Comments Posted By retire05
Displaying 141 To 150 Of 231 Comments
ANOTHER ANTI-WAR FILM TANKS AT THE BOX OFFICE
#12,
tor, is that your rationale that if someone questions what it would take to make you proud of your nation, a nation that has done more to help people all around the globe than any other nation on that globe, we are under 15?My guess is that nothing we could do, besides pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan, leaving those nations to the same fate as Vietname when we listened to those on the left who said it would be fine if we did, would make you proud.
Are you not proud that you have the right to go where you want, live where you want, vote in open and free elections, work at your chosen profession, have as many children as you chose or none at all? Or do you really think that there is any social system that is superior to ours?
You are a typical leftie. When you have no argument against your own statements, insult the person that questions you.
Seems you and the radical Islamists have a lot in common; win through intimidation.
Comment Posted By retire05 On 30.03.2008 @ 11:33
"I guess that's one difference between the right and left - mostly conservatives seem to have trouble realizing that we yearn for an opportunity to be proud of the U.S."
What a pathetic little man you are if seeing New York firefighters standing on top of a still burning pile of rubble that once was the World Trade Center and was the twisted grave of almost 3,000 Americans just to hoist an American flag didn't make you proud. Or the thousands of Americans who left their homes all over the nation to volunteer (as I did for over a year) to help fellow Americans after Katrina and Rita. How sad you are not to be proud of the thousands of Americans that give of their time and money every day to make the lives of others better. I have to wonder about someone who was not proud of his nation when Americans dug in their pockets to give billions of dollars to help those affected by the horrible tsumani that took thousands of lives on another continent.
You have to wonder just exactly it would take to make someone like that proud.
Comment Posted By retire05 On 29.03.2008 @ 20:21
Rick, basically what I heard Obama say in his speech was:
Yes, Rev. Wright's statements could be considered controversial by some, but what the hell, even my own grandmother was a racist. So I guess it all evens out. My loyalties? Wright, of course. My grandmother can't give me any street cred.
Set-asides? Affirmative action? Lower test standards for employment opportunities? It ain't enough. It will never be enough. White Americans are stained with the "original sin" of slavery. And for that, you will pay, and pay, and pay.
The division of the races will continue if Hillary or that crippled old guy is elected. I am the way and the light. Only through me will this nation be able to obtain salvation from it's original sin as I am the savior.
Yes, whites often think they are disenfranchised since they are not eligible for the benefits afforded to minorities. I understand that. So what? It's not going to improve for those whites due to the evil corporations that I will tax even more, but at least they will feel better about the "white guilt" they carry around when I am the leader of the free world.
Are there black racists? Yes. But, like my middle name, it is not to be spoken of. After all, it is not their fault. Remember, they were the only people in America to be persecuted. What? What about the Native Americans? Well, they are a discussion for another day.
I guess, Rick, that pretty well sums it up. Maybe someone should ask Obama why he changed his story of his grandmother in his speech from the telling of it in his book. Or just exactly what controversial comments of Wright's he feels are over the top. Or why Obama choses to give his speech to those superdelegates that are already on his side.
Or maybe, just maybe, some industrious reporter could do a story on how well Obama's message of "hope" and "change" worked in his Illinois district as his buddy, Rezko, was contributing to his campaign coffers while contributing to the inner city blight.
Nah, never gonna happen.
Comment Posted By retire05 On 19.03.2008 @ 17:19
OBAMA'S SPEECH A CALL FOR A VICTIMHOOD COALITION
Blacks have the right to shout out their anger and hatred of the people that enslaved them hundreds of years ago and whites have the right to go to the corner, shut up and take it? Almost insulting? Nothing "almost" about it, Rick. It was insulting.
Then he goes on the legitimize Wright by saying that it is nothing more than what is heard in other churches, parishes and synagogues every day and although we do not agree with the hate speech we tolerate it and continue to patron that church for 20 years? That is no more than a "I know I am but what are you" comment. And again, it is insulting.This whole thing saddens me. It saddens me because I, and many friends of different ethnic and racial heritages, feel that this nation has made great strides in equality and that now we have a whole generation who cannot relate to the seperate water fountains, segregated schools and poll taxes. And because of that, the old hatreds would die the death they so deserved. Now, we learn that Black Liberation Theory is alive and well and festering new hatreds. How can hatred be eliminated when it is being preached from hundreds of pulpits all across the nation?
