President Hussaine's Website Says, "Join the Fight." Why is Hussaine endorsing violence!

[lily]

If you want to make a point, do you typically make the weakest argument you can make, or the strongest?
That's what you are accusing him of: of having taken the portions of the Bible which allow him to make his point in the most clear, definitive and powerful way he could. The only reason you dislike that is because you dislike his point!

You obviously feel we should use some parts of the Bible to guide public policy and not others. But that's the very problem: how do we decide? No two Christians will agree on the exact nature of the guidance to derive from the Bible, and the bottom line is that in a secular nation, scripture shouldn't be guiding public policy, period.

We can talk about scripture. We can talk about how it could relate to policy. But in terms of our leaders using it to guide public policy, we have to fall back on the principles of the division of Church and State.

Take offense to those principles if you will, but Obama is not responsible for them, and it isn't honest to call him the Great Divider because he is able to articulate strong examples of why those principles are important.

Like 86 said - The Great Divider just has a ring to it, and you're scrounging for things to justify the title further than just its good ring.

Malcolm, we're getting into other topics here. I believe a president's policies obviously should be guided by the constitution first and foremost. (Another thing Obama fails at, but that's another topic). But, I disagree with your notion that a leader's faith should have no part whatsoever in their decision making. (If that is what you're saying.)

As Ron Paul put it, "The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders' political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs."

But I'm not going to argue that right now, because I need to go soon and we're already off topic.

Bottom line - There was no need to play that game. He tried to scare people in order to make his point, and that is misleading, at best. He could've said the same thing (and I would've totally agreed) in a very different way, with a different tone, and in a way that unites rather than divides.

Actually I did watch the video. I watched all the videos you posted, and you posted quite a few of them. I take the time to read what is written to me and review materials before responding to them, and would appreciate at least not being presumed to not have done so.
Look at you resorting to now put words in his mouth that he did not say. He did not say "thinks you're dumb". He did not say "thinks you're too lazy" (apathy is not laziness). You're deliberately twisting his words to refer to racially charged notions like stupidity and laziness in reference to blacks. That's simply dishonest Lily. Stop trying to win the argument for a second and take a good look at what you are doing.

I didn't put words in his mouth, if you re-read my previous post you'll see that I used the word "imply." That means, one doesn't have to say something directly to get a point across.

Not dishonest, you just saw it as a positive speech, and I saw it as demagogic and divisive.

And give pause for the thought that trying to misrepresent the president's words as divisive is in and of itself a divisive act. You're trying to create a reality in which our leader is dividing us - that creates a divisive reality.

Well, I am usually careful to not post comments or threads that are intentionally and unnecessarily divisive. (As some do here, with threads like, "Conservatives are retarded" and such.) I always try to find at least SOME common ground.

So, I don't make these charges against Obama lightly. I wouldn't say he was divisive unless I truly thought that he was. And I know I'm not the only one who can see that, there are numerous people (even some Dems) who agree.

Further more - Obama specifically refers to unions young people and blacks. Why are you singling out blacks and pretending that's the focus of his point? You don't have to answer that because there's only one reason you could be singling that out.
And apparently I listened to the video more closely than you ever did if you're going to claim you didn't hear him refer to unions and young people as well as blacks.

I mentioned class warfare in addition to race. And I also brought up divisive political rhetoric in general.

Furthermore, Obama makes perfectly clear that by friends and enemies, he means those who stand with Latinos on the issues that are important to them, and those who don't. That's what he SAYS. Again, it seems I listened much more closely than you did to your own videos so its really funny for you to day you don't feel like I listened. It is becoming apparent that I didn't listen to the version of the video that got created in your mind after you listened to it - how could I? What you confabulate is not part of the shared reality, Lily.

