The Yamaha Road Star Warrior Forum

So there was this debate last week pertaining to Obama.

http://rswarrior.com/forums/p/109109/902590.aspx#902590

It got a little off subject and became more of a religious argument. However, there is something that I want to point out that I had stated in one of my responses.

On page one of that thread I wrote:

Obama and his wife are covering up their true beliefs, especially his wife. I personally think she wears the pants in the family and he just goes along with it.

Lo-and-behold....what do I see in today in the following article on Slate.com:  http://www.slate.com/id/2190589/?from=rss

All right, then, how is it that the loathsome Wright married him, baptized his children, and received donations from him? Could it possibly have anything, I wonder, to do with Mrs. Obama?

This obvious question is now becoming inescapable, and there is an inexcusable unwillingness among reporters to be the one to ask it. (One can picture Obama looking pained and sensitive and saying, "Keep my wife out of it," or words to that effect, as Clinton tried to do in 1992 when Jerry Brown and Ralph Nader quite correctly inquired about his spouse's influence.) If there is a reason why the potential nominee has been keeping what he himself now admits to be very bad company—and if the rest of his character seems to make this improbable—then either he is hiding something and/or it is legitimate to ask him about his partner.

I direct your attention to Mrs. Obama's 1985 thesis at Princeton University. Its title (rather limited in scope, given the author and the campus) is "Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community." To describe it as hard to read would be a mistake; the thesis cannot be "read" at all, in the strict sense of the verb. This is because it wasn't written in any known language. Anyway, at quite an early stage in the text, Michelle Obama announces that she's much influenced by the definition of black "separationism" offered by Stokely Carmichael and Charles Hamilton in their 1967 screed Black Power: The Politics of Liberation in America.

Michelle Obama is leading "Barry" by the nose. She's got bigger balls than he does...and for that matter - so does Hillary. The author, Hitchens, seems to lean a little left but seems fair in his analysis.

And by the way, Obama's separation from Wright...too little, too late, as far as I'm concerned.

Although my favored Republican candidate is not in the running this election cycle -- I'll vote for McCain this year -- At least he's the only person swinging a pair, that should have a pair. 

You are the MAN!!!!

Well the slate article is only asking the same question that has been floating around since sometime last year. Its not really answering any questions. And thats the biggest problem I have with Obama. I like him. I like a few of the things he stands for and have found myself actually getting caught up in some of his speaches. I dont know that I would trade our healthcare system or our foreign policy to have someone I "like" in office. My best friend is a hell of a guy but that doesnt mean I would want him as president. So Im starting to feel the "empty suit" comments are more and more dead on than previously.

As Ive stated in some of my previous posts, another weird thing about this election is I find myself on the republican side of things more and more. While its a strange feeling, its just feels right. There was some little aplet on the web that had you put in all your opinions and it kind of picked who it thought you should vote for and surprisingly enough it came back Huckabee. Well both he and Paul are out of it so im just hoping there will be some big last minute hail mary type move (like Mccain/Rice) that will make my decision for me.

At this point I just want LESS government and be able to keep MORE of my money. However "they" do it im a happy camper.

Using a Slate article as a Credible source?!?!?! does that mean Newsmax links are now reliable sources as well?

you stated "The author, Hitchens, seems to lean a little left but seems fair in his analysis" you do realize Slate is nothing but a Left leaning site dont you?

 Although it was written 20 yrs. ago, it does show a real hang-up with color. When you add Rev. Wright to the mixture  during that 20 yrs it really makes you wonder about her. No way to be married to her without being influenced.

3 Choices left....

An really old man that can barely remember what he says...

A woman that wants to be the first woman president.

A balck man that wants to be the first black president.

How did these 3 choices end up being the ones left for us??? 
Sound more like a bar joke......... An Old man a woman and a Black man walk into a bar.....

Answering RobRiguez 

RobRiguez:

Well the slate article is only asking the same question that has been floating around since sometime last year. Its not really answering any questions. And thats the biggest problem I have with Obama. I like him. I like a few of the things he stands for and have found myself actually getting caught up in some of his speaches. I dont know that I would trade our healthcare system or our foreign policy to have someone I "like" in office. My best friend is a hell of a guy but that doesnt mean I would want him as president. So Im starting to feel the "empty suit" comments are more and more dead on than previously.

As Ive stated in some of my previous posts, another weird thing about this election is I find myself on the republican side of things more and more. While its a strange feeling, its just feels right. There was some little aplet on the web that had you put in all your opinions and it kind of picked who it thought you should vote for and surprisingly enough it came back Huckabee. Well both he and Paul are out of it so im just hoping there will be some big last minute hail mary type move (like Mccain/Rice) that will make my decision for me.

At this point I just want LESS government and be able to keep MORE of my money. However "they" do it im a happy camper.

Hey Rob (for some reason your post is locked),

The article is more of an "It's about time" kind of thing.

I posted not because I wanted to be right, in the correct sense, but rather because the true man and his life are FINALLY coming out. No more rose colored glasses for people. He cannot be more wrong for this country. We don't need socialism. If we have a Democratic House, Senate and President we are going to be taxed to the hilt. All the taxes will eventually be used for crazy entitlement projects that will place our nation at greater risk of failure in the long run. People will all become more dependent upon government and we'll lose our identity as strong, go-getters. I digress...Obama is a figment of your imagination, and of Rokel's. It's just that Rokel hasn't realized it yet.   

The older I get, the more in line with Republican values I stand as well, with some exceptions.

You seem to be understanding why we were "raised" this way, as a country, by our founders. They left England to get away from big government and massive taxation. When I was younger, I tilted slightly left, although still strong right-minded in certain respects. As I got older, the "left" left me and I realized that we needed to change our direction as a nation, otherwise we're screwed.

