What the media did not show about WrightFollow

Ah. So every single US citizen who cares about things like patriotism, the flag, the pledge, etc is a racist?

That's your answer? Weak sauce, even for you...

Yet you defend to the hilt GW, who has shown himself to be an incompetent buffoon at everything he has turned his hand to since.....well forever!

From his inability to run an oil-company in Texas (fer chrissakes!) at a profit, to the multiple disasters of Iraq, the economy, the handling of the Katrina episode etc. etc. etc. etc. etc, to being the only person in the world who can fall off a a fecking segway scooter.

So, as Smash points out, its 'cos he's black. Or more to the point perhaps. Its because he's not white.

Dress it up how you like, but it sure smells like racism to me.

When you're quibbling over irrelevant facts while ignoring the more important underlying meaning, yeah.

You're arguing about whether I'm right about the arrangement of the deck chairs on the Titanic, while ignoring the fact that the damn ship is sinking.

Doesn't that strike you as silly?

Obama has shown a pattern of failing to show patriotism and love of country. Things which maybe the liberal intelliratzi don't care much about, but pretty much all of the rest of the country does. You keep quibbling over whether it was a pledge or the anthem, but it doesn't matter. For the context of this issue, all that matters is that when Obama is given a choice to show patriotism or not, he seems to consistently choose not to.


That's his right of course. But he doesn't have a right to be elected president. That's a choice of the people. A choice of who will represent them and their country to the rest of the world.


He has to convince them that he's the right choice. Not argue with them that the things that he doesn't think are important shouldn't matter to them either. That's the problem you liberals keep having. You keep insisting that others change their world-view to match your's and can't grasp why this might just annoy others. You assume you know what's best for everyone, despite those people saying they don't agree.

It's arrogant. He's supposed to appeal to them, not the other way around. And it's biting him in the butt now, and will get worse as the General Election gets closer. Remember when I said he was the more beatable candidate between him and Clinton several months ago? This is only the tip of the iceberg in terms of why. As the public at large realizes just how much Obama does *not* match their vision of what a president should be, his popularity will drop like a stone. This is already happening. It will continue.

What do you think this proves?

There's a huge difference between me as a citizen saying: "I think burning a flag is a representation of free speech, and shouldn't be banned", versus "I'm going to elect a flag burner to be President of the US".

Once again, you show a lack of understanding of the difference between having the legal right to do something and not suffering any social consequences for doing that thing. In the same way that we should not make everything we disapprove of illegal, we must *also* be allowed to disapprove of things that are legal. Both have to exist. Thus, it's not wrong for people to disapprove of someone's actions despite them being completely 100% legal.


You seem to think that by arguing that it's someone's right to do something I may not agree with, that I magically lose my right to not vote for the person on that basis... Wrong!


Nice strawman on the rest there Smash. You are correct about one thing though. Barring some absolutely massive misstep by McCain, Obama cannot beat him in the general election. I'm not saying 50 state sweep, but it'll be a good solid win for McCain.

Sure. Loser has to follow the winner around saying "Yes master! You are absolutely correct." in response to every post for one month...

Deal?

And this is why we can't have nice things, like a president who will even try to tell the fucking truth about anything.

That's just semantics, dontchaknow?!

The real issue for Gbaji is what the spam e-mails say.

Obama has a long history of being involved in, and working to involve others in, the political process of this nation. In some ways, the democratic political process is what makes this nation. Moving your hand or sticking a flag on your shirt is just dandy -- dedicating your adult life to the democratic government of our nation is a hell of a lot more impressive.

I'll apply the same to damn near any politican. I might think Bush is an idiot and doing a poor job and his view of the nation may differ from mine but I don't doubt that he loves America.

It's a stupid argument anyway -- you can't prove motive. That's why you get idiots who claim McCain is a traitor and that's why he won't pursue Vietnamese POWs or whatever. How do you prove that's NOT the reason? Of course you can't.

You'd hope such sophistry would be beyond Gbaji, but who are we kidding?

Edited, Mar 26th 2008 10:43am by Jophiel

This could be interesting.

You missed the point I was making completely. In the absence of some kind of experience, Obama is running on personality. That means that he has to be the kind of person that people would want to represent them, since he can't run on "I'm the guy with the best qualifications".

It's critically important that he himself appeal to American voters. Making a habit of bucking traditional symbols of patriotism isn't a great way to do that...

Make more sense now?



He doesn't have a service record though. See how that's relevant? We don't have a long record of this guy to look at and see what sort of President he would be. All we have is his words in his speeches and a pretty short (and incredibly Liberal) voting record in the Senate. So things like this become important indicators that people use to see if they think he'd make a good President.



He hasn't served his country though!

He was elected to local office in one city in one state, then elected to the Senate for less then a single term, by more citizens of that same state and under conditions in which he didn't have much serious competition.

He has no record for people to judge him by. Not one that Americans as a whole will see as relevant. Understanding and appealing to specific political issues in one part of the country does not automatically translate to a knowledge of what's best for the country as a whole, much less the host of foreign policy decisions he'd have to make.

Given that lack of experience and record for people to judge him by, every single action he makes is going to be that much more significant. So something that seems insignificant to you, is *huge* to the general population.


And on the topic of foreign policy, we haven't even started on the whole Odinga issue...

You missed the point I was making completely.

I find this is almost never the case.

G W Bush isn't running against Barack Obama.

And Bush's service, and whatever degree you agree with it's quality does not in any way validate claims about Obama and his service. Obama has never served in any military capacity. His only service has been in the form of elected offices he's held. Nothing inherently wrong with that, but his time and experience in those offices in no way qualifies him for the job of President.

Sure. But McCain's not running on his qualifications as a pilot. He's running on his history of leadership and record in government.


Everything else being equal, we're comparing a first term US senator, who's first position at any level in government at all was in 1996, to a guy who began serving his country in 1960 in the military, then went on to win his first political office in 1982, with two terms in the House, and 20 years in the Senate.

On every single measurement we could qualify as "serving his country", John McCain's record wipes Obama's off the map. And not just by a small margin.


More importantly, Obama does not have a record of service that should remove any concerns about his unwillingness to participate in symbols of patriotism as suggested in the post I was originally responding to. Obama has one of the worst public service records of any serious Presidential candidate in US history. He has to make up for that by ensuring that he appeals to the people on a level that transcends those failings. Antagonizing whole segments of the population who do think it's important to show those signs of patriotism and respect for your country isn't exactly a great way to do that.