This is getting ridiculous. Obviously, you are seeing and hearing only the glowing "Hope and Change!" positive Obama that everyone was excited about in '08. And even I gave him the benefit of the doubt back then, for the most part. But there are way too many examples of his true colors that now when we look at these clips, if there is ANY room for "reading between the lines" - I think one would have to be naive, or perhaps in denial, to never see ANYthing negative, like divisive rhetoric, race-baiting or class warfare.

So recognizing that latinos have political allies and enemies is equivalent to saying "You can't make it in the US if you are dark-skinned or poor, there is too much racism and everyone is out to get you!"?

What "political enemies" do Latinos have? He didn't say "political opponents" (at least in that clip) he said simply "enemies." That is a very strong word, let's not deny that. And it could easily be interpreted in the wrong way IF you are right and he only meant it in the best, most mild way. But since neither you or I are inside his mind, you can't say for sure that you are right and I am wrong. We just have our opinions.

You choose to interpret it that way. Examine your choice Lily. What does it say about you?
Are you responsible for the mess Bush made? If you feel responsible for it, than I can understand you feeling Obama was including you in that speech - not because he was, but because you choose to include yourself in the group he specifically described as 'those who made the mess'. It is as simple as that.

If you recognize that all you did is cast your vote, and are not responsible for everything that Bush did, then you have no reason to feel included in that statement. Just as I cast my vote for Obama, and do not feel responsible for everything Obama has gone on to do, and would not feel included in a statement a Republican might make about the Obama administration.

I didn't vote for Bush. I didn't vote for EITHER Bush, and I have said for years that he is a globalist. So, I'm sorry but your implication that I feel guilty is silly, but it did make me laugh.

If he meant only Bush, he would've said, "Bush." He was talking about the GOP. And by repeatedly using the word "they" to a group of Democrats, it seems that his general point was conservatives. Anyway, I'm tired of all this nitpicking.

This depends entirely on who you decide he is referring to when he talks of those who created the mess. Of course, since yo've decided against all reason that he's talking about all conservatives, you're going to feel this way.
Since when has a politician blamed the acts of a previous administration on the voters? What is the likelihood that that is what he was saying? Does it make political sense to do something like that? Obama wants the voters - a lot of the people who voted for Bush turned around voted for him and helped him become president. Does it make ANY sense for him to refer to them as the problem, rather than the administration that preceded him? What makes more sense? That is what should be guiding how you interpreted his words... Sure you can have some doubts if you want, but to decide that he was talking about the voters to the exclusion of the more rational interpretation simply and efficiently shows your bias and your need to twist his statements to fit something you can attack and call divisive.

Besides, when he says he wants to listen to other people's ideas, not only is there no contradiction - since constructive ideas for moving forward are not the same as standing in the way of cleaning up the mess: it also makes it clear that he's talking about representatives, and not the voters. It is representatives that propose legislation and initiatives, not voters.

Fail, Lily. That video utterly fails to support your The Great Divider meme. Its just a catchy title, Like 86 said - and you made the mistake of trying to make it something more than that.



Do you think that by saying 'whether that's true or not', you can sweep aside my argument? That's dodging. Is it true or is it not true.

Just answer the simple question: do you expect Obama to run an election campaign by saying "the other guys are good, we're good, take your pick, its all good, we're all united"? Do you expect him to say "the other group left the economy in the worst mess its been in 80 years but out of a spirit of unity, because I said I wish to unite us, I propose that you vote for them anyway or at least ignore the mess they left us with, because if I asked you to consider not trusting them after their dismal efforts, I would be called The Great Divider by the good people of the internets"?

Just answer that before we go any further on this point. I mean really - you need to learn when to give up on a losing point. If a leader on the one hand takes the high road more than his opponents and seeks collaboration while in office, and on the other hand leads a normal competitive campaign showing the opponent's faults when its election time - you're going to call him The Great Divider? Not just divisive, but the Great Divider? Do you know the difference between winning an election, which is a battle, and running the country, which is a collaborative job? Can you show you know the difference by making a distinction between the two here?



