Seminal Point

[Doc Jerome]

We all knew that it would ultimately come to this point. The moment when Americans would have to decide if they are indeed ready to embark on their exigent journey of reconciliation, forgiveness, and resolution, or sink back into the facileness of the status quo. Reconciliation can only begin with the acknowledgment that something has taken place which remains unresolved, and has been used to divide, and provoke fear and mistrust among Americans. Everyone, with no exceptions, must be willing to forgive and move forward. We must be resolute in resisting the temptation to descend into archaic, baneful patterns of paranoid thought that only serve to make this country weak and incongruous, unable to fulfill it's promise. Together, we must hold those that propagate misinformation as fact accountable to the spirit that is the promise of America. We are better than what this country's limitations have been. And now that we stand before the threshold of change, there is no need to succumb to fear, because we stand united in a cause that is much greater than ourselves. There is a sense of inspiration and hope not seen in a long time in America. It is time for American citizens to rise to the challenge set before us and seize this opportunity that too seldom visits. Then, and only then, can we heal this country and advance into the future with great promise. Vote for change.

Stop the misinformation and limited cognitivism.

[Nbadan]

hmmm....yes, but what do you do when the enemy is yourself?

[Doc Jerome]

Somehow, you must summon the strength to overcome or face your fear, bias, hatred, anger, etc. That is truly the measure of a man, and the essence of all human struggle.

[Holt's Cat]

That's pleasant. So who is this "change" we are supposed to be casting our lot with?

[Doc Jerome]

There can only be one. You already know of whom I speak.

[PixelPusher]

There can only be one. You already know of whom I speak.
http://nohayrosasinespina.bitacoras.com/imagenes/c_connor_macleod.jpg

[Doc Jerome]

Senator Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Somehow, you must summon the strength to overcome or face your fear, bias, hatred, anger, etc. That is truly the measure of a man, and the essence of all human struggle.


Couldn't you say the same thing about the woman in this race? the bigotry, fear,bias,hatred and anger towards hillary clinton?

[George Gervin's Afro]

We all knew that it would ultimately come to this point. The moment when Americans would have to decide if they are indeed ready to embark on their exigent journey of reconciliation, forgiveness, and resolution, or sink back into the facileness of the status quo. Reconciliation can only begin with the acknowledgment that something has taken place which remains unresolved, and has been used to divide, and provoke fear and mistrust among Americans. Everyone, with no exceptions, must be willing to forgive and move forward. We must be resolute in resisting the temptation to descend into archaic, baneful patterns of paranoid thought that only serve to make this country weak and incongruous, unable to fulfill it's promise. Together, we must hold those that propagate misinformation as fact accountable to the spirit that is the promise of America. We are better than what this country's limitations have been. And now that we stand before the threshold of change, there is no need to succumb to fear, because we stand united in a cause that is much greater than ourselves. There is a sense of inspiration and hope not seen in a long time in America. It is time for American citizens to rise to the challenge set before us and seize this opportunity that too seldom visits. Then, and only then, can we heal this country and advance into the future with great promise. Vote for change.

Stop the misinformation and limited cognitivism.

Nice lecture but what about those of us who don't think he has enough experience?

[Ignignokt]

Nice lecture but what about those of us who don't think he has enough experience?


hillary.....experience......


:lmao!

[Doc Jerome]

Experience does not trump judgement. Look up James Buchanan (15th president) and the president that succeeded him Abraham Lincoln and compare their credentials prior to being elected into office. This experience issue is an argument, a campaign strategy that Hillary Clinton uses to promote her pretentious experience.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Experience does not trump judgement. Look up James Buchanan (15th president) and the president that succeeded him Abraham Lincoln and compare their credentials prior to being elected into office. This experience issue is an argument, a campaign strategy that Hillary Clinton uses to promote her pretentious experience.


So this is exclusively a Clinton argument? Or is it a legit concern about a 46 yr old man who has served 2 yrs as a US Senator?

You mention judgement. What about sticking with a pastor who has made numerous comments that many people find offensive. Could I question his judgement by associating himself with a person like that?


Now I want to make it clear I don't think Obama should be held accountable for what his preacher says but others may question his decision to stick around as long as he did.

[Extra Stout]

We all knew that it would ultimately come to this point. The moment when Americans would have to decide if they are indeed ready to embark on their exigent journey of reconciliation, forgiveness, and resolution, or sink back into the facileness of the status quo. Reconciliation can only begin with the acknowledgment that something has taken place which remains unresolved, and has been used to divide, and provoke fear and mistrust among Americans. Everyone, with no exceptions, must be willing to forgive and move forward. We must be resolute in resisting the temptation to descend into archaic, baneful patterns of paranoid thought that only serve to make this country weak and incongruous, unable to fulfill it's promise. Together, we must hold those that propagate misinformation as fact accountable to the spirit that is the promise of America. We are better than what this country's limitations have been. And now that we stand before the threshold of change, there is no need to succumb to fear, because we stand united in a cause that is much greater than ourselves. There is a sense of inspiration and hope not seen in a long time in America. It is time for American citizens to rise to the challenge set before us and seize this opportunity that too seldom visits. Then, and only then, can we heal this country and advance into the future with great promise. Vote for change.

