or pandering to Israel or whatnot, my disappointment isn't necessarily for the man Obama himself, for my discontent is much larger than any one man or woman (because keep this in mind, the likes of McCain or Clinton do these very same things, if not more blatantly). It is for the system as a whole that forces good men like Obama to do these things in order to be elected.


Are you serious?
Are you really giving me "the system is keeping a Brotha down"?

That's absolutely laughable.

[alien autopsy]

From my experience on this board you may want to look elsewhere for mindless drones who blindly follow talking points and have no presumptive interest in critical thinking.

You know why we like Obama? Because he is the ONLY legitimate chance for a change, however slight that may be. The working class in this country have been beaten while they are down for a long time now.

Hell, you may be right Rob, it's impossible to tell at this point just what kind of president he would make and if he will followthrough and really cut off special interests in this country, but I am quite certain that the other candidates we were force fed would not.


if he stood for the real change this country needs, he would be dead by now, or at least, certainly out of the race

the fact that the media pays so much attention to him is alarm enough to know that its all a game.

[Dorothy Wood]

this thread is completely frustrating.

clearly, you have to play a game to get elected to anything. I think the fact that the man can keep a level head and still come off as genuine day in and day out speaks volumes about his character.

he may lack experience and whatever else, but people are responding to him as a person who seems like he wants to make the world a better place.

I honestly don't understand why that's bad.

and what's the point of criticizing something completely benign when he's the nominee! it's official, so...what? you want mccain to win now?

[Bob]

'

[D_Raay]

this thread is completely frustrating.

clearly, you have to play a game to get elected to anything. I think the fact that the man can keep a level head and still come off as genuine day in and day out speaks volumes about his character.

he may lack experience and whatever else, but people are responding to him as a person who seems like he wants to make the world a better place.

I honestly don't understand why that's bad.

and what's the point of criticizing something completely benign when he's the nominee! it's official, so...what? you want mccain to win now?

(y):)

[QueenAdrock]

Nigga Please.

If it was from Brett Lambert's own little brain, then tell me something, WHO WROTE THE STORY HE LINKED US TO FROM COMMONDREAMS.ORG that his entire thread was based on?

http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/showpost.php?p=1590972&postcount=1

Is Brett Lambert now contributing articles to that website under the alias Josh Gerstien? The entire first post is little more than a quote of the article from a MEDIA STORY!

The Obama Wal-Mart controversy was just a big of a story in the media as almost any of the threads I made.

If you read what I said, you'd realize I didn't say the idea came from Brett's brain. I said "That's Brett's own brain processing something he read and having an opinion about it."

There's a difference between reading a news story that you can interpret for yourself, and getting force-fed the media's beliefs on a certain news story and repeating them. Brett does the first, you do the second. Commondreams didn't tell him what to think, they just wrote it. He used HIS BRAIN to come to HIS OWN CONCLUSIONS about what he read. He has critical thinking skills, and can come to the conclusion that since he doesn't like Walmart or their practices, Obama's ties makes him uncomfortable. Other news stories, such as fist-bumps or whatever else that doesn't matter at all, he brushes off as being irrelevant and off-topic. He can decide between "this is a worthwhile thing to be worried about" versus "this is something the media's trying to blow up and I'm not going to bother with."

You hear other people's foregone conclusions (i.e., Fox News et al) about Reverend Wright, Hamas, flag pins, whatever other meaningless bullshit the media spews out that is irrelevant to Obama's actual views and are just sensationalist stories that they produce to get ratings, and then you repeat it here. You seem to lack the same critical thinking, you just post up whatever is the smear story of the week, regardless of how trite it is, and start bashing on Obama because of it. There's a big difference, and you know it.

Thus it being laughable that you call Brett a "sheep" to the media.

[NoFenders]

he may lack experience and whatever else, but people are responding to him as a person who seems like he wants to make the world a better place.

I honestly don't understand why that's bad.



It's not bad, it's just not reality.

:cool:

[yeahwho]

It's not bad, it's just not reality.

:cool:

Political ideology is not reality, perception is the product. The best perception is being sold by Barack. He made a Fathers Day speech and McCain did not. The perception is being purchased by the populist.

[NoFenders]

Political ideology is not reality, perception is the product.

In this part of the game maybe not. But eventually reality will kick ya in the ass.

:cool:

[yeahwho]

In this part of the game maybe not. But eventually reality will kick ya in the ass.

