Posted by cranston36 (anonymous) on January 6, 2008 at 7:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So Senator Barack Obama won the primary in Iowa.
How that happened is as mysterious to me as how he ended up in the United States Senate in the first place.
I cannot understand why the people of Illinois took it on themselves to send as a representative of that great state a man whose father is Kenyan and whose stepfather is Indonesian. How many people in Illinois share that combination?
To complicate matters his mother is a white American. I mention that only because he is being advertised as the first black president. Colin Powell would have been the first black president. Barack Obama would be the first half-black president.
Even considering that the blacks in Illinois sent him to the Senate - why did they do that? Why didn't they vote in an American black man? Why are they crowing over a half-black, half-American guy?
The answer is in our American past.
Even before the Civil War there was a concern about what would happen to freed slaves.
Questions like 'Should they be allowed to wander around on their own?' were important points of discussion.
Putting the freed slaves on ships and sending them back to Africa was a big topic.
The cost, however, of just sending the newly born children of the 4 million slaves then in the country (about 40,000 to 50,000 a year) would have bankrupted the United States Treasury so that was abandoned. The fact that it would have cost so much to ship the slaves back should be a point of interest to anti-immigrant candidates like Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee. Even if laws were passed to send all the illegal Mexican immigrants back to Mexico there isn’t enough money to do it.
In any case - the Presbyterian Church in the United States became embroiled in this problem of what to do with the freed slaves. In the South the Presbyterians became the spiritual backbone of the Confederacy while in the North they tried to become the conscience of the Union but did not succeed.

Posted by DJrocksthemic (anonymous) on January 7, 2008 at 10:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

A. I don't understand what you're saying here, they shouldn't have elected him because of the color or lack of color of his skin....
B. He is clearly an American Black man, or else he couldn't be running for President.
C. I think they are crowing over him because of his political record, since what you've said here would make you think they couldn't be crowing over him just for his race.

Posted by create (anonymous) on January 7, 2008 at 11:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

What exactly is your point? Barack Obama IS an American black man. As such, he has the right to run for any office in the land for which he qualifies. His ideas were apparently approved by the people of Illinois since they voted for him to become their senator. The people are "crowing" over him because they like his ideas. Simple as that.

What's the big deal you are making over half-black or half-white? It sounds to me like your problem is with the fact that he is half Kenyan and his stepfather was half Indonesian. What difference does that make? It doesn't make him any less American. He was born in this country to a white woman from Kansas. He is qualified to become President of the United States if the people vote for him.

Posted by netloafer (anonymous) on January 7, 2008 at 3:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm a Mike Huckabee supporter, a conservative evangelical Christian, and I also have great admiration for Barack Obama. He's not playing the race card in the primaries. Like Governor Huckabee he's stressing the politics of inclusion and "up."

I think we should much prefer the politics of "up" (Mike Huckabee) and the politics of "inclusion" (Obama) to the stale bread we're all too often fed by the shrill voices.

Posted by olddog (anonymous) on January 8, 2008 at 7:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

There are a few interesting web pages on this link ........

http://www.newsmax.com/kessler/?s=al&...

Posted by Weltha (anonymous) on January 9, 2008 at 12:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

diddo on treb's comment.

Posted by slipandslide (anonymous) on January 9, 2008 at 10:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

ditto treb, i would vote for a woman pres but not her, shes too fake

Posted by playbook (anonymous) on January 25, 2008 at 11:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I think if they would run together Obama and Hilary, they will win ! But otherwise it will be those from the other side that will win

Posted by blondie (anonymous) on January 29, 2008 at 9:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Are the American people really ready for a Muslim in the highest office of our Nation?

Posted by create (anonymous) on January 29, 2008 at 4:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Blondie, you are perpetrating a myth. Shame on you!!! I dare you to go to the following website for the truth, and the truth is this: Barak Obama is a Christian. He has never been a Muslim. Get your facts straight!!! If you have even the slightest bit of gumption, you'll check them now. Or do people like you just run off at the mouth with ugly lies?

http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/200...

