" "Do we want the most powerful person on the planet to hold a perception of the world that we believe is incorrect and perhaps dangerous to our long-term interests?"

And the majority of the country says this would be different from today how? "

" So, why is it that only the rants of liberal preachers have to be of concern? There are a LOT of nut-case rants out there from right-wing preachers and they are far from being denounced by the ruling Republican party. Their support is actively sought. Rev. Hagee says that Huricane Katrina was sent by God to stop a gay pride parade scheduled for New Orleans. Rev. Farwell said that 9/11 happened because God withdrew his protection due to being angered over abortion. Rev. Parsley, who McCain calls his "spiritual guide", preaches that the sacred purpose for which the United States was founded is to oppose Islam. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXZbIGJrDkg
As near as I can tell, about the only nut-case right wing preacher that has been universally denounced is Rev Phelps that goes around picketing the funerals of servicemen killed in Iraq claiming that God let them die because of the sin in the US. This is crazy talk and I think that McCain needs to answer for it. "

" any smart polotician would maintain the concept regaurding the seperaion of church and state scince alot of religin is based on theory anyways.the problem we have is that reverand wright is still bitter about human rights violations carried out in the not so distant past.the uissue is to see those mistakes and not try to pretend they didn't happen and not go back and do the same things again.but people understandably get upset when those issues are unburied. comming from a predomanantly white wealthy city, I was sheilded from alot of the misjustice bestowed upon what the wealthy would consider to be lessor and expendable people.also we should not be so quick to judge obama based on his pastor when the people of washington are rubbing elbows with the likes of john hagee and pat roberts.or what about the early years of the GWB era when he embraced the clash of the civalizations theory pened by one of the most bias minded theology professors of our time of our time.the mans name was bernard lewis and he was not well respected by his peers in the scocial science comunity.religious theory needs to be kept out of the white house because it is simply to inaccurate and often to bias.we need to focus more on basic human rights and not go back and make the same mistakes over and over again. "

" According to Mr. Clayson "liberals" could have given the same speech Rev. Wright did and they believe the same things Rev Wright does. Really? When did that poll come out? Mr. Clayson is a mind reader?

I will say this - when Iraq invaded Kuwait the USA considered it an act of terrorism. When the former USSR invaded Afganistan we boycotted the Olympics. Yet we invade a country - kill its citizens, kick down the doors to their homes on a daily basis - and we are the good guys?

Also - look up the Tuskegee Project and see what you think the outrage would have been if the subjects had been white.

Mr. Clayson - you are so ignorant of this country and its history and of world history - every week I am truly amazed you are allowed, yet alone considered qualified to teach at a university. How low our standards have dropped. "

" Pondering what "ponders" is pondering and, maybe I'm wrong, but I get the feeling this is a slam against President Bush & our current administration? If I'm wrong, I apologize, but the constant "Bush-bashing" is getting way old.

I'm sorry that the president I voted for twice (and would probably vote for again, if he could run) has not been perfect. Oh, my gosh! He did some things wrong! In fact, even I disagree with him on a couple of things. For one thing, I am in no way in favor of any kind of amnesty for illegal immigrants and I'm adamantly opposed to the so-called "Mexican Truck Pilot Program." Border security really needs to be a lot tougher. The Prescription Drug program, which he supported, is a huge mistake.

But if it were not for the "Bush Tax Cut," the economy would be way worse than we seem to think it is.

Yes, I think mistakes were made in Afghanistan and Iraq. But there are always mistakes made in war. Just like there will always be "Monday morning quarterbacks" ready and eager to point those out. But, despite this, we were absolutely right to do what we did then, and are doing now. I support the troops AND the mission.

Yes, the economy is taking some hits. The major problem seems to be energy. Well, for one thing, we wouldn't be struggling with these high gasoline and diesel prices right now if it wasn't for our own government and a bunch of foolish environmental policies. We should ask ourselves why there hasn't been a refinery built in this country since the 70s. We know we have vast reserves of our own oil and natural gas going untapped offshore, in Alaska, and in the Overthrust Belt area of the Dakotas, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Colorado, etc.. These fields can't be opened up and developed overnight, but in four or five years we could fix this. Why aren't we doing it? Why hasn't Bush pushed for this? Well, I think it's because he knows he would encounter overwhelming opposition from Democrats and environmentalists and I don't think it's been seen as quite as critical as some other issues up to now.

Okay, so now we have these three contenders to the Presidency all busily engaged in trying to tell us what they think we want to hear; Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John McCain. In a country of 300 million plus, this is the best we can come up with? I plan to vote for John McCain. But I'm not wildly enthusiastic about it. This is mainly because he is, in fact, a bit too much like the Democratic contenders. Call me a "Reagan Conservative," which I am, but what I think the country needs right now is leadership — not consensus. Four more years of Bush (weak on some things, but strong on the most critical) would probably be preferable to any of these three. Those who seek to campaign on an anti-Bush platform need to realize that he probably has a bit more support out here than they might realize.
"

" the_bat - so you are one of the 26% who would vote for W again. Like PT Barnum once said - you can fool some of the people all of the time. "

" the_bat - by the way, what is our "mission" in Iraq? Hard to support something that changes every couple of months. Its pretty obvious that W and the gang are making it up as they go.

And thank goodness for those tax cuts - the wealthy wouldn't be able to buy their new boats with out them. I know I am so much better off now than before those were passed - I mean I can fill my car one more time each year now!

Bush's oil buddies seem to be doing well though - talk about a hidden tax. "

" This week, Prof. Clayson endeavors with "logic" to prove that Senator Obama agrees with the theology of his pastor, Jeremiah Wright.

Excuse me, but why do we need Prof. Clayson’s “logic” to divine whether Senator Obama agrees with the Rev. Wright? It’s no mystery what Obama now thinks about his pastor. Sen. Obama has given not just one but two lengthy speeches saying that he does NOT agree with the Rev. Wright. One was given in Philadelphia soon after the news media started playing the five-second snippets of Rev. Wright. The second was given about a week or ten days ago in response to the Rev. Wright’s restatement of his theology at the National Press Club.

In the face of those denials by Sen. Obama, what does Prof. Clayson do? Well, he ignores entirely what Sen. Obama has said an proves by “logic” that Sen. Obama agrees with the Rev. Wright despite Sen. Obama’s public denials.

I put “logic” in parenthesis deliberately because there is no logic in what Prof. Clayson has to say. That’s because Prof. Clayson “proves” one logical fallacy by backing it up with a second logical fallacy.

Let’s look at what Prof. Clayson had to say.

First, he asks, “The question became whether he shared the same values and ideas expressed by the good reverend.”

His conclusion is that, “the Obamas have been members of this church for 20 years.” In this, Prof. Clayson is using the recognized logical fallacy of “guilt by association.”

Second, Prof. Clayson tries to reinforce “guild by association” by saying, “Whereas almost all modern American liberals agree with most of Wright's comments (minus the religious nonsense? which they understand and forgive, of course), and whereas given that educated liberals of a certain class are even more likely to agree, and whereas Obama is an educated liberal of a certain elite class, then we must entertain the possibility that there is an overwhelming probability that he agrees with almost everything the good reverend said.”

Thus, Prof. Clayson is proving the truth of the logical fallacy of “guilt by association” by use of the logical fallacy of hasty generalization.

Why?

There is NO evidence that “almost all modern American liberals agree with most of Wright’s comments." There is also NO evidence that “educated liberals of a certain class are even more likely to agree.”

What Prof. Clayson has done is try to augment one logical fallacy with another. And all of it is ridiculous because we already know what Obama believes because he has said what he believes.

