Irrelevant apologies

[BoogyMan]

Our local Obama supporters will probably hate this, but it concerned me when I read it so I am posting it here for commentary.


Source: Link (http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell060308.php3)

It is amazing how seriously the media are taking Senator Barack Obama's latest statement about the latest racist rant from the pulpit of the church he has attended for 20 years. But neither that statement nor the apology for his rant by Father Michael Pfleger really matters, one way or the other. Nor does Senator Obama's belated resignation from that church.
For any politician, what matters is not his election year rhetoric, or an election year resignation from a church, but the track record of that politician in the years before the election.

Yet so many people are so fascinated by Barack Obama's rhetorical skills that they don't care about his voting record in the U.S. Senate, in the Illinois state senate, the causes that he has chosen to promote over the years, or the candidate's personal character and values, as revealed by his actions and associations.

Despite clever spin from Obama's supporters about avoiding "guilt by association," much more is involved than casual association with people like Jeremiah Wright and Father Pfleger.

In addition to giving $20,000 of his own money to Jeremiah Wright, as a state senator Obama directed $225,000 of the Illinois taxpayers' money for programs run by Father Pfleger. In the U.S. Senate, Obama earmarked $100,000 in federal tax money for Father Pfleger's work. Giving someone more than 300 grand is not just some tenuous, coincidental association.

Are Barack Obama's views shown by what he says during an election year or by what he has been doing for decades before?

The complete contrast between Obama's election year image as a healer of divisions and his whole career of promoting far-left grievance politics, in association with America-haters like Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers, are brushed aside by his supporters who talk about getting back to "the real issues."

There is nothing more real than a man's character and values. The track record of what he has actually done is far more real than anything he says, however elegantly he says it.

There is no office where the character and values of the person in that office matter more than the office of President of the United States. He holds the destiny of 300 million Americans in his hands and the fate of generations yet unborn.

That was never more true than today, with Iran moving ever closer to a nuclear bomb, while the United Nations wrings its hands and Congress fritters away its time on everything from steroids in sports to earmarks for pet projects back home.

Does anyone seriously consider what it would mean for Iran to have nuclear weapons? They are already supplying terrorists with the means of killing people in other countries, including killing American troops in Iraq.

Senator Obama has been downplaying the Iran threat, saying that they are just "a small country," not like the Soviet Union. The people who flew planes into the World Trade Center were an even smaller group than the Iranian government.

Half a dozen terrorists like that with nuclear weapons would be a bigger danger than the Soviet Union ever was, because the Soviet leaders were not suicide bombers. They could be deterred by the threat of what we would do to Moscow if they attacked New York.

You cannot deter suicidal fanatics. They are not going to stop unless they get stopped. Rhetoric is not going to do it.

Not only Senator Obama, but too many other Americans, seem to have no concept of the seething hatred that can lead people to destroy their own lives in order to lash out at others.

But terrorists have been doing this repeatedly, not only in Iraq and in Israel, but in other countries around the world— including the United States on 9/11.

Have we already forgotten how the Palestinians were cheering in the streets over the news of the attack on the World Trade Center? How videotapes of sadistic beheadings of innocent people by terrorists have found an eager audience in the Middle East?

Are we going to leave our children hostages to hate-filled sadists with nuclear weapons? Are we to rely on Barack Obama's rhetoric to protect them?

Senator Obama's foreign policy seems to be somewhere between Rodney King's "Can't we just get along?" and Alfred E. Neuman's "What, me worry?"

[tecoyah]

Anyone who actually thinks Obama...or any presidential candidate, politician, businessperson or most people in general is in any way perfect, clean, or unbiased is naive and confused. Its really a matter of "How" dirty someone is anymore.

[potter]

So how far back should we go to look at his track record? Was he a late potty trainer? Did he play well with the kids in pre-school?

Do you want to be judged right now on every god damned thing you did in your life?

Too bad no one vetted Bush before he took office, it might have save us trillions and our reputation.

[Mia]

I agree with this:

The track record of what he has actually done is far more real than anything he says, however elegantly he says it.

But disagree with a lot of the rest of the article.

I do not necessarily think that Wright is an 'American-hater'. I feel he might hate some thing about what America has done/is doing,like a lot of us.

I also do not think that Iran is what this author is making it out to be.

I couldn't read further than that part, because the article is obviously so biased, promoting the war-mongering angle.

I'd still like to know how we fight stateless enemies by destroying states, that makes NO sense, but anywho..........

[tecoyah]

Seriously, I do not wish to bash on McCain...if you feel the need a quick google will explain what I mean. Compare the two (as this is what we have)...and decide for yourself!