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on January 31, 2008 at 9:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

create-Please stop and think and do some research before chastising anyone for their opinion.
First of all, anyone can claim to be a christian, but in reality are something entirely different. The minister of the church that Obama belongs to is a life long and close friend to Louis Farrakhan the undisputed leader or past leader of THE NATION OF ISLAM, which was the most radical practicing organization of ISLAM in the U. S. .
I have said from the time that Obama announced his run for the presidency, " Beware of sweet talking Devils bearing gifts".
Please go to the following web-site, read and make up your own mind.
http//:www.newsmax.com/kessler/?s=al

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on January 31, 2008 at 9:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

create-Sorry the web-site address is.
http://www.newsmax.com/kessler/?s=al

Posted by DJrocksthemic (anonymous) on January 31, 2008 at 10:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Right, I'm sure Obama will tell his pastor to stop fighting racism as soon as the bible belt tells it's pastors to stop telling us if we don't vote republican God will hate us. Wright has always been against Racism and yeah maybe he's said some stupid things due to his passion to fight racism. But so have Dobson, Farwell and Robertson... all in their fight too...

He's not a muslim, good call create. The above logic would say because I'm friends with someone who has met a muslim and didn't hate him that I must by proxy be a muslim.

Posted by create (anonymous) on January 31, 2008 at 6:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thank you, Dr. Rocksthemic.

Methusla, I am from a cosmopolitan part of the world -- Hawaii. As such, I have many friends who are Buddhist, Mormon, and some who practice natural religion that has no particular name. I myself am a baptized Catholic, but I also embrace the teachings of the Dalai Lama. So now I'm a bad person?

Isn't Fred Phelps a Christian? If there ever was a "sweet talking devil" I'd say he fits the mold, especially after he has convinced an entire congregation to do the despicable things that they do in the name of Christianity.

Posted by PlainsMan2008 (anonymous) on February 2, 2008 at 12:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I like Obama too, but ....

I grew up in the great plains. My uncle grew up in El Dorado, KS. I saw where Obama visited El Dorado a few days ago. The news said it was his first time there, and that his (white) grandfather was raised there.

I was wondering why Obama went all the way to Kenya ten years ago to look up the relatives of his father (who deserted the family when he was a little kid), but he never made it to El Dorado (until the eve of the caucus) to research the background and relatives of the man who raised him to adulthood.

It made sense when I saw this passage from his book: "Dreams from my Father" at page 15:

"escape from the empty, dust-ridden plains, where big plans mean a job as a bank manager and entertainment means an ice-cream soda and a Sunday matinee, where fear and lack of imagination choke your dreams so that you already know on the day that you're born just where you'll die and who it is that'll bury you."

Now, in my home town some of my friends are plumbers, plasterers, and, yes, even a bank manager. I don't see their lives on the plains as some kind of sad, ridiculous joke.

So, while I like Obama a lot. I just don't think he has any real respect for people in the great plains. John McCain comes a lot closer to my kind of man.

Even if you just want to vote for Obama to show contempt for Hillary, he doesn't deserve your vote. Vote Republican, if you hate Hillary.

Posted by create (anonymous) on February 2, 2008 at 10:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't see that passage the same way you do, Plainsman. I don't believe he is saying that the lives of Plains people are "some kind of sad, ridiculous joke." Perhaps you found more in surrounding text; in that case, I'm out of line here. I can only work with the passage you offered.

I believe he is referring to the way small towns can sometimes be limiting with regard to how far an individual can reach for growth. Opportunities for advancement don't always exist. We can't all be plumbers and plasterers, and most small towns only offer one or two positions as bank managers.

This is not to put down small towns. Au contraire. As I stated in another post, I am from Hawaii, as modern, diverse and dynamic as any one area can get. So what am I doing in Kansas? Cost of living. Hawaii is also one of the most expensive places in the world to live.

Living here has given me a great appreciation for the small town feeling of security. I raised my kids here. But they went away for the great opportunities in the business world that they now enjoy. Keeping them here close to Mama would have been selfish. It would have limited their choices, and that is what Obama is talking about. Like in the words to the World War II song, "How you gonna keep 'em down on the farm, after they've seen Paree?"