:cool:

Totally agree with you, because the reality is, as I've already pointed out several times in this thread, McCain made no Fathers Day speech and Obama did. McCain had no free press and Obama was in the headlines on paper and the internets, just for talking.

The reality is Obama has a powerhouse campaign rolling across all aspects of media and exploiting oppurtunity to the maximum.

Which tells me and millions of voters he is very astute and ready. That reality is kicking McCains butt.

[DroppinScience]

Are you serious?
Are you really giving me "the system is keeping a Brotha down"?

That's absolutely laughable.

Rob,

Your arguing tactics are the ones that are laughable. Well, they would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.

You come on here and try to pick fights with everyone and hurl insults, insinuations, and accusations that range from woefully misguided to downright malevolent, for no apparent reason but to be a douchebag which is something you would expect out of someone who has been banned twice and is universally loathed, so you play the part well. If there was a vacancy on "The O'Reilly Factor," you'd make a great replacement.

But here's the thing: we rebutt you time and time again. We answer to your stupidity... and then some. And what do you do? You ignore them, unable to even address the issue anymore, and pick a red herring argument out of maybe a sentence or a word and take it out of context and go off on a tangent that has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

And I like how all you come up with is: "The system is keepin' a brotha down." That's bullshit because that wasn't what I was talking about. Only you would bring up race. I'm going to explain this again. You won't comprehend it, but I'll give it another go. I'm talking about the fact Obama has to play a game in order to get elected (i.e. pander to Israel, cozy up to big business, etc.) that's anathema to what his rhetoric stands for. Don't get me wrong, this effects everyone. Even McCain, whom I have no sympathy for anymore, has to do this with cozying up to a Bush team that smeared him using racist tactics and embracing evangelicals who he previously denounced as "agents of intolerance." I'm pretty sure that's not what McCain stands for, but nevertheless, he stoops pretty low to do what he thinks needs to be done, and it's sad.

If Obama rejected the game, he'd be Ralph Nader. But Nader doesn't make it to the White House, so he's doing what he feels must be done. It's just the way it is, sadly.

[NoFenders]

Totally agree with you, because the reality is, as I've already pointed out several times in this thread, McCain made no Fathers Day speech and Obama did. McCain had no free press and Obama was in the headlines on paper and the internets, just for talking.

The reality is Obama has a powerhouse campaign rolling across all aspects of media and exploiting oppurtunity to the maximum.

Which tells me and millions of voters he is very astute and ready. That reality is kicking McCains butt.


You really need to get over yourself. You sound like a third grader.

:cool:

[QueenAdrock]

Totally. If only I had a nickel for everytime I heard a third grader use the term "powerhouse campaign rolling across all aspects of media and exploiting oppurtunity to the maximum." That completely sounds something like an 8-year-old would say.

[yeahwho]

You really need to get over yourself. You sound like a third grader.

:cool:

In order to converse with you I may need to lower the bar to pre-school.

[NoFenders]

Totally. If only I had a nickel for everytime I heard a third grader use the term "powerhouse campaign rolling across all aspects of media and exploiting oppurtunity to the maximum." That completely sounds something like an 8-year-old would say.

I used bigger words in 2nd grade.

Just because you know how to use words, doesn't mean you know what you're saying.

:cool:

[NoFenders]

In order to converse with you I may need to lower the bar to pre-school.

I'd rather you didn't converse with me if it's all the same.

:cool:

[yeahwho]

I'd rather you didn't converse with me if it's all the same.

:cool:

Not a problem bucko, you've annoyed just about everybody you've conversed with today anyway, I'm sure having someone like me calling you on your utter bullshit posts only makes your opinion (or lack of) even more insignificant.

Always nice to see you here though, makes me happy I'm not so disenfranchised by society. Your may actually miss George W. Bush, you both make about as much sense when you speak.

[Documad]

I guess I don't understand what the problem is. Rob liked Clinton better than Obama but I think he said that he's going to vote for Obama and not McCain. Am I remembering that wrong? I think it would be helpful if we try to understand where our fellow democrats are coming from without kicking the shit out of each other. Our side has been fucked up for way too long already.