[Elrathin]

what matters is not his election year rhetoric, or an election year resignation from a church, but the track record of that politician in the years before the election.

So is this why many on the right have focused on his old church and Rev Wright so much?

The simple fact is when you take a look at McCain's policies versus Obama's you see that McCain is a stay the course kinda guy. You know that same stay the course attitude that has caused great harm to this country both domestically and internationally.

[AlanC]

So is this why many on the right have focused on his old church and Rev Wright so much?

The simple fact is when you take a look at McCain's policies versus Obama's you see that McCain is a stay the course kinda guy. You know that same stay the course attitude that has caused great harm to this country both domestically and internationally.
[/SIZE][/FONT]

His "old" church? You mean the one he left last week?

[Mia]

Who cares about his church?

If we're going to talk about 'records', I agree with El.

[micfranklin]

Despite clever spin from Obama's supporters about avoiding "guilt by association," much more is involved than casual association with people like Jeremiah Wright and Father Pfleger.

In addition to giving $20,000 of his own money to Jeremiah Wright, as a state senator Obama directed $225,000 of the Illinois taxpayers' money for programs run by Father Pfleger. In the U.S. Senate, Obama earmarked $100,000 in federal tax money for Father Pfleger's work. Giving someone more than 300 grand is not just some tenuous, coincidental association.

What, is he not allowed to give money to his own church?

That was never more true than today, with Iran moving ever closer to a nuclear bomb, while the United Nations wrings its hands and Congress fritters away its time on everything from steroids in sports to earmarks for pet projects back home.

Clever analogy of how Congress is unable to get good priorities. But seriously if I recall Israel has far more nukes than Iran and could easily wipe them off the planet.

Senator Obama has been downplaying the Iran threat, saying that they are just "a small country," not like the Soviet Union. The people who flew planes into the World Trade Center were an even smaller group than the Iranian government.

Half a dozen terrorists like that with nuclear weapons would be a bigger danger than the Soviet Union ever was, because the Soviet leaders were not suicide bombers. They could be deterred by the threat of what we would do to Moscow if they attacked New York.

Does this guy remember when the Soviet Union had nuclear missiles pointed right at us on Cuba, just 90 miles away from our shores? If he wants to be technical the Soviet Union could be considered a terrorist state back during the Cold War.

[PostmodernProphet]

So how far back should we go to look at his track record? Was he a late potty trainer? Did he play well with the kids in pre-school?

you don't have to go very far back......he hasn't been around that long.....

[Mia]

In addition to giving $20,000 of his own money to Jeremiah Wright

Nothing wrong there

, as a state senator Obama directed $225,000 of the Illinois taxpayers' money for programs run by Father Pfleger. In the U.S. Senate, Obama earmarked $100,000 in federal tax money for Father Pfleger's work. Giving someone more than 300 grand is not just some tenuous, coincidental association.

I don't know who this guy is to determine if this is an issue. Whatever it is can't be worse than who owns McCain and who he funnels money to.........

[AlanC]

I don't know who this guy is to determine if this is an issue. Whatever it is can't be worse than who owns McCain and who he funnels money to.........

Well don't just attempt the hints at it. Who does McCain funnel Federal money to?

If McCain has dinner with a lobbyist, he is branded as being in their pocket. But somehow Obama is continuously being excused for his obviously close relationships to some very questionable people.

Pfleger returned the favor you know in the form of a $1500 donation to Obama's campaign. Pretty good for someone who has taken a vow of poverty.

Its kind of like Al Gore just not realizing there could possibly be anything wrong with Budhist monks giving him a $1,000 donation.

[tecoyah]

Well don't just attempt the hints at it. Who does McCain funnel Federal money to?


It's not who his campaign, or politics fun....it's who funds him.

If McCain has dinner with a lobbyist, he is branded as being in their pocket. But somehow Obama is continuously being excused for his obviously close relationships to some very questionable people.

McCain specifically stated he is not playing the lobby game...Yet he obviously is doing just that. Obama seems to be trying hard to avoid this distinction.[/B]

Pfleger returned the favor you know in the form of a $1500 donation to Obama's campaign. Pretty good for someone who has taken a vow of poverty.

Its kind of like Al Gore just not realizing there could possibly be anything wrong with Budhist monks giving him a $1,000 donation.

There is a slight difference in American politics between pharmacutical backing.....and Tibet.


You will need to try significantly harder (as will the GOP) to make Obama look bad when compared to McCain.

