Obama up by 8......

[xsited1]

How is he going to discriminate against himself?

By denying his white heritage. You remember the "typical white person" quote.

 

[Chris]

By denying his white heritage. You remember the "typical white person" quote.

This is typical Republican bullshit. Most of their appeal comes from racsim.

 

[xsited1]

This is typical Republican bullshit. Most of their appeal comes from racsim.

I wouldn't know about that, but it's the truth. Have you read Dreams From My Father?

 

[Chris]

I wouldn't know about that, but it's the truth. Have you read Dreams From My Father?

Who cares?

Obama is clearly not a racist.

But the Republican party, on the other hand, always has to have a brown man to scare white suburbanites with. First it was Willie Horton, then it was Bin Laden, then it was Saddam Hussein, now it is Rev. Wright or Obama. It is what Republicans do. The problem is that the country is becoming more diverse, and it is harder to be a racist Republican.

 

[xsited1]

Who cares?

Obama is clearly not a racist.

But the Republican party, on the other hand, always has to have a brown man to scare white suburbanites with. First it was Willie Horton, then it was Bin Laden, then it was Saddam Hussein, now it is Rev. Wright or Obama. It is what Republicans do. The problem is that the country is becoming more diverse, and it is harder to be a racist Republican.

You keep talking about the Republican Party and I really don't know why. Are you trying to change the subject? Seriously, Obama is borderline racist. Believe what you want, but that's true. And the Democratic Party supports Affirmative Action which gives preferential treatment to people based on the color of one's skin. That's racism.

 

[Chris]

You keep talking about the Republican Party and I really don't know why. Are you trying to change the subject? Seriously, Obama is borderline racist. Believe what you want, but that's true. And the Democratic Party supports Affirmative Action which gives preferential treatment to people based on the color of one's skin. That's racism.

Most of the Republicans I know are racist. It is part of the reason they are Republicans.

 

[xsited1]

Most of the Republicans I know are racist. It is part of the reason they are Republicans.

So you know a bunch of racist Republicans. That's great! Good for you!!! Fantastic!!!!!!!

So what does that have to do with Obama and the Democratic Party???

 

[Chris]

So you know a bunch of racist Republicans. That's great! Good for you!!! Fantastic!!!!!!!

So what does that have to do with Obama and the Democratic Party???

Republicans are the racists, not Obama.

 

[xsited1]

Republicans are the racists, not Obama.

We are talking about Obama and you keep bringing up "the Republicans!"

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

"'You took all of that out of context. If it were such a big deal, then all the right wing media would be over this 24/7 until November 4.

However, they're not so this is old news and bullshit.

Enter another two quarters and feel free to try and play this game again though.'

She quoted him jackass... How in the hell does she take anything he says out of context? They are his statements, he made them in the respective books which she sourced... she doesn't place ANY context on them at ALL beyond the fact that Hussein said them in his book.

Don't you love it when Socialists become outraged at the unmitigated GALL of their opposition to actually quote them? They're very much like the Arabs who get all exorcised over the translation of their quotes...

'Oh that's not exactly what Chairman Arafat said... The interpreter misinterpreted a word, which is very common... What you were told he said: "We will kill every JEW to the last man, woman and child" is incorrect. The correct interpretation is "We will give milk to every JEW CHILD and lastly the men and woman too...'

Hussein wasn't taken out of context, his words are clear enough. He's a Marxist on the march and the truth of his ambition would make Bill Clinton blush with embarrassment."

Oorah, devil dawg!

Taking a quote out of context simply means that the original quote doesn't mean exactly what it literally means because the subject surrounding the quote isn't there on display and the implicit meaning of the quote is misrepresented. Therefore, all the quotes that she used in her argument are, in fact, taken out of context. We can't really know what Obama meant in those quotes because we don't the situation in which those quotes were made unless we had read his books.

LOL... Ahh... so the only proper means of quoting any statement made in a book is to print the entirety of the book...

I gotta tell ya, that seems pretty absurd to me. I agree with you that the subject needs to be present in a quote to bring the quote into context, but the relevant quotes had such for the most part... She provided the source of the quotes, so that those who doubt the veracity of the argument wherein the quotes were asserted, can examine the entirety of the statement from which the quote was drawn...

Now given that and the emphatic assertions that the quotes were drawn out of context, what I would like to see here, is someone making this assertion that the quotes were out of context to come and set the quotes in the context and show this board, conclusively, that, IN POINT OF FACT, the quotes were advanced outside of their founding context.

Simply claiming that the quotes were out of context, because they were advanced through an entire line of reasoning presented in BOOK FORM is fallacious: Argumentum ignorantiam, (the appeal to ignorance) to be precise.

Taking quotes out of context has been a habit of many bloggers, journalists, campaign ads, etc. etc. and shouldn't accepted as valid.

Oh I agree completely... this issue is not one of them. One of my favorite instances of such was the left's use of Newt Gingrich stating "We'll just let it wither on the vine" in a speech wherein he was discussing Medicare and a bill which would have privatized certain aspects of it...