The whole thing reminds me of a liar's retort, “Who are you going to believe, me or your own lying eyes?” In this case it’s, “What are you going to believe, Prof. Clayson’s use of compound logical fallacies or what Sen. Obama has already said about his rejection of what the Rev. Wright had to say?”

To complete Prof. Clayson’s minor survey of formal logic errors, in an irrelevant tangent, he says, “Many of our friends on the left would be more likely to suggest that there is no God … and if there is a god, why shouldn't that be the government?”

I have traveled my whole life in liberal circles. I doubt that the amount of atheism among liberals is any greater there than among the general population. And, that’s despite the hard-right's myth that liberals are atheists.

And as to making “god” the “government,” that’s a first for me. NEVER have I ever heard anyone assert that the “government” is “god.” I’d assert that Prof. Clayson is just making up that claim just to knock it down. (Thus, it’s nothing more that the “straw man fallacy.”) The statement can’t even be hyperbole. It’s just preposterous.

Lastly, Prof. Clayson asks, “Do we want the most powerful person on the planet to hold a perception of the world that we believe is incorrect and perhaps dangerous to our long-term interests?”

To that, we can confidently reply, “Professor, we already know that Sen. Obama doesn’t follow the Rev. Wright’s theology. Why are you ignoring what he has already said?”
"

" simply fantastic opinion piece from the professor,,, and as usual ...( Cross) and ...(Phil) can't handle the truth "

" Cross and Phil, you two have absolutely no idea what your lefty B. Hussein Obama is really like. You think obama came out against his buddy because of what he said? No, he came out because he was starting to lose voters and that is the ONLY reason. This says more about his character than anything else.

What about Frank Marshall Davis and his Marxist beliefs? What about terrorist Bill Ayers? And Rashid Khalidi and his PLO buddies? Why hasnt BHO thrown these friends under the bus too? Because the liberal media hasnt pushed this issue. They dont want to see THEIR candidate take more on the chin.

Cross, for you to think you know what Obama thinks just because of what he says in campaign speeches is completely naive. But then again, you want the change that you hope and pray will come with BHO in charge; a change that would be completely destructive to America and the democracy that you spew upon in your weekly reviews. "

" cross1242 did a nice job of noting the various techniques that Prof. Clayson uses on a regular basis in his musings. He is, after all, not a political scientist, so he is unfettered by a need to use objectivity in his political "analysis". He is not a philosopher, and so feels no need to use logic, formal, rigorous or otherwise in his arguments. He is a marketing professor, quite a good one, and therefore excels in using various propaganda techniques to make his product look a lot more attractive than they really are. "

" Have to question Barack Hussein Obama's judgment in his 20 year relationship with Rev. Wright as well as his Weather Underground pal. If Hillary was the nominee I wouldn't have to hold my nose and vote for mccain. Can't stomach the idea of voting for obama. "

" Cross--I don't imply that I can read minds or completely understand where Prof. Clayson is coming from. However my interpretation of the last sentenace of your post is this:

Rev Wright has publicly stated that Obama will say what needs to be said because he is a "politician." Therefore, as Dr. Phil often says (I'm paraphrasing), the best indicator of future behavior is to look at what has been done in the past. So we should put much less stock into what he says and look at what he did.

He remained a member of the church for more than 20 years, He let this preacher of hatred lay hands on and baptize his children, He invited Rev Wright to lead the prayer at his annoncement that he was running for the leader of the free world, then withdrew that invitation because he recognized that many American's would have a problem with the views of Rev. Wright. He then says that he had never heard the vitriole espoused by the Rev Wright that have been portrayed in the media. When he was no longer able to duck, weave, and spin away from the controversy, he makes a speech in which he says that he cannot disavow himself from Rev. Wright. Then he turns around and severs all ties with his "spiritual mentor" in the interest of political expediency. Therefore to answer your question, again through my interpretation, is that in order to understand the man, we must look at what he has done, not what he has said. "

" There is a reason Mr. Clayson's writings apear on the OPINION pages. They, along with all of the musings here, are opinions...nothing more. And opinions have little to do with absolute truths. "

" hetfield - Well we certainly know enough about John McCain though don't we? After all he seeks out the endorsements of America-hating pastor John Hagee and anti-Muslim bigot Rod Parsley - neither of which are fit to be considered Christian, let alone pastors. Or how about Doug Goodyear - a member of McCain's campaign staff - someone paid my McCain - who is a lobbyist for the military junta in Myanmar - you know those folks who kill monks and won't let relief workers into their country.

Meanwhile Mr. Clayson continues to spin his own form of bigotry in this column. He subtly mocks those who don't believe in God, as if that makes their views less worthy than those who do.

But that is a common tactic of those on the right - belittle those who beliefs don't match yours by throwing God or the flag in your face.

What is also striking - for its ignorance - is Mr. Clayson's comment "The United States is a racist country. Our military routinely engages in evil acts, especially against the poor brown people of the world." Now Mr. Clayson says this mockingly, as if it is some sort of wild irresponsible viewpoint that no one would take seriously. Yet outside the United States this is a view commonly held.

I know it is hard to see outside our own little world sometimes - but there are many more people and Christians outside the USA then there are in it. And the great majority of them find the views of Mr. Clayson, Mr. Bush, and Mr. McCain small minded and ignorant - and they reject them as common American hubris. "

" the_bat: " Pondering what "ponders" is pondering and, maybe I'm wrong, but I get the feeling this is a slam against President Bush & our current administration?"

Sorry my original post was so long that you were confused.

To answer your confusion, Yes.

To further clarify, he embarrasses me everytime he speaks.

"

" cross, could you at least entertain the idea that believing everything Obama says might be a "logical fallacy" in it's own right?

Obama was backed into a corner when the Rev. Wright comments surfaced...he had no choice but to speak out against the hateful comments (regardless of what he may TRULY believe.) You're taking Obama's comments at face-value and assuming they are all true. If there is one thing I know about politicians (and people in general), it's that ACTIONS speak louder than words. Obama CHOSE to sit in that church for 20 years, and if he was truly that disgusted by his comments, he would have done something or said something before deciding to run for President of the United States. That was a truly stupid move on his part. My personal belief is that Obama does believe much of what his "good pastor" speaks about, but most of us know that most politicians will say anything in order to get elected, so no surprise there.

Based on what has transpired, Prof. Clayson has an absolutely valid question when he asks, "So what DOES Obama believe??" "

" I think "Whyonearth" hit the nail on the head. "

" Just over the wires: "NBC NEWS has confirmed that another McCain aide, Doug Davenport, has resigned because of his lobbying ties to the Myanmar government’s military junta."

Based upon Mr. Clayson's logic, I guess its fair to know the type of person John McCain is based upon who he hires for his staff.
"

" I have been excited at the prospect of Obama vs McCain for quite some time now and can't wait for Hill to have to drop out and let us have it. I was also leaning very strongly toward Obama for months. However, I have to admit that as much as I think it is oevrblown, this Wright thing has me questioning Obama's judgement. All of this said, this article is just plain stupid. The fallacies of logic are beyond description and make virtually no sense. Clayson can write some thought-provoking articles, but this isn't one of them. It's ridiculous to accept this article as containing any type of cogent reasoning as to deciphering Obama's true beliefs. Are there legit questions about this Obama issue? You bet. But does this article offer any true, logical insight? Ummmm, NO!! The Courier should have used the space for more garage sale ads this week. "

" Good article on what Barack Hussein Obama, Marxist gungrabber, "former" member of a hate America church (20years), and good buddies with an unrepentant domestic terrorists (Ayers), thinks since he hides it so well. He can't hide his voting record.