I'm not speaking for Rob, but speaking for myself, I'll say this: I get frustrated at a lot of the Obama supporters because many of the ones I know have a simplistic view of politics, they refuse to see flaws in Obama, and they seem to have strong opinions about his abilities that don't seem to be backed up by real life evidence (in my opinion). Among my real life friends, I see people who are strong supporters of Obama who did not strongly back Kerry. That's puzzling to me because there was a gigantic difference between Kerry and W the same way there is a gigantic difference between Obama and McCain (and between Gore and W). I can't help myself when I see someone being hyped beyond his demonstrated abilities. I want to say something.

I'm voting for Obama even though I didn't support him at my caucuses. I'll probably wind up working on his campaign fairly soon, just like I worked on Kerry's campaign. And I'm excited that other people are excited -- especially young people. I hope he becomes president for a bunch of reasons -- mostly how it will look to other countries where we need a dramatic image change from W, and I assume that he will appoint better judges than McCain. But I don't expect him to be radically better than any other politician and frankly in some areas I expect him to be a bit worse. But then I wasn't a huge Clinton fan in 1992 either. I hated his Arkansas friends, his money-grasping ways, his promises to change the nature of Washington (proved to be total bullshit within the first 100 days and what a stupid main goal anyhow), his pro death penalty views, and much much more. In retrospect, he was better at some things than I expected, though I still regret his conduct that helped lose the democrats the house so early in his term. A lot of people were really excited about Clinton when I was not. I was thrilled to be ending 12 years of Reagan/Bush, just like I'll be thrilled if we can end 8 years of Bush without installing an elderly nutjob, but I don't love Obama (at least not yet).

I love Michelle Obama though. I really do. And she's a big selling point. Plus there's no fucking way I'd vote for McCain so what does it really matter?

[Documad]

Also, it has to be noted that Obama's platform thus far has been "change" and newness. He hasn't shown us much depth, which is probably smart politics in 2008. But he also isn't going to be living up to the change thing all the time. We quickly learn that he is up to the same old tricks. Obama's foreign policy advisor who had to step down a couple of months ago was a big hawk on Iraq and Obama seems to have picked the same old corporate scum and political insiders to lead his team now. Maybe he has no choice. But you have to forgive us older democrats when we point out that he isn't living up to his platform.

[RobMoney$]

Rob,

Your arguing tactics are the ones that are laughable. Well, they would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.

You come on here and try to pick fights with everyone and hurl insults, insinuations, and accusations that range from woefully misguided to downright malevolent, for no apparent reason but to be a douchebag which is something you would expect out of someone who has been banned twice and is universally loathed, so you play the part well. If there was a vacancy on "The O'Reilly Factor," you'd make a great replacement.

Let's get the facts straight, I've been banned way more than twice. Even I lost count after a while. But it was for one incident, so it's not like I was being banned for multiple reasons. And that was literally YEARS ago and I fail to see what that has to do with me making my point here and now other than just trying to minimalize my point.

You call it fights, I call it debates.
There is a major difference. In fights you say personally disparaging things towards the other person, which I haven't done. I hardly call being called a sheep of the media personally disparaging. This forum, No this entire MB is here for people with common interests (the Beasties) to debate and share thoughts and opinions. I'm sorry I don't agree with the majority here in supporting Obama and that sparks a lot of differing opinions with people here. I certainly don't take anything that's posted here personal and I hope no one takes anything I post too seriously. If you do, OH WELL.
and I'll wear the "Universally loathed" title with pride. pfhahaha.

I generally think the signature function is stupid and would be in full support if the mods decided to do away with the option all together, but "Universally Loathed" is too much for my ego to pass up, so I will allow your quote to grace my profile everytime I post.
You should be honored, Brett Lambert.

Also, will you and your GF stop accusing me of repeating Fox or Bill O'Reilly's opinions. I watch neither. The threads I've made that criticize Obama have all been pretty common and widely reported stories. I've made threads criticizing McCain as well. Maybe there has been more controversy surrounding Obama because there has been more media coverage overall with Obama. Or maybe it's because Obama is generally an unknown compared to McCain & Clinton so people want more info about him, and we all know negativitity sells newspapers so negative stories are to be expected.

The Wright controversy was a major story. I think it was an appropriate topic to start a thread for discussion about.
I also made a thread supporting Obama when he finally came out and denounced Wright.
thread (http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=86600&highlight=obama)

I also made a thread about the Michelle Obama rumor saying that if it wasn't true, it was pretty disgusting.
thread (http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=87089&highlight=obama)

So it's not as if I'm just here to just bash Obama.

