Comments on: Mr. Bilingual

By: Eric T

Eric T — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 22:54:15 +0000

Joe-

If it was National Association for the Advancement of Economically Challenged People. or Advancement for Physically Handicap. It would be different. but it isn’t, it IS cleary about race.

Joe- What about the Asians, Hispanics, Arabs, Indians, Jews, Pacific Islanders, and Whites.
Do we all get a group, that advances our concerns based on our race?

There is something that just don’t seem right about allowing racism from one group but not from other groups.

We are all Americans and equal, right?

By: Joe

Joe — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 16:57:38 +0000

I think the NAACP is clearly, by name, a racist group. they promote racism. I’m offended that black racist groups are courted by politicians, what that means is, we are going to have racist laws that favor blacks!!!

WOW. That is a profoundly crazy statement.

By: Eric T

Eric T — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 16:49:58 +0000

I seen Obama/McCain cater to racist groups like NAACP. Advancement of colored people? That excludes me… Where can I go to have my concerns and issues advanced based on race?
I think the NAACP is clearly, by name, a racist group. they promote racism. I’m offended that black racist groups are courted by politicians, what that means is, we are going to have racist laws that favor blacks!!! Lobbying for Pro-black legislation? I’m pretty disappointed that racism is always acceptable when it is from the blacks. This is no different than Obama or McCain being at a Klan rally. And nobody sees it for what it is.

By: Geoff

Geoff — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 01:04:45 +0000

Not everyone can see through the bull apparently, Joe. If position changes on policy are a negative than you’re certainly entitled to hold that against Sen. McCain, but Sen. Obama has demonstrated a striking pattern of saying one thing and then doing another. Public financing is only the most glaring. One week he said he wouldn’t disown Rev. Wright, the next week he was out the window. He said he’d filibuster the FISA bill if it had immunity for telecom companies than said he supported it. He’s made recent flips on gun control and other issues.

Joe, there’s a reason the NYT and the rest of his base is pissed off with him, which essentially boils down to him being quite different from whom has presented himself as.

By: Joe

Joe — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 13:14:24 +0000

Views have “evolved”. I love that!

McCain’s have involved evolutions on matters of public policy, such as lowering taxes and drilling offshore.
You left off… and abortion and torture and ethanol and Falwell and Bob Jones University and wireless wiretapping and indefinite detention and Cuba and diplomacy with Hamas and the GI bill and earmarks and immigration and on and on and on and on and on.

With all that “evolving” you have to wonder who came up with the name “Straight Talk Express”. Doesn’t seem all too straight to me.

Obama’s “promises”. Other than public financing, what promises did he “break” (and “break is used quite loosely there)? You bring up Wright. Was there a “promise”? Wright continued to talk like a fool and became a distraction to the campaign. So Obama said he didn’t agree with him.

If that was a “promise”, I guess this was too…

McCain said he was “very honored” by Mr. Hagee’s endorsement. Asked about Mr. Hagee’s extensive writings on Armageddon and about what one questioner said was Mr. Hagee’s belief that the anti-Christ will be the head of the European Union, Mr. McCain responded that “all I can tell you is that I am very proud to have Pastor John Hagee’s support.”

Then a “broken promise”

“Obviously, I find these remarks and others deeply offensive and indefensible, and I repudiate them. I did not know of them before Reverend Hagee’s endorsement, and I feel I must reject his endorsement as well,” McCain said in a statement to CNN Thursday.

Face it…. Everyone sees thru the bull at this point.

By: Geoff

Geoff — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 05:01:34 +0000

Now, now, Joe. Surely most who care to can discern the difference between Sen. Obama’s flips and Sen. McCain’s. Sen. Obama’s regard broken promises and pledges, i.e. public-financing, ‘I can no more disown Rev. Wright than my own grandmother,’ filibustering the FISA bill, etc. Sen. McCain’s have involved evolutions on matters of public policy, such as lowering taxes and drilling offshore.

There is a significant difference.

By: Joe

Joe — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 13:49:54 +0000

Obama changes his mind.
– He is a panderer, he is moving toward the center, he is a flip-flopper, he can’t be trusted.

McCain changes his mind.
– His views have evolved for the better.

I think we all understand the difference now.

Next.

By: Sumofabit

Sumofabit — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 19:47:17 +0000

AYERS. CAN A POTENTIAL PRESIDENT TO BEFRIEND A CONVICTED TERRORIST AND CONVINCE TERRORISTS HE WILL FIGHT THE WAR ON TERROR?
In 1969, Bill Ayers participated in planting a bomb at a statue dedicated to police casualties in the 1886 Haymarket Riot. The blast broke almost 100 windows and blew pieces of the statue onto the nearby Kennedy Expressway.
The following year he “went underground” with several associates after the Greenwich Village townhouse explosion, which caused the death of three of his terrorist cell members while a nail bomb was under construction. In Ayers’ words, decades after the fact, the bomb was “destined for the army base nearby,” Fort Dix in New Jersey. The massive bomb contained a box of carpenter nails, and though Ayers does not say it or admit it, it almost surely was intended to kill many people.

So whats wrong with Obama befriending this man? Clinton pardoned him so its all good now right? Surely you’d have no problem with our President having a known and convicted terrorist as a friend?