Obama's Dimestore 'Mein Kampf'

[AllieBaba]

Nice try, but you're still falling short of the banana.

 

[rayboyusmc]

Ali it would seem that someone who accuses everyone else on the other side of being a liar might well be diagnosing his own condition.

[edit] Recognition and awards
The audio book edition earned Obama the 2006 Grammy Award for Best Spoken Word Album.[7]

Columnist Joe Klein stated in an article about Obama for Time that the book "may be the best-written memoir ever produced by an American politician."[8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreams_from_My_Father

I will see if I can find this book and actually read it.

How many here have?

 

[jreeves]

Ali it would seem that someone who accuses everyone else on the other side of being a liar might well be diagnosing his own condition.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreams_from_My_Father

I will see if I can find this book and actually read it.

How many here have?

I have it and context or no context he says some pretty racist things.

 

[Larkinn]

Perception isn't reality.

Compare right wing talk radio with left wing air america, if you want to see a comparison. You won't hear anyone on talk radio spewing obscenities. It's a given on air america.

Really?

"Nappy headed Hoes"

Savage:

On his July 5, 2007 radio broadcast, commenting on students' fasting in protest of the lack of immigration reform, Savage said, "I would say, let them fast until they starve to death; then that solves the problem.

lliberalism is not only a mental disorder; it is fascist at its core.

Which is why nobody listens to it. It's trash.

Its because Liberals don't like listening to hateful trash. Conservatives do. Hence Liberal trash talk radio failed and Conservative trash talk radio is doing just dandy. Congrats on that fine success!

Compare Hillary trotting out imaginary "victims" of the imaginary "health crisis" and see if you can find anything like that going on on the right side of the campaign.

Imaginary? Not quite.

Compare Obama's ties to a hate-mongering racist and see if there's anything like that going on the right side of the campaign.

Hagee, anyone?

The difference between the right and the left is that the right is, essentially, honest. The left is dishonest, and when they're caught being dishonest, they insist that everybody does it, so it's okay.

It's not okay, and everybody doesn't do it.

Actually the difference between the right and the left is deep fundamental philosophical differences. Anyone who couches political differences in terms of honesty and dishonesty is a fucking idiot.

 

[frazzledgear]

Ann Coulter is amazing. That she can distill a several hundred page memoir into its very essence with just three quotes is astounding. I admire her a great deal. I am also quite sure that she is supplying this information with the proper context. She is a respected journalist after all.

Well golly gee then. Since it was Ann Coulter we all know for a fact that these quotes weren't in his book at all and HAD to have been taken out of context -so no need to read his book for yourself now, is there? Certainly sounds like YOU have no intention of reading it and deciding for yourself -the fact a critic of what he had to say was Ann Coulter is enough for you, right? Since it was Ann Coulter, we know that is proof positive that this guy doesn't have a racist bone in his body -which certainly explains why he kept with the same racist, anti-American bigoted "pastor" for more than 20 years -who just happened to be the very first person he thanked upon his election as Senator.

This is the typical stunt of the disingenous or those just begging to have the wool pulled over their eyes. If you attack the messenger for the "crime" of pointing out some rather unsavory statements in his book - then we can all pretend what she quoted from Obama's book isn't really there or actually meant the exact opposite -without reading it ourselves and making that decision for ourselves. Must explain why his campaign has kept his wife in the background and you don't see her on TV anymore. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that his angry, bitter and anti-American wife is an election handicap. Maybe that is considered great Brownie points for First Lady among some Democrats, but it sure won't sell in the general election.

Hillary got a court order to seal the contents of a paper she wrote for her degree -must have been a doozy for her to go to that extent -and something she knows would be detrimental to her political ambitions. Maybe Obama can get some court to yank his book off the shelves before too many people do read it and see for themselves what he really said and the context in which he said it.

