Some liberals aren’t waiting to see the entire Obama Cabinet to declare it a disappointing flashback. In the Nation, William Greider writes that Obama’s “lineup for key governing positions has opted for continuity, not change,” and even seems “designed to sustain the failing policies of George W. Bush.”
While acknowledging the remarkable economic circumstances of the moment, Grieder writes: “His victory, it appears, was a triumph for the cautious center-right politics that has described the Democratic Party for several decades. Those of us who expected more were duped, not so much by Obama but by our own wishful thinking.”
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Regular on ACORN stole election?
- Regular on ACORN stole election?
- CapnAmerica on ACORN stole election?
- Regular on ACORN stole election?
- Phantom on Open thread 11/21
- CapnAmerica on ACORN stole election?
- CapnAmerica on ACORN stole election?
- Phantom on Open thread 11/21
- Phantom on ACORN stole election?
- CapnAmerica on ACORN stole election?
75 Comments
Only the Republicans were the ones claiming Obama was a liberal. Kucinich was the liberal in the race, Obama and Clinton were centrists. So it’s no surprise Obama has a cabinet full of centrists.
Exactly, “Maggotpunk” –
The CONs are so deluded by their wing-nut ideology they have no perspective as to what is right or left.
And — when you consider the legal definition — they’re insane because they don’t know the difference between right and wrong.
The realities of office and what he is now saying and doing are quickly proving Obama was either lying to the ‘Cool Aid DimLibs’ just to get elected, or was simply naive
I think both, ha!
Oh, and if the DimLibs are feeling “duped” it’s because they are dupes, and spot on correct in that one aspect.
Good morning boys, Maggot and Monkey, hope you had a blessed Thanksgiving…..sincerely.
“Boxlock20″ –
The food was good and plentiful and the company was entertaining. To have my Thanksgiving “blessed” would have been overkill.
William Greider has written some fairly thoughtful articles in Rolling Stone and the Nation in the past. It’s a pity that he destroys his own credibility at the outset by declaring himself at once a dupe and, at the same time, a credible critic on a subject as complex as economic policy.
Let’s note for a moment that, while much of the liberal press was cheering when Clinton won, I was more in Alexander Cockburn’s camp: “Welcome to Bill Clinton’s world. I wish I felt better about it.”
As for Obama, well, I’m going to keep my skepticism while suspending my cynicism. The man is sharp, and I don’t think we’ve yet seen what aces he has up his sleeve. But anyone who thought one man was going to single-handedly remake the Washington establishment alone was quite delusional at the start. Ever hear of Jimmy Carter?
And I’m familiar enough with the Nation (particularly under its current editor) to know that it sometimes feeds on controversy for controversy’s sake. I remember all too well in 2002, when it profaned the death of legendary paleontologist Stephan Jay Gould, by handing the review of his last book to a smug Marxist creationist postmodernist (no, I’m not kidding!).
The real issue, in my mind, is that raised by the article to which Greider links, which amplifies the questions we’ve seen about Tim Geithner’s judgment:
http://www.rgemonitor.com/globalmacro-monitor/254546/%20what_barack_obama_needs_to_know_about_tim_geithner_the_aig_fiasco_and_ci%20tigroup
I’ve seen these concerns before, but it’s unclear to me that the president of the NY Federal Reserve Bank is so powerful that he’s, in effect, a equal partner with the Treasury secretary. I think I may have to take a further look at it.
Obama’s whole “transformational politics” idea was, basically, to get a bunch of people into a room who disagree and hammer out the best solution, with the Prez doing the vision thing. We’re seeing some cautious steps in that direction. Could you imagine, e.g., Bill Clinton making his top economic advisor a professor from friggin’ Berkeley?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-kall/obama-appoints-berkeley-p_b_145978.html
I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again: change starts with us. That doesn’t mean everyone can or even should become even part-time activists. I realize that, in times like these, keeping the wolf from the door is necessarily the first priority. But it’s beyond irresponsible to, as one wag put it, “sit back and wait for Obama to introduce New Deal 2.0.” Misplaced complacency is the enemy.
We’ve had eight years of being treated like children.
Now is the time to be adults.