I'm going to make the safe bet that 95% of birthers are obsessed with this issue because they dislike Obama, distrust him for other reasons than the question of where he was born, and are focusing on this issue as a means of trying to get him out of office. And with 95%, I'm being generous. Its probably closer to 99.999%. But since such estimates are very difficult to back up, lets just go by people on this board, whose motives are very clear because we all run our mouths about them all the time. On this board, you, Soylent Green, Caddis, Hadit, Big Steve, 86, Freedom and Liberty - and if I miss someone's name forgive me, consider all of you who harp about the birth certificate to be included - use this as a political attack against Obama. None of you are simply interested in the truth. You all have major axes to grind with Obama. So where are the many people here on DA who merely want the truth?



A birth certificate has been presented, yes? So now the onus is on someone to prove it is fake. For some positive evidence to be provided that it does not reflect the reality of Obama's birth. Shouldn't be too hard to come by right?

Here's a link to the letter from the Hawai'i Stade Department of Health. Please read it and then explain to me why the ball is not in the birther's camp. In the face of Obama's humoring the obsession of birthers, and their continuing paranoia without evidence, is it really so strange that people have taken to mocking them? I mean we have fun with people who wear tin foil hats to prevent the mind control rays all the time, without being accused as intimidating, marginalizing etc... people who simply want to live free from mind control, right? Its on you to provide evidence - Obama and the state of Hawai'i have delivered what was clamored for.



Well I've been abundantly clear at what I do see: bogus attempts to portray Obama as not only divisive, but as The Great Divider.
Nobody that I know of is pretending Obama is a Great Uniter. The common perception, which is based in reality, is that he has taken the high road in political skirmishes far more often than his opponents. Mid term, his own voters got upset with him because he was seen as turning the other cheek too much, and not trading punches with people who were viciously trying to shred him. I suppose you'll deny this somehow... But the person making a Great title here is you, not me. And you have utterly failed to justify it. I'll keep an open mind. You might be able to dig something else up that shows Obama is deserving of the title, but so far... zip.

M.

Way tl;dr. I did read it, actually, and I normally would finish replying point by point, but I do have to go. I have to get up early tomorrow to begin packing the rest of my stuff, as I'm moving very soon. Obviously we disagree, but I hope we can at least see that two people can be honest and sincere yet simply have different perspectives on the same thing.

[GanjaFreebird]

Well Lily, this is where I have to get serious and consider there's a very ugly side to your personality. The video above is an excerpt of a speech senator Obama gave on a very specific topic. It was on the problem of using the Bible to guide our public policy. In that context, it is not bashing Christians, not dividing anyone, but making a point that in a nation that actually understands the separation of Church and State, should not even have to be made.
Obama successfully demonstrated that the Bible is too contradictory to use to guide public policy. The many Christian cults can attest to the fact that there is a very wide range of interpretations possible from the Bible, and something can generally be found in it to support a range of undesirable actions.
This is not divisive. It might hurt your feelings, but it actually shouldn't because a lucid Christian realizes this about the Bible and would not seek to argue for it to be used to guide public policy. The only question here is: do you think he is wrong? Do you think we should use the Bible to guide public policy. If so, prepare to defend that position. And if you prevail in that argument, you will not prove that Obama is a great divider, but only that he would be mistaken in declaring the Bible should not be used to guide public policy!

So I'd have to say that's a fail.



LOL? Pitting the races against each other? How so? All he said is that Republicans were counting on folks to not vote in big enough numbers in a region that would otherwise probably elect him. He gave examples of the sectors of society that he felt Republicans would rather not vote, and those examples included unions, young people and black people.
Pitting the races together? Really?



You're full of shit here Lilly. Making an appeal to the Latino community, asking them to recognize that he has been a friend to them, is not 'us against them' rhetoric. It doesn't fan the flames of racial discord unless the appeal he is making to them is to do something against another ethnic group. So is that what he was doing in your eyes? Inciting latinos to do something against, whites? Or blacks? Or First Nations?