I first saw Obama when he was the keynote speaker at the 2004 Democratic Convention and was in awe of his speech, believed he had serious potential and was very impressed with this guy. His charisma is undeniable. But I didn't have to read his book to become disillusioned -I only had to look up his record in the Illinois legislature to realize I could never vote for Obama.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Anyone hear read "The autobiography of Malcolm X?" If you haven't, then you don't know what you're talking about.
Yes, he did start out hating white people. But he went on a trip to Mecca and met Muslims of all races and ethnicities, and realized that he had been wrong.
Perhaps that was the point of Obama's quote about the book. I don't know, because I haven't read his book.
I sincerely doubt that someone who has a white grandmother hates white people.
Maybe he went through a period where he did wish that his whiteness could be removed. Shit, I'm white as they come and I've wished I could not be associated with the slavery and hatred and lynchings and rape that have occurred at the hands of white people in this country.
Not to mention, the whiteness in Malcolm X's blood and the vast majority of African Americans is the result of plantation owners raping their slaves. Yeah that's something to be really happy about.

Sorry if I don't get dew eyed over something that ended from a bloody war over 143 years ago. A war I might add that mostly white people fought and the most America's died in of any war we have ever fought in , I believe even if you combine all other wars that stands true.

Nor do I feel guilty because a bunch of racists used to lynch black people over 50 years ago. No one in my family was involved to boot. So excuse me if I do not give a pass to black people for being racist themselves. Once again the way it works is either everyone is held to the same laws and standards or those laws and standards are MEANINGLESS.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Calling you a stupid bitch doesn't make me racist. It's not because of your race that you are stupid.

That wasn't the only point, but then you knew that and are deflecting.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You can't honestly prove that the left are the only ones that lie, can you? I'm more conservative myself...but even I know that a politician is politician through and through. The right is worried about their party just as much as the left is worried about their party. They all (for the most part) are dishonest to a degree. You can't look at the world in black and white. You have to look at it without bias.

The left assumes as a starting point they are smarter and know best, that everyone else is stupid and incapable of making good decisions for themselves. They further assume this superior position gives them the right to ignore the very laws they enact to "control" the rabble they want to "take care of".

 

[frazzledgear]

Really?

"Nappy headed Hoes"

Savage:

On his July 5, 2007 radio broadcast, commenting on students' fasting in protest of the lack of immigration reform, Savage said, "I would say, let them fast until they starve to death; then that solves the problem.

lliberalism is not only a mental disorder; it is fascist at its core.



Its because Liberals don't like listening to hateful trash. Conservatives do. Hence Liberal trash talk radio failed and Conservative trash talk radio is doing just dandy. Congrats on that fine success!



Imaginary? Not quite.



Hagee, anyone?



Actually the difference between the right and the left is deep fundamental philosophical differences. Anyone who couches political differences in terms of honesty and dishonesty is a fucking idiot.

The left and right often identify the same things as "problems" -the key difference between them is how best to solve them. The left invariably says that bigger and more regulatory government is ALWAYS the answer. It is a cookie-cutter response for them. The right is more likely to say the answer lies elsewhere. The other difference is one that has been pointed out long before I came along.

A liberal believes he holds the views he does because he is a moral and decent person, therefore his views are the only truly moral and decent ones. That must mean anyone who disagrees with them cannot possibly be a decent and moral person. Which means they must be disagreeing because they are evil and cannot have any other motive for disagreeing. And therefore, whatever they DO believe -must also be evil and bad. It is actually a childish mentality -I am good, therefore whatever I believe is also good. If you were a moral and good person too, you would have the same political positions I do. Since you don't, then you must be bad and evil and therefore whatever you believe in is also bad and evil.

Which sure helps explain their nonstop bs that conservatives are racist bigots, hateful and despicable people who want everyone's children, including their own, poisoned with bad air and water, etc. etc. ad nauseum. I've heard more than a few liberals say that all conservatives and Republicans should be thrown in prison -which is certainly in line with communist thinking too. One can only be a political dissident because you are evil and we need to protect everyone from such a criminal. We must protect people who shouldn't be exposed to such evil! When you tell yourself that you are a good person, that you believe in x,y and z and that must mean x,y and z are GOOD -then its pretty easy to turn around and insist that anyone who doesn't believe that must be the exact opposite. If he disagrees, he must be a BAD and EVIL person. And since he is a bad and evil person, then I don't even have to listen to his argument because whatever he believes is also bad and evil. Quick and easy way to dismiss without any consideration the validity of any arguments from those who disagree then, isn't it?

In other words, liberals tend to believe that those who disagree with them politically are doing so because they are evil and bad people.

The right believes that those who disagree with them politically are just plain stupid.