I was hearing the centrist view from Obama during the campaign but then most people do hear what ever they want to from a candidate. I will admit from the right I have had a hard time finding anything that truly reflected the Republican view. Not from the war on terror to the economy that is not say the Liberals and/ or Democratic have had much better ideas.
We’re missing the point. It’s not so much who fills the posts as it is what they do after the Obama administration is up and running. It would never work to have a bunch of light-weights fill these positions. The heavy-weights are going to be people with experience, and that means they’ve already served in a previous administration. That’s the way it always works.
So before the Libs start wetting themselves about what this all means, maybe we should wait and see what the Obama administration actually does before we start selecting a rope.
Ron Paul was the actual anti-establishment candidate.
But he was no pretty celebrity.
No pats on the back for our diversity with him as a president, why he was just a boring old white man.
The American sheeple have voted.
More of the same, but with a celebrity of a diverse background to be our glorious leader.
At least Oprah is happy.
I haven’t seen President-elect Obama do anything differently than candidate Obama said he would do. He also hasn’t disappointed me. Having an adult in charge is refreshing and it instills confidence.
Feeling duped? No.
I didn’t vote FOR Obama. I voted against Sarah Palin. I have never believed in Barack Obama and, so far, he has done almost nothing to change that.
Like Linda said, Barack Obama is doing exactly what he said he was going to do. He is an adult with intelligence who is skeptical of his own beliefs to try to create a balance in his cabinet, which is exactly what he said he would do, and which creates an enormous contrast with “once I make a decision I stick with it even if I don’t know its consequences” Bush.
regardless of the labels, liberal/centrist/whatever, the appointments do not speak much of “change”, does it?
It’s the best kind of change! Change from the incompetence of bushco.
“Regardless of the labels, liberal/centrist/whatever, the appointments do not speak much of “change”, does it?”
Yes, they do. In fact, they represent substantial change. The change has less to do with political spectrum and more to do with the idea that people in key posts should be qualified. There are some clearly political nominations as well, but many represent an emphasis on quality and qualifications, and that represents an enormous change from Bush Lite.
I’m not feeling duped. That’s why it was so funny that the cons kept calling him the most liberal ever. That tired old line is bunk now just as it was bunk back then.
Face it, liberalism isn’t a bad word, and as much as you try to make it out to be, your own showed how ‘conservativism’ IS a bad word.
Obama will keep throwing the gays under the bus. Am I sad? Yep. Duped? Nope. But as JR said, it had to be him over Palin. ugh.
Obama will keep throwing the gays under the bus.
Any specifics for this claim?
As far as I personally am concerned, Obama must spend the next four years EARNING the nomination of the party in 2012. He gets no pass and presumptive nominee status from me.
“To have my Thanksgiving “blessed” would have been overkill.”—Monkeyhawk
None the less, to have spent some of the Thanksgiving day reflecting on the many blessing I have received created a feeling of wanting to wish the same for others, even those I vehemently disagree with on many things….such as yourself.
It makes me smile to read each person who is labeled a “liberal,” express their individuality.
It’s such a good word, and an even better political philosophy! It includes all of us individuals. ;-)
Heh, ya don’t need to wink at me, Linda! I agree.
The day liberals think in lockstep, they will no longer be libersls.
Here ya go Rage
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/11/obama_punting_on_gays_in_the_m.php
I think Obama is appointing qualified people and will be able to lead them in the direction he belives the country needs to go. The naysayers will be disappointed, not those who believe he is the best man for the job. I can’t even imagine McCain and Palin in Obama’s shoes….how scary would that have been? To overcome the major economic challenges we now face, we have to have someone who is intelligent, wise, pragmatic, and insightful..McCain had few if any of those qualities…and Palin wasn’t even in the ballpark.
I think the main reason Obama turned his back on the gays is because so much of his base is made up of minorities…most of whom are overwhelmingly against gay rights. I was disappointed by that.
Two states have passed Gay Marriage. 29 is it? have voted it down.
He’s not stupid.
I agree with you Mary, however blacks are not a majority and he is representing all Americans under the Constitution. It shouldn’t matter what bigotry most Americans have.