Utter fail Lily.



Haha... You can make anyone contradict himself by selective editing. It is quite clear to me here that Obama is referring to the obnoxious behavior of someone letting you clean up after they've made a huge mess, and standing around in your way while you do it, criticizing how you're doing the job of cleaning up after them. Its funny, and its a fair comment. There is no contradiction with him saying later on in the speech that he wants to stay open to other people's ideas. He is clarifying that he doesn't want the people who made the mess to do too much criticizing of his cleaning up their mess, BUT he is open to their ideas.

Who created the mess? Certain elected officials that came before him. Making a statement about them staying out of the way is not divisive towards the American people: it is preempting the obstructionist tactics that the GOP have used constantly during his first term.



Republicans and Democrats don't need pitting against each other, Lilly. They're already against each other in the run-up to an election. If you're going to portray as divisive, fair commentary in an attempt to show why your party is more deserving of election - then you lack the integrity to debate. I mean really? Because Obama has made efforts to unite both sides of the aisle over issues, it means he can't point fingers at the other side when he needs to win votes? So do you expect him to run a campaign saying: "Hey, vote for us, vote for the other guys... its all good, we're all one!" Seriously, Lily. I don't know what is more disturbing: the thought that you might have come up with this argument yourself, or the thought that you might have bought it from somewhere else, and ran with it, without some spark of critical thought intervening in the process.

Utter fail.



This last one is the only one I'll give some credit to. Besides being hilarious, its true that the humor was a little bit humiliating. However I don't accept the allegations that he's trying to discredit, marginalize and intimidate people into silence anymore than he is holding up a comic mirror to their actions.
After all, the birthers aren't just concerned citizens: their obsession with his birth certificate is a political attack campaign, I'm sure you will be honest enough to recognize. As such, one should hardly expect Obama to treat it with kid gloves.



Oh I'm 100% sure there are many more such 'examples'.
If perfectly normal campaign rhetoric are examples of being The Great Divider, there is a treasure trove of videos of Obama campaigning

He is renowned however for having taken the high road far more often than his rivals, in his campaigning, so your attack angle is particularly disingenuous.

M

Great points

[Malcolm Wright]

Malcolm, we're getting into other topics here. I believe a president's policies obviously should be guided by the constitution first and foremost. (Another thing Obama fails at, but that's another topic). But, I disagree with your notion that a leader's faith should have no part whatsoever in their decision making. (If that is what you're saying.)

As Ron Paul put it, "The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders' political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs."

But I'm not going to argue that right now, because I need to go soon and we're already off topic.

Bottom line - There was no need to play that game. He tried to scare people in order to make his point, and that is misleading, at best. He could've said the same thing (and I would've totally agreed) in a very different way, with a different tone, and in a way that unites rather than divides.



I didn't put words in his mouth, if you re-read my previous post you'll see that I used the word "imply." That means, one doesn't have to say something directly to get a point across.

Not dishonest, you just saw it as a positive speech, and I saw it as demagogic and divisive.




Well, I am usually careful to not post comments or threads that are intentionally and unnecessarily divisive. (As some do here, with threads like, "Conservatives are retarded" and such.) I always try to find at least SOME common ground.

So, I don't make these charges against Obama lightly. I wouldn't say he was divisive unless I truly thought that he was. And I know I'm not the only one who can see that, there are numerous people (even some Dems) who agree.



I mentioned class warfare in addition to race. And I also brought up divisive political rhetoric in general.



This is getting ridiculous. Obviously, you are seeing and hearing only the glowing "Hope and Change!" positive Obama that everyone was excited about in '08. And even I gave him the benefit of the doubt back then, for the most part. But there are way too many examples of his true colors that now when we look at these clips, if there is ANY room for "reading between the lines" - I think one would have to be naive, or perhaps in denial, to never see ANYthing negative, like divisive rhetoric, race-baiting or class warfare.



