To just get in line with Imus would make us…sheep.

But I like where you’ve been going lately. Good stuff!

We, on the other hand, are focused on the lack of principles Obama is showing. The speech was great. Just limited. It’s like the African-American section is the whole book store. We don’t need him to be president to keep moving the race issue forward. The speech & the discussion do that fine.

I find detestable that his argument was basically, “vote for me or you’re racist.” And by the way, you’re all racists so Rev Wright is almost completely justified in everything he said.

For me, the speech took us back to exactly what was unfair about Imus getting taken off the air. Obama could have led on principle back then. He didn’t. It’s the same situation coming up now, and they’re using all the defenses that didn’t work for Imus. The principle for Obama? Vicious racism is acceptable for blacks. But whites can’t even say certain words. For blacks it’s about context of every kind: historical, the totality of Wright’s contributions, and so on. I’m sick of being defined as “white” by other people’s endlessly justified delusion racism.

The sheep are the one’s swooning for Obama. I’ve lost friends for watching Fox News, hardly sheep-like behavior.

By the way, here’s an outstanding article by Ann Coulter that totally gets it: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=25610

And with that he also has a better program without the racial slurs and jokes at the expense of others not able to defend themselves from a position of power.

Thus Imus moves on. And we live in the past as if the old Imus, that we all sometimes laughed with, allowed the show to go on.

Imus awoke to a new day with a new ambition. He is in line with Obama’s feelings about what Obama called a family member. And that he understands where he is coming from. I did. And it was truly inspiring.

Let Hillary Rotten top that one. She is incapable of overcoming the presence of this man. She is too weak in my opinion to Govern this Country because she is in the tank with big Corporations including the Pharmaceutical Companies. A wonderful position to be in with “HER” plan of Universal Health Care. NO NO NO. Not Hillary. Maybe not Barack. Niether served in the armed forces of America. Hillary’s husband didn’t. And Barack missed the wars though may have been able to participate in the first Gulf War in 1991. He would have been around 19 years old. But again we are talking symantics here.

Let us all listen carefully to Barack Obama’s speech before we throw grenades at him for condemning Don Imus. The I-Man didn’t and we should take his lead.

Now News Max has published and article.

PObama Defends Rev. Wright, Blasts Imus

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/obama_wright_imus/2008/03/19/81557.html?s=al&promo_code=478B-1

Who are they for?

Let us not be sheep and be led down the path of BS from HRC and the Media.

Remember Hillary R. Clinton is the Republican’s (McCain) best friend. She cannot defeat John McCain. But Barack can.

I am still with McCain.

4,OOO US troops have paid the ultimate sacrifice for our freedoms. I will take exception to the use of those lost lives in some convoluted logic stream, since using those lives in this way fundamentally devalues the sacrifice. These people volunteered and paid the ultimate sacrifice, they are not to be pitied but honored.

The more I think about his speech, the more I can see through his deceit.

All about oil:

Following further high-level policy review, Ronald Reagan issued National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 114, dated November 26, 1983, concerned specifically with U.S. policy toward the Iran-Iraq war. The directive reflects the administration’s priorities: it calls for heightened regional military cooperation to defend oil facilities, and measures to improve U.S. military capabilities in the Persian Gulf, and directs the secretaries of state and defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to take appropriate measures to respond to tensions in the area. It states, “Because of the real and psychological impact of a curtailment in the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf on the international economic system, we must assure our readiness to deal promptly with actions aimed at disrupting that traffic.” It does not mention chemical weapons [Document 26].

Soon thereafter, Donald Rumsfeld (who had served in various positions in the Nixon and Ford administrations, including as President Ford’s defense secretary, and at this time headed the multinational pharmaceutical company G.D. Searle & Co.) was dispatched to the Middle East as a presidential envoy. His December 1983 tour of regional capitals included Baghdad, where he was to establish “direct contact between an envoy of President Reagan and President Saddam Hussein,” while emphasizing “his close relationship” with the president [Document 28]. Rumsfeld met with Saddam, and the two discussed regional issues of mutual interest, shared enmity toward Iran and Syria, and the U.S.’s efforts to find alternative routes to transport Iraq’s oil; its facilities in the Persian Gulf had been shut down by Iran, and Iran’s ally, Syria, had cut off a pipeline that transported Iraqi oil through its territory. Rumsfeld made no reference to chemical weapons, according to detailed notes on the meeting [Document 31].

…and close to 4,000 of our troops killed over there in Iraq…better we don’t have to see them die here. Better over there?

Flawed thinking, my friend.

They are still DEAD.

From the National Security Archives:

During the spring of 1984 the U.S. reconsidered policy for the sale of dual-use equipment to Iraq’s nuclear program, and its “preliminary results favor[ed] expanding such trade to include Iraqi nuclear entities” [Document 57]. Several months later, a Defense Intelligence Agency analysis said that even after the war ended, Iraq was likely to “continue to develop its formidable conventional and chemical capability, and probably pursue nuclear weapons” [Document 58]. (Iraq is situated in a dangerous neighborhood, and Israel had stockpiled a large nuclear weapons arsenal without international censure. Nuclear nonproliferation was not a high priority of the Reagan administration – throughout the 1980s it downplayed Pakistan’s nuclear program, though its intelligence indicated that a weapons capability was being pursued, in order to avert congressionally mandated sanctions. Sanctions would have impeded the administration’s massive military assistance to Pakistan provided in return for its support of the mujahideen fighting the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.)