Black people: White Christians used their religion to justify enslaving you. There were plenty of good White Christians who also used religion to justify dying for you to get freedom.
You chose to adopt the religion of your captors, and that’s fine. But the least you can do is show that same level of tolerance for gay rights as those Whites who died for you.
Yawn . . .I was hoping you had some real information, pmom.
I saw that Mathew Barger article a long time ago. I preferred actually looking into the details rather than repeating half-baked speculations from the archconservative Washington Times.
The bottom line? Thanks to Bill Clinton’s floundering, Obama doesn’t have the luxury of enforcing equality by executive order. Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is a federal law. It will have to make it through Congress first, and a Congress that has several other things on its plate.
It’s true that Obama’s going to sit down with the military brass and discuss the issue first. But this is not 1993. Several high-powered military types who may or may not care about human rights have recognized that DADT has serious national security implications as well. At any rate, the writing is on the wall:
Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Policy: Inevitable Repeal (pdf)
http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=A479596&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf
Camp Obama appears to agree:
Repeal Don’t Ask-Don’t Tell: Barack Obama agrees with former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff John Shalikashvili and other military experts that we need to repeal the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. The key test for military service should be patriotism, a sense of duty, and a willingness to serve. Discrimination should be prohibited. The U.S. government has spent millions of dollars replacing troops kicked out of the military because of their sexual orientation. Additionally, more than 300 language experts have been fired under this policy, including more than 50 who are fluent in Arabic. Obama will work with military leaders to repeal the current policy and ensure it helps accomplish our national defense goals.
Against this backdrop, the Mooney Times’ claim that Obama “will not move for months, and perhaps not until 2010″ loses it sting.
And you might actually read the source article itself.
One problem I’ve seen elsewhere is an excessive patience on the part of gay-rights lobbyists such as the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, which has said they’re actually willing to wait until 2010.
P.S. Whoops, dropped a link.
http://change.gov/agenda/civil_rights_agenda/
P.P.S. I realize that a student paper, but I thought he made the case well.
Why are some saying Obama is failing before he’s even taken office? I don’t get why many are actually hoping he’ll fail..how unpatriotic!
Rage
Posted November 29, 2008 at 9:45 am | Permalink
Heh, ya don’t need to wink at me, Linda! I agree.
The day liberals think in lockstep, they will no longer be libersls.
- – – - – - — – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - — – - – - – - – - – - – - –
You people have been passing the bowl around again haven’t you? And its not Prince Albert your smoking either.
Just like the Borg in Star Trek NG, you have a collective mind set. Further more you will broach no variance of opinion. Your common denominator is hatred. Failing to get the impeachment you so longed for from Pelosi, Reid and Co., has caused many of you to become totally unhinged. The thought that Bush and Cheney may be allowed to ride off into the sunset with no Congressional investigation and prosecution for all their imagined criminal acts is beyond your comprehension. In the end, the painful truth is, you are so consumed with avenging the impeachment of Bill Clinton, that you are willing to squander the opportunity you currently have to advance your cause.
Hey, mactown…whatever.
Dennis
Actually, ChrisMactown has a valid point.
The Crats do spend way too much time looking for revenge and don’t concentrate how they can get their party into mainstream politics.
People like Pelosi and Reid are killing the Democratic party with a slow smothering ‘Lib hate’ instead of getting the job doen.
Where are the Carl Alberts and Tip Oneils of the Democratic party?
It appears that the crats have been taken over by ‘no plans’ radicals who just want chaos and revenge.
“Chrisfrommactown” enriches the conversation with –
“Just like the Borg in Star Trek NG…”
Thanks for sharing your vantage point for observing reality.
It explains a lot.
chrisfrommactown – I did not want the impeachment of Bush because that would have left us with Cheney (which is worse).
Besides, what would the impeachment proceeding have done to our country while we were still in two wars? Maybe the Democrats decided to put country first and just try to work with Bush for the remainder of his term?
Or is that too much for a loyal lapdog Republican like yourself to comprehend?
Your side chose to drag Clinton through an impeachment proceeding and wasting millions of dollars and came out with what? Clinton is just as popular today, as if not more so.