Stop the misinformation and limited cognitivism.
Some have hope that inspiration can bring change.
Some have inspiration that change can bring hope.
And some have change that hope will bring inspiration.
We are inspired and hopeful and changed.
We need not fear what lies before us.
For before us lies the future, and the future will change unless it stays the same.
So we can hope in not fearing, and not fear in hoping.
If we stay divided, we cannot unite. And if we are not united, then we cannot be one. And if we are not one, then we must be two or three or several. And several is too many! You lose count after a while. My wife tells me not to try to remember more than three things on a shopping list. Any more than that, and she tells me I need to make a list. Heh, heh, she's the organized one, making all the lists. Me, not so much. But if there's only one thing on that list, then I don't need to write it down. I can remember it. It sticks at the forefront of my mind all the way to the store. And that's what America needs to be like.
You see, we must move forward, because if we are not moving forward, we are either moving backward, or sideways, or sitting still. And it hard to see if you are moving backward, because you have to crane your neck around.
And we in America are not a people who crane our necks around! We are not a people who rely on our peripheral vision!
Otherwise, how can we be reconciled to the future of change and hope and forwardness that lies before us? If we are not in the future, then we must be in the present or the past. But we cannot be in the past, because the past is already over. And as soon as we find ourselves in the present, the present is already past, and the future is now the present.
So we must unite the future with the present, because the future is ever-becoming the present! And if we are not changing and hoping, then as the future is becoming the present, it is not changing but rather staying the same, and the same is the status quo. So without our change and hope and inspiration, to be inspired and hopeful and changing, in order to change and hope and inspire, the future becomes the present, which becomes the past, and the status quo stays the same and does not change!
For we cannot take the past and make it the future. We cannot change the past. For that would be time travel. But they said, "You cannot change the past; it already happened," but we said, 'Yes, we can!" And then they said, "No, seriously, according to the laws of physics it's impossible," and we said we won't be bound by the shackles of the laws of physics. We said, "Yes, we can." And they said, "Really, I can show you the calculations according to quantum mechanics, you can't do it" and we said that quantum mechanics are the physics of the past. They are the physics of fear and of division. "Yes, we can!"

[peewee's lovechild]

Experience does not trump judgement. Look up James Buchanan (15th president) and the president that succeeded him Abraham Lincoln and compare their credentials prior to being elected into office. This experience issue is an argument, a campaign strategy that Hillary Clinton uses to promote her pretentious experience.

Judgement?

Such as, say, attending a church for over twenty years that has a minister that spews hatred from the pulpit.

Judgement such as getting a guy that's being investigated for fraudulent activities to run your finances?

Is that the judgement we're talking about here?

Because, if it is, I'm sure we can do better than that.

[Doc Jerome]

No it is not. But only Sen. Clinton is running on the merrits of her husband's presidential accomplishments and usurpting them selectively as her own experience. We are all intelligent enough to know that this is not a valid argument to say the least. I am astounded by the way it has become a part of the ethos of this campaign.

We have to put this into context. This attack on Rev. Wright is really an attack on Sen. Obama, because he has been virtually attackproof. It's like trying to hit a bankshot in pool, only this one is one of those trickshots that never presents itself during the course of a real game. It must be manufactured, much like this controversy.

Noone attends every church sermon given by their pastor, and noone should be held accountable for what their pastor says during a sermon in church. There is much evidence of others who have said the same and far worse without this much attention given to them. Rev. Wright has said nothing that indicates that he is a racist. While he made some inflamatory comments about 9/11 in a particular sermon, I doubt he made it a staple of his speeches. He is, afterall, a former marine from a time when the armed services had very discriminatory practices and the country was in turmoil and incongruous and unable or unwilling to fulfill it's promise.

Sen. Obama's father was not around for much of his rearing. Rev. Wright is simply a fatherfigure that said something stupid, in an effort to be provocative. Nothing more, nothing less. That is why Sen. Obama condems the words, not the man. This is part of the complex relationship we have with oneanother, sometimes conflicting, sometimes controversial, but that is a biproduct of our humanity. Surlely, everyone has family members that says something outrageous at one time or another. Does that mean you condemn them and cease loving them? If the answer is yes, I shutter to think about the future.

Agents of distraction and misinformation will continue to stir derision, but the overriding factor they do not take into account, is the willingness for many to take this issue on and move into the future with optimism and hope, not fear and cowardice.

[xrayzebra]

I have never in my life read such garbage in my life. We talking of
politicians here. And if I take literally what doc first posted, I
would have to assume he forgives George Bush for all his so
called mis-deeds and has moved on......give me a break. Please!

[peewee's lovechild]

No it is not. But only Sen. Clinton is running on the merrits of her husband's presidential accomplishments and usurpting them selectively as her own experience. We are all intelligent enough to know that this is not a valid argument to say the least. I am astounded by the way it has become a part of the ethos of this campaign.

We have to put this into context. This attack on Rev. Wright is really an attack on Sen. Obama, because he has been virtually attackproof. It's like trying to hit a bankshot in pool, only this one is one of those trickshots that never presents itself during the course of a real game. It must be manufactured, much like this controversy.

Noone attends every church sermon given by their pastor, and noone should be held accountable for what their pastor says during a sermon in church. There is much evidence of others who have said the same and far worse without this much attention given to them. Rev. Wright has said nothing that indicates that he is a racist. While he made some inflamatory comments about 9/11 in a particular sermon, I doubt he made it a staple of his speeches. He is, afterall, a former marine from a time when the armed services had very discriminatory practices and the country was in turmoil and incongruous and unable or unwilling to fulfill it's promise.

Sen. Obama's father was not around for much of his rearing. Rev. Wright is simply a fatherfigure that said something stupid, in an effort to be provocative. Nothing more, nothing less. That is why Sen. Obama condems the words, not the man. This is part of the complex relationship we have with oneanother, sometimes conflicting, sometimes controversial, but that is a biproduct of our humanity. Surlely, everyone has family members that says something outrageous at one time or another. Does that mean you condemn them and cease loving them? If the answer is yes, I shutter to think about the future.

Agents of distraction and misinformation will continue to stir derision, but the overriding factor they do not take into account, is the willingness for many to take this issue on and move into the future with optimism and hope, not fear and cowardice.


First of all, can you prove that Hillary did absolutely nothing during the Clinton administration?

You won't be able to do that.

Secondly, if I'm a white guy running for President and I attend a church that has a pastor that says that all ######s are descendents of Noah's "dark" son . . . said son was cursed by Noah and God himself and therefore all "dark" peoples, i.e. "######s", are a cursed people . . . that it should have no negative effect on me because I myself don't believe in what my pastor is saying??

Do you seriously believe that?

Seriously?

[peewee's lovechild]

Or, does it only work for Obama?

His pastor spewed hatred. He never left the church. He knew what his pastor was saying. He never corrected the pastor.

What does this say about Obama's character?

[Doc Jerome]

Judgement?

Such as, say, attending a church for over twenty years that has a minister that spews hatred from the pulpit.

Judgement such as getting a guy that's being investigated for fraudulent activities to run your finances?

Is that the judgement we're talking about here?

Because, if it is, I'm sure we can do better than that.