Posted by Renegade (anonymous) on February 2, 2008 at 2:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well said Create. I couldn't agree with you more.

P.S. That doesn't mean I am voting for Obama though. :-)

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on February 3, 2008 at 10:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't particularly like most of the candidates presently campaigning for president, especially Barack Obama, simply because I believe what he presents to the people is not really who or what he really is about, in other words what you see on the outside is not what is on the inside. Also the minister of the church Obama belongs to was and is a close life-long friend of Louis Farrakhan and that alone is enough to raise warning flags in my mind. For those who don't remember, Louis Farrakhan was or maybe still is the undisputed leader of the NATION OF ISLAM.
Personally I like Ron Paul, but thats just my opinion.

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on February 3, 2008 at 10:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Just to let everone know, I do not belong to nor subscribe to nor support any particular religious order or faith, but I do have profound faith in God and Jesus Christ and I believe that one does not have to subscribe or attend nor belong to any particular religion or sect to have "FAITH", I also believe that GOD or JESUS CHRIST forced or forces no-one to have faith in them, their word or teachings in any particular manner or way.

Posted by alfalfa (anonymous) on February 6, 2008 at 12:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I think Obama is too liberal( I am a Republican) but I will take him any day over Hillary Clinton. He appears as honest to me as an politician can ever be.

Posted by CAFEmporia (anonymous) on February 6, 2008 at 12:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I too support Barack Obama - as is obvious from op-eds I've had in the paper - but appreciate the various opinions and am glad that we have such discussions in this election. We certainly need it.

Like alfalfa, I believe Obama is as honest as any politician can be. There has been no politician in my experience who has been capable of inspiring me to hope as has he.

I do understand methusla's trepidations regarding the complicated relationships which lead, among other places, to Louis Farrakhan who is, indeed, the leader of the Nation of Islam. Let us agree, though, that N of I is not related philosophically to the extreme Islamists who pose terroristic threats to our nation. It may be that they pose their own threat to our society, but it is not the same threat of terrorism we know from bin Laden and his ilk.

Given that agreement (I presume upon you and apologize for the presumption), I can easily understand that Farrakhan symbolizes an uncomfortable and threatening reality to anyone. That there is friendship between him and Obama's minister, though, is actually kind of encouraging to me and indicative of another of the reasons I support Obama's campaign.

To find agreement with one so different as Farrakhan must be, and to such an extent that friendship forms, a very understanding and good person must be at work there. Obama has promised to meet with and seek points of agreement with those who differ from us to such extents and more.

We are, for instance, at great odds with the leadership of Iran. This strikes me as a terrible shame because their interests often coincide with our own national interests. If Obama can put together a really excellent diplomatic team, it is possible we could find points of agreement with Iran and, perhaps, work through the problems we present to each other now. Certainly, such an approach would be better than the one we have been using the last few years. As it is now, we will almost certainly be at war with them within a decade. Seeking intersections of agreement seems a much more intelligent and promising strategy.

Obama is a complex man with ideas about governance which we have not seen in some time. I would welcome a reintroduction of such imaginative concepts and optimistic goals, and I do hope he has the chance to do so.

Posted by netloafer (anonymous) on February 6, 2008 at 8:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

CAFEmporia

Congratulations to Barack Obama and his supporters.

I will be attending the Republican caucus this Saturday, supporting Mike Huckabee.

I've said from the outset that Obama on one side of the coin and Huckabee on the other represent something badly needed in politics. Obama calls his message hope and Huckabee calls his vertical politics.

The striking thing about both men is that they really want to end the divisions that have plagued us since back in the nineties.

Huckabee has come this far in spite of the rhetoric emanating from Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, et all. He's done it without much money. Obama's financial support has come from on-line donors at the grass roots level. These are all healthy trends.

I've read Obama's policy positions and can't say I agree with some of them, particularly those I consider imporatna, but I sense that he would be willing to talk to conservatives like me. Huckabee's positions are far more encompassing than what most assume values voters hold. He's pro-life, but has expanded the definition to include those at the lower ends of our economic and social scale who need help. He recognizes the Biblical mandate for us to be good stewards of the earth. His economic message is populist. Etc, etc, etc.