As for hatred from the liberals, there is no match for the hatred I’ve seen from the Radical Right Wing of the Republican Party and that is the wing that brought your side down this time.
I think alot of people are just like Blue Jay – they voted against Palin.
Chrisfrommactown
Posted November 29, 2008 at 11:14 am | Permalink
Regular
Posted November 29, 2008 at 11:33 am | Permalink
Hmmm, for some reason, music comes to mind. . .
“Living is easy with eyes closed/ Misunderstanding all you see”
http://www.lyricsfreak.com/l/lennon+john/strawberry+fields+forever_20082535.html
With no consensus of what “conservative” means added to a total lack of understanding what “liberal” means, the Republican Party path to relevance may be a long one.
HiLARious, I tell you what!
ChrisfromCrapTown accuses the Libs of undying “hate” in a hate-filled, spittle-flecked rant with zero evidence.
ReguLIAR claims that Pelosi and Reid are “smothering” the Party despite the total blowout of Democrats over RepubliCONs in the last two election cycles. Then he holds up Tip O’Neill who was crucified by the CONs when he Speaker of the House.
This liberal has no problem with any of Obama’s picks so far. FDR didn’t appoint “liberals” either.
The President’s vision is driving this train.
Get used to having a real leader in office instead of President Gibberish and his empty suit.
Do cons just invent sh*t up? Where did anyone talk about impeachment on this thread? Personally I’d love to see the traitor to America impeached, along with Cheney, but that should have happened years ago when we found out he did lie about the real threat of Iraq and put our nation into a war that has left us more vunerable than before.
Chris it astounds me how your Christian ideals could possibly lead you to quote Star Trek of all things as if it is relevant to this conversation at all.
Honestly cons, worry about yourselves. Liberals are quite happy with the way things are going right now- politically speaking. Stop telling us what we should do because obviously we’re doing something right. You, on the other hand, please keep doing what it is that you do.
Your right crappy, FDR didn’t appoint liberals, He appointed out and out communists. Harry Dexter White, Alger Hiss, Harry Hopkins, etc.
The Democratic candidate has won the popular vote in four out of the last five presidential elections.
But we’re the ones who are “out of touch?”
Best regards to all you CONs and to your lovely wife, Bizarro Lois.
;^)
Crappy redux: The President’s vision is driving this train.
Get used to having a real leader in office instead of President Gibberish and his empty suit.
– - – - – - – - – - — – - – - – - – — – - – – — – - – - – - – - – – - – -
Another laugher from the “crapmaster”. Face it dude, BHO will be taking orders from the same money men and globalists that GWB did. We may have fun arguing repub/dem and lib/con here, but the bitter truth is, both parties are controlled by the same people and it ain’t “we the people”.
Oh gee, not an Illuminati enthusiast!!!
Yeah, sour grapes, CFCrapTown . . .
You didn’t have any problem with the corportacracy when your guy was passing out the money.
You can say all you want to about how the CONs and LIBs “are all the same.”
But life was a lot better for Americans under Clinton-Gore than under Bush-Cheney.
And it would have been better under President-in-Exile Al Gore than what we had for the last eight years.
Stop passing the bowl to Crappy. He’s had to much
Stop telling us what we should do because obviously we’re doing something right. You, on the other hand, please keep doing what it is that you do.
—————————————————-
Not according to Congressional approval ratings.
You own it all now. No where to hide.
Good luck with that.
Mr_Kia
Posted November 29, 2008 at 1:00 pm | Permalink
Stop telling us what we should do because obviously we’re doing something right. You, on the other hand, please keep doing what it is that you do.
—————————————————-
Not according to Congressional approval ratings.
You own it all now. No where to hide.
Good luck with that.
—
wtf?
Congressional approval ratings are in the tank BECAUSE of the GOP, dude. It’s not the Democrats who’re held in low esteem by voters, it’s the Republics.
Why else would Democrats make gains in Congress earlier this month?!?
Talk about dense. Jesus, at this rate it’ll take you guys yet another election cycle to figure out that yes, Dorothy, there major problems within the GOP.
Good luck with THAT…
Democrats have had the Congress for two years. Ratings have been in the tank since then. It’s because they’ve run on promises they have not delivered and will continue to do so.