What "political enemies" do Latinos have? He didn't say "political opponents" (at least in that clip) he said simply "enemies." That is a very strong word, let's not deny that. And it could easily be interpreted in the wrong way IF you are right and he only meant it in the best, most mild way. But since neither you or I are inside his mind, you can't say for sure that you are right and I am wrong. We just have our opinions.



I didn't vote for Bush. I didn't vote for EITHER Bush, and I have said for years that he is a globalist. So, I'm sorry but your implication that I feel guilty is silly, but it did make me laugh.

If he meant only Bush, he would've said, "Bush." He was talking about the GOP. And by repeatedly using the word "they" to a group of Democrats, it seems that his general point was conservatives. Anyway, I'm tired of all this nitpicking.




Way tl;dr. I did read it, actually, and I normally would finish replying point by point, but I do have to go. I have to get up early tomorrow to begin packing the rest of my stuff, as I'm moving very soon. Obviously we disagree, but I hope we can at least see that two people can be honest and sincere yet simply have different perspectives on the same thing.

If it was way too long to read, you'll love this response.
You're making mountains out of mole hills Lily, because it serves your purpose.
Trying to make 'friends and enemies' to be 'very strong words' when they are used all the time in political parlance. Admittedly reading in between the lines to come up with 'implied' statements that when compared to what he actually says, are blatant distortions to feed your agenda. Trying to convince people Obama attacks the voters who elected the previous administration, when the only rational interpretation is that he's attacking the previous administration itself - he wants the voters to vote for him and plenty of them were disappointed with the previous administration... why on earth would he be trying to alienate them?
You first say it feels like I didn't watch the videos, then when shown I paid closer attention to what was said than you did, plead that I should be reading between the lines...

You go against the simplest explanations in order to come up with one's that might lend a bit of credence to the exaggerated title of Great Divider. And you're incapable of admitting that you're doing it.

Nothing else here to say really.

M

[GanjaFreebird]

No one has argued that we should go back to OLD covenant Mosaic laws that only applied to Israelites 3000 years ago. He did something that I see atheists do all the time, but I have never seen a Christian do. He hand-picked the most extreme, long-defunct OLD covenant laws, in order to "prove" that we shouldn't use the bible to go by public policy.

Of COURSE we shouldn't use ANY religious book as our political policy, and he only tried to make it look obvious with those biblical laws. After all, you can't just pick and choose from the Bible only what YOU think still applies, right.

How deceptive is that? Your response is probably going to be, "Well, just in case there was anyone who believes we should go by those verses, he was just trying to show why we shouldn't go by the bible." But he knows full well that there isn't a movement to throw out Jesus' words and go back to temporal laws for Israelites 3000 years ago.

So? Is your point that we shouldn't go by Judaism but rather by Christianity? But wouldn't that violate the first amendment?

So his words serve no purpose but to make people scared of Christianity (divisive), take a jab at Christians (divisive) and show us his true atheist (anti-christian?) colors. And I say that because he even took a jab at the NEW testament, with his comment about the Sermon on the Mount.

But he was completely right about all of the above, you can't take it personally.

YES, THAT IS DIVISIVE, get real! This is one of the reasons why I lean more to the conservative side than the other side. Because the message from conservatives is much more positive and inclusive, it's basically, "ANYONE can make it in the US, it doesn't matter what color skin you have or if you came from a poor family."

And most people aren't dumb enough to buy it.

So when you say, "We should listen to other ideas" - and then turn around later in the same speech and say, "But we don't want to hear you talk much, go away, you created this mess!" that is definitely divisive, mocking, and serves no purpose but to continue the "us against them" (D vs R) battle

He does have a great point though. And I love his sense of humor too.

Whether that's true or not, the point that you're missing is that he promised to put "ugly partisanship" behind us and he promised to be a "uniter" that brings people together. But his actions clearly don't match his words. That is called being dishonest, or hypocritical. Again, I'm not saying he's the only politician who has ever done that, but sheeesh. In his case it is so flagrant and such a 180 from his 2008 campaign rhetoric.