Phil, nice try with the lobbyist canard. Not really. "

" Phil, you political hack, you left out part of the story:

"Earlier, Robert Malley – an unpaid Middle East policy adviser to the Obama campaign – resigned after hearing the Times of London was planning to report on his meetings with Hamas in his role as head of the International Crisis Group." "

" xdfred - nobody hates America more than pastor John Hagee - one of McCain's wing men whose endorsement he recruited.

Ayers association with Obama is by chance not by choice - meanwhile McCain HIRED and PAID people that lobbied for a murdering military junta.

HUGE DIFFERENCE - McCain seeks these types out, while Obama distances himself from them. "

" Phil knows that B. Hussein Obama's bad guys cant be defended so he does what all libs do; he doesnt explain the relationship but simply throws mud the other way to make the appearance that it's the Rights fault.

Come on Phil. Stop deflecting the truth and start defending your hope for a new zanadu. "

" Phil, another difference is that McCain didn't attend Hagee's church for 20 years, call him a close personal friend and allow him to baptize his children. I disagree with McCain on a number of issues, including this one, accepting his endorsement just because it's an endorsement. But when someone distances himself from someone ONLY after the true relationship comes out, I question is political judgement as well as his "friendship" by throwing Wright under the bus only after it damaged him politically. "

" There are a couple of posts so far that include ideas that seem off-base to me. Most are ideas that are regularly repeated on this site in response to criticism by me and others of what Prof. Clayson has had to say. I shall attempt replies – but I’m not sure I can because I don’t really understand those ideas.

MAC says, “They, along with all of the musings here, are opinions...nothing more.” This seems to mean that, “no opinion is serious and they can all be disregarded.” I have no idea what he means by denigrating “opinion.” He, and others who have also said, “It’s just an opinion,” seem to believe that opinions are just some kind of comic relief.

It seems to me that there are at least two kind of opinion: “informed opinions” and “uninformed opinions.” An informed opinion would be along the line of, “After my 20 years of study of the results of information obtained from deep-space probes of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, it is my opinion that the universe will continue expanding indefinitely.” An example of an uninformed opinion is, “When I look up, I see the sky. When I look down, I see the earth. Every where I’ve ever been, I’ve observed the same thing. It’s my opinion that the Earth is flat.”

The key difference is that informed opinions are formed by examining the evidence. The evidence may not be stated contemporaneously with the opinion but it’s at least implied that the evidence available backs the opinion. An uninformed opinion is one that is based on a guess, a best, or horribly misinformed conclusions from facts, at worst. The trick, of course, is being able to tell the difference between the two. One way to do so is whether the person with the opinion has evident or easily discoverable credentials for forming an opinion on the subject. Another way is whether the person provides some reference to the factual proof that backs up that opinion.

But, there is no reason to just say that, “all opinions are just comic relief and can safely be ignored by everyone.”

Another area where I am having a hard time understanding the reply is the use of “guilt by association” as a legitimate argument against Obama or anyone else. And now, we’ve got people claiming that a guy named William Ayers has organized contributions to Obama’s campaign and that Ayers USED TO BE a Weatherman is a strike against Obama. There are several other folks mentioned that Obama has crossed paths with at some time who are also held up a strikes against Obama. (The fact that there is no common connection among the named people or the belief’s of those named people is not even noted let alone discussed.)

This conversation started out because Prof. Clayson used “guilt by association” as an argument. The folks on this board name additional (unrelated) names as additional guilt by association arguments. It needs to be observed that compounded guilt by association arguments do not make the argument stronger or ever achieve validity. (The rule is that ALL guilt by association arguments are invalid and NOT that you must have five guilt-by-association arguments before the argument is valid.)

Perhaps it is worthwhile to review why guilt by association is always considered to be an invalid argument. One source says,

“It is clear that sort of “reasoning” is fallacious. For example the following is obviously a case of poor “reasoning”: “You think that 1+1=2. But, Adolf Hitler, Charles Manson, Joseph Stalin, and Ted Bundy all believed that 1+1=2. So, you shouldn’t believe it. The fallacy draws its power from the fact that people do not like to be associated with people they dislike. Hence, if it is shown that a person shares a belief with people he dislikes he might be influenced into rejecting that belief. In such cases the person will be rejecting the claim based on how he thinks or feels about the people who hold it and because he does not want to be associated with such people. Of course, the fact that someone does not want to be associated with people she dislikes does not justify the rejection of any claim.”

[Source: http://www.opifexphoenix.com/reasoning/fallacies/guiltbyassoc.htm; or Google “guilt by association fallacy” and find any of maybe 100 sources discussing the fallacy and pick the one you like.]

The claim that Obama should have switched his church a long time ago rather than maintain contact with the Rev. Wright. But, on matters of religion, in particular, people don’t switch all that easily. I can say that I’m something of an example that switching is not really an option. I am still a member of the religion that I was born into. Yet, since becoming an adult, I know that my personal religious beliefs are substantially at odds with the official doctrine on my church.

So, why do I stay in that church?

I stay because it is my home just as much as the house that my parents raised me in. I have a large group of friends in that church and I cannot turn my back on my friends. It is my worshiping community and I would not be comfortable elsewhere. So, despite substantial disagreements, I shall remain where I am. It’s not because I believe everything but because, warts and all, it is my home.

Obama’s critics don’t seem to have listened at all to what he said about the difference between “white” churches and “black” churches. His discussion of the differences is something that all of us can benefit from. Based on what he had to say, I suspect that many whites would be suspicious of any candidate for the presidency who was a member of a “black” church. I’d suggest that we need to learn more about the differences and learn not to be afraid of it.
"

" Phil
"Ayers association with Obama is by chance not by choice " I haven't laughed so hard in years. Thanks for the comic relief.

How do you know a leftwinger is lying? His lips or fingers are moving.

Earth to Phil. The article written is about Barack (Marxist) Hussein (gun grabber) Obama. Please stick to the topic at hand. They'll be ample time to discuss McCain. Of course, I can understand why you don't want to discuss Barack (ProAbortion) Hussein (Anti-America) Obama. Then there's all the noise his wife is making, about what a lousy country this is an scratching poor sweet Hillary's eyes out. She would be a great first lady, not. "

" one thing you missed Cross (or ignored) is that Ayers, in an article published in the New York Times, ironically, on 9/11/01, that he wished he could have done MORE bombings..........this wasn't ancient history of which he's repented, this was just a few years ago. I doubt he's had a "come to Jesus" moment since then.

And your statement as to why you won't leave your church despite substantial disagreements is telling. You're not more a member of a religion you disagree with by birth any more than I'm a truck driver today only because my dad was one (in a Waterloo company that no longer exists today, thanks unions). You can sit in your garage all day long, that doesn't make you a car. Your religion is not ingrained by birth any more than your political affiliation is. It's a choice, period. You can't maintain friendships OUTSIDE of that church? Ridiculous. "

" Obama says he's for change. Doesn't really get too specific but "just trust me" sort of rhetoric.

Let's go back a bit and look at what the other changes the Dem's have brought in the past 16, or so, months:

In just 16 months.. Remember the election in 2006?
Thought you might like to read the following:
A little over 16 MONTHS ago:

1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
3) The unemployment rate was 4.5%.

Since voting in a Democratic Congress in 2006 we have seen:

1) Consumer confidence plummet;
2) The cost of regular gasoline soar to over $3.50 a gallon;
3) Unemployment is up to 5% (a 10% increase);
4) American households have seen $2.3 trillion in equity value evaporate (stock and mutual fund losses);
5) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $1.2 trillion dollars;
6) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.

America voted for change in 2006, and we got it!