Mr_Kia
Posted November 29, 2008 at 1:57 pm | Permalink
Democrats have had the Congress for two years. Ratings have been in the tank since then. It’s because they’ve run on promises they have not delivered and will continue to do so.
—
Which party was the net winner in the elections of three weeks ago?
ANS: it ain’t the GOP.
You guys are living in la-la land.
We’ll see how well things go when there is no fingers to point except at yourselves.
I’ve often thought the office of President of the United States of America is far more symbolic than anyone cares to admit. Yeah, policies are important, what with reality always interfering with stuff. But it’s the STYLE of a presidency that most affects this nation of transplants and misfits.
FDR brought an attitude to March 4, 1933. More important than the New Deal, more powerful than the TVA, more audacious than the First Hundred Days, it was attitude Roosevelt gave our parents and grandparents.
The third FDR term happened after World War II started in September of ‘39. It was attitude more than anything that got FDR his third term; working together Americans can accomplish anything.
Truman in ‘48 represented the importance of the ordinary guy on the street in America. In many respects it was the revenge of the rubes. They’d fought and won a war on guts and spunk and if there was ever a generation of people who’d earned universal health coverage it was those people then. The Republic Party scotched Truman’s proposal for universal health care, of course and became what Ann Richards described as “…being born on 3rd base and thinking they hit a triple.”
Eisenhower’s presidency was an attitude of retirement. The guy put his balls on the line for D-Day, f’r cryin’ out loud! Nothing was gonna flummox him. And the 50s turned into the 50s.
The key to JFK’s America wasn’t Cuba or Russia or civil rights as much it was “…the torch has been passed to a new generation.”
LBJ’s attitude was that of a reformed drunk. After a political career based on sucking up to Texans’ racism he stepped forward with civil right legislation he knew would “…kill the Democrats’ chances in the South for a generation.” Vietnam was a narcissistic enterprise for America we don’t often come to grips with. Johnson was obsessed with not being “…the first President to lose a war.”
Nixon brought arrogance to the forefront of the American style. Although he got elected promising he had “…a secret plan to end the war,” more than half of the names on the Vietnam Veterans’ Memorial got there after Tricky Dick took office.
Although he wasn’t elected, Jerry Ford influenced the style of being an American. Not too bright, betrayed by a lot of the old cliches of Americanism, “Whip Inflation Now” buttons, slogans, pardons….
Jimmy Carter seemed better at the time. At least he was smarter than Ford. But Carter was the guy who reminded the teacher she hadn’t assigned over-Christmas-vacation homework 30 seconds before the bell rang. Carter tried to tell America we have to eat our spinach or there’d be no dessert. We didn’t like that.
Reagan promised dessert and no spinach. And doubled the national debt in the cause of “conservatism.” As with his previous career, Reagan was a fair-to-middlin’ actor with a mediocre script. But everyone expected a happy ending, Hollywood style.
Poor ol’ George H.W. Bush came face to face with reality and had to admit “Read my lips: No new taxes,” was a shallow and mindless slogan that didn’t make sense.
Clinton’s style was spunk of a Baby Boomer who thought he (and we) could get away with anything provided there was some style. The blow job was a nice touch, style-wise. And it made all those CONs look particularly foolish since all of them (re: Newt Gingrich) liked blow-jobs because they didn’t have to worry about whether the blower got off.
George WMD Bush’s style was/is decidedly unintellectual. Lee Greenwood, f’r chrissake, is Shrub’s idea of a member of JFK’s National Council on the Arts. What does Lee Greenwood know about art aside from a medley of his hit?
America got stupid with Dumbya in the Oval Office. The house will always make money, the credit card people will always offer more money you don’t have to pay back (after all, Abrusto Oil didn’t have to pay anything back), and killing brown people is fun if they’re not shooting back at you.
The thing I like about this new guy who will become President on January 20th, 2009, is that he seems to be able to think. And, unlike some people who merely think, he’s got the steel to make a decision. I don’t agree with all of his decisions but I’m convinced he’s thought about it and has a rationale behind it. I don’t really believe he’s thrown anyone under the bus but — and I’m intentionally using irony here — he’s decided some people have to ride on the back of the bus for a while.