 

[ReillyT]

Well golly gee then. Since it was Ann Coulter we all know for a fact that these quotes weren't in his book at all and HAD to have been taken out of context -so no need to read his book for yourself now, is there? Certainly sounds like YOU have no intention of reading it and deciding for yourself -the fact a critic of what he had to say was Ann Coulter is enough for you, right? Since it was Ann Coulter, we know that is proof positive that this guy doesn't have a racist bone in his body -which certainly explains why he kept with the same racist, anti-American bigoted "pastor" for more than 20 years -who just happened to be the very first person he thanked upon his election as Senator.

Yeah, sorry, I actually consider Coulter that unreliable. You kind of hit the nail on the head.

 

[frazzledgear]

Reliance on Ann Coulter as a source would generally make me second-guess your intelligence, but lucky for you, I already thought you were stupid.

Easy way to dismiss the validity of Coulter's criticisms without knowing AT ALL if they are valid or not, isn't it? How can you argue or even SUGGEST that Coulter took his comments out of context -WITHOUT READING THE BOOK, THEN READING HER ARTICLE AND DECIDING BASED ON THE FULL FACTS whether her criticisms carry any validity or not and whether she took his comments out of context or not? I'm willing to bet you've never even read one of her books to decide for yourself whether taking comments out of context is even something she does. I have not only read Obama's book, I have read a couple of Coulter's books-which were intensely referenced as lawyers tend to do and better reads than her TV appearances would suggest. (I read books from authors on the left, right and everywhere in between -I'm not afraid to read a book from someone with whom I politically disagree.) And taking statements out of context is not typical of Coulter -at least in the couple of books of hers I did read. But I rarely read any of her articles.

I am satisfied in my mind -based entirely on my OWN research, in which his book was only a part -that Obama is a racist, which he wants to hide, has a racist wife that his campaign is now trying to hide, and was led by a racist "pastor" for more than 20 years with whom he is deeply and intricately tied -and reached that conclusion long before Coulter's article. Which I have not read -so until I read her article, I don't know if she took anything out of context or not. But those three quotes given were just a sampling of the ones that struck me in that book too. Not the ONLY three. The difference is -I didn't write an article about it. My research was one to decide whether he held some of my most important political views or not -discovering he was a racist was an incidental and unpleasant realization. His political views already removed him as a viable candidate for my vote -his racist views would have clinched that for me had his politics not already done that. But I leave it to everyone else to decide whether that is their conclusion about Obama -but I would like to think they have actually researched this guy's politics and his personal views instead of pretending the guy is the person they WANT him to be.

Until you have actually determined for yourself that Coulter took his comments out of context in his book, surely you know your "opinion" that she did or even "probably did" has no validity, no weight and need not be considered by anyone else as a valid opinion. Unless you have actually read Obama's book and seen for yourself whether her comments carried any validity or not -then what the heck are you talking about? Nothing but "kill the messenger" as far as I can see. Gee, did that work out real well as a mode of thinking in the past for someone that I didn't hear about or what? Did we all revert back to a world where we get to pretend that whether what a person says has any validity or not -is based on our personal like or dislike of that person? Just imagine where mankind would be today if that were actually true. Still believing in a flat earth and that the sun revolves around the earth no doubt.

 

[jillian]

Easy way to dismiss the validity of Coulter's criticisms without knowing AT ALL if they are valid or not, isn't it? How can you argue or even SUGGEST that Coulter took his comments out of context -WITHOUT READING THE BOOK, THEN READING HER ARTICLE AND DECIDING BASED ON THE FULL FACTS whether her criticisms carry any validity or not and whether she took his comments out of context or not? I'm willing to bet you've never even read one of her books to decide for yourself whether taking comments out of context is even something she does. I have not only read Obama's book, I have read a couple of Coulter's books-which were intensely referenced as lawyers tend to do and better reads than her TV appearances would suggest. (I read books from authors on the left, right and everywhere in between -I'm not afraid to read a book from someone with whom I politically disagree.) And taking statements out of context is not typical of Coulter -at least in the couple of books of hers I did read. But I rarely read any of her articles.