On the question of judgement. There is noone that can be absolved from lapses in judgement, this does not reach that threshold. Every politician has the type of skeletons you speak of when it comes to financing; however, Sen. Obama has come to the point where the people, not lobbyists and PACs fund his campaign. BTW, the same Tony Rezco also financed the campaigns of Antonio Villagaigosa one of Sen. Clinton's campaign co-chairs. Also, he has been in the Clinton's circle long before Barack Obama came along(see pix of Tony Rezco w Bill and Hillary).

By using your kind of reasoning, is it not fair to put them all in the same boat?

Come and join us in moving beyond this sillyness, and move into the future with heads not bowed, but raised because we just elevated our country by rejecting derision.

[peewee's lovechild]

On the question of judgement. There is noone that can be absolved from lapses in judgement, this does not reach that threshold. Every politician has the type of skeletons you speak of when it comes to financing; however, Sen. Obama has come to the point where the people, not lobbyists and PACs fund his campaign. BTW, the same Tony Rezco also financed the campaigns of Antonio Villagaigosa one of Sen. Clinton's campaign co-chairs. Also, he has been in the Clinton's circle long before Barack Obama came along(see pix of Tony Rezco w Bill and Hillary).

By using your kind of reasoning, is it not fair to put them all in the same boat?

Come and join us in moving beyond this sillyness, and move into the future with heads not bowed, but raised because we just elevated our country by rejecting derision.

I have a picture that I took with Bill Clinton.

I have a picture that I took with Tom Delay when he came to visit UT-Brownsville and I was in charge of setting up the display for our library.

I have a picture that I took with Phil Gramm when I was in High School.

Am I somehow affiliated with them or their politics because I took a picture with them?

[Holt's Cat]

Eh, he's ok but he's not the Messiah.

[smeagol]

hillary.....experience......


:lmao!

She was the First lady for 8 years. Experience by osmosis.

[smeagol]

So this is exclusively a Clinton argument? Or is it a legit concern about a 46 yr old man who has served 2 yrs as a US Senator?

You mention judgement. What about sticking with a pastor who has made numerous comments that many people find offensive. Could I question his judgement by associating himself with a person like that?


Now I want to make it clear I don't think Obama should be held accountable for what his preacher says but others may question his decision to stick around as long as he did.

Talk about being full of shit.

A Democrat using the same Repub talking points to attack Obama.

Way to go buddy!

[Doc Jerome]

Or, does it only work for Obama?

His pastor spewed hatred. He never left the church. He knew what his pastor was saying. He never corrected the pastor.

What does this say about Obama's character?

Bro. You are free in this country to live in ignorance or to pursue information. You obviously like the nebulous grey areas that require little effort, unless you can have it spoonfed to you.

This is a distraction only in the fact that it is an attempt to reprogram votes, white votes. Honestly, why one would allow the same tricks to furment fear and derision has made this country what is is today.

Perhaps you should start with these questions. What is the reason/agenda? Why? Why me/us?

[smeagol]

Democrats don't deserve to win.

Plain and simple.

[peewee's lovechild]

Bro. You are free in this country to live in ignorance or to pursue information. You obviously like the nebulous grey areas that require little effort, unless you can have it spoonfed to you.

This is a distraction only in the fact that it is an attempt to reprogram votes, white votes. Honestly, why one would allow the same tricks to furment fear and derision has made this country what is is today.

Perhaps you should start with these questions. What is the reason/agenda? Why? Why me/us?

You still didn't answer my question.

But, this is America, feel free to ramble on endlessly.

[Doc Jerome]

First of all, can you prove that Hillary did absolutely nothing during the Clinton administration?

You won't be able to do that.

Secondly, if I'm a white guy running for President and I attend a church that has a pastor that says that all ######s are descendents of Noah's "dark" son . . . said son was cursed by Noah and God himself and therefore all "dark" peoples, i.e. "######s", are a cursed people . . . that it should have no negative effect on me because I myself don't believe in what my pastor is saying??

Do you seriously believe that?

Seriously?

There is enough information out here to refute most of HRC's experience claims already.

Looks like you revel in the ambiguity of posting by taking great pleasure in uttering the "N" word. Rev. Wright does not preach hate, which is not congruent with your example. Trinity does not preach a gospel of racism. There is no racist attack being made against white people there.

I understand that you may be paralyzed by fear; but, do not fear the promise that can be your glorious future.

[Doc Jerome]

I have a picture that I took with Bill Clinton.

I have a picture that I took with Tom Delay when he came to visit UT-Brownsville and I was in charge of setting up the display for our library.

I have a picture that I took with Phil Gramm when I was in High School.

Am I somehow affiliated with them or their politics because I took a picture with them?

If you can. The photo is at a fundraiser. The only way of attending a fundraiser is to give money. You are invited because you have given money; therefore, given access. That's how it works.

[101A]

Some have hope that inspiration can bring change.
Some have inspiration that change can bring hope.
And some have change that hope will bring inspiration.
We are inspired and hopeful and changed.
We need not fear what lies before us.
For before us lies the future, and the future will change unless it stays the same.
So we can hope in not fearing, and not fear in hoping.
If we stay divided, we cannot unite. And if we are not united, then we cannot be one. And if we are not one, then we must be two or three or several. And several is too many! You lose count after a while. My wife tells me not to try to remember more than three things on a shopping list. Any more than that, and she tells me I need to make a list. Heh, heh, she's the organized one, making all the lists. Me, not so much. But if there's only one thing on that list, then I don't need to write it down. I can remember it. It sticks at the forefront of my mind all the way to the store. And that's what America needs to be like.
You see, we must move forward, because if we are not moving forward, we are either moving backward, or sideways, or sitting still. And it hard to see if you are moving backward, because you have to crane your neck around.
And we in America are not a people who crane our necks around! We are not a people who rely on our peripheral vision!
Otherwise, how can we be reconciled to the future of change and hope and forwardness that lies before us? If we are not in the future, then we must be in the present or the past. But we cannot be in the past, because the past is already over. And as soon as we find ourselves in the present, the present is already past, and the future is now the present.
So we must unite the future with the present, because the future is ever-becoming the present! And if we are not changing and hoping, then as the future is becoming the present, it is not changing but rather staying the same, and the same is the status quo. So without our change and hope and inspiration, to be inspired and hopeful and changing, in order to change and hope and inspire, the future becomes the present, which becomes the past, and the status quo stays the same and does not change!
For we cannot take the past and make it the future. We cannot change the past. For that would be time travel. But they said, "You cannot change the past; it already happened," but we said, 'Yes, we can!" And then they said, "No, seriously, according to the laws of physics it's impossible," and we said we won't be bound by the shackles of the laws of physics. We said, "Yes, we can." And they said, "Really, I can show you the calculations according to quantum mechanics, you can't do it" and we said that quantum mechanics are the physics of the past. They are the physics of fear and of division. "Yes, we can!"
Very, very funny.