That was then and today is not 2008. Since then, lots of things have happened, including Obama being treated like TOTAL SHIT by conservatives/republicans, therefore, he doesn't owe them ANY kind of nice behavior after what they've been doing to him, so I'm GLAD that occasionally he's got enough balls to tell them to go fuck themselves, I just wished he's done it a bit more often, the same goes for Bill Clinton too.

Also, since he swore to uphold the law of the land, it is wrong and extremely arrogant for him to attack, mock, belittle or marginalize people who have every right to hold our leaders accountable and expect them to obey the freakin law!

The only people that he made fun of are those who TOTALLY deserve that, they've asked for that and they got it, sorry.

I have seen way too many instances of him grabbing any opportunity to mock, belittle or marginalize his political opponents instead of simply saying "no comment" or saying something that isn't inciting. He seems to love doing that, too.

I really like that about him, he gives assholes a taste of their own medicine and does it with one hell of a sense of humor!

But let's not pretend that Obama is a "great uniter" when the reality of how polarized this country is shows that to be untrue, not to mention the fact that we're even having this conversation.

As long as most Americans vote for him this year, obviously it's all good, right.

[GanjaFreebird]

Your basic point here seems to be "So what if he's divisive or that he mocks his opponents?"

Well, pretty much, yeah.

That is sad, that you can't see that we are supposed to be the UNITED States of America, not the Divided States.

We were NEVER "united" to begin with, that didn't happen with Obama.

And at a time when there is so much polarization and distrust among groups, we need a leader who doesn't incite more of the same, but brings people together.

Nobody "brings people together", as people are too different anyways in their views, and those who hate Obama would hate him NO MATTER WHAT, even if he was nice and sweet to them, so just to save time, he just tells him to go fuck themselves, as they wouldn't vote for him anyways, so why the fuck would he worry over them as long as most Americans are on his side?

And to answer your question, the reason it matters is because (like I said to Malcolm) one of themes he ran on was the "Let's bring people together and put ugly partisanship behind us." So that was a lie...

No, that was change of plans, as the opposition was and is acting very fucked up towards him. Either way, even if it was a lie, that's what politicians do anyways, get over it.

but I get the feeling that doesn't matter to you either. I don't know what WOULD matter to you. Maybe if he went against Israel, or sided with terrorists or took away welfare or something?

EXACTLY, and if he did any of those things, I would turn completely against him, but since he doesn't, I think I can deal with his imperfections just fine.

[GanjaFreebird]

I'm going to make the safe bet that 95% of birthers are obsessed with this issue because they dislike Obama, distrust him for other reasons than the question of where he was born, and are focusing on this issue as a means of trying to get him out of office.

EXACTLY!!

And with 95%, I'm being generous. Its probably closer to 99.999%. But since such estimates are very difficult to back up, lets just go by people on this board, whose motives are very clear because we all run our mouths about them all the time. On this board, you, Soylent Green, Caddis, Hadit, Big Steve, 86, Freedom and Liberty - and if I miss someone's name forgive me, consider all of you who harp about the birth certificate to be included - use this as a political attack against Obama.

YES YOU DID. How could you forget Snouter.

None of you are simply interested in the truth.

Thank you!!

[Malcolm Wright]

I am deeply apologetic for having left Snouter's name out of that list.
It certainly belonged there and I hope he doesn't hold it against meh.

M

[GanjaFreebird]

[optimus]

And divisive (cloaked in "humor") rhetoric aimed at Trump and any "birthers" in order to discredit, marginalize and intimidate people into silence.

LOL, awesome. It must suck to be a birther.

[lily]

You guys are in denial. That's OK, I understand. If you voted for him, supported him, and stood by to defend him time and time again over the last few years, I can understand how difficult it would be to ever admit you were wrong. Wrong about his character or his agenda. Understandable.

