clocker bob wrote: Liberals have convinced themselves that a vote for Obama is a vote that ends racism, poverty, hate and injustice...

Name one.

steve wrote:If Ron Paul can claim not to have known about or endorsed racist articles published under his name in his newsletter, then Obama can claim not to have heard his preacher say some shit.

Or maybe he can't. Maybe they're both politicians saying what they think will pass so they can get elected and do what they really want to do.

In that case, I'll take Obama's hidden intentions over your guy's. All day and twice during Sunday meeting.

So why does one lying politician get off so easily, and the other one is instantly condemned?

unarmedman wrote:So why does one lying politician get off so easily, and the other one is instantly condemned?

Because, political behavior being equal, I agree with the presumed hidden agenda of one more than the other.

That is, Ron Paul's aspirations, if realized, would lead to accellerated accumulation of wealth among the already rich and powerful, and the concurrent increased victimization of the poorest, weakest people in this country, while Obama's aspirations, if realized, wouldn't.

I don't deny either of them the right to behave in a politically expedient fashion. In fact, I expect it. It is the presumed agenda beneath that behavior which is significant.

steve wrote:Because, political behavior being equal, I agree with the presumed hidden agenda of one more than the other.

That is, Ron Paul's aspirations, if realized, would lead to accellerated accumulation of wealth among the already rich and powerful, and the concurrent increased victimization of the poorest, weakest people in this country, while Obama's aspirations, if realized, wouldn't.

I don't deny either of them the right to behave in a politically expedient fashion. In fact, I expect it. It is the presumed agenda beneath that behavior which is significant.

So what is Obama's presumed agenda, and why do you agree with it? More importantly, what policies will he pursue in accordance with his presumed agenda?

unarmedman wrote:So what is Obama's presumed agenda, and why do you agree with it? More importantly, what policies will he pursue in accordance with his presumed agenda?

The presumed agenda is the one that agrees with the Reverend from whom he is busy distancing himself.

I don't necessarily think he is militant about any of it, but the anti-imperialist, anti-militarist agenda is what everyone is afraid he is secretly sympathetic to, and if that is the case, if he secretly is sympathetic, then I have no problem with it.

Much like Ron Paul's supporters are probably fine with the presumed racist agenda suggested by his newsletter.

steve wrote:That is, Ron Paul's aspirations, if realized, would lead to accellerated accumulation of wealth among the already rich and powerful, and the concurrent increased victimization of the poorest, weakest people in this country, while Obama's aspirations, if realized, wouldn't.

You don't see that going on under Obama (the accumulation of wealth, etc.), just as strongly as now? He's certainly not leftist as the right implies, and definitely holds no contempt for the way things are run. There's nothing that points to the opposite in his campaign, typical populist rhetoric aside.

steve wrote: the anti-imperialist, anti-militarist agenda is what everyone is afraid he is secretly sympathetic to

Oh, come on. You are seriously willing to believe that a candidate with a concealed anti-imperialist/anti-military agenda could somehow be running a con on all those Wall Street titans and CFR globalists who have backed Obama to the tune of tens of millions of dollars, and you are really fantasizing that President Obama is actually a threat to break off his leash on 1-21-09 and say, "Ha ha, fooled you, now I'm going to redistribute the wealth, break up the military-industrial complex, expose the CIA drug smugglers and treat the Palestinians fairly"??? Do you know how long it takes to turn an aircraft carrier around? Do you know who has to do it? The captain. As long as the bankers have this country in their grip with their phony debt matrix, the president is not the captain of the ship. Unidentified unelected men have their grip on the rudder.

Actually, why would you even suggest that America is in need of an anti-imperialist agenda? It doesn't square at all with your affection for a large, intrusive nanny state, and with your habit of answering, "yes, please, tax me some more" whenever asked. You defend the funding engine of imperialism ( central banking ) at every opportunity, you are pro-globalization, pro-open borders, and anti-national sovereignty- along with phony money, those policies form the foundation of imperialism.

Do you actually have any substantive anti-imperialist sympathies?

Maybe you'll say that you're anti-war and that gives you credibility as an anti-imperialist, but until you acknowledge that the pretexts for these wars are concocted hocus pocus, created by the debt sellers, to create demand for their product, debt, and to grab resources and land, for the imperialists, and to guard oil, for the imperialists, your anti-war stance is not walking the path back to the real enemies of the people. An anti-imperialist position begins with naming the imperialists and their sources of power.

Why do you daydream about Obama being some secret undercover anti-imperialist warrior, like you do here?

steve wrote:the anti-imperialist, anti-militarist agenda is what everyone is afraid he is secretly sympathetic to, and if that is the case, if he secretly is sympathetic, then I have no problem with it.

If you want an anti-imperialist, why don't you pick a candidate who is one- openly? Why rest your hopes on some corporate Democrat, if you really see imperialism as something that needs to end? Actually, if you're anti-imperialism as you claim, how about describing what policies you advocate to reverse imperialism? If your list does not include 'ending debt backed fiat money and usury' and 'repealing the privately-owned central bank', then I'll know that you have no serious program for reversing imperialism whatsoever. It's impossible to even define imperialism without making the banks the head of the serpent, so I really can't imagine what the imperialism that you say you oppose even looks like, or what weapons you want to be used against it.

Sid Hartha wrote:

clocker bob wrote: Liberals have convinced themselves that a vote for Obama is a vote that ends racism, poverty, hate and injustice...

Name one.

clocker bob wrote: Liberals have convinced themselves that a vote for Obama is a vote that heals racism, poverty, hate and injustice...

Better?

clocker bob wrote:

Sid Hartha wrote:

clocker bob wrote: Liberals have convinced themselves that a vote for Obama is a vote that ends racism, poverty, hate and injustice...

Name one.

clocker bob wrote: Liberals have convinced themselves that a vote for Obama is a vote that heals racism, poverty, hate and injustice...

Better?

no, still makes no sense.

steve wrote:The presumed agenda is the one that agrees with the Reverend from whom he is busy distancing himself.

I don't necessarily think he is militant about any of it, but the anti-imperialist, anti-militarist agenda is what everyone is afraid he is secretly sympathetic to, and if that is the case, if he secretly is sympathetic, then I have no problem with it.

Much like Ron Paul's supporters are probably fine with the presumed racist agenda suggested by his newsletter.

Exactly what part of Obama's secret agenda is anti-imperialist or anti-militarist? I'm not asking for the typical platitudes, but proposed policies. What exactly is Barack Obama going to do for the United States that would define his agenda as anti-imperialist or anti-militarist?

Maybe you can provide the same evidence for why Ron Paul's supposed secret agenda is racist? And not just a publication from 15 years ago; what is Ron Paul going to do for America that would define his agenda as racist?

Also, the free dictionary definition of "platform":
platform - a document stating the aims and principles of a political party

Perhaps platform might be a better word to use than agenda, since the two are somewhat interchangeable and the former is more based on what we can know about a candidate instead of what is just assumed.