[peewee's lovechild]

There is enough information out here to refute most of HRC's experience claims already.

Looks like you revel in the ambiguity of posting by taking great pleasure in uttering the "N" word. Rev. Wright does not preach hate, which is not congruent with your example. Trinity does not preach a gospel of racism. There is no racist attack being made against white people there.

I understand that you may be paralyzed by fear; but, do not fear the promise that can be your glorious future.

I like how you didn't answer the question.

I like how you deflected with my use of "######", nevermind that I was using it as an example of extremeism.

But, go ahead do what you want . . .

[peewee's lovechild]

If you can. The photo is at a fundraiser. The only way of attending a fundraiser is to give money. You are invited because you have given money; therefore, given access. That's how it works.

Do you have any idea how many people take pics with candidates?

Do you have any idea how many random people donate to a candidate?

Does a candidate have to know every single person donating?

Give me a break.

Now, having someone whose been investigated for two years for fraudulent acitivity run the finances of your campaign . . . . now that's a horse of a different color.

[smeagol]

Now, having someone whose been investigated for two years for fraudulent acitivity run the finances of your campaign . . . . now that's a horse of a different color.

The Clintons are scandal-free . . .

[JoeChalupa]

Somehow, you must summon the strength to overcome or face your fear, bias, hatred, anger, etc. That is truly the measure of a man, and the essence of all human struggle.

I concur. :tu

[JoeChalupa]

Hillary's claim of 35 years of experience is...in Bill Clinton's terms...a fairy tale.

[peewee's lovechild]

The Clintons are scandal-free . . .

I never said that.

But, Obama is the candidate that is not supposed to be like all the other candidates.

He's not supposed to be "old politics", and yet he seems to be exactly that.

[peewee's lovechild]

Hillary's claim of 35 years of experience is...in Bill Clinton's terms...a fairy tale.

I think it's absurd to discount all the politcal work she's done in her life.

That's just retarded.

[JoeChalupa]

I think it's absurd to discount all the politcal work she's done in her life.

That's just retarded.

I'm not discounting all her political work but what really matters is the kind of experience. I don't consider her experience superior. And even the most experienced of politicians make mistakes..such as voting for the Iraq War.

And the retarded smack is weak..very weak.

[JoeChalupa]

I never said that.

But, Obama is the candidate that is not supposed to be like all the other candidates.

He's not supposed to be "old politics", and yet he seems to be exactly that.

To claim Obama is exactly like old politics is retarded. Nobody, especially Hillary "the presidency is owed to me" Clinton, thought Obama would be ahead in delegates, States won and the popular vote at this time of the presidential campaign.

[peewee's lovechild]

I'm not discounting all her political work but what really matters is the kind of experience. I don't consider her experience superior. And even the most experienced of politicians make mistakes..such as voting for the Iraq War.

And the retarded smack is weak..very weak.

It wasn't any kind of smack at all.

She's been actively involved in politcs since Obama was in diapers.
This whole Health Care initiative . . . she's been the biggest proponent since before it was the cool thing to support.

To brush aside all that she has done is just insane, or retarded.

[peewee's lovechild]

To claim Obama is exactly like old politics is retarded. Nobody, especially Hillary "the presidency is owed to me" Clinton, thought Obama would be ahead in delegates, States won and the popular vote at this time of the presidential campaign.

He's been caught in lies.

He's condemed a white man (Imus) for "racial remarks" and even called for him to lose his job, meanwhile I haven't heard him blast the rap industry for doing the same on a daily basis.

He needs the street cred.

Isn't that what an old school politician does?

He blasts the Clintons for being life long politicians that can't be trusted, and yet he was quick to allign himself with Ted Kennedy because it was convenient for him. For shits sake, he even made it a point to sit next to him at the State of The Union Address.

Ted freaking Kennedy!!!!

The Kennedy's are nothing but old school politics!!

Why can't you see that?

[Doc Jerome]

I like how you didn't answer the question.

I like how you deflected with my use of "######", nevermind that I was using it as an example of extremeism.

But, go ahead do what you want . . .


Some questions don't require a response. Some questions are answered in an esoteric or even in a cryptic way. What is required by you, is to go beyond the tacit fundamental understanding you have of the world.

Hint. Using the "N" word is not a prerequisite for embarking on a journey of self improvement or elevated discourse.

I will, as you say, do what I want; however, before I do that, I'd like to assist you if at all possible in the inauguration of your own personal renaissance. Remember, . . . There is nothing to fear in your glorious future.

[Yonivore]

To claim Obama is exactly like old politics is retarded. Nobody, especially Hillary "the presidency is owed to me" Clinton, thought Obama would be ahead in delegates, States won and the popular vote at this time of the presidential campaign.
Obama is a product of the old-time Chicago-style Democrat party machine. Meet the new boss, same as the old.

[peewee's lovechild]

Some questions don't require a response. Some questions are answered in an esoteric or even in a cryptic way. What is required by you, is to go beyond the tacit fundamental understanding you have of the world.

Hint. Using the "N" word is not a prerequisite for embarking on a journey of self improvement or elevated discourse.

I will, as you say, do what I want; however, before I do that, I'd like to assist you if at all possible in the inauguration of your own personal renaissance. Remember, . . . There is nothing to fear in your glorious future.

Ummm, I'm sorry you got all butt hurt that I used the word "######" to prove a point. I'm sorry that you're not adult enough to use that in a conversation.

I never, at any point, used it to refer to anyone in particular. Kori would've banned my ass by now.

So, if you're not some black guy that is easily offended by any mention of the word "######", eventhough it's being used in a non-offensive way, you're a white guy living with white guilt.

I'm neither. I have a clear conscience. And, if you go back to the post where I used that word, you might find that there was an actual reason to use it.

