Tuesday, May 13, 2008


It's the only YouTube page that has an Al Jazeera ad to the right side of it, too. Must be just a coincidence, huh?


Is there a Jew in this country who'd vote for him NOW? This should be a gift to Conservatives, but we all know there ARE Jews who'll admire this. (not many, I hope)
Arab Jew-hating Obama-loving Muslims making campaign calls to Americans? The kids interviewed say Obama is "capable of change inside America"..REALLY? He's also "capable of bringing peace to the Middle East." You've got to ask yourself how they know that. I do.

Shouldn't this be a deal breaker for ANY American presidential candidate? You won't believe this video!


Anonymous said...

Obama makes me sick. Any Jews I know would NEVER vote for Obama.

He is like the plague!

Anonymous said...

LOL! I am so tired I could not even spell my name right! LOL! My bad.


Anonymous said...

HYPOCRISY and EXPEDIENCY are part and parcel of politics. There is no such thing as CLEAN, POLITE, PRINCIPLED politics––––and there never HAS been. It is NAIVE to think otherwise.

If you read the newspapers of Washington, Jefferson, Adams and Hamilton's day, you might be shocked at how rude, coarse, untruthful and vicious things were back then. It got worse in Andrew Jackson's time. Of course Jackson was our first "common" president–––really the first true "Democrat," and he was, as you might expect, frankly a louse. The Trail of Tears ALONE proves that.

Lincoln actually threw newspapermen who opposed him in JAIL and threatened others with the same punishment. So much for the First Amendment in Lincoln's time! Lincoln is hailed as a great hero, but in truth he was a ruthless, self-appointed DICTATOR who shredded the Constitution, ignored the dictates of the Supreme Court, the wishes of the great majority of citizens, and was directly responsible for the deaths of 635,000 men. He also personally created millions of sick, maimed, crippled, mentally-ill survivors, widows, orphans and widespread poverty and degradation. And for WHAT?

Why should OBAMA be any different–––or any better–––than any other member of this scandalous profession?

I have no use for "Boosayno," he's a de facto COMMUNIST, for Heaven's sake! But, to hold HIM to a higher standard than others with similar ambitions is neither fair nor realistic.


Anonymous said...


. "He also personally created millions of sick, maimed, crippled, mentally-ill survivors, widows, orphans and widespread poverty and degradation. And for WHAT? "

For what? To save the Union? Just a thought, FT.

What would you have had him do, allow the South to secede? To continue the condoning of slavery?

Hindsight is 20/20, and what you are suggesting is not much different than in 2008, deploring the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

When at war, the object is to win. It's a nasty business, war. But, sometimes necessary, as you know.


Incognito said...

Yes, sadly, Z.. there are still many who will.. regardless of any bad press.

I have at least 3 in my cast that plan to..

Anonymous said...

Dear Pris,

Secession was permitted under the Constitution. The Civil War was was not in the least "necessary," not was it in any way constitutional.

Lincoln did not sanction and foster the conflict because he wanted to end slavery. He did want to "preserve the union." But that was not the great accomplishment we've always been led to believe.

History would read differently had we split in two, but slavery would have ended anyway–––and quickly–––because of the advent of the Machine Age. And SIX-HUNDRED THIRTY-FIVE-THOUSAND young lives would have been spared, and countless MILLIONS of others would not have been maimed, blinded, crippled, widowed, orphaned and plunged into grinding poverty.

That was ENTIRELY too high a price to pay for the dubious "gains" we supposedly made.

UNLESS our LIVES have been threatened by a foreign INVASION, there could be no legitimate excuse for all that bloodletting. When hostile foreign powers attack–––and ONLY then–––does one HAVE to fight and very possibly die for one's country.

There is no valid comparison with Hiroshima and Nagasaki that I can see. We were brutally attacked by Japan–––a barbarous FOREIGN power. A hideous war had erupted in Europe because of Hitler's unchecked aggression. Our closest antecedents–––the people most like us and to whom we owe our rich cultural and intellectual heritage–––were in grave peril for their lives and territorial integrity.

The term GENOCIDE was coined later to describe what happened to the Jews in Hitler's Germany.

After we were attacked we HAD to get involved.

I don't see any similar imperatives regarding the Civil War. The firing on Fort Sumpter was almost "ceremonial" in character, and the South had been badgered and goaded into exhibiting bravado by taking the tragic suicidal position they did.

I too was raised to regard Lincoln as a great man. After reading and thinking on my own for half a century, I changed my mind about Lincoln. I now regard him as more monster than hero, although he was hardly the sole factor that generated the Civil War.