I start these types of threads because they merit discussion, whether you're for or against Obama, these stories were topics that I felt discussing and hearing people's opinions on.


But here's the thing: we rebutt you time and time again. We answer to your stupidity... and then some. And what do you do? You ignore them, unable to even address the issue anymore, and pick a red herring argument out of maybe a sentence or a word and take it out of context and go off on a tangent that has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

I can only take being on the internet for so long before I want to get off. If I responded to every comment in every post that was directed at me I'd be Qdrop.

And I like how all you come up with is: "The system is keepin' a brotha down." That's bullshit because that wasn't what I was talking about. Only you would bring up race.

Race really had nothing to do with that comment, genius.
Brotha is a pretty universal term here in the US.
And just show how racist I am, I'll be voting for the "Brotha" with all his entitlement programs and socialist ideas that are more than likely going to cost me more taxes over the old "Brotha" that wants to cut taxes and make more wars, just like every good Republican.

I'm going to explain this again. You won't comprehend it, but I'll give it another go. I'm talking about the fact Obama has to play a game in order to get elected (i.e. pander to Israel, cozy up to big business, etc.) that's anathema to what his rhetoric stands for. Don't get me wrong, this effects everyone. Even McCain, whom I have no sympathy for anymore, has to do this with cozying up to a Bush team that smeared him using racist tactics and embracing evangelicals who he previously denounced as "agents of intolerance." I'm pretty sure that's not what McCain stands for, but nevertheless, he stoops pretty low to do what he thinks needs to be done, and it's sad.

If Obama rejected the game, he'd be Ralph Nader. But Nader doesn't make it to the White House, so he's doing what he feels must be done. It's just the way it is, sadly.

I fully understood your point, and I broke it down to it's simpliest terms. You're blaming the system for some of Obama's faults, am I correct?
It's not really Obama's fault, it's the system...so..."the system is keeping a Brotha down" as we street saavy folks like to say.

[RobMoney$]

Damn, only 250 character limit on the signature.
Fuck a signature.

[afronaut]

If I responded to every comment in every post that was directed at me I'd be Qdrop.
Qdrop was a foe worth debating with. You could learn a thing or two from him.


And just show how racist I am, I'll be voting for the "Brotha" with all his entitlement programs and socialist ideas that are more than likely going to cost me more taxes over the old "Brotha" that wants to cut taxes and make more wars, just like every good Republican.
So you call them socialist entitlement programs when it's Obama enacting them, but "good ideas" when it's Hillary?

[yeahwho]

Barack Obama is obviously extremely intelligent, his remarks about the war on terror and how to minimize collateral damage have been brilliant.

People who debate this are ignorant of his IQ, do not follow politics with even a passing interest or are in denial about it.

A graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, Obama worked as a community organizer and practiced as a civil rights attorney before serving in the Illinois Senate from 1997 to 2004. From 1992 to 2004, he also taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School. Following an unsuccessful bid for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives in 2000, he announced his campaign for the U.S. Senate in January 2003. After winning a landslide primary victory in March 2004, Obama delivered the keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in July 2004. He was elected to the Senate in November 2004 with 70% of the vote.

I would never denounce or deny John McCain's political prowess, his advisor's and campaign yes, but the man himself is a force to be reckoned with. I have nothing but respect for John McCain's patriotism and ability to "Return with Honor (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/honor/)" from the Hanoi Hilton.... October 26, 1967 - March 14, 1973. What happened between those dates I can think of no other presidential candidate enduring or comparing to. Ever. He has a very good side that is being underplayed.

My thoughts are the constant criticism of Obama are just some peoples nature and lack of critical thought.

[yeahwho]

Barack Obama is obviously extremely intelligent,

People who debate this are ignorant of his IQ, do not follow politics with even a passing interest or are in denial about it.


I have to quote myself, I just read the NYTimes columnist David Brooks (who convinced me last year to support Obama) and he is saying the above in his latest op/ed only he's making the point about a trillion billion times better than I ever could.

The Two Obamas NYTimes June 20, 2008 (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/opinion/20brooks.html?em&ex=1214193600&en=00c95f8ea46a7c37&ei=5087%0A), below is an excerpt from this insightful view of Obama,

God, Republicans are saps. They think that they’re running against some academic liberal who wouldn’t wear flag pins on his lapel, whose wife isn’t proud of America and who went to some liberationist church where the pastor damned his own country. They think they’re running against some naïve university-town dreamer, the second coming of Adlai Stevenson.