Remember it's Congress that makes law not the President. He has to work with what's handed to him.

Quote of the Day........"My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world. I hope you'll join with me as we try to change it." -- Barack Obama
"

" xdfred, I trust that you are aware that calling Obama nasty names is not legitimate argument. You may also need to know that in front of everyone else here it marks you as a horse's rear-end. Even your fellows on the hard right have not had to resort to those sort of tactics. "

" Kramerica @ May 12, 2008 3:20 PM said that Ayers had said something despicable seven (7) years ago.

Kramerica, it's STILL an argument of "guilt by association" and that's still a recognized logical fallacy. It's a recognized logical fallacy because it doesn't prove anything.

As far as religion is concerned, I judge that you take you religion far less seriously than I do. Despite my problems with it, I cannot change it as I do my clothes. I would judge that Obama takes his religion seriously too even with his pastor's faults. "

" Cross, I find it ironic that you are defending BHO by saying you couldnt turn you back on your friends at church, which is exactly what obama has done to his preacher. Obama publicly supported Wright, until the public outcry was too deafening for him to ignore. He then switched sides and decried Wright.

Sounds like integrity is something the good man is lacking. "

" So, Whyonearth & Kramerica, do you really think that everyone sitting in the pews of every church believes in lock-step with everything their preacher says? Maybe some churches. (Pass the kool-aid.) People join a church for all kinds or reasons. They stay in a church for all kinds of reasons. Family, friends, upbringing, theology, politics, culture, location, schedule, personalities, style -- the reasons vary by individual. Some people go to church to find the comfort of certainty and others are looking for a journey of discovery.

One thing that has really struck me about Obama is that he listens to people with whom he disagrees as well as those with whom he agrees. He learns through observation of what works. That was what was going on back in January, when he made some observations about what made Reagan effective. Democrats went ballistic and claimed he was saying nice things about their nemesis. Republicans got territorial, because Reagan was THEIR saint. But when Obama listens and observes, he can separate the process from the details and the sense from the nonsense. "

" hetfield, your most sincere concern for the loyalty to one's pastor is noted. "

" xdfred - Mr. Clayson's article is about figuring out what someone believes based upon what someone he knows says.

Therefore, McCain must be anti-Catholic, anti-Muslim, anti-Morman, pro-military junta and pro-lobbyist.

Based on his own personal history, not even those he associates with, he is also pro-adultery.

Quite the traits of a great national leader.

I am sure Mr. Clayson will soon be writing an article to compare Mr. McCain with the folks he associates with. "

" xdfred - Mr.Clayson's article was about being able to tell what someone believes based upon the statements of people he knows or has associtated with.

Based on that standard, Mr. McCain beliefs must include anti-Catholic, anti-Mormon, anti-Muslim, pro-military junta murderers, and pro-smear campaigning.

Based upon his own personal experience, as well as his wife's, Mr. McCain must also be pro-adultery.

Just the personality traits and beliefs we would want in our next president. "

" I know what Obama believes. Probably the same thing that most Waterloo / Cedar Falls area folks believe. We believe that the courier needs to get rid of Mr. Dennis Clayson.

I'm fine with conservatives, but do we need this "man" expressing the conservative view. I can come up with a huge list of conservatives with ANY credibility, and Dennis Clayson is NOT one of them. "

" MrT-if you don't like what Clayson writes, don't read his column. But a lot of us DO enjoy his column. His columns usually generate the most discussion. Isn't that what it is all about? Generating a lot of discussion? "

" MrT
wrote on May 13, 2008 6:13 AM:

" I know what Obama believes." Please share it with the rest of us.

Isn't it odd that left wingers are always pushing censorship on these boards. How Stalinesque.

cross1242
wrote on May 12, 2008 4:24 PM:

" xdfred, I trust that you are aware that calling Obama nasty names is not legitimate argument. You may also need to know that in front of everyone else here it marks you as a horse's rear-end. Even your fellows on the hard right have not had to resort to those sort of tactics. " Sticks and stones, Cross. Nasty names? Which ones are nasty names? Marxist? Gun grabber? Pro-abortion? Look at his voting record. That's what defines him the clearest. Check out his vote on partial birth abortion. How about the speech where he said he wanted to take law abiding American's handguns away? Or raise capital gains taxes "to be fair" Nasty names? Grow up.


"

" We'll just agree to disagree, Cross, as usual. It's obvious your continued attendance at your church is just a cultural thing. I wasn't suggesting you flippantly change churches every other week. I think the care and feeding of your soul in relation to how you live this life and where you spend the next one trumps hurting friend's feelings. Good luck with that. "

" There is nothing nasty or incorrect about the labels fred placed on Barak Hussein Obama. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. "

" Phil... Obama & McCain's situations are very, very different. I'm not a McCain supporter by the way.

You can continue to spin the topic all you want, but the fact remains that Obama had been a member of that church for 20 years and considers Wright to be his spiritual adviser. Wright's comments weren't just slightly controversial, they were blatantly racist & pure untruths. If I heard my pastor say things like that, I'd either find a different church or at the VERY least, keep my distance from those who made the comments so I wouldn't be associated with them. But instead, Obama used Rev. Wright as the religious figurehead of his campaign and quoted him in his books. That's just really poor judgment on Obama's part..

You do not go to a church like that for 20 years and not know Jeremiah Wright is a radical extremist. "

" 'lil stevie wonder, BHO will sign any bill submitted by anyone that has to do with presumed, or actual confiscation of all firearms. Ms Hillary will do the same. Liberals fear armed citizenry.......and rightfully so. The 2nd Amendment was designed specifically to insure the preservation of the Constitution. Their current rhetoric may, or may not, have any bearing on their "whistful" intentions. "

" cire - They are different only from the standpoint that Mr. Obama didn't know every belief that Rev. Wright held and when he heard them he rejected those beliefs and cut ties with him. Mr. McCain on the other hand knows the beliefs of the people he enlists - and still seeks their endorsement and support.

The difference - McCain is a panderer and hypocrite without the courage to reject the anti-American hate mongerers whose support he seeks. "

" cire, no matter how insistent you are, your argument is still the guilt by association logical fallacy. In the face of Obama's statements that he is not in agreement with his pastor, you need more than a logical fallacy to overcome his statements. "

" xdfred and hetfield, okay so you'll continue to retreat to name-calling in the misapprehension that it represent good argument. But, I'd think that your next president deserves respect. At a minimum, I'd think you'd want to not have people remembering what you called Obama when he's sworn in as president. For that reason, I think that it's in your own best advised to tread a little lighter on the name-calling. "

" xdfred @ May 13, 2008 8:44 AM said, "Isn't it odd that left wingers are always pushing censorship on these boards. How Stalinesque."

Actually, xdfred, if and when the Courier makes an EDITORIAL DECISION to find a conservative columnist who can argue the conservative case better, it's not "censorship." It's just smart editing.
"

" cross1242
wrote on May 13, 2008 12:46 PM:

" xdfred and hetfield, okay so you'll continue to retreat to name-calling in the misapprehension that it represent good argument. But, I'd think that your next president deserves respect. At a minimum, I'd think you'd want to not have people remembering what you called Obama when he's sworn in as president. For that reason, I think that it's in your own best advised to tread a little lighter on the name-calling. "

Save your BS threats. He is what he is, whether sworn in as president or not. Despite left wing best efforts, history cannot be changed.

Molon Labe


"

" cross1242
wrote on May 13, 2008 12:49 PM:

" xdfred @ May 13, 2008 8:44 AM said, "Isn't it odd that left wingers are always pushing censorship on these boards. How Stalinesque."