So, once again, ignore the question I posed and make an issue about a non-issue to deflect the fact that you don't want to answer the question.

[Doc Jerome]

Ummm, I'm sorry you got all butt hurt that I used the word "######" to prove a point. I'm sorry that you're not adult enough to use that in a conversation.

I never, at any point, used it to refer to anyone in particular. Kori would've banned my ass by now.

So, if you're not some black guy that is easily offended by any mention of the word "######", eventhough it's being used in a non-offensive way, you're a white guy living with white guilt.

I'm neither. I have a clear conscience. And, if you go back to the post where I used that word, you might find that there was an actual reason to use it.

So, once again, ignore the question I posed and make an issue about a non-issue to deflect the fact that you don't want to answer the question.

I am neither hurt nor offended that you chose to liberally use the "N" word. Your point is pointless. It has no merit at all. Trinity does not preach a gospel of hate, . . . oh well. Look, I have already responded to your drivel.

What does it matter what or who I am? I do not need to lean on Kori to co-sign my posts, or anything in them. Especially an offensive word (to many) that you justify by back-dooring it's usage.

Your question was answered already. You are just too thick in coming to that realization. Your anger is apparent and your liberal use of the "N" word just exposes your flaws. Ultimately, we can't disguise who we are. I offered something to you that goes beyond a simple disagreement and exchange on a blog. It apparently did not pass your threshold of humanity or curiosity to even consider it. This shows your lack of judgement in the heat of discussion and proves that you are incapable of elevated discussion. Be gone, . . . simpleton.

[fyatuk]

Together, we must hold those that propagate misinformation as fact accountable to the spirit that is the promise of America.

Stop the misinformation and limited cognitivism.

Considering both sides of the fence and all major candidates fall into that, how would you suggest resolving it.

Oh, and I doubt you used cognitivism correctly. The adjective "limited" doesn't really make sense with the meaning of the word. I believe you meant "cognition" instead. Not that that matters, just didn't make sense.

[Doc Jerome]

Considering both sides of the fence and all major candidates fall into that, how would you suggest resolving it.

Oh, and I doubt you used cognitivism correctly. The adjective "limited" doesn't really make sense with the meaning of the word. I believe you meant "cognition" instead. Not that that matters, just didn't make sense.

That is the conundrum that people in America must solve in order to bring a sense of propriety and fairness to every facet of the American experience. Eliminating the all too obvious biases in the media would be a perfect start. He who controls the image controls the perceptions of that image.

Yes, the word cognitivism is derived from the word cognition. However, the word cognitivism is used in several ways. In a general sense, with respect to discourse, it is the position that sentences used in that discourse are meaningful and capable of being true or false. This concept can apply to many aspects of life, including ethics and many normative matters such as contests, music, and even the concept of democracy. All have norms (or rules), and while it would be difficult to accept that the candidate with the most delegates does not win the contest, or that C-E-G is not C Major (triad), or even that we have freedom of speech, the contrast in ethics can be true or false too. We may want ethical statements to be categorically true, while we only need statements about right action to be contingent on the acceptance of the rules of a situation. The choice to play the contest, compose or conceptualize music, pursue the lawful promise that is America according to the given set of rules are all legitimate transfers of application.

I admit, while it does not reflect an absolute, it does reflect an abated position or diminution which lies somewhere inbetween. Thus, limited cognitivism does not adhere to the rules, nor to the concept of absolutes. In short, artistic license.

[Extra Stout]

That is the conundrum that people in America must solve in order to bring a sense of propriety and fairness to every facet of the American experience. Eliminating the all too obvious biases in the media would be a perfect start. He who controls the image controls the perceptions of that image.

Yes, the word cognitivism is derived from the word cognition. However, the word cognitivism is used in several ways. In a general sense, with respect to discourse, it is the position that sentences used in that discourse are meaningful and capable of being true or false. This concept can apply to many aspects of life, including ethics and many normative matters such as contests, music, and even the concept of democracy. All have norms (or rules), and while it would be difficult to accept that the candidate with the most delegates does not win the contest, or that C-E-G is not C Major (triad), or even that we have freedom of speech, the contrast in ethics can be true or false too. We may want ethical statements to be categorically true, while we only need statements about right action to be contingent on the acceptance of the rules of a situation. The choice to play the contest, compose or conceptualize music, pursue the lawful promise that is America according to the given set of rules are all legitimate transfers of application.

I admit, while it does not reflect an absolute, it does reflect an abated position or diminution which lies somewhere inbetween. Thus, limited cognitivism does not adhere to the rules, nor to the concept of absolutes. In short, artistic license.
I nominate this for "Postmodern Post of the Year."

[101A]

I nominate this for "Postmodern Post of the Year."I second (and I think the poster should rename himself "Buckley's Ghost")

[peewee's lovechild]

I am neither hurt nor offended that you chose to liberally use the "N" word. Your point is pointless. It has no merit at all. Trinity does not preach a gospel of hate, . . . oh well. Look, I have already responded to your drivel.


You didn't respond to it, so I'll post it again:


Secondly, if I'm a white guy running for President and I attend a church that has a pastor that says that all ######s are descendents of Noah's "dark" son . . . said son was cursed by Noah and God himself and therefore all "dark" peoples, i.e. "######s", are a cursed people . . . that it should have no negative effect on me because I myself don't believe in what my pastor is saying??

Do you seriously believe that?





What does it matter what or who I am? I do not need to lean on Kori to co-sign my posts, or anything in them. Especially an offensive word (to many) that you justify by back-dooring it's usage.



If I was being racist, Kori would have banned me. Now, you chose to take offense to it for some reason. I'm not going to apologize for it.




Your question was answered already. You are just too thick in coming to that realization. Your anger is apparent and your liberal use of the "N" word just exposes your flaws. Ultimately, we can't disguise who we are. I offered something to you that goes beyond a simple disagreement and exchange on a blog. It apparently did not pass your threshold of humanity or curiosity to even consider it. This shows your lack of judgement in the heat of discussion and proves that you are incapable of elevated discussion. Be gone, . . . simpleton.


My liberal use of "######"?

Damn, you are extremely sensitive.

[Doc Jerome]

Reposting your flawed premise does very little to help your case. An answer has already been rendered.