[Mia]

Oh, believe me, I'm not on the Obama is Mr. Perfect camp by FAR, and I totally agree that he is in with the lobbyists like anyone else - it really annoyed me for him to stand there and lie during the first debate about the measure he supposedly enacted restricting them from buying meals........

I'm just saying they all do it, and if we're down to McCain and Obama, then for me it's an easy choice.

[Alonzo]

Well don't just attempt the hints at it. Who does McCain funnel Federal money to?

If McCain has dinner with a lobbyist, he is branded as being in their pocket. But somehow Obama is continuously being excused for his obviously close relationships to some very questionable people.

Pfleger returned the favor you know in the form of a $1500 donation to Obama's campaign. Pretty good for someone who has taken a vow of poverty.

Its kind of like Al Gore just not realizing there could possibly be anything wrong with Budhist monks giving him a $1,000 donation.

Well the Gore one was shown to be nothing, Pfleger isn't like any Catholic priest I've known. They typically don't have the option of being wealthy, their salary doesn't allow it.

[Alonzo]

Priest salaries:

Diocesan priests’ salaries vary from diocese to diocese. According to the National Federation of Priests’ Council, low-end cash only salaries averaged $12,936 per year in 1998; high-end salaries averaged $15,483 per year. Average salaries, including in-kind earnings, were $30,713 per year in 1998. In addition to a salary, diocesan priests receive a package of benefits that may include a car allowance, room and board in the parish rectory, health insurance, and a retirement plan.

Diocesan priests who do special work related to the church, such as teaching, usually receive a salary which is less than a lay person in the same position would receive. The difference between the usual salary for these jobs and the salary that the priest receives is called "contributed service." In some situations, housing and related expenses may be provided; in other cases, the priest must make his own arrangements. Some priests doing special work receive the same compensation that a lay person would receive.

Religious priests take a vow of poverty and are supported by their religious order. Any personal earnings are given to the order. Their vow of poverty is recognized by the Internal Revenue Service, which exempts them from paying Federal income tax.

http://www.jobbankusa.com/ohb/ohb063.html

Diocesian Priests live in the real world, Religious Priests live in housing owned by an order and don't need money for a car, housing etc.

Where did all of Pfleger's money come from?

[lily]

Clever analogy of how Congress is unable to get good priorities. But seriously if I recall Israel has far more nukes than Iran and could easily wipe them off the planet.


You hit the nail on the head Mic.......not to shoot the messenger, but the op-ed was written by the Jewish World Review. I'd be worried too if I were them. The status quo of the US not backing every move they make, just might make me a little worried too.

Unless we forget...........Israel is not allowed those nukes they say they might have, we all know they have......but I don't recall any inspections, or even any pressure of Israel being allowed to have them.

Yes, I can see why talk instead of force would scare Israel and why they wouldn't want someone to do that.

[Mia]

What is Obama going to do differently with regard to Israel? He stated an attack on Israel is an attack on the US, and I don't see him cutting funding or anything like that.

'Talk before bombing' sounds good to some, but there is no real difference once he says he's going to threaten them to comply with our demands.

If you threaten, you have to back it up. Iran is not going to back down to us like some other nations do; ergo Obama will have to move to sanctions, and then invade and occupy same as all the other hopefuls to the office.

If he stated he was going to talk ISTEAD of invading, that would be a true difference.

Iran cannot harm us - if they go after Israel, let Israel handle it.

[lily]

'Talk before bombing' sounds good to some, but there is no real difference once he says he's going to threaten them to comply with our demands.

If you threaten, you have to back it up. Iran is not going to back down to us like some other nations do; ergo Obama will have to move to sanctions, and then invade and occupy same as all the other hopefuls to the office.

Mia........this is just the policy that hasn't worked......threaten and not talk. It seemed to work with North Korea, didn't it? Almost every expert has said to negotiate. The time for back and forth saber rattling has past.......it turned out to be useless.


If he stated he was going to talk ISTEAD of invading, that would be a true difference.

Iran cannot harm us - if they go after Israel, let Israel handle it.

Here we are in total agreement.:thumbsup:

[Mia]

Mia........this is just the policy that hasn't worked......threaten and not talk. It seemed to work with North Korea, didn't it? Almost every expert has said to negotiate. The time for back and forth saber rattling has past.......it turned out to be useless.



OK, threatening with no talking doesn't work, I am with you there. Where we diverge is that you seem to fail to understand that Obama has stated he will threaten Iran.

As I said above, making idle threats is more dangerous than following through.

If he's going to threaten, which he has said he will, he MUST back it up.

I ask you, does Ackmenedejad seem like the type to intimidate easily? Or where are we missing each other on this?