One of the things that most impresses me about both me is their appeal to young voters. There's so much energy and enthusiasm as you watch their campaigns.

The conventions are going to be interesting. I suspect the Republican convention could well become brokered. Do you have any sense of how things are going to play out on the Democratic side?

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on February 6, 2008 at 10:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

netloafer-I agree that the country needs change BADLY, but I have not heard one candidate Republican or Democrat that has a solid plan for what is wrong in this country.
As far as Obamas' financial donations, what makes you think that a lot of the money he has raised did not come from THE NATION OF ISLAM, after all the minister of his church was and most likely still is a close friend of Louis Farahkan, the kingpin of THE NATION OF ISLAM.
As I have been telling people for some time now, Beware of a Wolf in Sheeps Clothing !
What will go a long way in righting what is wrong in the U.S. is abolishing lobbying of any and all public officials by wealthy individuals, wealthy corporations, Churches and Church affiliated organizations, in other words there is to much legal bribary in all forms of this countrys' Government, Federal, State, County and Local.

Posted by create (anonymous) on February 6, 2008 at 12:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

How do we know that anybody's campaign donations did not come from the Nation of Islam? I wish you wouldn't capitalize all those letters. BTW, Obama is speaking out against lobbyists. I like his ideas. He has my vote.

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on February 6, 2008 at 5:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

MY LAST POST: I WILL SAY AGAIN, BEWARE OF A WOLF IN SHEEPS CLOTHING.

Posted by create (anonymous) on February 6, 2008 at 5:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Impudent!

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on February 7, 2008 at 3:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

bombastic

Posted by CAFEmporia (anonymous) on February 7, 2008 at 10:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Good grief.

Financial donations are reported. There are enough people demanding to know the truth that it is difficult to cover up donors, especially large ones. The Nation of Islam is not making large donations to anyone.

If there are wolves running around wearing wool, I'll be glad to let you know, but so far I'm not seeing any howling sheepies.

The candidates are making lots of statements regarding their proposals to change the nation. There is more "real" information in this election than any other I have witnessed. Too, the best funded candidates are not necessarily leading the pack. Romney just dropped out and Clinton is pleading for financial support. There are good things happening in this campaign season.

Thank you, netloafer, for your observation that the youth of the country are turning out enthusiastically. (I wish you a good day at your caucuses Saturday.) I don't recall this happening since the 60's, either. It is a season for optimism. Things could be changing for the better.

CAF

Posted by netloafer (anonymous) on February 8, 2008 at 5:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

CAFEmporia

I was at a Huckabee event in Kansas City today and I was about the oldest guy there. They were figuring about 300 to show up - 1200 actually did.

The illuminati are saying it's all over, calling for the coronation and the vice presidential sweepstakes. Mike and his movement have decided to keep chasing the windmills. As he said this morning, "I believe in the impossible. This is about choice, not a coronation."

So, I'll keep chasing, starting with the caucus tomorrow.

I think a Huckabee - Obama race would be interesting - change and hope versus economic populism and vertical politics.

Posted by The_7th_Sin (anonymous) on February 9, 2008 at 2:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"I cannot understand why the people of Illinois took it on themselves to send as a representative of that great state a man whose father is Kenyan and whose stepfather is Indonesian. How many people in Illinois share that combination? "-cranston36

Are you implying that you MUST vote based on your heritage?

It certainly sounds that way.

I'm sure senator Obama would make very similar decisions, if takes office, as any other presidential candidate.

And what was with the whole post-civil war thing with the slaves?
I fail to see how this pertains at all to anything.

Sincerely,
The 7th Sin

Posted by Matt66647 (anonymous) on February 9, 2008 at 3:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If you are so arrogant as to only look at Obama's colors, I feel you shouldn't vote. This is due to the fact that you are not at all looking at what might be best for the country, but rather what might help keep old white men in presidency. I do hope that you consider something other than color, race, gender, or religion the next time you vote.