But as recent weeks have made clear, Barack Obama is the most split-personality politician in the country today. On the one hand, there is Dr. Barack, the high-minded, Niebuhr-quoting speechifier who spent this past winter thrilling the Scarlett Johansson set and feeling the fierce urgency of now. But then on the other side, there’s Fast Eddie Obama, the promise-breaking, tough-minded Chicago pol who’d throw you under the truck for votes.

This guy is the whole Chicago package: an idealistic, lakefront liberal fronting a sharp-elbowed machine operator. He’s the only politician of our lifetime who is underestimated because he’s too intelligent. He speaks so calmly and polysyllabically that people fail to appreciate the Machiavellian ambition inside.

But he’s been giving us an education, for anybody who cares to pay attention. Just try to imagine Mister Rogers playing the agent Ari in “Entourage” and it all falls into place. ...

[alien autopsy]

sharp elbowed machine operator? lol riiiiiiiiigggghhhhttt.

[RobMoney$]

I was a click away from starting a thread about this article myself this morning. It's funny how you took this article as supporting Obama in some way, I took it as him calling Obama an underhanded snake who changes his policies to fit the political climate of the day.

The Two Obamas
By DAVID BROOKS
Published: June 20, 2008
God, Republicans are saps. They think that they’re running against some academic liberal who wouldn’t wear flag pins on his lapel, whose wife isn’t proud of America and who went to some liberationist church where the pastor damned his own country. They think they’re running against some naïve university-town dreamer, the second coming of Adlai Stevenson.

But as recent weeks have made clear, Barack Obama is the most split-personality politician in the country today. On the one hand, there is Dr. Barack, the high-minded, Niebuhr-quoting speechifier who spent this past winter thrilling the Scarlett Johansson set and feeling the fierce urgency of now. But then on the other side, there’s Fast Eddie Obama, the promise-breaking, tough-minded Chicago pol who’d throw you under the truck for votes.

This guy is the whole Chicago package: an idealistic, lakefront liberal fronting a sharp-elbowed machine operator. He’s the only politician of our lifetime who is underestimated because he’s too intelligent. He speaks so calmly and polysyllabically that people fail to appreciate the Machiavellian ambition inside.

But he’s been giving us an education, for anybody who cares to pay attention. Just try to imagine Mister Rogers playing the agent Ari in “Entourage” and it all falls into place.

Back when he was in the Illinois State Senate, Dr. Barack could have taken positions on politically uncomfortable issues. But Fast Eddie Obama voted “present” nearly 130 times. From time to time, he threw his voting power under the truck.

Dr. Barack said he could no more disown the Rev. Jeremiah Wright than disown his own grandmother. Then the political costs of Rev. Wright escalated and Fast Eddie Obama threw Wright under the truck.

Dr. Barack could have been a workhorse senator. But primary candidates don’t do tough votes, so Fast Eddie Obama threw the workhorse duties under the truck.

Dr. Barack could have changed the way presidential campaigning works. John McCain offered to have a series of extended town-hall meetings around the country. But favored candidates don’t go in for unscripted free-range conversations. Fast Eddie Obama threw the new-politics mantra under the truck.

And then on Thursday, Fast Eddie Obama had his finest hour. Barack Obama has worked on political reform more than any other issue. He aspires to be to political reform what Bono is to fighting disease in Africa. He’s spent much of his career talking about how much he believes in public financing. In January 2007, he told Larry King that the public-financing system works. In February 2007, he challenged Republicans to limit their spending and vowed to do so along with them if he were the nominee. In February 2008, he said he would aggressively pursue spending limits. He answered a Midwest Democracy Network questionnaire by reminding everyone that he has been a longtime advocate of the public-financing system.

But Thursday, at the first breath of political inconvenience, Fast Eddie Obama threw public financing under the truck. In so doing, he probably dealt a death-blow to the cause of campaign-finance reform. And the only thing that changed between Thursday and when he lauded the system is that Obama’s got more money now.

And Fast Eddie Obama didn’t just sell out the primary cause of his life. He did it with style. He did it with a video so risibly insincere that somewhere down in the shadow world, Lee Atwater is gaping and applauding. Obama blamed the (so far marginal) Republican 527s. He claimed that private donations are really public financing. He made a cut-throat political calculation seem like Mother Teresa’s final steps to sainthood.

