More of that deafening silence

[sirs]

There was a time when most everyone in Mississippi said that they would vote for a White man for that reason alone, and for many years it was the intent to make sure than only White men were running.   But this is a racist attitude, and although there are many racists around, very few wish to identify themselves as racists. James Eastland was a racist and proud of it.

So.......apparently what Xo is saying/implying, is that those Democrats & Liberals who openly plan on voting for Hillary or Obama because they are female or Black respectfully, are openly embracing & proud of their sexist and/or Racist persona.  Good to know Xo, thanks

[Xavier_Onassis]

What I said is what I said. You are a poor interpreter of what I said, so I would suggest that those who would like to know what I said read what I said, and not what Sirs said I said.

I also believe that voting for someone because they are like you is more noble than voting against someone because you have to decided to hate their entire group. Perhaps still not wise, but certainly more noble.

[sirs]

I also believe that voting for someone because they are like you is more noble than voting against someone because you have to decided to hate their entire group. Perhaps still not wise, but certainly more noble.

Ahh, yet another way of rephrasing and supporting a racist mentality.  Being racist is now a noble endeavor.   

News flash Xo, voting for someone because they are Black (and apparently "like them") is no different than a racist voting for McCain simply because he is white and 'like them"

[BT]

Obama is to Hillary what Dean was to Kerry.

Their candidacies offered a choice of old politics versus new.

Hillary probably would be the better president of the two when looked through the prism of the status quo. And the GOP has already decided that is what they prefer.

The dems haven't.

Obama can still win the nomination. And with that will come a clear choice for the american people.

Stick with the establishment or roll the dice and opt for change.

I don't know what type of president Obama would be. His running to the left doesn't scare me. He also has run a cautious campaign and that is encouraging. During the general he will move to the center. They all do.

And frankly it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if people vote for him because he is black, it doesn't matter if they vote for him if he was against the war early, it doesn't matter if they vote for him because he is young.

What matters is he signifies change. and he offers the nation a choice of change or same old same old. It doesn't even matter if he can deliver that change.

We are at a crossroads. We are at a transfer point. A generatinal and demographic tilting point.

And when the voters speak we will know our future.

[Stray Pooch]

What I said is what I said. You are a poor interpreter of what I said, so I would suggest that those who would like to know what I said read what I said, and not what Sirs said I said.

I don't even know what THAT said! 

I also believe that voting for someone because they are like you is more noble than voting against someone because you have to decided to hate their entire group. Perhaps still not wise, but certainly more noble.

I'm not sure it is necessarily noble, though I agree it is better to be positive about your own kind than negative about the other.  I wasn't for Romney because he was a Mormon, but it didn't hurt.  I certainly would have been able to support Huckabee had he not been so subtly anti-Mormon (and his supporters NOT so subtly).  After all, his faith doesn't bother me (in fact, it is a selling point) he supports the fair tax and we are in general agreement about the issues.  Religion and the fair tax are the only issues that really differentiated between Mitt and Huck, but had Huck not been tainted directly and indirectly with the religious bigotry he would have won me over Mitt with the Fair Tax.

The truth is, I have found it rather remarkable how much of a small side-issue race and gender have been - just as I was surprised Mitt was left totally alone in Massachusetts about Mormonism.  I think it is a shame we even have to discuss this at all.  Of course some people will vote the race and gender issues one way or the other, but I think the novelty of a non-standard candidate is wearing off in America.  Next up, Scientologists.

[Stray Pooch]

We are at a crossroads. We are at a transfer point. A generatinal and demographic tilting point.

And when the voters speak we will know our future.

Excellent post, BT.  I have my reservations about Hillary and Obama, but this is still America, and the end question is whether a President can change the basic nature of the country in four or eight years.  Some have, but I am not sure either will.    Rhetoric aside, we are all still Americans.  Change is coming no matter how we vote, because time brings change naturally.  It's been happening for two hundred  years.

[BT]

.....and the end question is whether a President can change the basic nature of the country in four or eight years.

Presidents don't change the country. We change ourselves.

All Obama's election would do is say it is OK to change. To examine what works. To examine what doesn't. To think outside the box and to forsake the status quo when advisable.

Understand that this is not an endorsement of Obama.

This is just one man's analysis of the forces at play.

[Stray Pooch]

Presidents don't change the country. We change ourselves.