- Matt66647

Posted by CAFEmporia (anonymous) on February 9, 2008 at 9:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

netloafer, congratulations upon having your candidate win today's republican caucus. I know that feels good.

From my perspective, Huckabee is presenting an "argument" (discussion) for the GOP's transition period from Bush to whatever follows. It would appear that in many states, his arguments are persuasive, at the least.

I look forward to watching how all this develops in both parties.

Posted by netloafer (anonymous) on February 10, 2008 at 5:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

CAFEmporia

Congratulations to the Obama camp on the four victories.

I think we'll know more on Tuesday with the east coast state, but it appears that a huge tide of momentum is building behind Senator Obama. For people who didn't believe it before, I think last night has demonstrated that there is a movement on the rise. The senator is a formidable candidate.

Governor Huckabee has once again staved off a coronation, winning here in Kansas and Louisiana. While the movement he started is not as developed yet as Senator Obama's, it is growing.

The chances are that Senator McCain will win the nomination. I doubt that he would be able to win a general election against Obama. In fact, I suspect it would be a landslide.

I think for Governor Huckabee the next four years will be spent growing the movement, reshaping the conservative movment back into the conservatism of Edmund Burke, G.K, Chesterton on the philosophical side, Lincoln/Reagan on the political, and Hayek/Friedman on the economic.

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on February 10, 2008 at 10:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Remember the great, sweet talking, golden tongued, compasionate conservative deceiver George W. Bush.
I also told all Americans at the time of G.Ws' campaign for the presidency in 1999 and again in 2003 to beware of sweet talking, golden tongued, deceivers who are in reality wolves in sheeps clothing, but gullible people have and will believe anyone and anything.
However I don't have any advice as to who to vote for or who is the best person to lead this country and it looks to me like gullibility is going to win again !

Posted by The_7th_Sin (anonymous) on February 10, 2008 at 6:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Methusla, Tisk...Tisk...Tisk.
I can't believe that you think that Senator Obama is a wolf in sheep's clothing!
Saying that Obama has "Islamic ties" is filthy propaganda.

And, Islam IS NOT evil, terrorists are NOT representative of all islamic people.

I guess some people fall more easily to nonsensical propaganda than I thought.

It is truly a shame...

Posted by Lackof (anonymous) on February 10, 2008 at 7:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Do you really think that being Islamic would matter? Just because he apparently has ties with another religion does not make him any different from the rest of us. If you think about it, how different is Islam from Christianity? They both are descendants from Judaism, they try to direct people towards a good path, they originated in the middle east... Originally, this, "debate", was started on his color of skin and ethnicity. Even if he isn't a pure black president, (which I don't see why an intelligent person would vote for, based entirely upon skin color), he still isn't an old white man, now, is he? Also, cranston asked why anyone would put someone into the senate, who had a Kenyan father. He was born in America, wasn't he? He's a citizen and is eligible to run for presidency; correct me if i'm wrong.

Posted by thatsjustdandy (anonymous) on February 10, 2008 at 7:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Seeing as this forum as a whole has become clouded with, well, propaganda, I feel the need to walk into this room and blow a little sense into your brains.

For one. Okay, Barack Obama is not completely and one-hundred percent black. This makes a gigantic difference how? America is said to be a melting pot of cultures, forming one gigantic one. A candidate does not have to be commpletely and utterly one thing so we can simply say "The First Black President!" on a campaign sticker. (That would be a really stupid sticker, FYI.)

And then to the Islamic ties. Take a deep breath. It does NOT matter. It is easily proven that he is not Islamic, and as Lackof said, would it, excuse me, should it even matter? The answer is no. And if it does, I would suggest taking some time to look over your veiws again. Nobody is pure anything, nobody is perfect, so stop trying to imagine it.

Still waiting for the howling sheep.