And that’s pretty much of an American style I can live with. I’m more liberal than Obama. Then again, I haven’t been elected President of the United States. (Yet.)
The whole “messiah” meme is a CON straw man. I don’t know any liberal or any Democrat who thinks Obama is gonna be perfect and solve all our problems and make the lame see and the blind to walk again. But if those issues come up he’ll think about ‘em. That’s a lot better than what we’ve had for the past eight years.
Mr_Kia
Posted November 29, 2008 at 2:02 pm | Permalink
We’ll see how well things go when there is no fingers to point except at yourselves.
—
Translation: it’s the media’s fault the GOP lost.
Translation 2: la-land – a place inhabited by GOP members who stick their fingers in their ears and chant “la la la la la” very loudly.
Which translates as anything that goes wrong or is not accomplished will continue to be blamed on the GOP.
Mr_Kia
Posted November 29, 2008 at 2:08 pm | Permalink
Which translates as anything that goes wrong or is not accomplished will continue to be blamed on the GOP.
—
Your solution, to stick your fingers in your ears and chant “la la la la,” is that going to remedy who gets blamed for what?
No my remedy is to sit back, watch the carnage and say “I told you so.” LOL
The post-W GOP:
G handi
O i, what grand
P assivism!
Not really all that catchy, if you ask me.
I guess passivism is the new activism for you guys.
“Obama’s new vision for our America!!”
Apparently Obama’s vision is:
MOTS
More
Of
The
Same
No change.
From Political Mom’s link:
“For one, the LGBT community is at a period of weakness, coming off losses in California and Florida on propositions to outlaw gay marriage.”
Boy, is THAT off the mark. The LGBT community has been energized by those losses. When it comes to movements, losses, and especially near losses, result in an increase of activism. Thinking that the LGBT community is safe to ignore because they are “weaker” would be very stupid hubris indeed, particularly on an issue where the majority of the country is behind them.
monkeyhaouk said: The whole “messiah” meme is a CON straw man.
– - – - – - – - – — – — – – - – - — – - – - – - – - – – - – - – - — – -
Yeah, I always knew that the conservatives were behind that gaudy roman temple set in the stadium in Denver. Having Louie Farrakan tell that crowd that the Messiah (Obama) was speaking was a master stroke for the conservatives also.
Chrisfrommactown
Posted November 29, 2008 at 4:52 pm | Permalink
… Having Louie Farrakan tell that crowd that the Messiah (Obama) was speaking was a master stroke for the conservatives also.
—
lol
I think you meant to write “against” instead of for, since something — maybe Farrakhan, who knows? — drove conservatives so bat$hit insane that they ended up gnawing off their own hind legs….or at least they went so cuckoo for cocoa puffs that independents nervously dodging their rabid spittle left ‘em in droves and voted for Obama.
I don’t think yall really grasp the idea of “backfire,” know what I mean?
I gotta say that, based on the evidence to date, I ain’t really holdin’ out a lot of hope for yall come 2010 either, lol.
“Chrisfrommactown” contrives –
“…in the stadium in Denver. Having Louie Farrakan tell that crowd….”
Except, of course, Farrakhan was nowhere near Denver.
C’mon, CONs. If you’re gonna lie try to make ‘em plausible.
I mean, if I were ever to attempt lies on your level I’d come on WE Blog and declare Dick Cheney has contracted for a steady supply of cute fuzzy kittens to be delivered to his office in the West Wing just so he can strangle one or two in the morning before his work day.
(Okay, that might not be a good example.)
Monkeyhaouk says: Monkeyhawk
Posted November 29, 2008 at 5:30 pm | Permalink
“Chrisfrommactown” contrives –
“…in the stadium in Denver. Having Louie Farrakan tell that crowd….”
Except, of course, Farrakhan was nowhere near Denver.
C’mon, CONs. If you’re gonna lie try to make ‘em plausible.
– - — – - – - – - – - – - – - – - — – - – — – - – — – - – - – - – — -
I never said Farrakan was in Denver. The speech I referenced was after the convention, in Chicago possibly. You either knew that already and didn’t care or are just too stupid to know the difference.