Actually, xdfred, if and when the Courier makes an EDITORIAL DECISION to find a conservative columnist who can argue the conservative case better, it's not "censorship." It's just smart editing.

The Courier can do whatever it wants. It's the bloggers here who are constantly saying Clayson should be discontinued because they don't like his messege that I consider a Stalinesque form of attempted censorship. You ever hear of any of the "hard right" as you say call for the censorship of anyone we don't like?
Rush, Hannity, Coulter, etc. are always having to deal with calls, demands even, for censorship. How un American. Yet no one called for Air America to be censored. It's 3 remaining listeners wouldn't like it.
"

" cross1242
wrote on May 13, 2008 12:40 PM:

" cire, no matter how insistent you are, your argument is still the guilt by association logical fallacy. In the face of Obama's statements that he is not in agreement with his pastor, you need more than a logical fallacy to overcome his statements. "

It's not guilt by association, it's guilt by acceptance. For 20 years.
"

" Phil writes 'They are different only from the standpoint that Mr. Obama didn't know every belief that Rev. Wright held and when he heard them he rejected those beliefs and cut ties with him. Mr. McCain on the other hand knows the beliefs of the people he enlists - and still seeks their endorsement and support.'

Cross thinks the president of the US deserves respect, when he countless times throws W under the bush, calling him a liar and worse on these blogs! You can't have it both ways; but most liberals think they can.
That is a bunch of baloney to quote Cross's favorite dismissal. He supported Barak Hussein Obama until it became apparant of the tremendous backlash it caused. Talk about a hypocrit, your savior is just that. "

" Phil wrote on May 13, 2008 12:24 PM:
"They are different only from the standpoint that Mr. Obama didn't know every belief that Rev. Wright held and when he heard them he rejected those beliefs and cut ties with him."

I don't buy that. There's no way Obama sat in that church for 20 years without hearing that same rhetoric. The ONLY (dare I repeat myself..ONLY) reason that Obama spoke out against those comments is because he was called out by the media. It was killing him politically, otherwise, he'd still be pals with Wright at this moment.

I'm not saying he agrees with everything Wright said either..people are entitled to their own opinions without being "guilty by association". But some of the things Wright said are SO off-the-wall and nutty, that it really makes someone wonder what kind of judgment Obama has to be friends with this man. I can tell you right now, if one of my so-called "friends" showed up to my house in a KKK robe, I'd be showing them the door. "

" xdfred @ May 13, 2008 2:25 PM said, "It's the bloggers here who are constantly saying Clayson should be discontinued."

Actually, xdfred, the mention of it by "MrT" was the very first time that getting the Courier to fire him has been mentioned -- at least for the six months or so that I've been on this board. I'm sure of that because I've been watching for anyone saying that. I decided early on that I was going to argue with Clayson but not sneak around and try to get him fired. ("Defending to the death your right to say it" and all that.)

I will admit that I have found arguing against what Prof. Clayson has to say as remarkably easy each week. I think that it would be more difficult if the case of the hard right was presented by someone more attuned to political argument. But, that decision is up to the Courier and I'll resist anyone who tries to organize anything to force the Courier to do it. "

" hetfield @ May 13, 2008 3:42 PM said, "He supported Barak Hussein Obama until it became apparent of the tremendous backlash it caused."

Presuming that your pronoun referees to me, I have and will continue to support Obama. I regard the whole thing about the Rev. Wright as a minor matter that folks on the hard right are trying to make into a big deal. "

" cire @ May 13, 2008 4:25 PM said, "There's no way Obama sat in that church for 20 years without hearing that same rhetoric."

cire, I've been sitting in a church for longer that 20 years hearing rhetoric that I disagree with. I go there because there is still some that I agree with and so do the people that I go to church with. People go to a church for all kinds of reasons and you are not entitled to judge them on when they should get out.

You should have listened to some of the other explanations by the Rev. Wright on the reasons for his rhetoric. (As, for example, the interview on Bill Moyer's Journal or Wright's speech at the National Press Club. The black churches worship differently than most of the American mainline churches. And the rhetoric by the Rev. Wright isn't all that unusual. To find out, I'd suggest that some Sunday that you go to a black church and participate in their worship.

She also says, "I'm not saying he agrees with everything Wright said either..people are entitled to their own opinions without being 'guilt by association'."

Wow, that statement seems to contradict everything you've just said. If you allow Obama to disagree with anything, then you also allow him to also disagree with everything that Obama has said that he objects to. "

" McCain, Clinton, or Obama. That's it? Is this all? And I find 55 comments arguing who is the better choice? Good grief people, wake up! If Reps and Dems can't find any better presidential candidates, then America is in for a long four years. "

" cire - the point is you probably wouldn't even know your friend was in the KKK until he showed up in the robe. Do you really believe Rev. Wright was preaching those things on a regular basis? To create and grow a church of the size he did, don't you think he would be under a lot of scrutiny? I'll bet you would be surprised by the beliefs of some people you think you know.

john14541 - as if it could be any worse than the last 8 years. At least Obama can speak in complete sentences. Mr. McCain used to have some integrity until he sold it all to get the hard core right wing votes. "

" john14541 @ May 14, 2008 7:26 AM said, "If Reps and Dems can't find any better presidential candidates, then America is in for a long four years."

I'm sorry that you feel that way. My take on things is that McCain is offering us four more years of a Bush-like presidency. That's while Obama offers us a way out. He's smart, fast, and recognizes the problems that W has created in our society. And the fact that he isn't "experienced" in Washington's ways means that the future really will be different and better.

Listen and read more about the two. I think you will find what I (and Phil) have found. "

" The things that's sad (and predictable) here is watching Phil and Cross automatically accepting as gospel truth everything Obama and Wright have said on the matter, despite Obama's obviously radically different takes in his two speeches given to explain it all away. First, he can't disown his pastor any easier than a family member, he says, then in the second speech, does exactly that. Wright's explanations are all over the map.

As far as WHY people attending their churches for "all sorts of reasons" and the "black worship experience" argument, the question should be WHAT is the object of the worship. From what I've heard, I think it's obvious that churches like Wright's worship "the black experience" rather than God. God seems to be just window dressing. And no, Cross, I'm not referring to the sound bites (which need no explanation) I've heard COMPLETE sermons, that mysteriously are no longer on their website "

" Kramerica - well I guess since you are such a doubter of what people say - I am sure you put no faith in many things Bush has said about why we went to war in Iraq, don't believe McCain when he says he voted for Bush in 2000 even though 3 witnesses heard him say otherwise, and so on.

I didn't know you were the decider of who is telling the truth and who isn't.

Just like the web sites, columns and blogs - you know which ones are worthy of believing - like Mr. Clayson - and which ones - like any that are perceived as "liberal" - aren't.

Do you really think that if Obama knew all the things Rev Wright was going to say - or if he had heard them before -he would have broke with him in his first speech? Obviously he didn't know and when he heard those things he ended the relationship. Obama is also a politician and they know when a bad hand is dealt them and distance themselves quickly.

Common sense man - do you have any? "

" Kramerica @ May 14, 2008 9:20 AM said, "the question should be WHAT is the object of the worship."

Wow! People may only worship the way Kramerica says. Talk about arrogant! "

" Here you go, Phil. Try sweeping this under the rug.