Nevertheless, he–––and he alone–––opened the door and paved the way for the government interventionism, creeping despotism and the death of States' Rights we've been experiencing in varying degrees ever since the 1860's.

TR and his "trust-busting," Wilson's ambitious "foreign entanglements" to "make the world safe for democracy" and his damnable League of Nations, FDR's all-out embrace of Marxism, the relentless move of spineless "modern" Republicans to the Left, and the Neocon Vision of a Worldwide Pax Americana all go against the best advice of our Founding Fathers, and have led us to the brink of disaster.

I am much more of a Libertarian than I am a Conservative, and I have resisted to conformity to popular opinion, mindless adherence to tradition, and well-worn shibboleths all my life.

That does not make me in any way sympathetic to Communism, Socialism, unbridled Libertinism, or whatever masquerades as "Social Justice" these days.

I do generally feel that "Big is Bad, Small is Superb". This goes for nations, industry, and government on national, state, county and community levels.

If "too many cooks spoil the broth," too many busybodies with legislative, judicial and appointive powers are certain the spoil nation, state or area they dominate.

Like the late Bill Buckley, I believe people function best when the highest degree of independence and individualism is encouraged.

Do-gooders, busybodies, and crack-brained crusaders have always done far more harm than good in my never humble opinion.

GEORGE BERNARD SHAW seems to confirm a lot of what I'm trying to say in these two quotations:

"All this struggling and striving to make the world better is a great mistake; not because it isn't a good thing to improve the world, if you know how to do it, but because striving and struggling is the worst way you could set about doing anything."

"This is the true joy in life, the being used for a purpose recognized by yourself as a mighty one; the being thoroughly worn out before you're thrown on the scrap heap; the being a force of Nature instead of a feverish, selfish little clod of ailments and grievances complaining that the world will not devote itself to making you happy."

G. B. Shaw (1856-1950)

~ FreeThinke

Anonymous said...

When they (Gazans) say that Obama is capable of 'bringing peace to the Middle East'...come now.
Surely whomever uttered those words meant to say 'He'll side with the Palestinians, we are hoping'.

One would hope that being endorsed by HAMAS would be a deal breaker in the eyes of any American, Z.

But then again, I've seen the local Obama supporters...and they have NO CLUE how to spell HAMAS, let alone know who they are!

Around here, it's simply a matter of skin color.

Z said...

Pinky..what do you mean "simply a matter of skin color" You can't be serious.

Z said...

FT: LIncoln did what he did to preserve the union. Don't you think America's stronger and better because we're not two, or MORE, countries now? Or at least was better for 150 years. I can't say we're better at anything much anymore, more's the pity.

Honestly, sometimes you sound like you don't even want a federal government! You're against stepping in to save little children from rape by old men yet you think a young handicapped woman should be killed by the government, now you're against a united America.....what the heck would America do without a federal government? I'm for States rights, too, but.........??? 'splain, please!! xxx

WomanHonorThyself said...

o gosh he just gets more poisonous by the minute Z!

Anonymous said...

FT. Lincoln faced one hard decision. To allow the South to secede and tear the Union asunder, thereby opening th door for other disaffected areas in America to follow that course, or to preserve our Nation united as one.

I do find it interesting, that you don't find the South culpable at all. It may have been permissable to allow secession, but it was not required.

You are talking about a young country barely begun. To allow it to come apart during it's formative years would have been unthinkable.

He really had no other choice, and thank God he made the decision he did. The Union had to be preserved at all costs, or everything we fought for during the American Revolution would have been weakened.

Successive Presidents are responsible for their own acts and it's too easy to thrust blame on a former President for whatever you deem their mistakes to be, simply to shore up an argument.

Finally, whether an individual, or a nation, struggling and striving is the natural state of existing, no matter whether we would choose it or not.

We succeed or fail according to our efforts or lack thereof. Included in those efforts,is struggling and striving.

I would argue that with some struggle and difficulty, we learn to appreciate our successes and are less likely to take them for granted. Also, we learn that we can deal with deprivation if that circumstance should arise. A bit of struggle makes us stronger, as it does a nation.

We could be poised once again in America, to face an insurrection. The enemy is already in our midst, just biding their time, until strong enough. If and when it comes to that would you recommend we follow in Europe's footsteps, and just allow it to happen? I doubt it.

Would that a Lincoln is waiting in the wings once again to preserve our American Union, or it could be lost without so much as a whimper.


Anonymous said...