Actually the whole “Messiah” thing started back during the primaries when the “in the tank for Obama” main stream media kept reporting about people fainting en mass at Obama rallies like it was some modern day Beatlemania.
C’mon, “Chrisfrommactown” –
You wrote:
“…in the stadium in Denver. Having Louie Farrakan tell that crowd….”
Right?
Then you claim:
“I never said Farrakan was in Denver.”
So “that crowd” was apparently transported en masse to Chicago for the Farrakhan speech you claim he gave to “that crowd?”
Okay.
I’m understanding now how to read your dispatches to this forum. You either don’t mean what you say or don’t know what you’re talking about. And if you know what you’re talking about you lack the ability to convey what you’re talking about.
I’m not totally eliminating the possibility of both but I’d prefer to think you either are a fool or a liar.
I can forgive a fool.
A liar, not so much.
Your choice.
Monkeyhauok, a wise man once said, tis better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth (or hit enter) and remove all doubt.
Good advice Chris, you should take it.
Kia, you’re going to sit back and say “I told you so” just like we have done at every turn. What happens when it goes well? Will you convert?
Monkeyhawk, Chris is IMO a nutcase but you are wrong on this one. More to the point, I suspect you realized this given the selective nature of your qoute.
Here is your quote of Chris:
“…in the stadium in Denver. Having Louie Farrakan tell that crowd….”
Here is the full quote:
“Yeah, I always knew that the conservatives were behind that gaudy roman temple set in the stadium in Denver. Having Louie Farrakan tell that crowd that the Messiah (Obama) was speaking was a master stroke for the conservatives also.”
It’s awkward, but it is obvious to me that he is talking about two seperate incidents (the “roman [sic] columns…in Denver” versus “Having Farrakan tell that crowd…”). The also is key here. Now, I don’t know what Roman columns, not to mention Chris’ mangled reference to Farrakan, have to do with being his labeled a messiah, but it does not mean that Chris was trying to say that Farrakan was in Denver.
Keep it real.
It was the right-wing media that tried to paint Obama as some sort of far-out uber-liberal. In gact, he ran as a reasonable progressive and has shown with his cabinet choices thus far that he is just that. Obama recognizes that the US econimic system must be allowed to operate; however it must NOT be allowed to continue the abuses of the past 8 years that have led to today’s current meltdown.
Obama et.al. also recognize that we need fiscal responsibility. Democrats know that as has been shown in the past. Pump-priming during economic hard times is needed but our country simply cannot afford the massive fiscal irresponsinility that we always see under republic rule. (Note the huge deficits under Reagan, Bush 1 and now Bush 2)
Kia,
“No my remedy is to sit back, watch the carnage and say “I told you so.””
Better turn your chair around. Most of the carnage will be within the ‘publican ranks. They lost bigtime and they’ll be looking for a heap of scapegoats to blame it on.
good night; good luck; god bless —-
whatever you conceive god to be!!
blessings ALL!!
Advent blessings to ALL!!
so mote it be!!
Chas, enough already with your little sign-offs. And stop with the “whatever you conceive God to be” garbage. It is totally irrelevant what anybody conceives God to be. God is God. He is the Great I Am and there is no other like Him. There is only one way to God and that is through the Son Jesus Christ.
Chas, if you truly are or were a Pastor then it is no wonder that most of the Church today is Apostate.
Pfffft.
Chas, keep ‘em coming. I for one read your posts closely. When you discuss religion, especially comparative religion, you have my full attention.
In fact, I suspect that you have a far wider audience than you may know here. I also suspect that your influence is both greater, and more positive, than some think.
Please continue to write here, and please be confident that some of us pay attention.
“Please continue to write here, and please be confident that some of us pay attention.”
——
All of us who wish to be well informed appreciate the knowledge you’ve gained from your lifetime of study and thank you for sharing it.
You’re getting much better at ignoring the judgmental posters. ^5!
OK, put another way Monkeyhawk, especially considering Chris’ totally clueless rejoinder to Chas.
Chris is indeed a fool, not a liar.
“Agnatha” –
Thanks.
At least that’s settled.