I am not, have not, nor will I, accuse you of being racist unless it is merited. You continue to hide under the protective skirt of Kori in an attempt to hide your shortcomings. Perhaps this explains your support and defence of Sen. Clinton. You see the skirt of a woman to be a protective cloak with which you find comfort and protection from “The Force.” Well, Vader never showed such cowardice.

The fact that out of all the possible scenarios at your disposal, you selected from your vast reservoir of knowledge, an example that does not apply to Sen. Obama’s situation, to prove some phantom analogous connection. Rev. Wright has NEVER made any broad assertions of any kind regarding white people. He rails against the system/government/rich white folk.

1. System- A group of interrelated components or elements forming a complex whole. In his case, anyone or anything denying him an opportunity to pursue his American dream.

2. Government- Remember, he is a former marine who served his country (had to be out of love considering the times) and after having completed that service, allowed little opportunity.

3. Rich White Folk- Hyper elite's that control the flow of wealth and opportunity in this country and indeed the world. Not all white people, but the 1% in control.

His statements indicate that he identifies the above as a static presence in society. The gospel preached at the church (Trinity) is not one of hate, nor hating white people. Listen to Sen. Obama’s speech to get the rest, . . .

I am not seeking an apology from you, as I am not hurt by your choice of words, you are. After posting and reposting, you have successfully destroyed your credibility 8 times. I am certain that George Lucas did not intend Vader to be so uncouth.

[Extra Stout]

Doc Jerome,

Would you agree that the underlying principle of Obama's campaign has been to take this struggle against the system/government/elites, and rather than formulating liberation through the perspective of a black man, he has assembled a framework for doing so through the perspective of a generic working American?

[DarrinS]

We all knew that it would ultimately come to this point. The moment when Americans would have to decide if they are indeed ready to embark on their exigent journey of reconciliation, forgiveness, and resolution, or sink back into the facileness of the status quo. Reconciliation can only begin with the acknowledgment that something has taken place which remains unresolved, and has been used to divide, and provoke fear and mistrust among Americans. Everyone, with no exceptions, must be willing to forgive and move forward. We must be resolute in resisting the temptation to descend into archaic, baneful patterns of paranoid thought that only serve to make this country weak and incongruous, unable to fulfill it's promise. Together, we must hold those that propagate misinformation as fact accountable to the spirit that is the promise of America. We are better than what this country's limitations have been. And now that we stand before the threshold of change, there is no need to succumb to fear, because we stand united in a cause that is much greater than ourselves. There is a sense of inspiration and hope not seen in a long time in America. It is time for American citizens to rise to the challenge set before us and seize this opportunity that too seldom visits. Then, and only then, can we heal this country and advance into the future with great promise. Vote for change.

Stop the misinformation and limited cognitivism.




Who talks like that?

"You'll rue the day!!!"

[fyatuk]

That is the conundrum that people in America must solve in order to bring a sense of propriety and fairness to every facet of the American experience. Eliminating the all too obvious biases in the media would be a perfect start. He who controls the image controls the perceptions of that image.

Which leads me to a question I've asked many others who proclaim similar concepts: What is your opinion on voting for a third/minor party or independent candidate?


Yes, the word cognitivism is derived from the word cognition. However, the word cognitivism is used in several ways. In a general sense, with respect to discourse, it is the position that sentences used in that discourse are meaningful and capable of being true or false. This concept can apply to many aspects of life, including ethics and many normative matters such as contests, music, and even the concept of democracy. All have norms (or rules), and while it would be difficult to accept that the candidate with the most delegates does not win the contest, or that C-E-G is not C Major (triad), or even that we have freedom of speech, the contrast in ethics can be true or false too. We may want ethical statements to be categorically true, while we only need statements about right action to be contingent on the acceptance of the rules of a situation. The choice to play the contest, compose or conceptualize music, pursue the lawful promise that is America according to the given set of rules are all legitimate transfers of application.

I admit, while it does not reflect an absolute, it does reflect an abated position or diminution which lies somewhere inbetween. Thus, limited cognitivism does not adhere to the rules, nor to the concept of absolutes. In short, artistic license.

If you do a web search for "limited cognitivism", your posts are the only entries of those two words being used together.

Why? Because they do not apply together. Cognitivism expresses a particular view on ethical sentences and propositions; all other uses of the term derived from this and express similar ideas applied to other areas such as art. Applying "limited" to it implies an impermanence of that view, basically making that view meaningless. The adjective is just not compatable with the noun.

It's a nonsensical phrase you have imbued with meaning to yourself, which is fine.

By your own meaning, "limited cognitivism" relates to the grey area between the absolutes, and towards not adhering to rules. Which means the last line of your original post "Stop the misinformation and limited cognitivism." is pushing for direct absolutes and clear stated facts that can be applied in a cognivitist view to obtain clear true/false values.

Which again, seems to make little sense with the rest of your posts.

[peewee's lovechild]

Reposting your flawed premise does very little to help your case. An answer has already been rendered.

I am not, have not, nor will I, accuse you of being racist unless it is merited. You continue to hide under the protective skirt of Kori in an attempt to hide your shortcomings. Perhaps this explains your support and defence of Sen. Clinton. You see the skirt of a woman to be a protective cloak with which you find comfort and protection from “The Force.” Well, Vader never showed such cowardice.

The fact that out of all the possible scenarios at your disposal, you selected from your vast reservoir of knowledge, an example that does not apply to Sen. Obama’s situation, to prove some phantom analogous connection. Rev. Wright has NEVER made any broad assertions of any kind regarding white people. He rails against the system/government/rich white folk.

1. System- A group of interrelated components or elements forming a complex whole. In his case, anyone or anything denying him an opportunity to pursue his American dream.

2. Government- Remember, he is a former marine who served his country (had to be out of love considering the times) and after having completed that service, allowed little opportunity.

3. Rich White Folk- Hyper elite's that control the flow of wealth and opportunity in this country and indeed the world. Not all white people, but the 1% in control.

His statements indicate that he identifies the above as a static presence in society. The gospel preached at the church (Trinity) is not one of hate, nor hating white people. Listen to Sen. Obama’s speech to get the rest, . . .