If you want less government and more money read this little ditty that i wrote about the FairTax: http://cedrustech.net/blog/archive/2008/04/08/7.aspx

Answering Slopoke: 

Slopoke:

Using a Slate article as a Credible source?!?!?! does that mean Newsmax links are now reliable sources as well?

you stated "The author, Hitchens, seems to lean a little left but seems fair in his analysis" you do realize Slate is nothing but a Left leaning site dont you?

Slopoke,

Yes, I know that slate is left leaning and Hitchens is also, though he's eased up a bit recently. I don't use Slate as a credible source, however, the article and supporting content didn't have any type of crazy left swing to it. It was a "down-to earth" questioning of "why?", even from a leftward site and author.

AyRab:

Answering RobRiguez 

Hey Rob (for some reason your post is locked),

If you want less government and more money read this little ditty that i wrote about the FairTax: http://cedrustech.net/blog/archive/2008/04/08/7.aspx

Should be fixed now. Apparently there is a litle box in the "options" tab that allows you to lock your own posts.... Dont know how it got checked in my case but its gone now.

Also, the Fair Tax isnt going to be a reality. Ever since we have been collecting income tax (early 1900's I think) its been on a sliding scale. The more you made the more you paid. That will never change in this country. In a way, I dont think it should. I dont mind the fact that "I" have to pay "more" I just dont think it should be as much as it is. On top of the horrible amount of fed tax, I have to also pay state and city/property taxes!?!?!?!  Yeah at the end of the day I may take home more money than your average welfare recipient but I'm just as Broke and I have probably busted my ass and worked longer hours and given up more time with my family then they have as well.

Helping somoene in need get back on their feet is a noble cause that we as one of the the richest countries in the world should be able to afford. But I just feel Im supporting 3-4 other families as well as my own. And thats just not right.

RobRiguez:

AyRab:

Answering RobRiguez 

Hey Rob (for some reason your post is locked),

If you want less government and more money read this little ditty that i wrote about the FairTax: http://cedrustech.net/blog/archive/2008/04/08/7.aspx

Should be fixed now. Apparently there is a litle box in the "options" tab that allows you to lock your own posts.... Dont know how it got checked in my case but its gone now.

Also, the Fair Tax isnt going to be a reality. Ever since we have been collecting income tax (early 1900's I think) its been on a sliding scale. The more you made the more you paid. That will never change in this country. In a way, I dont think it should. I dont mind the fact that "I" have to pay "more" I just dont think it should be as much as it is. On top of the horrible amount of fed tax, I have to also pay state and city/property taxes!?!?!?!  Yeah at the end of the day I may take home more money than your average welfare recipient but I'm just as Broke and I have probably busted my ass and worked longer hours and given up more time with my family then they have as well.

Helping somoene in need get back on their feet is a noble cause that we as one of the the richest countries in the world should be able to afford. But I just feel Im supporting 3-4 other families as well as my own. And thats just not right.

We need to try to make it a reality. It makes complete sense. It'll be a long road but we'll get there.

As for your final line --

Helping somoene in need get back on their feet is a noble cause that we as one of the the richest countries in the world should be able to afford. But I just feel Im supporting 3-4 other families as well as my own. And thats just not right.

I couldn't agree with you more. I had a friend who owned a check cashing store in Providence, Rhode Island. He would tell me crazy stories about people having children just to get more support from the state. These are people with 3 kids already. He'd also tell me about the different ways that people would scam the state for a second check...the old...My check was eaten by my mailbox trick (think Get Smart! if you know what I mean). So you may not be paying for 3-4 families but you sure as hell may be paying for the same family 3-4 times.  

Well *** AyRab you certianly do have it all figured out.  Someday maybe the country will be lead by a great visionary such as yourself that has the answers to all the problems and can fix everything.  Untill that day comes I think I will stick to my figments of imagination.  Hey it worked for all you Neocon Bush supporters correct?

Rokel:

Well *** AyRab you certianly do have it all figured out.  Someday maybe the country will be lead by a great visionary such as yourself that has the answers to all the problems and can fix everything.  Untill that day comes I think I will stick to my figments of imagination.  Hey it worked for all you Neocon Bush supporters correct?

There's always someone getting pissed, when you're trying to poke fun....

Rokel, I don't agree with everything that Bush has done, nor am I a neo-con. I don't claim to be a visionary, just a realist, and thanks for the compliment - I do have answers and so do many other people. Our founders had answers. It all starts with us, just as it did with them. We need to get our elected politicians to listen - that's the trick. In the meantime, I'm going to provide you with my answers because you're the guy reading it! 

The reality is that you can vote for whomever you wish, just remember that when you're taxes are going through the roof - it's probably a Democrat in office. I have a family that I'm trying to support. I see waste upon waste in government spending on programs that fail, people taking advantage of the opportunities provided and nobody is changing anything, Democrat and Republican alike. So, as I've stated once before, I'm not blind. 

You can elect Obama. Just remember that he's going to raise taxes, spend the money on programs to help people that should be busting their asses working, like most of us do. Then these programs are going to keep growing and they'll tax us some more in order to fund them...the cycle continues.

Take away: Vote for whomever you wish, but when you're overrun with taxes, and you see people getting away with fraud, like I've seen first-hand pertaining to entitlement programs, then you might get pissed at the system and not me for wanting to change it.

Ayrab you make sense.  I just don't see how you can cut taxes and spend billions and billions of dollars on "wasted government spending".  Its all good though I'm not getting pissed.  I gave up getting mad at my computer screen months ago.