The man who says that he transends the old and represents the new shows that when the rubber mets the road, he plays to the crowd.
Comment Posted By retire05 On 18.03.2008 @ 16:56
SHOULD WE IGNORE REVEREND WRIGHT?
Jeeze, Rick, chill or you will wind up taking a double dose of blood pressure medicine. I didn't say "you said", I said there was a big difference because the left wing pundits are all pointing out Hagee's endorsement of McCain which you seemt agree with in your response.
I was not trying to convince you of anything.Perhaps, though, you would like to tell me which door Obama is standing behind; #1, #2 or #3?
Comment Posted By retire05 On 17.03.2008 @ 22:01
Rick, one other thing; Wright is not the founder of the "black liberation" theology. Cone is and Wright is an advocate of Cone's as well as DuBois.
Comment Posted By retire05 On 17.03.2008 @ 11:28
Rick, there is a major difference between distancing yourself from a radical minister (McCain/Hagee) who you have known for a while and distancing yourself from a radical minister (Obama/Wright) who attracted you like no other minister in your town (by Obama's admission), whose recorded sermons you took with you when you left to attend Harvard (by Obama's admission), who you have referred to numerous times as friend and mentor (by Obama's admission), who so impressed you that you took the title of your book from one of that minister's sermons (by Obama's admission) and whose church you have attended on a regular basis for 20 years and claimed that church as your own, who you supported by $22,500 worth of donations in just one year. Now Obama is in full damage control as it is not just a bump in the road, the road is falling out from underneath him and he knows it. So he has to minimize the damage and if it takes a couple of white lies to do that, well, that's politics, after all.
But then it becomes obvious that there are number of reasons for this close association between Obama/Wright. Now the goal is to figure out which one it is.
#1) Obama needed street cred in the district he was running in that was unabashedly black. What better way to to that than to join a chuch (he had many invites to other black churches, by Obama's own admission) that played to the crowd that made up his district. Black, poor and victimized. So the move to Trinity was a political one, not a religious one.
2) Obama agreed with Wright. The church's connection to the motherland, Africa, where Obama's father was born. The black "power to the people" message. The perpetuation of victimhood by living in a "rich white America". The politican, Obama, not really agreeing with the black man, Obama but knowing that he could not win elections being a race baiter in the mold of Sharpton and Jackson but in his soul, Wright was saying what he really believed.
3) Obama is really, after all, just a standard, run of the mill, politics as usual, Chicago politician. One who has associated himself with those who could further his career the most; Tony Rezko, fixer and financier; Rev. Wright, who gave him credibility with the voter base, William Ayers who was in a position to act as a mover and shaker for him with the far left crowd that is rampant in Chicago. This belies his message that he brings a new type of politican to the national scene. If door #3 is the real Obama, then he is just another politician who has used friends, and money of friends, to light the fuse on his meteoric rise in national politics even though he has a weak record on the issues and was a fence sitting in the Illinois senate. A golden boy who has a gift of rhetoric and who was playing it like a fine tuned fiddle.
Now Obama, in full damage control mode, is trying to make the flap over his pastor/church a "race" issue. He said Saturday (according to the AP), "I noticed over the last several weeks that the forces of division has started to raise their ungly heads again. And I'm not here to cast blame or point fingers because everybody, you know, senses that there's been the shift"
So he is pointing fingers, without pointing fingers, basically saying that any attack on an angry and hate mongering preacher is "racist" and that trying to remind the crowd that the Hillary campaign has been making the issue one of race, not one of issues for the nation. So the race card that Obama has claimed he will never use, has just been slapped on the table.
He also said "If all I knew were those statements I saw on television, I would be shocked."
Is he telling his that he sat in the pews, Sunday after Sunday, and was not shocked until he saw them on television? Is he trying to tell us, that in 20 years, the pastor who has had a reputation as a black power preacher, never spoke those angry words while he was in attendance at Trinity?
One thing that has never been looked at is the history of how Obama's district fared under his leadership. Did his message of "hope" and "change" actually change anything while he was taking campaign donations from Rezko and Rezko was contributing the the inner city blight with low income housing making the plight of Obama's district even worse? Did their lives improve? Was gang activity lessened? Did the schools improve?