Now here the usages were true examples of asserting a quote out of context BECAUSE THE USERS OF THAT QUOTE FRAMED GINGRICHES COMMENTS OUT OF CONTEXT: "When you're older, and you're sick, Medicare is more than health care, it's peace of mind." Then, the spot cuts to House Speaker Newt Gingrich delivering a speech to Blue Cross on October 24, 1995: "Now we don't get rid of it in round one because we think that's politically smart and we don't think that's the right way to go through a transition. But we believe it's going to wither on the vine."

Here's the full quote: "What do you think the health care financing administration is?

It's a centralized command bureaucracy. It's everything we're telling Boris Yeltsin to get rid of. Now we don't get rid of it in round one because we don't think that's politically smart and we don't think that's the right way to go through a transition. But we believe it's going to wither on the vine because we think people are going to voluntarily leave it. Voluntarily."

Our member did not misrepresent Hussein's point... she merely quoted what he said. But again, IF you or another member can show that Obama's point was something OTHER than that which you feel the respective member advanced them, then upon evidence of such I'll happily correct and revise my position.

I will say that in my opinion that it is a 100% certainty that you'll be unable to do so...

Furthermore, socialism and marxism are philosophies that ensure community, love among humanity, peace, equal rights, and meaningful work instead of working for rich multi-national conglomerates, the almighty dollar over fellowship, and classism.

Well, it should be noted that within the scope of your own definition regarding context, you're guilty here of advancing the scope of "Socialism" absent any valid, viable or even discernable source which would support your conclusion.

How Socialism could "ensure community, love among humanity, peace, equal rights, and meaningful work" is known only to you... And frankly to be honest, I have serious doubts that you're in possession of certain knowledge which could conclusively show that Socialism can ensure any of that... as socialism in point of fact strips humanity of their individual rights by DEFAULT.

For instance under the tenets of socialism, property ownership is forbidden; as property ownership establishes in and of itself a class distinct from those who do not own property... Capital is property, real estate is property and ownership of either is anathema to a socialist culture. Thus the individual is stripped of the means to pursue the fulfillment of their own life by aquiring life improving property through the product of his or her labor...

Under Socialism, the potential product of the labor of the individual is determined by 'the state,' which is a term utilized to avoid noting that "The People" control the means of production, eclipsing the means of "The Individual" to determine the potential of the product of his labor... thus the work of the individual becomes MEANINGLESS... and so on.

The military is almost a microcosm of marxism. Almost except for rank and the classism between the enlisted and commissioned officers

.

LOL... Well sure… and I’m a microcosm of an NFL Linebacker, except for my inability to perform at the level of a 20 something professional football Linebacker… Thus the assertion that I’m similar to such is an absurd misnomer... However, in the case of the Military and Marxism, the misdirection is a result of the necessary focus in the Military on the needs of the collective, at the sacrifice of the individual... thus it's understandable; but it is an error in reasoning to equate that necessarily rigid infrustructure of the Military as an example of a free society.

The Military, particularly the US military is a cultural mechanism which requires a high degree of discipline due to its critical cultural function. But to suggest that 'The Military' is a function of, or somehow analogous to Marxism is quite frankly and with all due respect: ABSURD.

As you noted, the Military is ALL ABOUT Social CLASS... While the individual is not rewarded through the potential for substantial windfalls, which is the engine that drives a free market, Risk versus reward... The Military rewards the individual for their consistent discipline and focus on Mission, through the adherence of the principles of "Honor, Corps and Country" by overtly advancing the individual's outward authority... Their rank, which comes with an increase in responsibility, thus compensation and establishes their level within their class or cultural status; be they Non-Commission or Commissioned Officers...

While the Military is 'team oriented' that does not mean that the concept of individualism is rinsed from the system... it necessarily focuses on the collective, because it is through the collective effort that the success of their mission rests. But the longest tradition of the Military is to publically reward the individual high achievers with recognitions of their superior performance; recognition which they outwardly wear on their persons in formal environments; recognition which sets them apart from their underperforming peers. The US Military succeeds on the efforts of its individuals performing in concert; in a highly disciplined, highly organized and structured regimen that strides through Unit coordination, but rests upon the professionalism; intellectual means and the strength of character of each individual...

But of all the wonderful and great things that the US military is, it is NOT the model of Freedom... It is an awesome and necessary organism on which FREEDOM DEPENDS; however, if one HAD to define it through only one word, the word which comes to mind when I think of the US military is SACRIFICE. As each member of the US Military sacrifices their freedom, at the very MINIMUM, as each individual service member serves their own unique commitments.

Now some people need the structure that is the Military; some prefer that structure, but each and every man and woman that serves, has a CHOICE... each knows that at some point, they are free to leave the military and return 'to the world.' Such is never the case with a Marxist nation... and such can never be the case with a Marxist world.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Sorry, I don't talk about reproductive choice with people who aren't rational.

And it was RIGHT HERE that this member and her argument became an

EPIC FAILURE!

(This based upon her overt avoidance of a valid point; she read the argument, considered it and CHOSE TO RESPOND through a fallacious ad homimen obfuscation. That this member began her response with a demand that her opposition be responsible for proving her own conclusions, is just a delightful irony which stands as a little bonus that makes her exposing herself as a fool just that much sweeter...)