Rev Jackson wants to casterate Obama (figuratively I hope)

[SD67]

Also, one of the reasons why I distrust/dislike him, is because he supports torture/waterboarding.

Who doesn't?

[DREDIOCK]

The only difference between torture under this administration. and torture under previous administrations over the last 30-40 years is that we do it ourselves instead of paying some other country to do it for us

[Stixx]

Well, I agree with a lot of what you say, including your point that the reasons I gave for liking and supporting Obama are largely emotional ones.  However, although McCain has served in the military, I still fundamentally do not trust him, largely because I think he's going to follow in Bush's footsteps too closely.  In addition to this, although I don't have any evidence to back this up, I've noticed that McCain seems to switch his sides on issues occasionally.

Also, one of the reasons why I distrust/dislike him, is because he supports torture/waterboarding.

<S>

Yossarian

I will admit McCain has switched sides on a number of issues, so too has Obama.  From what I've seen in every presidential election since I was old enough to vote in the mid seventies the candidates tend to tell you what you want to hear in order to get your vote. That's why I have never trusted a politician, and in every election I've voted in I've chosen the lesser of two evils. In this election that will be McCain.

As for the torture issue, unfortunately in the world in which we currently live, it is a necessary evil. I dislike it. But at the same time I understand that at times we must do distasteful things in order to survive.

[bj229r]

Why?  Because there's no way I would ever vote for McCain.  I actually find the prospect of that guy being President to be quite disturbing, seeing as he does not seem overly intelligent (he graduated very near the bottom of his military class), and also I dislike his foreign policy, which seems to be following that of Bush (largely because McCain supports attacking Iran).  In addition to this, I have listened to Obama speaking, and whilst his economic policies may not be too sound, I think that at this time, it is far more important to have a President with a good foreign policy - i.e. one which prefers negotiating with countries such as Iran, rather than attacking them.

And just in case any rabid right-winger charges in here and screams "nnnaah you cannot reason with Arabs all they want to do is kill all Christians" (yes, I have heard that before), I am going to say that if you think that, you really need to actually visit the Middle East - I am in Bahrain now, and let me assure you that the previous comment is far from the truth.

<S>

Yossarian

I guess you missed where Obama said he'd attack Pakistan (nuke?), who actually IS one of our pseudo-allies, if need be

[moot]

I still fundamentally do not trust him, largely because I think he's going to follow in Bush's footsteps too closely. 

As opposed to blindly follow directions from Illinois?

[Yossarian]

Who doesn't?

Me.

As opposed to blindly follow directions from Illinois?

Evidence?

I guess you missed where Obama said he'd attack Pakistan (nuke?), who actually IS one of our pseudo-allies, if need be

I just googled that topic (Obama statement nuke Pakistan), and the only result on the first page which looked decently-reliable, from ABC news (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=3441342&page=1), said:

Regarding terrorist targets in the Afghanistan/Pakistan region, Obama told The Associated Press Thursday: "I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance." He then added: "Involving civilians."

Seeming to think twice about his response, Obama then said, "Let me scratch that. There's been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That's not on the table."

I then googled: 'Obama statement invade Pakistan', and got this from The Times (UK) http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2182955.ece:

Standing in front of a Stars and Stripes flag, Mr Obama said: “There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again . . . If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.”

These quotes seem to suggest that Obama did not say that he would be willing to nuke Pakistan, but rather that it wasn't an option, before then retracting that statement.

<S>

Yossarian

[moot]

Yossarian ---> posts by Charon.

[FrodeMk3]

I thought Obama's observation had some merit, but I'm suspicious of him enough to suspect that his words were meant more for middle white America ... especially since he didn't bother to praise the many, many good black fathers and family men who do the right thing every day.  In other words, I think Obama is astute and intuitive enough to know how to widen his appeal with middle America and betting that the black men he just threw under the bus will tolerate it to see a black man get over.  Too bad his policies on nearly everthing are destructive to our country.

I can't understand why there isn't more talk about the upcoming war in the middle east.  Maybe they would like to forget about it.  McCain should be speaking realistically about it even if people don't really get it yet.  It is a freight train coming down the track, and its blowing its whistle... Israel will strike Iran - maybe the US will too - this is the most immediate issue. 

I tend to want to disagree with you, Gunthr-Since the slide the economy's taken has hit alot of people, I don't think that foreign policy will be that big an issue in this election. I tend to think that politics' will be closer to home this time; the mortgage/credit crisis is yet to be resolved, and it has caused a domino effect in other sectors' of the economy, to the point that many Americans' are feeling the pinch now. I think you will see the most positive responses to the candidate that has the best format for economic recovery.

[FrodeMk3]

As to the original issue of Jackson vs. Obama....It's easy to see what's happened. Obama's ascendance to power in the black community, virtually dethrones' people like Sharpton or Jesse Jackson. They will do anything, including throwing support in for the opposing candidate, if it means' they can stop Obama. They are more afraid of protecting their own little perches, rather than even supporting something that could immensely further the general cause of total equality. However...By Jackson saying what he did, he gives' Obama a chance to excise himself from Jackson or Sharpton's style of Hate-mongering racial-based politics. It could help align Obama more with voters' of different demographics, if it appears' he has split with radicals like Sharpton/Jackson. It has a good chance of bringing in more white voters, for instance...

[AKIron]

I think Obama has proven himself to be very willing and perhaps quite adept at playing politics. There aren't enough black people to elect him so he must present himself a moderate so that others who want more government control and support (socialism) can ease their consciences in voting for more bread and circuses. 

[Jester]

As to the original issue of Jackson vs. Obama....It's easy to see what's happened. Obama's ascendance to power in the black community, virtually dethrones' people like Sharpton or Jesse Jackson. They will do anything, including throwing support in for the opposing candidate, if it means' they can stop Obama. They are more afraid of protecting their own little perches, rather than even supporting something that could immensely further the general cause of total equality. However...By Jackson saying what he did, he gives' Obama a chance to excise himself from Jackson or Sharpton's style of Hate-mongering racial-based politics. It could help align Obama more with voters' of different demographics, if it appears' he has split with radicals like Sharpton/Jackson. It has a good chance of bringing in more white voters, for instance...

WHAT THAT MAN SAID!   

I am still waiting to see the knockdown, dragout, pursefight between Jessie and Sharpton when accidently the news media forgets and provides only a 30 second soundbite that both will have to share in front of the camera.   

[BTW]

I think what Jackson is angry about is the the elephant in the room. Obama has no experience and no reason to be president except that he is a white looking black man. He's pre-fab, brand GREAT. He's the Oprah book of the month. You could take Rev. Pfleger's rant of Hillary Clinton and substitute Jesse Jackson and you have the source of the hate. "How dare he? I'm ENTITLED!" I'VE BOWED TO Coretta King for THIRTY YEARS!" In ways there is justification for Jackson's anger. If Obama won (which I really doubt is possible) I wouldn't be angry because a black person or liberal won, I'd be angry that the propaganda media has become so powerful and corrupt, they threw the election. Obama is not the black candidate to me, but the propaganda creation.

If the media can elevate a not so successful local politician to the Presidency, then surely we are a nation of imbeciles.

[SD67]

Obama is the feel good president to usher in the next great depression. After this everyone will point to him (or quite possibly his very early grave) and say, "We had a Black President once, look what that got us!"
It's all a ploy by the powers that be to set the cause of the African Americans back another 50 years or so.