The media and the activists won’t care (they were only interested in campaign-finance reform only when the Republicans had more money). Meanwhile, Obama’s money is forever. He’s got an army of small donors and a phalanx of big money bundlers, including, according to The Washington Post, Kenneth Griffin of the Citadel Investment Group; Kirk Wager, a Florida trial lawyer; James Crown, a director of General Dynamics; and Neil Bluhm, a hotel, office and casino developer.

I have to admit, I’m ambivalent watching all this. On the one hand, Obama did sell out the primary cause of his professional life, all for a tiny political advantage. If he’ll sell that out, what won’t he sell out? On the other hand, global affairs ain’t beanbag. If we’re going to have a president who is going to go toe to toe with the likes of Vladimir Putin, maybe it is better that he should have a ruthlessly opportunist Fast Eddie Obama lurking inside.

All I know for sure is that this guy is no liberal goo-goo. Republicans keep calling him naïve. But naïve is the last word I’d use to describe Barack Obama. He’s the most effectively political creature we’ve seen in decades. Even Bill Clinton wasn’t smart enough to succeed in politics by pretending to renounce politics.


Before the Iraq War, Brooks argued forcefully on moral grounds for American military intervention, echoing the belief of neoconservative commentators and political figures that American and British forces would be welcomed as liberators.
I've been thinking for some time that Brooks needs a long vacation. Just get away from all of it for a little while. Just my opinion, but he's so fucking cynical lately he's almost toxic.


The above says it all. Another "Bush Hugger".

[Documad]

It's funny how we all see different things from the same source.

All I know for sure is that this guy is no liberal goo-goo. Republicans keep calling him naïve. But naïve is the last word I’d use to describe Barack Obama. He’s the most effectively political creature we’ve seen in decades. Even Bill Clinton wasn’t smart enough to succeed in politics by pretending to renounce politics.

This is what I think. Obama does not embody the values that the left wing of the democrat party holds dear but they fail to see that. There's some racism there for sure. People assume he's a liberal because he's black. People fail to look behind the image at the substance. The part of that article where he voted "present" instead of voting for or against something is telling. He's been preparing for bigger things and refusing to go on the record about what he believes for a long time. There's some real risk there because we don't know what he really stands for.

In fact, Obama and Hillary Clinton have virtually the same positions on issues and they're both political animals with ugly corporate cronies. She fooled the lower income white people into thinking she embodies their values and Obama fooled the left wing democrats into thinking he embodies their values. If we could just be honest about this, I would have no trouble with the Obama fans. But they insist that he is anti-war and that he is going to change our economic structure. He's not. He has no firm plan to get out of Iraq, and I think probably no one could. He voted for funding when he didn't have to. He can't fix the economy and his plans are fuzzy. That's all fine with me because he's not McCain and McCain scares me 10 times more than Obama.

The fact that Obama's fans don't know him is fine with me because I'm not a liberal democrat. I'm a fiscally conservative democrat who thinks we need to pull the plug on a load of federal programs. Maybe Obama can do that, in part because he's a black democrat. The same way that Clinton could do very conservative things and no one seems to have noticed. But first we need the House to go back to the Republicans. Democrats need to hold the Senate though because we need to get some socially liberal judges (not just at the supreme court but in all levels of federal court). That's my dream scenario. Conservative democrat as president, Republican majority in the House, and Democratic majority in the Senate.

[Documad]

My thoughts are the constant criticism of Obama are just some peoples nature and lack of critical thought.
I find this insulting, though I doubt it was directed at me.

I have strong critical thinking skills and I am entitled to voice my opinion. I will own up to my nature. It is true that it is my nature to point out the flaws in something when I believe that other people fail to see the flaws. That doesn't mean that I fail to see the positives but when the positives are obvious it seems silly to say them over and over with the chorus of other people who also see them. Yes, Obama is extraordinarily good at giving speeches for instance. I just don't see that as the most important criteria in picking a president. And yes he is a very intelligent guy. So were all of the endorsed democratic candidates in my lifetime. I will bet that Cheney, Rove, and all of the ghouls who have been running our country are smart too. Even Bush is smarter than people believe. He's so smart he plays dumb. Smart people make really dumb decisions sometimes. That's why Halberstam called his book The Best and the Brightest.

