Originally Posted By mrichmondj I certainly won't be voting for a candidate that feels pandering to the NRA is more important than their personal integrity.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <I guess you won't be voting for Senators Clinton and Obama then, since they've "lied" for even sillier reasons> What has Obama lied about, and why was it a sillier reason than what Romney lied about?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Obama claimed that he owed his existence to the march from Selma, Al - that if it hadn't been for that march, his parents wouldn't have gotten together. Fact is, he was born before the march from Selma to Montgomery.
Originally Posted By friendofdd >>>And to pick apart absolutely anything anyone says about anything at all does not help us get the most qualified people elected.<<< Interesting thought, Jonvn. I think the most qualified people don't run. They have a hard time convincing themselves they want to jump into the muck that is our politics.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Obama claimed that he owed his existence to the march from Selma, Al - that if it hadn't been for that march, his parents wouldn't have gotten together. Fact is, he was born before the march from Selma to Montgomery.<< Source?
Originally Posted By jonvn "I think the most qualified people don't run." No, they don't. Becuase we are so hung up on someone LYING about ANYTHING at all in their lives, that it's just not worth it to even bother. People lie all the time about stuff. We need to cut humanity some slack, otherwise, you get these milquetoast nobodies who are incompetent and afraid to do anything.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Source?> Here's what Obama said in the speech he gave at Selma: "It is because they marched that I stand before you here today. I was mentioning at the Unity Breakfast this morning, my -- at the Unity Breakfast this morning that my debt is even greater than that because not only is my career the result of the work of the men and women who we honor here today. My very existence might not have been possible had it not been for some of the folks here today. . . There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Alabama, because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born. So don't tell me I don't have a claim on Selma, Alabama. Don't tell me I’m not coming home to Selma, Alabama." <a href="http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/03/obamas_selma_speech_text_as_de.html" target="_blank">http://blogs.suntimes.com/swee t/2007/03/obamas_selma_speech_text_as_de.html</a> The date of the Montgomery to Selma march was March 7, 1965. <a href="http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/travel/civilrights/al4.htm" target="_blank">http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/trave l/civilrights/al4.htm</a> Barack Obama was born on August 4th, 1961. <a href="http://obama.senate.gov/about/" target="_blank">http://obama.senate.gov/about/</a>
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I certainly won't be voting for a candidate that feels pandering to the NRA is more important than their personal integrity.> I guess you didn't vote for Senator Kerry then. Do you really think you'll find someone to vote for who doesn't pander to someone? Or are there some organizations that you believe pandering to is more important than personal integrity?
Originally Posted By mrichmondj Wow, for someone who you suggest panders to the NRA, the NRA sure spent a heck of a lot of money to run a ton of anti-Kerry attack ads in 2004.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj In general, I would usually consider the candidate that the NRA is attacking is probably on the right side of the issue as far as I'm concerned.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh I guess they know true pandering when they see it. <a href="http://www.sportsmenforkerry.com/jkhunting.htm" target="_blank">http://www.sportsmenforkerry.c om/jkhunting.htm</a>
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <In general, I would usually consider the candidate that the NRA is attacking is probably on the right side of the issue as far as I'm concerned.> So you'll voting for a candidate that feels pandering to the anti-gun crowd is more important than their personal integrity?
Originally Posted By mrichmondj I probably wouldn't vote for someone that pandered to the anti-gun crowd, since that is a ridiculous stance. Of course, neo-cons like to paint people black and white -- you are either for or against something. There is a big difference between not being aligned with the NRA and "anti-gun." You won't learn those differences from the propaganda websites you link to, however. They are designed for simpletons who can't think for themselves.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Of course, neo-cons like to paint people black and white -- you are either for or against something.> It's not that we like to paint people for or against things, it's that sometimes they are. <You won't learn those differences from the propaganda websites you link to, however. They are designed for simpletons who can't think for themselves.> I apologize for linking to Senator Obama's website.
Originally Posted By JohnS1 "The date of the Montgomery to Selma march was March 7, 1965....Barack Obama was born on August 4th, 1961." Maybe in 1965, he was born AGAIN!
Originally Posted By mrichmondj << I apologize for linking to Senator Obama's website. >> I was referring to your post #32. Not that you didn't know that from the start.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Alabama, because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born. So don't tell me I don't have a claim on Selma, Alabama. Don't tell me I’m not coming home to Selma, Alabama." Sounds to me like he could very easily be talking about Obama the public persona, and not his literal birth. But nice try.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Here's what Obama said in the speech he gave at Selma: "It is because they marched that I stand before you here today. I was mentioning at the Unity Breakfast this morning, my -- at the Unity Breakfast this morning that my debt is even greater than that because not only is my career the result of the work of the men and women who we honor here today. My very existence might not have been possible had it not been for some of the folks here today. . . There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Alabama, because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born. So don't tell me I don't have a claim on Selma, Alabama. Don't tell me I’m not coming home to Selma, Alabama."<< What a shockingly dishonest post. Wow. I'm not even going to start playing Douglas's pathetic word-games, but for everyone else, read on for what Obama really said. Notice Douglas's elipsis in the quote he posts? Douglas manages to snip four whole paragraphs out of Obama's speech. In those four paragraphs, Obama talks about his grandfather, his parents, and the larger Civil Rights movement. What he was really addressing was a response to people who say he doesn't have the same claim on the Civil Rights movement because his father was African and his mother white and from Kansas. He mentions the Montgomery bus boycotts and talks about the opportunities that happened because of the Civil Rights movement and the idea that there were people who, not only marched across the bridge at Selma, but also, in Obama's words "a bunch of women decided they were going to walk instead of ride the bus after a long day of doing somebody else's laundry, looking after somebody else's children. When men who had PhD’s decided that's enough and we’re going to stand up for our dignity." He links this stirring up in the country and the larger movement to the opportunities given to his father. So, to say "Obama claimed that he owed his existence to the march from Selma, Al - that if it hadn't been for that march, his parents wouldn't have gotten together" is sheer deliberate dishonesty. Again, I have no doubt that Douglas will split plenty of hairs and do what he does best - play word-games and focus on semantics. But this kind of portrayal of Obama's words is absurd. One doesn't have to want to vote for Obama, or like his politics, or think he'll be a good President (I'm somewhat skeptical myself). But why some would deliberately misrepresent what was a very clear, even thoughtful message just for a cheapshot, is beyond me.