"Barack Obama says that he understands why top Hamas advisers support him for president. Isn't that sweet? He says, "It's conceivable that there are those in the Arab world who say to themselves, 'This is a guy who spent some time in the Muslim world, has a middle name of Hussein and appears more worldly and has called for talks with people, and so he's not going to be engaging in the same sort of cowboy diplomacy as George Bush."
My translation? Horsesqueeze.
Are we really to believe that Hamas would endorse a candidate for the US presidency based on the fact that he has spent some time in the Muslim world? Not exactly. Muslim terrorists and radicals will endorse and support Barack Obama because they know he will not be a bother to them. He will not stand up to Islamic extremism. This is a guy who wants talk, not action. They absolutely love talk, Muslims have managed to become about 25% of the population of Europe while all this talking is going on. When people are just sitting around talking it leaves radical Muslims free to act. You talk. We'll act.
There's more Obamanation news out there. Now we read that Obama referred to Israel as a "constant sore" that infects all of our foreign policy. Well, that certainly ought to really bring on the support from Jewish voters.
OBAMA'S SUPPORT ... IN PALESTINE
Al-Jazeera has produced a report showing Palestinians in Gaza campaigning for Barack Obama. In fact, not only are they campaigning but they are working at a phone bank, calling people in America to ask them to vote for Obama. One of the pro-Obama Palestinian organizers says that he is voting for Barack Obama because he studied his campaign manifesto and thought that he was a man capable of change.
Change? Well, if we stopped fighting Islamic radicalism ... that would be a change, wouldn't it? That would be change that Muslims can believe in."
From Neil Boortz web site today.
"

" Ooh, Phil and Cross, touchy touchy, must have struck a nerve. Phil, have you considered that Obama, the politician, is LYING? You support him and his ilk so you automatically agree with him. Compare the two speeches he gave on Wright. Nuff said.

Cross, you as usual, missed the point. I don't dictate how people claiming to be Christians worship........the object of that worship does. If your culture and race is given higher priority than God............there you have it. "

" xdfred @ May 14, 2008 11:56 AM provided a long quote from the Neil Boortz website. (Boortz is another hard right radio talk show host who calls himself, "The Mouth of the South.")

First of all, I don't believe Boortz account that Palestinians are forming phone banks to campaign for Obama. And, if Al Jazeera really did say it, then I don't believe them either. Frankly, the Palestinians have a lot more to worry about (survival, for example) than to campaign for a president of the United States.

Second, the whole story is probably the ultimate "guilt by association" argument. Just because someone objectionable says something nice about a candidate here doesn't tell us squat about what the candidate is really all about. (Did it occur that maybe the supposed endorsement, if it existed at all, might be to have a negative effect here?)

We need to support Israel but blind support of anything Israel does is NOT doing them or us any good. "

" You're right, Cross. Why would anyone think Obama would be anything but a stand up guy for this country? Why? Given what he's said, the way he votes, who he hangs with. Either he's as blind as a bat to the hate America crowd he hangs with, or he's in with them. Those are the only two choices. It's too coincidental otherwise. And I don't blame you for not believing the stories, given the Clinton's propensity of finding dirt on political opponents, even if none exists. Again, what if Boortz's storie are true? "

" xdfred, it's much easier to believe that Obama is working with little green men who ride in flying saucers than to believe that he's somehow working with any kind of terrorists.

The fact that you are trying to sell that sort of stuff speaks volumes about your character. "

" Kramerica - no you missed all the nerves - I realized you really are a W republican - You are the decider - whose telling the truth, which sites are legit, etc. Well the party whose positions you seem to support have pretty much ruined this country the past 7-14 years. Newt started it and W is finishing it.

The "ilk" as you put it - resides in the White House - and the Senate and House minority leaders. That brand is now so radioactive that even disticts that have voted Republican for years are kicking the bums out. Guess the voters are figuring out who the real "ilk" is.

By the way - more Americans are bothered by McCain's connections to Bush than Obama's connection to Rev. Wright. Like I said, the people have figured out who the "ilk" is.

Join the rest of America and wise up. "

" xfred - there is nothing to sweep under the rug - except propaganda. Actually Hamas must want McCain to win - just like Osama bin Laden wanted Bush to win - cause they know nothing will get done in the Middle East and that will help them stay in power and get new recruits - so they pretend to back the other guy to scare US voters into backing his opponent.

Bush's policies have really put those extremists in their place and made this a safer world haven't they? I mean democracy is flowering so fast in the Middle East - we can't get the Diebold voting machines installed fast enough. I would fall off my chair laughing if it wasn't so pathetically sad.

You've got to quit reading the wacko web sites - they are putting too many ideas in your head. "

" Is Clayson beating a dead horse this week?

How many articles will Clayson write about Obama's pastor?

What does Clayson have to say about his own parties contributions to society?

Kramerica, cross1242 wins every debate post you challenge him with. Give it up! "

" The Title Reads:
"So What Does Obama Believe?"
I may not agree with all his policies, but I do think that Obama believes it's time to break down the barriers in this country. Barriers in Politics, Race, Education and more. It's a compelling argument he has that we are 'One America' and it's high-time we unite. Republicans will be able to work with him, they already are. "

" Indy, you wish. "

" Newswatcher.. if Obama is a uniter, should it be HIM reaching out to and working with the Republicans? And what info do you have that the Republicans are working with Obama, on what bills? "

" Well, Cross, given the FACT that he hangs with at least one known domestic terrorist, it's not a huge leap to think he would be endorsed by similar. I guess a person of good character is someone who has his head in the sand about Barack Hussein Obama's numerous characteristics that make him unsuited for President. "

" You don't sound very independent, Independent.

Phil, feel free to provide some justification on who you claim Hamas would support. You're pretty good with a broom, aren't you.

Gee Newswatcher, what a pie in the sky post. How's superman supposed to break down barriers? By waving his magic wand? Or sending those who don't agree with him to the gulag? His type (Marxists) have done that before. For our own good, of course.

Why does Obama, (and Hillary for that matter), want to take our guns away? I ask this because numerous posters imply they can read his mind. "

" xdfred @ May 15, 2008 10:29 AM said, "given the FACT that he hangs with at least one known domestic terrorist, it's not a huge leap to think...."

Actually, xdfred, it is a HUGE leap through the logical fallacy of "guilt by association." You just don't seem to get it that no matter how many times your repeate your accusation, it's still a recognize fallacy. "

" Don't forget, xdfred, that Osama Bin Laden told America during the LAST presidential election that they should vote for John Kerry. Phil, in his May 14, 2008 10:27 PM: post seems to think otherwise..... "

" xdfred @ May 15, 2008 10:35 AM again complains about getting his precious guns taken away.

We live in a civilized society and not in the wild west. Here, we depend on the police to get the bad guys and not some self-appointed vigilantes to blow the bad guys away.

The NRA has been promoting gun carrying as if it still was the wild west. And that wasn't enough. Now it wants to reverse the presumption that, except in the home, you retreat before using deadly force. It wants a law to allow anybody who feels "threatened" to blow away the other person and ask questions later.

Frankly, I'm more afraid of guys like xdfred packing heat and being none to accurate than I am of criminals packing heat. I don't want to live in a society where when I go to a ball game I have to worry about my cheers might make some guy nearby mad and he'll blow me away because he was "frightened" by my cheers.

Unfortunately, SCOTUS is probably about to overturn the law that the 2nd Amendment provides an individual right to pack heat. The only good that will come out of that is to show that the "conservatives" on the court are not about strict construction but about achieving conservative results. "

" Phil and Cross, and your lil guy, Independent; you folks simply do not understand how extreme Barack Hussein Obama actually is. He has you fooled as well as at least 1/2 the left!

What about Frank Marshall Davis and his Marxist beliefs? What about terrorist Bill Ayers? And Rashid Khalidi and his PLO buddies?

I repost this to make you finally understand that BHO really is a friend to terrorists. Why dont you get it? Instead you want to always deflect and fire back at the good guys and McCain. Hey I think McCain is too left as well on some issues, but he is by far more worthy, experienced and ready for this position then a Jr Senator from Illinois.