[yeahwho]

I was a click away from starting a thread about this article myself this morning. It's funny how you took this article as supporting Obama in some way,
It's funnier how you misconstrued my statement, I did not say this was an article of support, what it is to me is a look at brains, IQ, the ability to handle all of the nuances and pressures put upon a candidate (He has had some of the most amazing criticisms of any presidential candidate in recent history) and come out on top is what I'm trying to portray. Not a statement of support, though Brooks did convince me last year.

The rest of your snake in the grass analogy is cool. Here is the point I was originally trying to make, but I'm nowhere as good a writer as Brooks (his lead up to the Iraq war statements garnered Brooks 30,000 emails/letters a day over a quarter million in the end still he's a good writer) that Obamas IQ is vastly underestimated.

All I know for sure is that this guy is no liberal goo-goo. Republicans keep calling him naïve. But naïve is the last word I’d use to describe Barack Obama. He’s the most effectively political creature we’ve seen in decades. Even Bill Clinton wasn’t smart enough to succeed in politics by pretending to renounce politics.


I find this insulting, though I doubt it was directed at me.


What I'm seeing is a grass roots hate affair, those who feel somehow betrayed because Clinton did not charm like millions thought she would, a carry over of the Clinton campaign's criticisms brought into this campaign.

I could care less if people are hyper-critical about Obama, the thing I'm trying to understand is this, eventually it's the reasons you support a candidate that tip the scale, positivity at some point should make the choice.

I'm guilty of this in one of the bigger reasons I chose Barack was it broke the Bush/Clinton cycle of politics, breaking that cycle, I see as nothing but good.

One of many factors of my choice for Obama was this statement by Brooks back on December 18, 2007....

If Clinton were running against Obama for Senate, it would be easy to choose between them.

But they are running for president, and the presidency requires a different set of qualities. Presidents are buffeted by sycophancy, criticism and betrayal. They must improvise amid a thousand fluid crises. They’re isolated and also exposed, puffed up on the outside and hollowed out within. With the presidency, character and self-knowledge matter more than even experience. There are reasons to think that, among Democrats, Obama is better prepared for this madness.

....read on (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/18/opinion/18brooks.html?_r=1&em&ex=1198126800&en=ac4444e0692ba0ea&ei=5087%0A&oref=slogin),

What I feel it boils down to is this, the hope of the American Dream can be fulfilled at some point or we just continue to flail away drowning in cynicism. Barack Obama is best suited to do the former. Once all of the criticisms and attacks are done, I feel his message of hope and real change is genuine.

[DroppinScience]

It's funny how we all see different things from the same source.



This is what I think. Obama does not embody the values that the left wing of the democrat party holds dear but they fail to see that. There's some racism there for sure. People assume he's a liberal because he's black. People fail to look behind the image at the substance. The part of that article where he voted "present" instead of voting for or against something is telling. He's been preparing for bigger things and refusing to go on the record about what he believes for a long time. There's some real risk there because we don't know what he really stands for.

In fact, Obama and Hillary Clinton have virtually the same positions on issues and they're both political animals with ugly corporate cronies. She fooled the lower income white people into thinking she embodies their values and Obama fooled the left wing democrats into thinking he embodies their values. If we could just be honest about this, I would have no trouble with the Obama fans. But they insist that he is anti-war and that he is going to change our economic structure. He's not. He has no firm plan to get out of Iraq, and I think probably no one could. He voted for funding when he didn't have to. He can't fix the economy and his plans are fuzzy. That's all fine with me because he's not McCain and McCain scares me 10 times more than Obama.

The fact that Obama's fans don't know him is fine with me because I'm not a liberal democrat. I'm a fiscally conservative democrat who thinks we need to pull the plug on a load of federal programs. Maybe Obama can do that, in part because he's a black democrat. The same way that Clinton could do very conservative things and no one seems to have noticed. But first we need the House to go back to the Republicans. Democrats need to hold the Senate though because we need to get some socially liberal judges (not just at the supreme court but in all levels of federal court). That's my dream scenario. Conservative democrat as president, Republican majority in the House, and Democratic majority in the Senate.

I think this post is proof positive that you are an invaluable contribution to this forum. (y)

[D_Raay]

When the republicans come to their senses I would agree with you Documad, they are power-drunk right now.