I am not seeking an apology from you, as I am not hurt by your choice of words, you are. After posting and reposting, you have successfully destroyed your credibility 8 times. I am certain that George Lucas did not intend Vader to be so uncouth.


:lol :lol :lol

You're a funny guy.

But, the first part of your post clearly reflects your sexist views.
Thanks for that.

:lol at your Vader never showed such cowardice . . .

He killed little kids in Episode 3.
You know nothing about the Star Wars saga.

You make me laugh.
That's a good thing.

[Doc Jerome]

Extra Stout,

In a word, . . . yes. He is the first politician with broad appeal to realize that the struggles of all Americans will be aided by enlisting a genuine grass roots, broad coalition of average American citizens regardless of political, socio-economic, racial, and religious affiliations for the common good. He uses a fundamental common sense approach coupled with exceptional intelligence to help shape policies that will benefit the country and it’s people as a whole, not a privileged few.

The black man’s plight in this country is no different from the white man’s or the hispanic’s, latino’s, american indian’s, chinese, etc. or the immigrant's (wherever one immigrates from). All want to make a decent wage, contribute to society in some meaningful way, and leave some sort of legacy for their children. Everyone wants good educational opportunities, jobs that pay a decent wage, and safe streets for their children. No one group has any exclusive claim to this.

The problem has been that noone has had the courage nor the means to resist the power of special interest groups with enormous amounts of money and influence. He has that courage and opportunity by not accepting money from lobbyists and PACS. In effect, he does not have to cowtow because there are no strings attached. His obligation is to the million plus average citizens that donated, and the voters. That translates into doing the will of the people again, or at the very least, signalling the inauguration of a new type of politics and a new type of political leader.

It is a fact that in America, it’s citizens can be cajoled or bamboozled into voting against their own interests. I just hope that does not become the narrative of this election cycle, where the rarest of opportunities come by and we do not seize it.

[peewee's lovechild]

There is enough information out here to refute most of HRC's experience claims already.



Obama's Shallow Credentials on National Security Are Dangerous for the Country

by Joseph C. Wilson

Posted March 20, 2008 | 01:51 PM (EST)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The Clinton campaign ad featuring a 3 a.m. telephone call as a metaphor for experienced leadership in foreign policy has generated considerable comment, but much of the reaction is from people who have never been involved in foreign policy and certainly never had to field such a call in a crisis situation. Some of the responses are from advisers to the Obama campaign who know better but are actively diminishing the importance and realities of presidential engagement for immediate political advantage.

To begin with, there are such 3 a.m. calls. During my long career as a diplomat, including crises and military actions in Africa, the Middle East and Europe, I have been on the receiving end, the sending end, and the development of options that led to some of those late night calls. The president's role in crisis management is direct, critical and reflects the exercise of leadership in its most fundamental and powerful form. That capability is not intuitive; rather, it comes from years of experience, training and exposure to the complexities that are in inherent in international relations.

On August 3, 1990, while serving as acting Ambassador to Iraq, I received a middle of the night call from then President George H.W. Bush's Middle East adviser, who informed me that Saddam Hussein had invaded Kuwait. While the president had not personally called me, it was clear to me from that moment on that he was directly responsible for every significant decision made and engaged in marshaling the forces of the U.S. government and the support of the international community in what ultimately became Desert Storm.

In 1995 and 1996, while serving as Political Adviser to the Commander in Chief of U.S. Armed Forces, I was directly involved in the diplomacy associated with the movement of troops from Western Europe to Bosnia in support of the efforts of President Clinton and his special envoy, Richard Holbrooke, to implement the Dayton Accords and bring an end to the Balkan genocide.

In 1998, as Senior Director for Africa in President Clinton's National Security Council, I helped orchestrate six phone calls, some late at night, directly from President Clinton, three each to Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles, and Eritrean President Afwerki, to stop the air war between the two countries. Two of Barack Obama's senior advisers, Tony Lake and Susan Rice, were also involved in that effort, and could attest to the importance of presidential involvement if they would choose not to remain silent as a ploy to protect their candidate's slender credentials.

In each of the three cases, there was a critical common denominator: direct presidential engagement. During the Desert Shield part of the first Gulf War, then President Bush personally chaired many of the National Security Council meetings and made nonstop calls to foreign leaders to assemble the international coalition and secure the U.N. resolutions that provided the legal underpinning for the military action.

In former Yugoslavia, President Clinton played a similar role, reaching out to friends and allies, to adversaries and belligerents, in order to reach agreements that permitted the deployment of an international peacekeeping force.

And in the Ethiopian-Eritrean conflict, the aerial bombings of Addis Ababa and Asmara ceased thanks to the personal efforts of a President.

Contrast the above examples with the last seven plus years of George W. Bush and the conclusion is inescapable: presidential leadership is critical and should be tempered with experience and capability.

Senator Clinton has a long and well documented history of involvement in many of critical foreign policy issues we have confronted and will continue to confront as a nation. Critics can quibble about the details of the health plan she fought for in the 1990s, or whether hers was the decisive or merely an important voice in the Northern Ireland peace efforts, but there can be no denying that she has been in the arena for a generation fighting for what she believes in, gaining experience and developing leadership skills. She has traveled the world and met with international leaders both as the First Lady and as a respected senator on the Senate Armed Services Committee. As NSC director on Africa I experienced her direct positive involvement in U.S.-African relations; it was she, as First Lady who advanced through her own travel, then urged and made possible President Clinton's historic trip. In the Senate, she has aggressively exercised her oversight responsibility and held the Pentagon's feet to the fire on plans related to withdrawal from Iraq, shaped legislation requiring reports to Congress, and cosponsored legislation with Senator Byrd to deauthorize the war with Iraq. She has exercised the levers of power because she knows how to do so. That is not a small thing; it is not a campaign theme. It is simply true and goes to the heart of whether she, or anyone, is prepared to be the president to manage at once two wars and a global economic crisis.

Senator Obama is clearly a gifted politician and orator. I disagree profoundly with his transparently political efforts to turn George Bush's war into Hillary Clinton's responsibility. I was present in that debate, in Washington, from beginning to end, and Obama was nowhere to be seen. His current campaign aides in foreign policy, Tony Lake and Susan Rice, were also in Washington, but they chose to remain silent during that debate, when it mattered.