I am satisfied in my mind -based entirely on my OWN research, in which his book was only a part -that Obama is a racist, which he wants to hide, has a racist wife that his campaign is now trying to hide, and was led by a racist "pastor" for more than 20 years with whom he is deeply and intricately tied -and reached that conclusion long before Coulter's article. Which I have not read -so until I read her article, I don't know if she took anything out of context or not. But those three quotes given were just a sampling of the ones that struck me in that book too. Not the ONLY three. The difference is -I didn't write an article about it. My research was one to decide whether he held some of my most important political views or not -discovering he was a racist was an incidental and unpleasant realization. His political views already removed him as a viable candidate for my vote -his racist views would have clinched that for me had his politics not already done that. But I leave it to everyone else to decide whether that is their conclusion about Obama -but I would like to think they have actually researched this guy's politics and his personal views instead of pretending the guy is the person they WANT him to be.

Until you have actually determined for yourself that Coulter took his comments out of context in his book, surely you know your "opinion" that she did or even "probably did" has no validity, no weight and need not be considered by anyone else as a valid opinion. Unless you have actually read Obama's book and seen for yourself whether her comments carried any validity or not -then what the heck are you talking about? Nothing but "kill the messenger" as far as I can see. Gee, did that work out real well as a mode of thinking in the past for someone that I didn't hear about or what? Did we all revert back to a world where we get to pretend that whether what a person says has any validity or not -is based on our personal like or dislike of that person? Just imagine where mankind would be today if that were actually true. Still believing in a flat earth and that the sun revolves around the earth no doubt.

Coultergeist doesn't traffic in truth, kiddo... she's a liar, and exists only to create fissions in our society while enriching herself.

So I'd suggsest that before YOU bother giving credence to anything she's written (since she's been proven a liar so many times before) that YOU go read Obama's book.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Coultergeist doesn't traffic in truth, kiddo... she's a liar, and exists only to create fissions in our society while enriching herself.

So I'd suggsest that before YOU bother giving credence to anything she's written (since she's been proven a liar so many times before) that YOU go read Obama's book.

Really? You have proof of this? Did you rad any of her books or columns or papers? If so how many and please cite for us the lies.

Or are you just doing what he JUST said Reilly was doing?

Ohh wait, I forgot, you do not talk to me, another example of your ignorant fan boy politics. Ohh and am I the only one that notices you DO in fact comment on what I have said and then when questioned on it claim you do not talk to me?

You are a perfect poster child for the " kill the messenger" liberal left thought process. Add in you are ignorant on the Constitution and what constitutes a crime and we have a real winner when you post on those topics.

So tell us do you agree with Reilly that cause Obama is black he gets a pass on his obvious racist comments? Then remind us what you thought of the Trent Lott affair. Ohh you can always play Reilly's game and claim IGNORANCE on the going ons with Trent Lott.

Ohh but you do make a good Moderator. Just thought I would end on a good note.

 

[maineman]

Coulter says:

Nearly every page -- save the ones dedicated to cataloguing the mundane details of his life -- is bristling with anger at some imputed racist incident. The last time I heard this much race-baiting invective I was ... in my usual front-row pew, as I am every Sunday morning, at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago.


I have READ the book. That is a blatant lie. Until you have also read the book, you're forced to rely on those of us who have.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Coulter says:

Nearly every page -- save the ones dedicated to cataloguing the mundane details of his life -- is bristling with anger at some imputed racist incident. The last time I heard this much race-baiting invective I was ... in my usual front-row pew, as I am every Sunday morning, at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago.


I have READ the book. That is a blatant lie. Until you have also read the book, you're forced to rely on those of us who have.

Except based on YOUR posting here I know you couldn't be trusted to tell the truth about some one like her if you were offered a million bucks.

 

[maineman]

Except based on YOUR posting here I know you couldn't be trusted to tell the truth about some one like her if you were offered a million bucks.

I have read the book. she is lying. you have not read the book. for you to continue to support a woman who said, among other things, that she wished that Timothy McVeigh had attacked the new york times instead of the federal building in OK City shows what a vile and despicable hack you are......

lie down with dogs, get up with fleas

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I have read the book. she is lying. you have not read the book. for you to continue to support a woman who said, among other things, that she wished that Timothy McVeigh had attacked the new york times instead of the federal building in OK City shows what a vile and despicable hack you are......

lie down with dogs, get up with fleas

Yup, she was dead serious when she said it of course. Does this mean I get to take every liberal comment and cast it in stone without using common sense? Ohh wait, I forgot, THAT is different. Liberals get to ignore the law and the rules.

