Re: POLITICS: Greedy Zionists Bankers

[Guest guest]

ee, that was one of the most reasonable posts I've seen on this topic.

Sharon, you should be utterly ashamed of your ignorance-- it's appalling.

Nearly as appalling as that offensive crap (I'd call it tripe, but I find tripe

quite a lovely food, so....) you just posted.

From: scottee1@...

Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2008 16:27:32 -0500

Subject: Re: POLITICS: Greedy Zionists Bankers

I usually lurk on this list, reluctant to post in part because of

the

strong religious sentiments expressed by some posters here. As someone

who practices a faith that is not Christianity, I find that a little

off-putting, to put it mildly.

But I cannot believe the drivel I am reading here today. I have been

sitting at my computer slack-jawed in disbelief at the ignorance and

prejudice being played out, particularly by Sharon and , and I

thank Gene and Riki and a few others for your thoughtful responses. I

will try to be equally thoughtful and civil.

Folks, the future of our great nation will be hanging in the balance on

Tuesday. This election is extremely important for us all. Your

vote--that of each and every one of you--is too important for you to

allow others to think for you. Don't rely on second-hand information

about either candidate: go to the source!

It's probably too late to read either of Obama's books before Tuesday,

but I strongly recommend them, for giving you a better picture of who he

is, what values he holds, and what has shaped him as a person and a

political figure.

Go to his website: www.barackobama.com. Read what he has to say about

the issues. Read his plans for the future of our country.

From his website:

" On Israel

" Ensure a Strong U.S.-Israel Partnership: Barack Obama and Joe Biden

strongly support the U.S.-Israel relationship, believe that our first

and incontrovertible commitment in the Middle East must be to the

security of Israel, America's strongest ally in the Middle East. They

support this closeness, stating that that the United States would never

distance itself from Israel.

" Support Israel's Right to Self Defense: During the July 2006 Lebanon

war, Barack Obama stood up strongly for Israel's right to defend itself

from Hezbollah raids and rocket attacks, cosponsoring a Senate

resolution against Iran and Syria's involvement in the war, and

insisting that Israel should not be pressured into a ceasefire that did

not deal with the threat of Hezbollah missiles. He and Joe Biden believe

strongly in Israel's right to protect its citizens.

" Support Foreign Assistance to Israel: Barack Obama and Joe Biden have

consistently supported foreign assistance to Israel. They defend and

support the annual foreign aid package that involves both military and

economic assistance to Israel and have advocated increased foreign aid

budgets to ensure that these funding priorities are met. They have

called for continuing U.S. cooperation with Israel in the development of

missile defense systems. "

Here is the link to his full Israel fact sheet:

http://origin.barackobama.com/pdf/israelfactsheet.pdf/

, as someone else asked, what would be wrong with Obama being a

Muslim?

The fact of the matter is that he is a committed Christian, and you

would know that if you went to the proper sources and checked for

yourself. Here is a link to the facts on his faith, in the form of a

speech he gave a couple of years ago:

http://www.barackobama.com/2006/06/28/call_to_renewal_keynote_address.php

If the big url doesn't work, here's a tiny version:

http://tinyurl.com/2hl83g

If you have not been to his website to ready about his views on

defending our nation, here is the link:

http://origin.barackobama.com/issues/homeland_security/

And here is the link to his views on the economy, and what he actually

plans to do (not what others say he will do):

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/

Sharon and (and anyone else in the same camp), I've done some of

the homework for you. All you have to do is click on the links above.

Please educate yourself on what the man actually says he will do. Then,

do the same for his opponent. Read carefully what each of them says, and

then make an informed decision.

ee Meade

Burke, VA

_________________________________________________________________

When your life is on the go—take your life with you.

http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/115298558/direct/01/

[Guest guest]

Sharon-

> While I didn't post

> any comments about the article, and instead some are assuming you know

> what I intended from it, (so much for an open posting policy),

In what way has your freedom of speech been impinged upon? My policy

on speech on this list has been extremely liberal, and extremely

consistent, for all the years I've managed it.

> my view

> is any name could be used to fill-in-the-blank where Obama's name

> occurs in the article. The real issue to me are the historical

> parallels behind the banking industry and the oppression of Jews.

I'm not aware of any widespread or mainstream characterization of the

current financial crisis as a creation of Jews, though admittedly I'm

sure the usual suspects are doing so under their usual rocks.

It seems beyond question to me, though, that the current financial

crisis is a real and extremely significant and negative phenomenon,

and that financial institutions and their lobbyists and champions are

at the heart of it. Do you really dispute this?

-

[Guest guest]

--- Suze Fisher <suzefisher@...> wrote:

> Neither one of these morons has my vote.

Suze, I'll be voting for Obama mainly because of his stance on Iraq.

I'm sure McCain would keep us there and might even take action against

Iran. I don't think we can afford to continue this huge waste of our

resources.