Claims of superior intuitive judgment by his campaign and by him are self-evidently disingenuous, especially in light of disclosures about his long associations with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Tony Rezko. But his assertions of advanced judgment are also ludicrous when the question of what Obama has accomplished in his four years in the Senate is considered.

As the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee subcommittee on Europe, he has not chaired a single substantive oversight hearing, even though the breakdown in our relations with Europe and NATO is harming our operations in Afghanistan. Nor did he take a single official trip to Europe as chairman. This is the sum total of his actions in the most important responsibility he has had in the Senate. What are his actual experiences that reassure us that when the phone rings at 3 a.m. he will know what to do, which levers of power to pull, or which world leaders he can count on?

Obama has stated that he will rely upon his advisers. But how will he know which ones to depend upon and how will he be able to evaluate what they say? Already, one of his chief foreign policy advisers, Samantha Power, has been compelled to resign for, among other indiscretions, honestly revealing on a British television program that Obama's public position on withdrawal from Iraq is not really his true position, nor does it reflect what he would do. Her gaffe exposed a vein of cynicism on national security. How confident can we be in his judgment? In fact, the hard truth is that he has no such experience.

Obama has tried to have it both ways on the issue of national security. On the one hand, he claims his intuition somehow would make him best equipped to handle the difficult challenges that face the next president. On the other hand, he tries to ridicule and dismiss as relatively insignificant the idea that actual experience with and intimate knowledge of foreign affairs and leaders, the U.S. military, the intelligence community, and the intricacies of diplomacy matter. He has even suggested that talking about the problems of national security amounts to exploitation of "fear." One of Obama's fervent supporters, a Harvard professor named Orlando Patterson, who has no expertise in foreign policy, wrote absurdly in a New York Times op-ed that the 3 a.m. ad wasn't about national security at all, but really a subliminal racist attack. Delusions aside, sometimes a discussion about national security is about national security.

There will, in fact, be 3 a.m. phone calls for the next president. They are not make believe. I have been there for such calls. The next president cannot be afraid or hesitant of handling the enormous national security crises that President Bush will leave behind. One thing is certain -- the calls will come. Obama has only an abdication of his chief senatorial responsibility as a basis for assessing what his judgment might be if and when the phone rings. Which of his shifting coterie of volatile advisers would he turn to? Will it be the one who repudiated his withdrawal plan, exposing his real intention, prior to being forced to resign? Or will it be those advisers who remained silent until politically convenient -- several years and several thousand lives after the shock and awe invasion, conquest and disastrous occupation of Iraq?

The calls are real and experience is real, too. The campaign might be treated as a game by the media, but those calls are serious, deadly serious.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-wilson/obamas-shallow-credentia_b_92586.html

[PixelPusher]

Damn, was Joe Wilson promised Secretary of State or something?

[peewee's lovechild]

Damn, was Joe Wilson promised Secretary of State or something?

:lol :lol :lol

I'm not sure, but he did provide facts.

I can't wait to read the spin on this.

[101A]

It is a fact that in America, it’s citizens can be cajoled or bamboozled into voting against their own interests. I just hope that does not become the narrative of this election cycle, where the rarest of opportunities come by and we do not seize it.The ultimate irony is that the biggest flaw of Democracy is specifically that people DO vote in their own SELF interest. The majority becomes tyranical; ultimately the republic becomes untenable. The "powerful", "elite" or simply "rich" do what they can within, and outside of legal means to stave off the ever-hungry and aware of their own power masses; which simply stews the pot of envy, and speeds up the inevitible.

Fuck your populist "policies which benefit all" rhetoric. Get Obamas brilliant policies the hell out of the way, and let this country be what it was designed to be, and guaranteed by that more and more worthless rag of a document the Consititution!....FREEEEEEE!!!!

[clambake]

i'm just glad that whitey has convinced himself that there's good reason to beat down the blacks.

[Don Quixote]

Some have hope that inspiration can bring change.
Some have inspiration that change can bring hope.
And some have change that hope will bring inspiration.
We are inspired and hopeful and changed.
We need not fear what lies before us.
For before us lies the future, and the future will change unless it stays the same.
So we can hope in not fearing, and not fear in hoping.
If we stay divided, we cannot unite. And if we are not united, then we cannot be one.


GREAT STUFF! Have you given thought to writing speeches for one Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.?

Now let me try ...

Um, we should elect Obama because we believe in the ... future. And the future is coming. And the past was yesterday. And we ought to vote for him because we believe ... in hope. And hope for the future. And if we protect the future, we will have hope.

Let's not go back to the past, because the hope ... is in the future. Yeah, and we need, um, change.

Was it pretty good?

[Don Quixote]

I nominate this for "Postmodern Post of the Year."

You know ... I think the same thing when I listen to Obama. He's the first real postmodern candidate, maybe the second if you count Bill Clinton as one.

Also, it is interesting to note that, for all his rhetoric of bringing unity to Washington and America, his record and history show that he is a rather partisan liberal activist. If that's what you want in your President, then fine, but let's drop this charade that Obama is anything other than what he is, which is an old-school leftist.

If any of the three candidates is "guilty" of reaching across the aisle in the name of unity, bipartisanship, etc., it's McCain (e.g., McCain-Feingold, etc.).

Lastly, I'm highly suspicious of any, and I mean ANY, political figure that promises peace and hope in exchange for my vote. Listening to some of the speeches (mostly Democratic, sometimes Rep.), I get the feeling that they're ashamed/embarrassed of America, or have this idea that America is a soup kitchen, or that there is generally no hope or opportunity in this country. The underlying assumption in all of this, of course, is that government can and will fix all these things, and finally give us hope.

I think most of us, conservative or otherwise, will recognize that this is a pretty darn great country, full of opportunities for success and wealth, no matter who is in office. So we would agree that some of this "hope" rhetoric is nonsense. But there is a bigger problem.

As a conservative evangelical, and a follower of Jesus, I confess that my hope cannot and will never come from gummint. I think you all know who I believe gives us our rights, hope, etc. So I will wake up every morning happy, even if Hillary or Barack gets elected. And I would recommend that secular non-religious types look at it the same way. This country is NOT falling apart, the sky is not falling, all is not wrong in the world. And I certainly don't need or want Obama to fix it.

[Doc Jerome]

You cannot fight, what is inevitable. :fro