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on February 10, 2008 at 8:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

All I am saying is, I don't know who is going to be the best person to get this country out of the mess that it is in now, I believe that with the huge amounts of money that is thrown at all elected public officials by lobbyists, that anyone who is elected whether he or she be president or congressman and the most upright and honest person in the world sooner or later secumes to corruption and greed.
I also wonder how many of you fell for the milk and honey promises that sprang from George W. Bushs' mouth and voted for him.
Now you can all go ahead and attack me and call me a racist, bigoted, etc.
I also wonder how many of you really know that " we the people" have nothing to do with running this country, only the wealthy who can buy politicians and power run this country and the sooner you realize this the better off you, me and everyone in this country will be.

Posted by create (anonymous) on February 11, 2008 at 12:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@Methusla:

So in other words, we should all just give up the idea of majority rule, stop voting, and instead go back to the idea of privilege and presumption while we go about our powerless little lives pecking along the ground for whatever scant bit of grain may come our way?

I prefer to think instead that the great power in this country lies in the idea that the majority can truly accomplish what it sets out to do providing it remains united. We are what deTocqueville called "the great and imposing image of the people at large." I remember the Civil Rights Movement. I remember when women were not considered as equals to men. "I am woman, hear me roar, in numbers too big to ignore."

We have suffered and survived destruction of many kinds in our history -- wars, a great civil war, a major depression, attacks by foreigners, to name only a few -- events that have torn other nations completely down. And as we struggled, we found our footing and stood together because we are bound by our great love of liberty and democracy. Moreover, we are free thinkers; we have voices to instill change.

I defend your right to use our free press to exercise your right to free speech. I just don't have to agree with you because your rights end where mine begin.

Posted by Renegade (anonymous) on February 11, 2008 at 1:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Methusla.....I'm sorry, but I have to agree with Create on this one.

You may be outnumbered by those that remember....
"I am woman, hear me roar, in numbers to big to ignore!"

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on February 11, 2008 at 4:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

renegae/create- What in the H. makes you think that there is majority rule in this country now or ever has been.
How long do you think that many or most of us have not been pecking along the ground for whatever bit of leftovers the powers that be in this country see fit to leave those of us who are less privileged than the few who are really running things in the U.S..
Also what makes you think your vote counts for anything in an electoral college form of election anyway. Especially when congressional and voting districts can be changed and manipulated on a whim of the powerful entities that control the political process in the U.S.
I have been making this self same argument for far too long, especially to people who live in the dark, with their heads and minds, common sense and logic buried in the sand. So I am no longer going to try and open minds and eyes and just pull back and survive as I have for so long, survive that is.
So you will all just have to live with-out this whipping post.

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on February 11, 2008 at 4:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

One final comment- Ask yourselves what will if China ever demands repayment of the trillions of dollars the present administration and possibly past administrations have borrowed from China to keep the country afloat and fight an unnecessary war ?
Will China own the U.S.?
Think about it and goodbye to all.

Posted by create (anonymous) on February 11, 2008 at 5:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey, hey, hey. I was just trying to give you a couple of shining examples of how powerful majority rule can be as seen by the two most powerful movements of my lifetime --Civil Rights and the Rights of Women.

And knock off the "I'm going to go away and never be seen again" BS. Please! You think you're gonna get on a forum, do your preaching and not meet with opposition? Get real.

Posted by Renegade (anonymous) on February 11, 2008 at 6:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Methusla....I don't disagree with you on every single thing you say, but, I did agree with Create's examples of Civil Rights, and the Rights of Women......
You always give us a lot to think about, but, I do think you are wrong to not allow us to disagree, or challenge you.

Your hatred of the present administration isn't shared by everyone on this forum..... Nor, is your support of Ron Paul, but I don't hold that against you. :-)

Posted by Renegade (anonymous) on February 11, 2008 at 6:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

By the way Methusla....That was almost "Nixon-ish" when you said "So you will all have to just live with-out this whipping post."....... :-)

I also want you to know, Methusla, that I do not "live in the dark, with my head and mind, common sense, and logic buried in the sand." (or, anywhere else, for that matter).

I agree with Create again...How can you say all those things, and then just say...."I'm going to go away and never be seen again." ?

Posted by olddog (anonymous) on February 11, 2008 at 7:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

methusla --- Dont let them get to you, just shake it off. I agree with you!