Pris and Z,

We're just going to have to agree to disagree probably on many issues.

I hope that's all right?

My views are clearly articulated and generally the product of much thought and experience. If you can't accept them, I'm sorry, but that's your right and privilege.

Farmer John and I disagree vehemently about Freud. I see Freud as a pernicious influence, FJ regards him as both a genius and a hero.

Well, Freud may have been the former, but I believe his influence has had almost entirely a deleterious effect on American society.

When one has said everything one has to say on a subject, and has persuaded no one to change his mind or start thinking in another direction, it is time to stop debating, lest the parties involved do nothing but repeat themselves.

Have a wonderful day.

~ FreeThinke

Brooke said...

Why wouldn't terrorists want Obama? He's a commie, he's said he would sit down with brutal dictators for a little chit-chat, and above all else, he's a wishy-washy down-with-the-military Democrat.

The terrorist KNOW they'll get away with murder with Obama in office. Literally.

(((Thought Criminal))) said...

Fidel Castro opened phone banks in Havana for the John Kerry campaign back in 2004.

(((Thought Criminal))) said...

Lincoln actually threw newspapermen who opposed him in JAIL and threatened others with the same punishment. So much for the First Amendment in Lincoln's time! Lincoln is hailed as a great hero, but in truth he was a ruthless, self-appointed DICTATOR who shredded the Constitution, ignored the dictates of the Supreme Court, the wishes of the great majority of citizens, and was directly responsible for the deaths of 635,000 men. He also personally created millions of sick, maimed, crippled, mentally-ill survivors, widows, orphans and widespread poverty and degradation. And for WHAT?

I disagree.

Democrat "Confederates" in Lincoln's time are directly responsible for the Civil War.

Lincoln was rather tame with his powers as President.

Not as tame as George W. Bush, but still quite tame.

Anonymous said...

Z, I'm totally serious.
when I 'mischief voted' in the primaries it was clear that most of his supporters were voting for him based on his skin color.

I sat silently as his camp openly discussed how they 'used to be Clinton supporters, but now were voting for Obama'.
The two caucuses were divided to select delegates and when we divided up it was black on one side and white/hispanic on the other. We had one black woman on the Clinton side. Sad, but true.

When I hear VERY young voters say that they 'used to' support Hillary, it makes me wonder. Why did they switch? If he were white, would they have?

The older folks there sounded educated on the issues. They were respectful of the political process and those around them, etc. But the younger people were there to up the numbers...and it was clear why they were voting they way they were.

But I'm not worried, Z. Good always wins out. Progress IS being made. I promise. You must trust ME on this one.

The Merry Widow said...

Pinky-Go read your Bible again, matters do not become better. The accummulation of sin and taint from the Fall are killing us.
Go read Revelation, it doesn't get better, honey, it goes to Hell!
Isaiah, Paul, Jude and Jesus HIMSELF ALL agree(throw in a little Daniel while you are at it)time is winding down, and our Lord is coming again.


Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Z said...

Pinky...I do trust you..I have to on this one....God is good!

BUT, I misread you. I was kind of relieved that I had! When you said "it's all about skin color here", I mistakenly thought you meant Texans would NOT vote Obama because of his skin color. Frankly, I was relieved to read it's quite the opposite...

BUT, this is a fear. There are enough Americans who'll vote for a Black man just because he's Black. Aren't we "OPEN MINDED?"!! OH, man. As IF the best man to run our country should be picked by the skin color...it goes SO against Dr. MLK, Jr, who said we must judge a man by his character, not the color of his skin.

This could be scary.

Anonymous said...

Z, yes, you got my point exactly. I would vote for a man if he were green, blue, black, or any color if he...or SHE were the right person for the job. I'm just talking about what the local supporters seem to be doing.
I think we're on the same page now. And yes, it does go against EVERYTHING MLK, Jr stood for.

It makes me ill.

My seven year old knows who Colin Powell is and has never commented on his skin color. We discuss successful Americans all the time, and what makes them successful. Skin color never factors in.

TMW, I know that the end is near. I wasn't implying that it's not. I'm just saying that we are rasing up a generation of patriotic Americans. If we have no hope, we have nothing. Maybe it's because my children are so young, but I cannot resign myself to an attitude of 'this country is going to hell in a handbasket'. I've heard my parents and grandparents say that for years. It's simply depressing and gives the younger generation no hope for a better future. Instead, I say, teach the younger people to stand up the brainwashing, be strong, and be ready to fight the good fight.

Much love respect and no hard feelings among believers, ever. :-)