I do have a lot of respect for the Dems here who HAVE not only woken up but have been honest enough to admit "I was wrong about him, he is yet another corporatist phony."

I'm not saying you're being dishonest, Malcolm. Since you just got back here recently, I wasn't even aware that you were still supporting Obama. I assumed you weren't by now, but maybe I was wrong? Or you maybe you don't support his policies anymore but still defend his character? I don't want to guess, so you can clear up how you feel about him. Anyway, my point still stands that it can be hard for one to admit that they backed the wrong guy and made a mistake. Hopefully more people will put truth above pride or partisanship.

[antiquity]

Given the climate of death threats against the potential first black President, the uproar was understandable.

M

Are you saying Palin was using a death threat against Obama? And what does Obama color have to do with anything, unless you are now race baiting that is.

I am sure all presidents have received death threats and not because they were white.

[soylentgreen]

It is interesting that Obama calls the election a "fight", but can't bring himself to utter a derrogitory word against Muslim nutbag terrorists. Once again, Republicans (in Obama's view) are more dangerous than terrorists.

That being said, I really don't think it's a big deal to use the word "fight" to capture the feeling/momentum behind a political campaign. Using war words in business and politics is NORMAL. When Palin used "target", that was totally fine too. It's the same thing. Of course, the left tried to make a big stink about Palin...but won't say a thing about Obama. That's where the problem is here.

[optimus]

It is interesting that Obama calls the election a "fight",

...Except that he doesn't. Too lazy to keep up?

[soylentgreen]

...Except that he doesn't. Too lazy to keep up?

No, too bored. Can we talk about the birth certificate again?

[GanjaFreebird]

LOL, awesome. It must suck to be a birther.

[GanjaFreebird]

You guys are in denial. That's OK, I understand. If you voted for him, supported him, and stood by to defend him time and time again over the last few years, I can understand how difficult it would be to ever admit you were wrong. Wrong about his character or his agenda. Understandable.

I do have a lot of respect for the Dems here who HAVE not only woken up but have been honest enough to admit "I was wrong about him, he is yet another corporatist phony."

I'm not saying you're being dishonest, Malcolm. Since you just got back here recently, I wasn't even aware that you were still supporting Obama. I assumed you weren't by now, but maybe I was wrong? Or you maybe you don't support his policies anymore but still defend his character? I don't want to guess, so you can clear up how you feel about him. Anyway, my point still stands that it can be hard for one to admit that they backed the wrong guy and made a mistake. Hopefully more people will put truth above pride or partisanship.

No, I didn't make a mistake because Sarah Palin is MUCH worse. And until the opposition provides us with a better choice, I will continue to support Obama, indeed!

[GanjaFreebird]

, I wasn't even aware that you were still supporting Obama.

OF COURSE he supports Obama, as opposed to any Republicans, after all, he hasn't lost his mind, right. WHY? Because Obama doesn't suck as much as the Republicans, even if some of us might be a bit disappointed and expected him to be better/more liberal.

[Pho King]

This is getting ridiculous. Obviously, you are seeing and hearing only the glowing "Hope and Change!" positive Obama that everyone was excited about in '08. And even I gave him the benefit of the doubt back then, for the most part. But there are way too many examples of his true colors that now when we look at these clips, if there is ANY room for "reading between the lines" - I think one would have to be naive, or perhaps in denial, to never see ANYthing negative, like divisive rhetoric, race-baiting or class warfare.

Malcolm was raised by a black panther. Aint no way you are goona get him to criticize Obamessiah.

[hadit]

No, I didn't make a mistake because Sarah Palin is MUCH worse. And until the opposition provides us with a better choice, I will continue to support Obama, indeed!

If you voted for TFO because you feared Palin, you have bigger problems. She wasn't even running for president.

[GanjaFreebird]

If you voted for TFO because you feared Palin, you have bigger problems. She wasn't even running for president.

I supported Obama because he was much better than ANY of the Republicans that were running for election.