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on February 11, 2008 at 9:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

First of all the Civil Rights bill has done absolutely nothing for me personally, nor has Womens Rights, but I don't condemn them.
oh I forgot according to create i am not suppose to use capitol letters, only one or two when i post on a forum, which according to some the preaching, etc., must be reserved for just a select few. by the way I never said I supported ron paul. i can guarantee you that you will not hear from me again as evidently I am not supposed to preach or debate.
olddog are you absolutely sure you want to agree with me and does that mean that you and me are a powerful majority of two, i rather doubt it very much. now since you agree with me, you to are going suffer the consequences.
see create no capitol letters, you have whipped me into submission, hooray for you, you should be very proud. now you and renegade can kiss, hug and congratulate one-another.
i can say that i am going to go away and never be seen or heard of again, because that is my perogative and i am tired, fed up and angry and i have better things to do than get beat up.

Posted by CAFEmporia (anonymous) on February 12, 2008 at 12:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Good heavens, Meth, back up a little, take a deep breath, log on tomorrow or the next day, and keep talking. You certainly have the right and, given how strongly you feel about it, you have the personal obligation to speak your piece. A little capitalizing is ok, too, though shouting gets old.

You are welcome to moderate your wording if you want. I think all of us moderate like crazy because we want to get along. Netloafer and I would probably be friends off line as well as on, and we rarely agree on anything without adding our own comprehensions. This is a forum - it means everyone is equal - and it means each of us has taken some poop from the rest at times.

That said, I disagree about the nature of who rules. We do vote. The votes are real. The electoral college, vestigial outrage that it is, has not substantially changed election results.

I feel that I am a full participant in the political process in our country as well as our state and our city. If I wished, I could run for political office and have a reasonably good chance of winning the election if I got my act together.

Obama strikes me as a potentially good leader. He takes no money from PAC's, for instance, though he does have plenty of donors, most of us small ones. Ron Paul strikes me as a sincere, intelligent man whose contributions to the political process are welcome. Huckabee has potentially great concepts to contribute. McCain, say what you will, is an American hero and a man who should be heard even though I hope he loses this election. Hillary Clinton is one of the most intelligent, organized candidates to stand forth for office even though she is not my choice.

So, go run the tub full of hot water, put on a CD of whale songs, light a candle, and soak. See you in a day or two.

CAF

Posted by netloafer (anonymous) on February 12, 2008 at 5:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

CAFEmporia

I think one of the major issues in this campaign is who is going to pull America back together and how is he/she going to do it. The two candidates I see who most embody this are Obama and Huckabee. I've been a Huckabee supporter from the beginning and will be until he tells me to put my pompom down. The things I feel strongly about in him are his values. He's a pro-life/right to life in the full sense of the term. That colors his economic views (I'm a Main St. Republican vs. a Wall St. Republican). Etc, etc, etc.

Obama is also a very appealing candidate. And, he has some great ideas. The other night I heard him talk to young people about a $4000 tax credit for education. Unlike Bill Clinton, who had promised "free" education to young people, Obama told the young people that in return that would have to commit to four years public service for the country. Etc, etc, etc.

This is one of the most interesting and exciting election cycles I can ever remember. We've needed something like this and I'm glad for it.

At his first inauguration, Lincoln pleaded with the south, trying his best to remind them that we were countrymen, that we needed to remain one and remain friends. I think that type of unifying message is also badly needed today.

Posted by Renegade (anonymous) on February 12, 2008 at 8:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Aww Methusla....I'm sorry..but...I was trying to lighten it up a little. The title of this forum is "Obama, Oh No!"...and, it was getting a bit off topic (I thought)....
I understand you have your opinions, and, you do have the right to post them...but, as much as I like you, I can't agree with everything you say.

A debate is fine....I think that's the purpose on these forums... for "everyone" to post their opinions and thoughts.....
However, Methusla, I think we are all guilty of preaching now, and then,... but, you want to preach, and if anyone challenges you or disagrees, you leave!!...and say we are beating you up?
It sounds like a temper tantrum to me Methusla.