Do tell us what real-world experience B Hussein brings us? What exactly has he done to further our American values and ideals?

I know, you will post some things about McCain and his past, and not answer these questions. Then you will fire back at Bush and his 2 terms, two teams that you democrats counldnt beat him at I may add.

Enough with your tedious claims and arguments. Answer these questions or continue to post your nonsense. "

" No, xdfred, no pie in the sky for me. You on the far right and those on the far left will continue to divide this country with your bullheaded attitudes. I for one am sick of it. The war has made our relations with many nations very thin. War will just not end this, for we are doing nothing but playing THEIR GAME!
You think McCain could unite our country? Really? Do you think McCain, although a very respectable "man" has everything we need in a President? Can HE do it? I'm not sure he can, for several reasons, but that's my opinion and I have more months to listen to him. No one will change my opinion but McCain. You, sir need to get off your far-right horse and take a few steps to the middle, you're as bad as the far lefties like James Carville. Eww! "

" How did everyone here like the Republican "Swiftboating" character assassination of Sen. John Kerry in 2004?

Well, whether you loved it or hated it, hetfield has provided you with a preview the coming Swiftboating that the Republican slime machine has in store for Sen. Obama this time around.

hetfield provides references to a couple of people who I hadn't even heard of before. Looking them up on the net, the contact with Obama is entirely trivial and their "sins" only exist in the fevered imagination of those with trouble in mind.

Do you doubt that?

Well, consider hetfield's continued use of Obama's middle name, sometimes in isolation of the rest of his name. He's trying to suggest that maybe Obama is part of the "enemy" Islamic religion. And that because he was named after his father. Do you think that anyone who would do that has any scruple against doing anything to archive a political end?

The level of the campaign to come is probably due to how frightened the hard right are that they are finally going to lose political dictatorship of this nation.

As for McCain, the chief thing that I have against him is that he has sold his soul to the hard right. And, the funny part is that the hard right still doesn't like him because he's only adopted 99.9% of their agenda. If we get McCain as president, we effectively get four more years of W. And that includes everything from crony capitalism to criminal use of offices for private gain.

Wake up folks! The Republicans are past-masters at the art of selling mindless, unreasoning fear. What hetfield just said is a sample of what is coming.

YOU can bring it to an end. Vote a straight-Democratic Party ticket. "

" Cross does exactly what I wrote he would do. Not answer legitimate questions about Obama. Ayers relationship is trivial? OMG...Instead Cross attacks McCain.

Why wont you address why BHO is a legitimate candidate? What does he bring to the table in regards to experience?

NOTHING. "

" hetfield - what about terrorist Bill Ayers? Let's see Obama was about 8 years old when Bill Ayers was doing his radical stuff. Obama met him much later when he was reformed from his radical ways and a professor and served on a board with him. So let's see, everyone Ayers has served with or even worked with, including the university he now teaches at, are now terrorist supporters? There is no story here - just more smear campaign.

Frank Marshall Davis - well he lived in Hawaii when Obama did - meaning when Obama was 9-16 years old. I am sure that Obama was developing a very close sophisticated political ties that he planned on using 30+ years later as president. What a joke these arguements are - only a desparate or crazy person would use them.

Meanwhile McCain hires campaign staff (now fired) that worked as lobbyists for a murdering, terrorizing military junta? What did they lobby for - cheaper bullets to shoot the monks with? And not 60 years ago when McCain was 9 years old - he did this NOW.

Who supports murderers and terrorists? Who has paid such people to be on his staff?

Like I said hetfield - quit reading the wacko websites. "

" Obama's name is this: Barak Hussein Obama Jr. I see nothing wrong with using it, nor have I ever referred to him as party of 'the enemy islamic religion' the term Cross uses.

Why wont Cross answer direct questions regarding BHO on experience?

Typical. Instead of answering them he says that I, typical of the Right, am trying to use fear as a tactic. That's the only tactic the left has. They have no answers, or plans for the future. Only a good public speaker who happens to be a freshman Senator. WOW. Maybe Black Hawk County could use a new Commissioner( I would hate to think of the HUGE tax increases we would have then.) But President? Uh, no thanks. "

" hetfield, oh cut the wide-eyed innocence ploy. Everyone here knows why you use Obama's name the way you do.

I've been saying ad nauseoum that guild by association is a logical fallacy. When you continue to do it and "associate" Obama with three guys you describe in scary ways, that is trying to sew fear in the electorate. If you deny that, then you know what you are.

And, to paraphrase Obama, experience at the same old ways of doing things is not a virtue. "

" 'Instead of answering them he says that I, typical of the Right, am trying to use fear as a tactic.' ... That is because you are. Why else would you say it? Do you go around saying your name is John Milton Doe or J. Milton Doe? For some reason I doubt it. As far as experience goes, I think his inexperience is kind of what he is running on, isn't it? Isn't he saying he is bringing a new attitude to Washington, going to change the politics of typical, same old Washington with something new and fresh? At least that was my impression. I am also in no way saying that I agree or disagree with it either. My decision will come in November. I do think that politics would change for the better if the unlikely event happened that demo fanatics and repub fanatics became American fanatics. Pride in America and her people needs to be regained and political agendas need to take a back seat. "

" Phil, I would have a hard time bringing up adultery...I do remember a democrat who had a situation that was very public.
"

" Regarding Mr. Obama's name - from Juan Cole, someone who is an expert in Middle East items:

Barack and Hussein are Semitic words. Americans have been named with Semitic names since the founding of the Republic. Fourteen of our 43 presidents have had Semitic names (see below). And, American English contains many Arabic-derived words that we use every day and without which we would be much impoverished. America is a world civilization with a world heritage, something Cunninghamism will never understand.

Barack is a Semitic word meaning "to bless" as a verb or "blessing" as a noun. In its Hebrew form, barak, it is found all through the Bible. It first occurs in Genesis 1:22: "And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth."

Now let us take the name "Hussein." It is from the Semitic word, hasan, meaning "good" or "handsome." Husayn is the diminutive, affectionate form.

Barack Obama's middle name is in honor of his grandfather, Hussein, a secular resident of Nairobi. Americans may think of Saddam Hussein when they hear the name, but that is like thinking of Stalin when you hear the name Joseph. There have been lots of Husseins in history, from the grandson of the Prophet Muhammad, a hero who touched the historian Gibbon, to King Hussein of Jordan, one of America's most steadfast allies in the 20th century. The author of the beloved American novel, The Kite Runner, is Khaled Hosseini.

But in Obama's case, it is just a reference to his grandfather.


The other thing to say about grandfathers named Hussein is that very large numbers of African-Americans probably have an ancestor ten or eleven generations ago with that name, in what is now Mali or Senegal or Nigeria. And, since so many thousands of Arab Muslims were made to convert to Catholicism in Spain after 1501, many Latinos have distant ancestors named Hussein, too. In fact, since there was a lot of Arab-Spanish intermarriage, and since there was subsequent Spanish intermarriage with other European Catholics, more European Americans are descended from a Hussein than they realize. The British royal family is quite forthright about the Arab line in their ancestry going back to Andalusia.

So, anyway, Obama's first two names mean "Blessing, the Good." If we are lucky enough to get him for president, we can only hope that his names are prophetic for us.

Which brings me to Omar Bradley. Omar is an alternative spelling of Umar, i.e. Umar ibn al-Khattab, the second caliph of Sunni Islam. Presumably General Bradley was named for the poet Omar Khayyam, who bore the caliph's name. Omar Khayyam's Rubaiyat, in the "translation" of Edward FitzGerald, became enormously popular in Victorian America.