 

[maineman]

Yup, she was dead serious when she said it of course. Does this mean I get to take every liberal comment and cast it in stone without using common sense? Ohh wait, I forgot, THAT is different. Liberals get to ignore the law and the rules.

so...her statement about every page of Obama's book being filled with race baiting invective wasn't a lie cuz she was jes kiddin'???

I see....so whenever I call you on anything you have ever said, your response will be, "hey, I wasn't dead serious.... I was jes kiddin'" and that will make it OK?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

so...her statement about every page of Obama's book being filled with race baiting invective wasn't a lie cuz she was jes kiddin'???

I see....so whenever I call you on anything you have ever said, your response will be, "hey, I wasn't dead serious.... I was jes kiddin'" and that will make it OK?

I think you really are losing your mind. I did not say ANYTHING about her claims on Obama. But I suspect you know that ( unless you are ignorant) and think your little game will win you points with some one reading this thread.

 

[Larkinn]

The left and right often identify the same things as "problems" -the key difference between them is how best to solve them.

You start out so well...

The left invariably says that bigger and more regulatory government is ALWAYS the answer. It is a cookie-cutter response for them. The right is more likely to say the answer lies elsewhere. The other difference is one that has been pointed out long before I came along.

And then fail miserably.

Patriot Act (increased government actions)-Republicans support, Democrats don't.
More access to wiretapping- Republicans support, Democrats don't.
Federal buyout of Bear Stearns....hey just happened during a Republican administration, didn't it? So much for the free market, hey?
Abortion- Republicans want it to be outlawed, Democrats want individuals to make their own choices.
No child left behind- New FEDERAL standards on what is basically a state issue. Republicans support, Democrats don't.
And how much did the federal government shrink under Bush again? How about Reagan?

The issue isn't that "omg, liberals regulate and republicans don't", its that liberals tend to regulate in the sense of trying to ensure equitable and fair distribution of goods and services. They think everyone should have access to healthcare (omg...what a concept!). They think that business needs to be regulated (so do Republicans...well they think it should be laissez faire until the businesses fail and THEN the gov should step in. Damn silly way to do it). They think that the government is there to serve the people, ALL the people, not just those who can gain access to it by lobbying.

A liberal believes he holds the views he does because he is a moral and decent person, therefore his views are the only truly moral and decent ones.

This is absolute bullshit. I don't know any liberals who believe this.

That must mean anyone who disagrees with them cannot possibly be a decent and moral person. Which means they must be disagreeing because they are evil and cannot have any other motive for disagreeing. And therefore, whatever they DO believe -must also be evil and bad. It is actually a childish mentality -I am good, therefore whatever I believe is also good. If you were a moral and good person too, you would have the same political positions I do. Since you don't, then you must be bad and evil and therefore whatever you believe in is also bad and evil.

It is terribly childish. Wait...could this be the "with us or against us" mentality? I do remember one of the political parties pushing this tripe over the WoT. Who could it have been?

Which sure helps explain their nonstop bs that conservatives are racist bigots, hateful and despicable people who want everyone's children, including their own, poisoned with bad air and water, etc. etc. ad nauseum.

Look around these boards for a while. You'll see some examples why they tend to think that about conservatives. Nobody thinks that Republicans wants everyone to be poisoned with bad air and water, but that they are unwilling to do anything to stop it, which is largely true.

I've heard more than a few liberals say that all conservatives and Republicans should be thrown in prison -which is certainly in line with communist thinking too.

And I've heard conservatives say that. Wait, you mean there are idiots in each political party and on all sides of the spectrum? What a surprise!

One can only be a political dissident because you are evil and we need to protect everyone from such a criminal. We must protect people who shouldn't be exposed to such evil! When you tell yourself that you are a good person, that you believe in x,y and z and that must mean x,y and z are GOOD -then its pretty easy to turn around and insist that anyone who doesn't believe that must be the exact opposite. If he disagrees, he must be a BAD and EVIL person. And since he is a bad and evil person, then I don't even have to listen to his argument because whatever he believes is also bad and evil. Quick and easy way to dismiss without any consideration the validity of any arguments from those who disagree then, isn't it?

You know precious little about liberalism.