Either you didn't hear Obama when he said he'd threaten Iran, you don't agree threats have to be backed up, or you believe threats will work on Iran.

They are not going to go along with something like Syria did. Iran couldn't care less if we sanction them or anything else - no WAY will they bow to 'The Great Satan'.

PS, you and I can agree all day that Israel can take care of itself, but Obama doesn't. So what good does our opinion do?

The fact remains there is not a candidate with a shot at the office who will not continue to back Israel to the hilt. :help:

[Elrathin]

OK, threatening with no talking doesn't work, I am with you there. Where we diverge is that you seem to fail to understand that Obama has stated he will threaten Iran.

I have not seen where he said he would threaten Iran. Like anyone, he has said he hasn't taken anything off the table, that is not the same as threatening.

[Mia]

While Obama wouldn't rule out force, he said the United States should engage in "aggressive diplomacy combined with tough sanctions" to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear threat.

What is 'aggressive diplomacy'? Isn't that an oxymoron?

Military force is 'not off the table'.

If you're Iran, do these statements not add up to a threat?

[Mia]

Obama said his stand on dealing with Iran has been mischaracterized, and he pledged to do “everything in my power, everything,” to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

The Illinois senator has taken heat from presumptive Republican opponent Sen. John McCain for saying he is willing to meet with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but Obama says diplomacy can be tough. Obama promised to “ratchet up the pressure” on Iran if it refused to cooperate and said continued occupation of Iraq is weakening the U.S. in its dealings with Iran.

He's also going all the way for Israel:

Obama’s call for an undivided Jerusalem to remain the capital of Israel is sure to be controversial among Palestinians, who claim the holy city as their capital as well.

They crack me up, all of them. The war in Iraq is weakening their ability with Iran.

When we move the war to Pakistan and/or Iran, who is next that will 'gain strength' in the region, and we'll have to start looking over there?

It's like some kind of sick pop-up game. We hammer down on one place, another pops up, we bop over there, and ANOTHER pops up.

Already, target #1 is 'gaining 'strength' again, we're not even 'done' with #2, but we've already got #3 and #4 lined up. It's madness.

It's a big place, how long can we play this way?

[Elrathin]

What is 'aggressive diplomacy'? Isn't that an oxymoron?

Military force is 'not off the table'.

If you're Iran, do these statements not add up to a threat?

And you don't think Iran's comments are aggressive towards Israel? While I think neither side is wanting military action, both sides are posturing aggressively.

I still don't see either as threatening though, only logically speaking what will happen if one does any military action towards the other.

[Mia]

And you don't think Iran's comments are aggressive towards Israel? While I think neither side is wanting military action, both sides are posturing aggressively.




The question here was not whether Iran's statements are aggressive toward Israel. It's if Obama will back Israel and if he will take military action against Iran.

Also, 'both sides'? Is Obama running for President of Israel or the US? You've just strengthened my arguments.

I still don't see either as threatening though, only logically speaking what will happen if one does any military action towards the other.


Right, 'that's not a threat, that's a promise'. We're down to semantics now.

[Elrathin]

The question here was not whether Iran's statements are aggressive toward Israel.

If Iran's comments are aggresive towards Israel, don't you think ISrael's comments are going to be aggresive as well? This isn't rocket science here.


It's if Obama will back Israel and if he will take military action against Iran.

And I don't see Obama backing Israel no matter what. It depends on the situation.


Also, 'both sides'? Is Obama running for President of Israel or the US? You've just strengthened my arguments.

Both sides meaning the U.S. and Iran are using aggressive statements.


Right, 'that's not a threat, that's a promise'. We're down to semantics now.

So if Iran attacks Israel, you don't expect Israel to respond? And if Israel attacks Iran, you don't expect Iran to respond? How is this not normal?

[Mia]

You're not making any sense, El.

If Iran's comments are aggresive towards Israel, don't you think ISrael's comments are going to be aggresive as well?
Again, is Obama running for President of Israel or the USA?

So if Iran attacks Israel, you don't expect Israel to respond? And if Israel attacks Iran, you don't expect Iran to respond? How is this not normal?It is normal, and of course that's what I expect. What the discussion was about is whether Obama is going to let Israel handle Israel, of if he's going to consider an attack on them an attack on us, and I believe the answer to that is clear.

Lily keeps arguing that Israel can take care of herself, what I am countering with is whether she can or not, the reality is she will not.

And I don't see Obama backing Israel no matter what. It depends on the situation.


Can you provide me a quote from Obama where he qualifies in any way his support of Israel, as you suggest here that he does?