It is long past time to vet a candidate that we really know little about.
Comment Posted By retire05 On 17.03.2008 @ 11:26
OBAMA: JUST ANOTHER LYING WEASEL OF A POLITICIAN
Obama said he assumes that Trumpet Magazine (using the name of the magazine, run by Wright's two daughters does some mind trick of disassociating Wright with the magazine) bestowed the honor on Farrakhan due to Farrakhan's efforts to rehabilitate ex-offenders. At one blog it is noted that no where in the Trumpet Magazine's honor of Farrakhan is any effort to rehabilitate ex-offenders mentioned. So it is odd that Obama would even mention that work by Farrakhan unless.........personal knowledge, perhaps and a closer relationship to Farrakhan than he is admitting to?
Obama had invited Wright to give the invocation the day he announced his candidacy but at the 11th hour, the night before, disinvited Wright due to Wright's questionable sermons. So to say that he was unaware of Wright's racism is just pure bull. And Obama admitted that when he went off to Harvard, he took Wright's recordings with him. Are we to assume that Wright, who is the son of a Baptist minister and could not get a church from them due to his "black power" views, never said anything in 20 years to lead Barack to understand the racist views held by his pastor?
Sorry, that dog won't hunt.
Comment Posted By retire05 On 15.03.2008 @ 15:49
Interesting post, Rick, but I'm sorry if I don't agree with some of your views. Case in point; a hurricane is headed toward your neighborhood. Do you evacuate those who you only care about (your neighbors) or do you fight like hell to protect those you love first?
I spent a year in Katrina damanged Mississippi. I can tell you, the people there cared about their loved ones first. That is human nature and a man who truely doesn't love his nation, but rather is on a crusade to make it into something he thinks is better than what exists now, will make mistakes that cost others.
Obama seems to have one trait that trumps his love of nation; ambition. His book is one of a man who seems to connect more closely with his Kenyan roots than his American roots. He reflects the left wing opinions of his mother, who was a rebel in her own time, yet he distances himself from the side of him that gave the greatest imput. It was his personal ambition, not his love of country, that started him on his meteoric rise in politics. One only has to look at Obama's own district, heavily black, and how it did not only not prosper and improve under his leadership, but how his friend, Tony Rezko, managed to add eleven more buildings making the urban blight even worse. Why was Obama not on top of this as his (own) people suffered in apartments that did not have adequate plumbing and more often than not, no heat. Did the man who is now offering "hope" and "change" give hope to his constituants or change the every growing blight in the 13th District? The anwser is "no". Drug usage increased, gangs increased and boarded up unlivable buildings increase as Tony Rezko increased the coffers of Obama's campaigns.It is said that no one can understand the trials and tribulations of being black in America unless they are black. That the advances they have made are nothing less than miraculous. These are people who have never been to a Native American reservation where schools are sometimes 30 miles away. Where the housing makes the slums of New York look like Park Avenue. Where there are no jobs and alcoholism is rampant. When one thinks Native American now, they think casinos and wealth. Not so for those Native Americans who live in North/South Dakota and New Mexico and Arizona. There are no casinos on those reservations. They are just too remote. Yet the one thing that every Native American has that is common ground with the majority of Americans is a love for this nation. When they went to war, in the name of their nation, during WWII, they were not even allowed to vote. But for a few radical Indians, you will never hear from them the words of the Rev. Mr. Wright. But they do remember the Buffalo soldiers that practiced genocide againt their ancestors. My ancestors. And I am still waiting for an apology from the Mssrs. Jackson and Sharpton for the actions of those soldiers.
Those Native Americans who have managed to excape the dead-end of the reservation go on to productive lives and never look back. The feeling is that if you are tied to the past, you are doomed by the past and that getting beyond the past is the only way to live the American dream of being independent and getting ahead.
Obama is/always has been a political opportunist whose leftist views are covered by pretty rhetoric. We have all seen how well that has worked out for other nations who have bought into the "pretty" rhetoric of those who promised hope and change.
Comment Posted By retire05 On 15.03.2008 @ 15:12
WAS THERE AN OBAMA-DALEY DEAL ON THE PRESIDENCY?
KansasGirl; one only has to look at St. Louis, city of my youth, to see how far down Democratic leadership can take a city.
Comment Posted By retire05 On 9.03.2008 @ 16:40