I don't care if you don't use capitals, or use all capitals.
I don't even care if you post what I don't agree with, but, accusing those that don't agree with you of "living in the dark, with our head and mind, common sense, and logic buried in the sand"... deserves a reply.

I love your opinions.. but please don't make accusations, and insult our intelligence, just because we don't agree with 100% of what you say.

Contrary to your belief, I'm your friend, Methusla, and not a "wolfe in sheeps clothing!.:-(

Posted by create (anonymous) on February 12, 2008 at 11:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm busy with meetings today so I'm only going to say one thing. I firmly believe that Civil Rights and Women's Rights are two of the most important things to happen to this entire country in modern times. That being said, it shouldn't matter whether or not anyone has been affected personally; what matters is that those two movements have greatly benefitted our country and every individual in it. Though we may not all be women, we all have civil rights.

Posted by olddog (anonymous) on February 15, 2008 at 8:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Immigration by the numbers - video

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=...

Posted by CassieJo (anonymous) on February 18, 2008 at 9:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Olddog,,,,,, That video was very interesting. Wow! Thanks for sharing it!

Posted by olddog (anonymous) on February 25, 2008 at 10:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Obama photo in turban, robe causes stir - Yahoo! News

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080225/ap_o...

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., right, is dressed as a Somali Elder by Sheikh Mahmed Hassan, left, during his visit to Wajir, a rural area in northeastern Kenya, near the borders with Somalia and Ethiopia in this file photo from Aug. 27, 2006. The garb was presented to Obama by elders in Wajir. Obama's estranged late father was Kenyan and Obama visited the country in 2006, attracting thousands of well-wishers.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Posted by CAFEmporia (anonymous) on February 26, 2008 at 9:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Every President and all contenders will wear gift clothing given them by the peoples they visit on occasion. Usually, it's just a single item of signature clothing, like a hat or a coat or something. If you look through the archives you could think that every president we've ever elected is a cowboy. Or how about Reagan wearing that Russian fur hat?

The photo which is making the rounds on the internet is a weird and sad political event which both campaigns (Obama and Clinton) need to address differently than is happening right now. Supposedly, according to widespread rumor, the Clinton campaign started the photo email. They deny it, of course. And they are most probably telling the truth. Even if it was started by a Clinton supporter, I seriously doubt the Clinton campaign staff would have done this because Hillary, herself, is too easily mocked by showing photos of her in foreign traditional garb. Obama's campaign needs to just ignore it instead of acting wounded.

Under any circumstances, it means nothing.

Posted by netloafer (anonymous) on February 26, 2008 at 11:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

According to Bob Shrum, a former Clinton stalwart, the photo was sent by a Clinton staffer.

This is a bit reminiscent of Richard Nixon's run for governor of California in 1962. Somone in the Nixon campaign circulated a photo of Pat Brown, his opponent, bowing to an oriental politician. Then the campaign circulated the rumor that Brown was soft of communism. The voters saw through the desperation and Nixon lost the election.

This is why a lot of us conservatives who have Democratic Party history or leanings shy away from Hillary Clinton. When desperate she and her staff will resort to any tactic to secure votes.

It's also why Obama is such an appealing figure. He's trying to change the politics.

While I don't believe I would vote for either Clinton or Obama in a general election, I would be much more inclined to consider Obama. Senator Clinton complains bitterly on the campaign trail about Obama's lack of susbstance when in truth things are the other way around. There is little, if any, substance to her.

Posted by nitewing207 (anonymous) on September 7, 2008 at 11:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It has been on the news that Obama has lied about things & backed out on his word already. He cannot hold true to his motto;"change we can believe in". He isn't even President yet, & he is already doing the (bad) things that others have done. As they all are doing; he sure does put others down, but he does the same things!

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on September 14, 2008 at 12:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The Rev. Jerimiah Wright explained Barack Obama best when he was asked how he felt about Obama "throwing him under the bus" after their long association, which included Wright performing Barack and Michele's wedding and baptizing both of their daughters: "I am a minister of God, charged with telling the truth. Barack is just a politician" (or words to that effect). Obama is running as a change agent; in fact, he is just a politician, just like all 42 men who have held the office.