All Obama's election would do is say it is OK to change. To examine what works. To examine what doesn't. To think outside the box and to forsake the status quo when advisable.

The closer we get to the election, the more I calm down towards the possibility of a D-regulated government (pun intended).

I think the worst thing about the attacks on 9-11 is that after an initial period of unity, the results have driven a deeper wedge into an already divided country.  I survived the Clinton years on a philosophy that our constitution was so strong and our values so ingrained that the short period of a Presidential administration couldn't fundamentally change us.  Whatever Clinton was, good or bad, he was certainly no Lincoln or FDR - and the times were not ripe for the type of change those giants presided over.  It is possible that the post 9-11 era IS ripe for fundamental changes - and those changes would likely be left-leaning (if for no other reason, simply because the right has already had its chance).  But I think it may well be that after a period of dancing in the left lane, we will find that nothing much really changes.   We will simply shift left again in our ever-shifting national journey.

I'm in serious danger of becoming optimistic again.

[Xavier_Onassis]

If you mean left-leaning is increased security everywhere, with ID's required for everything, the Govt. being able to spy on you without a warrant in such as way that you will never even know you have been spied upon, ad cameras at every intersection to give you a ticket automatically even if you are not driving the damned car, and every scrap of paper dealing with policy being classified ultra-secret, well, then that is what is happening.

The worst abuses have happened during the Juniorbush years, but it will take a major effort to rescind all the Homeland Security and confidentiality crap. I think the Democrats will be better at this than the Republicans, but I doubt that anyone will restore our freedoms to a pre-911 situation.

The right wing USED to be in favor of personal liberties, and increased transparency in govt., but no more .

[Amianthus]

The worst abuses have happened during the Juniorbush years,

Only for those who have ignored the abuses during the previous administration - probably because "it was for the kids."

[Xavier_Onassis]

Only for those who have ignored the abuses during the previous administration - probably because "it was for the kids."

=================================
What "kids" would those be?

Our personal liberties have been vanishing for some time, but the rate of their disappearance (elimination of Habeus Corpus, monitoring of telecommunications without warrants or records we could access) has increased at a faster rate under Juniorbush than other administrations.

Government secrecy has increased a LOT more.

[Amianthus]

What "kids" would those be?

The ones that Bill was always mentioning as he signed legislation that limited our rights.

Our personal liberties have been vanishing for some time, but the rate of their disappearance (elimination of Habeus Corpus, monitoring of telecommunications without warrants or records we could access) has increased at a faster rate under Juniorbush than other administrations.

I don't think the rate has changed. Matter of fact, most of the stuff you mentioned was signed into law by previous administrations.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Again "what kids"? I have no idea of who the poo you are talking about.

Juniorbush has certainly been using these laws to spy on more people than ever before.

Clinton never appeared on TV begging us to waive all rights to sue Ma Bell if they tapped our phones for no valid reason.

Bush has been doing this for several weeks now.

[Rich]

>>Government secrecy has increased a LOT more.<<

The left throws this accusation around a lot. I've never heard any of them give an example. Considering we are at war (they'll deny that, but since the administrations opinion is what matters theirs opinion doesn't), what types of "secrecy" have increased that didn't exist during the first gulf war? Or Vietnam? Pick a war? Shouldn't our government keep secrets for national security reasons? Wouldn't it be incompetant if it didn't? What kind of secrets are we talking about anyway?

This is one of those accusations that is simply created without any evidence. It has only intent, and the intent is to slander.

[Amianthus]

Again "what kids"? I have no idea of who the poo you are talking about.

You'll have to ask Bill (Clinton, if you haven't figured it out yet) what kids he was talking about when he signed various pieces of legislation and claiming "we're doing this for the kids."

Juniorbush has certainly been using these laws to spy on more people than ever before.

You got a source on that? 'Cause these spying programs were going on a lot longer than the current administration. Louis Freeh was in Congress in 1995 or 1996 begging them to allow the Clinton administration to greatly expand the spying programs - when Congress refused to pass a law, Clinton issued an Executive Order to allow it.

Clinton never appeared on TV begging us to waive all rights to sue Ma Bell if they tapped our phones for no valid reason.

That's because nobody seemed to care that they were doing it. Hell, you even pay for it on your phone bill, and have since the mid 90s.