Gen. Omar Bradley, who bore a Semitic, Muslim first name, and shared it with the second Caliph of Sunni Islam, was the hero of D-Day and Normandy, of the Battle of the Bulge and the Ruhr.

You can read the entire post about names and how many American presidents had names based upon the Middle Eastern cultures at:

http://www.juancole.com/2008/02/barack-hussein-obama-omar-bradley.html
"

" Phil and Cross... I for one would like to know where Obama stands on national defence issues. After all (if elected) he will be commander in chief of our armed forces. If all we have are his associations to judge by, then he is not doing real good. You can't go by his speeches, he hasn't said much and all politicians shade the trueth to get elected anyway. You can't go by a voteing record, he hasn't got a long enough record to judge by. Most times the fool you know is better than the fool you don't know. Remember Jimmy Carter and what a disaster that was (and still is). "

" Couple of clarifications as Cross continues to post lies, half truths and myths as the truth.
My Definition of Swiftboating: Having your military service accurately portrayed by those who served with you and those you later called mass-murderers.

My idea of B Hussein Obama plan for change in America: The reason libs like Cross and Phil are so in love with Obama is that they agree with him that America is a horrible place that puts too much emphasis on excellence and should instead focus on making sure everyone is mired equally in mediocrity.

Hussein Obama plan for change in foreign policy: Baracks plan for foreign policy is simple,,,Embrace those who have historically called for the deaths of all Americans and become their ally, If this policy means the death of a few million Jews in the middle East so what they have survived worse. By appeasing all that he is either scared of or actually agrees with, He would create peace in our time

My idea of the Hussein Plan for the Economy:
Expand the government to run or manage all facets of our economy so that we can make sure that all are being treated equally. Only Obama knows how much profit or success is good for an individual and by stifling those who produce he will raise up the underclass and bring down the underclass and create a society where everyone has an equal anount of nothing.

By the end of Obamas two terms I can envision an America where Americans are being deported from Mexico as we seek jobs in free markets to help support our families back in the states. Russia and China will be working hand and hand with Iran as they form a new world order, based on the suppression of freedom.
Yep, I know what Obama believes and it is in the complete destruction of America and the ideas this country was built on.He and his pator and Phil and Cross believe America deserves whatever we get because we have been mean to indians and Africans.

At the end of the day though Cross and Phil are wrong and intellectually they probably know it, but we all know libs don't think they feel.

Obama in 08
Hope, Change and bread lines for all by 2016
"

" Wow! Coalplant, you're one bitter dude.

BTW, "intellectually" I know I'm right and am working on what I believe so that folks as bitter as coalplant don't govern this country. "

" Leo46, for your benefit, here's Obama's position on national defense:

"Building a 21st Century Military

"* The Problem: The excellence of our military is unmatched. But as a result of a misguided war in Iraq, our forces are under pressure as never before. Obama will make the investments we need so that the finest military in the world is best-prepared to meet 21st-century threats.
"* Rebuild Trust: Obama will rebuild trust with those who serve by ensuring that soldiers and Marines have sufficient training time before they are sent into battle.
"* Expand the Military: We have learned from Iraq that our military needs more men and women in uniform to reduce the strain on our active force. Obama will increase the size of ground forces, adding 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 Marines.
"* New Capabilities: Obama will give our troops new equipment, armor, training, and skills like language training. He will also strengthen our civilian capacity, so that our civilian agencies have the critical skills and equipment they need to integrate their efforts with our military.
"* Strengthen Guard and Reserve: Obama will restore the readiness of the National Guard and Reserves. He will permit them adequate time to train and rest between deployments, and provide the National Guard with the equipment they need for foreign and domestic emergencies. He will also give the Guard a seat at the table by making the Chief of the National Guard a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff."

Quoted from:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/
"

" Thanks Cross, I know you need more time to come up with more lies and Half truths to cover up the truth that Barry is the same old tired liberal poser the Democrats have been running for president ad naseum, there is not one original, hopeful or rational idea in the head of Obama. He is an empty suit devoid of character and devoid of intellegience,,, but he is a liberal so that is to be expected.
Cross I know you know your wrong but I do want to apologize as I doubt you have the ability to look at any situation intellectually or rationally having burned up most of that part of your mind in the sixties.

Obama in 08
You think I'm bitter maybe you ought to meet Barry's wife


"

" Cross...Okay, what bills has he authored to prove what you say he will do? "

" coalplant & Leo46 and others - I am curious where the scrutiny of Obama's positions and personal history compared to that of our current president.

Mr. Bush was a complete incompetent and screw up in every position of importance he every held. He blatantly lied about bills that passed that he allowed to become law without signing and then took credit for. Lost millions of dollars for companies he ran and were only bailed out cause his daddies buddies bailed him out. His track record was that of failure and he has continued it right into the White House.

Bread lines - well they are forming now in other parts of the world in large part due to Bush's incompetence and hopefully they won't appear here by next Jan.

No coalplant - at the end of the day I wonder how you can believe anything from those so called "conservatives" currently in Washington. They aren't conservative and their policies are anti-American. How do you sleep at night knowing you are supporting people in Washington that have killed or made homeless hundreds of thousands of people?

Their ideas and their morals are bankrupt. If you believe in a supreme being and an afterlife I suggest you stop following the policies of Bush and friends. His soul is not one that I would save much hope for in the next world. "

" there you go again Phil,,, Let me know if Bush is running for president,,

Of course your so blinded by your feelings that you want to elect what you think is the same thing we have had for the last eight years,,, an utter and complete fool and idiot,,, if thats what you think Bush is ,,,man Obama is that ten fold

Obama in 08
Lets get some revenge for not electing McGovern "

" Phil...You complain that not enough scrutiny was given to Bush before electing him, but don't want scrutiny of Obama. Double standard? "

" so the libs on the board refuse to answer any questions regarding Barak Hussein Obama. The answer is that he has no wordly experience what so ever. NONE, nil, nada..he will lean on his associates that he trusts now; his wife(no experience in anything other than than supporting ACLU and other left leanings for her own agenda, Ayers, a terrorist by Phil's own admission, and Wright who will make his way back in Obamas camp after the dem nomination.

And phil says it's ok to use his happy Hussein middle name. thanks Phil.

come on libbies, you can do better than this guy!! far better. Heck. Billary would be better. "

" "Bread lines - well they are forming now in other parts of the world in large part due to Bush's incompetence " HUH?! "

" didnt you know Kramerica, Bush is responsible for all the ills of the world.

Too bad the libs now think that a freshman senator from illinois has what it takes to lead our nation. B. Hussein Obama has NO experience on a national or international level.

Now BHO, who has stated that the Mrs. is his top aid, says the Mrs. is off limits. He realizes now how over the top her sound bites actually are! As he has done recently with the good reverend Wright, he will dump her under the bus as well.

Who is BHO? "

" Phil talks about bread lines here next year. Sorry Phil, but the economy, never officially in a recession, is showing improvements as we speak. Of course the improvements have nothing to do with Bush. He only gets credit for the negative things. "

" I seldom find Clayson's opinion to be of much interest, but occasionally there's a kernal of truth. What has been sticking in my mind is Michelle Obama's statement (after the Wisconsin primary, I believe) about being proud of her country for the first time in her adult life.

The revelation of Wright's beliefs has given me an understanding of her mindset. She sounds like a true believer. That has to mean something to her husband and children.

"

" I find it difficult to believe that Mrs. BHO is now finally proud of her country because her husband won a primary.

This is sad commentary to what her real values are and continue to be. "