[Mia]

...if I recall Israel has far more nukes than Iran and could easily wipe them off the planet.

You're right, and as I recall, they fought off several countries at once before, and they have an even better military now.

Besides money and weapons, we did not contribute, so why do they need us to now?

Why does every Republican or Democratic Presidential Candidate (except Ron Paul, sorry, had to say!) have to stand up and take 'The Israel pledge'? That he will stand beside her, and guide her......wtf?

Why can't Israel respond to Iran - why do we have to? Because we WANT to. It's a pretext to the war we want to cause over there so we can build oil pipelines as we occupy these 'dangerous' nations, and keep all of us 'safe' and 'free'.

My problem all along with Obama has been that he pretends to be different, but he's not at all, unless one believes that semantics make a 'difference'.

Remember that Ahmadinejad's rhetoric can be spinned any way one wants with semantics too........

[Trish]

Israel is our ally. An attack against Israel is an attack against us. The UK is our ally. An attack against the UK is an attack against us. Australia is our ally. An attack against Australia is an attack against us - etc. etc. etc.

That's the whole point of allies - we have their back - they have ours.

[Elrathin]

Israel is our ally. An attack against Israel is an attack against us. The UK is our ally. An attack against the UK is an attack against us. Australia is our ally. An attack against Australia is an attack against us - etc. etc. etc.

That's the whole point of allies - we have their back - they have ours.

That's all fine and dandy, but when an ally becomes a bully, the rules change.

I have no problem defending Israel if THEY are attacked first, however, if they decide to attack another country first, they are on their own as far as I am concerned.

[lily]

Lily keeps arguing that Israel can take care of herself, what I am countering with is whether she can or not, the reality is she will not.





Mia.....my main point on this is I don't think Obama is going to give Israel the free pass that Bush has been giving. They attack a country, we not only look the other way, we praise them afterwards. The last attack Israel did, the world was screaming for the US to say something.......and Bush never uttered a word.


The main reason why I'm really not worried about what Obama will do if Iran attacks Israel or Israel attacks Iran is I think this is going to happen before Bush leaves office and it will be just another mess someone is going to have to clean up.......be that someone Obama or McCain.......the difference is how it's going to be cleaned up, according to who gets elected.

[Mia]

Lily, that last statement you made was fair, but the rest.....if you can show me where Obama equivocates his stance on backing Israel, I'd love to be proven wrong.

How did he vote on Israel-related matters, for instance?

And I mean that very seriously because being right on this is not what I want.

[lily]

In all honesty, Mia.........I really don't think we will know how either McCain or Obama will react if an attack on Israel or Iran happened. What we do know is that Obama is at least willing to talk to Iran..........and that is a totally different approach to what has been done.

I'm just as disappointed as anyone with the speach he gave in front of AIPAC, but I also know he doean't have a trigger finger or a past singing bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.

[Mia]

OK, that's fair too. I far prefer him over McCain myself. I just dislike all the illusions about Obama, as you know, and don't feel I have to get dishonest about Obama to back him over McCain.

To me this notion that he'd handle it SO much differently is just that, a notion. It's not real - all these guys and gals (imo) are in lock-step on certain issues, be they dem or rep. Congress is owned by the Jewish Lobby, among others, so it really makes no difference in that regard.

For me, Obama will be better for US Citizens than McCain, but any of them will take us to WWIII.

It scares the shit out of me - the ME people have been fighting off occupiers forever, and they WILL throw off the US and Israel too.

Lots of people are going to die, so the little details don't mean a whole hell of a lot to me.

[lily]

OK, that's fair too. I far prefer him over McCain myself. I just dislike all the illusions about Obama, as you know, and don't feel I have to get dishonest about Obama to back him over McCain.

To me this notion that he'd handle it SO much differently is just that, a notion. It's not real - all these guys and gals (imo) are in lock-step on certain issues, be they dem or rep. Congress is owned by the Jewish Lobby, among others, so it really makes no difference in that regard.

For me, Obama will be better for US Citizens than McCain, but any of them will take us to WWIII.

It scares the shit out of me - the ME people have been fighting off occupiers forever, and they WILL throw off the US and Israel too.

Lots of people are going to die, so the little details don't mean a whole hell of a lot to me.


You know.........I don't think I've been in such total agreement with someone that usually disagrees with me.:thumbsup:

[Mia]

You know.........I don't think I've been in such total agreement with someone that usually disagrees with me.:thumbsup:


I don't think you and I are very far apart on most things; we're just both stubborn about the smaller pictures within the larger ones sometimes.:love:

[GHJ]

Obama is a Chicago Democrat politician. What more needs to be said?