[RobMoney$]

The part of that article where he voted "present" instead of voting for or against something is telling. He's been preparing for bigger things and refusing to go on the record about what he believes for a long time. There's some real risk there because we don't know what he really stands for.


I've long thought the voting "Present" thing would become a big issue as we near November.

[yeahwho]

The internet has defined information to an exact science. One of the best places I've found is here, Project Vote Smart (http://www.votesmart.org/program_about_pvs.php), on this site you can look at our candidates voting records, Obama's (http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490), McCains (http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=53270) and even Hillary's (http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=55463). All of the yeas, nays and non-votes are clearly marked by category.

I'm ecstatic that Obama is running for President of the United States, I fully support him and his campaign. Call me an Obama-mama-tama-gama-rama-llama-dama-sama-bitch, don't care, Kucinich was my lefty liberal tree humping-Bush impeaching-peace nik man, but reality is, somebody has to soften this world down, it ain't gonna be McCain.

[yeahwho]

Since this thread is about Fathers day here is some insight into John McCains Father (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_S._McCain%2C_Jr.) and Grandfather (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_S._McCain%2C_Sr.#Family_and_marriage), both were admirals in the US Navy, that is very impressive in itself, let alone the history of John McCain III's own service record.

That will be the story of significance as this campaign year heats up, not voting records (voting records always place 3rd or 4th many times lower than character in these campaigns.. look at history). What tips the vote is perception, perception is how Bush scared the electorate into a second term.

[alien autopsy]

id never vote for someone who has spent generations fighting wars.

being in the army or navy is nothing to be proud of. it is selling your soul, with the possibility that you might kill someone someday, maybe an innocent person or child. and most typically for no good reason.

[Bob]

id never vote for someone who has spent generations fighting wars.

being in the army or navy is nothing to be proud of. it is selling your soul, with the possibility that you might kill someone someday, maybe an innocent person or child. and most typically for no good reason.



i just want to pinch your cheeks!

[afronaut]

Conservatives get blamed for viewing the world as being black and white a lot. And I certainly won't deny that. But has anyone else noticed that the more naive/extreme liberals live in an equally black and white world?

[yeahwho]

Conservatives get blamed for viewing the world as being black and white a lot. And I certainly won't deny that. But has anyone else noticed that the more naive/extreme liberals live in an equally black and white world?

I think it's a little late in the game to be centrist, if that comment is aimed at me, certain elements of reality and policies of government will never gel, we're in a pretty big jam here on earth and urgency is going to be needed sooner or thrust upon us later.

Two stories that caught my eye this week, both hit home

20-Year Intense Downpours to Occur Every 6 Years (http://www.abcnews.go.com/Technology/Weather/story?id=5204034&page=1)

The other is the ongoing saga of Iraq, one step forward (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/22/opinion/22friedman.html?em&ex=1214280000&en=73e9f3e466cb979e&ei=5087%0A), two steps back (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gkx-3oYeFwuWKCusr2jrojs98w8wD91CGJNO0)

I feel I'm very informed and cautiously balanced, I have no support phobia like most of the other posters onboard this site. I feel because I'm actually supporting or endorsing a candidate, many here think I'm fucked up.

[afronaut]

I think it's a little late in the game to be centrist, if that comment is aimed at me,

No, it was aimed at this:

id never vote for someone who has spent generations fighting wars.

being in the army or navy is nothing to be proud of. it is selling your soul, with the possibility that you might kill someone someday, maybe an innocent person or child. and most typically for no good reason.

Anyway, I wouldn't call myself a centrist. I just think a lot of liberals live in a black and white world, too.

[yeahwho]

No, it was aimed at this:
Anyway, I wouldn't call myself a centrist. I just think a lot of liberals live in a black and white world, too.

I have aa on ignore ever since flight 77, aa is nutty as in "certified" ... when someone gives you the facts to disclaim them then still try to debate with imaginary facts... yikes. Anyway my mix-up, I should take aa off the ignore. I'm afraid the minute I do there will be mass copy and paste with links to Willie Nelson.

I think I'm frustrated only because I've openly supported Barack Obama and nobody else will openly support a candidate, to me not supporting a candidate is not a gray area or is it a gray way of thinking, it's politically safe and convenient to not risk anything, this was Kerry's downfall, he falsely believed the voters would step up to the plate and call bullshit on 527 groups false accusations, they didn't.

Besides afronaut, you've always had very astute and nuanced replies