[Guest guest]

> Suze, I'll be voting for Obama mainly because of his stance on Iraq.

> I'm sure McCain would keep us there and might even take action against

> Iran. I don't think we can afford to continue this huge waste of our

> resources.

Hi ,

Well, as I understand it Obama is not hawkish on Iraq specifically, but is

indeed so on Afghanistan and Pakistan. ly, both candidates are too

imperialistic, militaristic, pro police state, anti-Constitution and

completely ignorant of sound monetary policy to get my vote.

Suze

[Guest guest]

--- Suze Fisher <suzefisher@...> wrote:

> Well, as I understand it Obama is not hawkish on Iraq specifically,

> but is indeed so on Afghanistan and Pakistan. ly, both

> candidates are too imperialistic, militaristic, pro police state,

> anti-Constitution and completely ignorant of sound monetary policy to

> get my vote.

Suze, he's more hawkish than I would like too, but getting us out of

Iraq sooner rather than later is worth the vote to me. Otherwise, I

tend to agree with you and that on most major issues, I don't

like what either candidate has to offer.

[Guest guest]

On Nov 2, 2008, at 3:28 PM, wrote:

> --- Suze Fisher <suzefisher@...> wrote:

> > Well, as I understand it Obama is not hawkish on Iraq specifically,

> > but is indeed so on Afghanistan and Pakistan. ly, both

> > candidates are too imperialistic, militaristic, pro police state,

> > anti-Constitution and completely ignorant of sound monetary policy

> to

> > get my vote.

>

> Suze, he's more hawkish than I would like too, but getting us out of

> Iraq sooner rather than later is worth the vote to me. Otherwise, I

> tend to agree with you and that on most major issues, I don't

> like what either candidate has to offer.

>

>

He's not getting us out. His plan is quite nuanced...he's still

leaving tons of troops there, and I believe that he still permits

military contractors. Plus he wants to escalate the conflict in

Afghanistan.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 5:27 PM, ee Meade <scottee1@...> wrote:

>

>

> " On Israel

> " Ensure a Strong U.S.-Israel Partnership: Barack Obama and Joe Biden

> strongly support ......blah blah blah...from Hezbollah raids.... "

Do you think Biden has learned since debate gaff that Hezbollah hasn't been

kicked out of Lebanon, as he claimed?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2098033/posts

> He and Joe Biden believe

> strongly in Israel's right to protect its citizens.

> " Support Foreign Assistance to Israel....

http://theeprovocateur.blogspot.com/2008/07/barack-obama-to-israel-put-terrorism\

..html

And yet some feel differently about what Obama/biden " support " might look

like:

the Republican Jewish Coalition points out...

In essence, Senator Obama is asking Israelis and the American Jewish

community to put terrorism in context. Senator Obama continues his rhetoric

of moral equivalence by implying that measures taken by Israel to protect

its citizens are on par with the Palestinians' frustration at border

checkpoints. Senator Obama's attempt at even-handed diplomacy fails to hold

Palestinians accountable for using terrorist tactics against innocent

Israeli citizens as a means to achieve their ends. "

Now, as a staunch defender of Israel, this is not the first time I have

heard such a demand of Israel. I will reply to Senator Obama the way I

always do. In a perfect world, Israel would be able to look at each decision

and measure the global effect. Unfortunately, Israel is strategically

located so that anywhere she turns she finds mortal enemies. It is of course

easy to say that each country be concerned with global geopolitical

decisions when making national security decisions. Unfortunately, that is

not so easy in practice for the country of Israel.

This Jewish state in the Middle of Islamic states, most of which are ruled

by tyrants and monarchs has its security threatened at all times. For

Israel, its own security is always the most important thing, and in the

words of Vince Lombardi, the only thing.

The sort of moral relativism that Senator Obama just engaged in simply

refuses to recognize the reality of what Israel deals with on a daily basis.

Just today a terrorist attempted to ram his vehicle into a crowd in Israel.

Furthermore, Barack Obama asks of Israel something he would never demand of

himself and his nation. The same person that asks Israel to take a worldview

before making national security decisions, also is attempting to cut off

free trade in order to save domestic jobs. Certainly, Barack Obama's

protectionist free trade policy doesn't pass the test of the world view that

he asks of Israel.

Every country in the world does and should take a self interest view when

making national security decisions. The idea that a country should put the

world view ahead of its own national interests is naive and ridiculous. That

view is even more absurd given the geographic position of Israel. It is one

thing to say that a country should respect the world view when making

national security decisions. It is quite another when that same country is

under constant threat of attack.

> The fact of the matter is that he is a committed Christian, and you

> would know that if you went to the proper sources and checked for

> yourself. Here is a link to the facts on his faith, in the form of a

> speech he gave a couple of years ago:

> http://www.barackobama.com/2006/06/28/call_to_renewal_keynote_address.php

Oh, I think evidence of being a " committed Christian " takes more than

expecting the " progressives " and the government to take on the role of the

church. Obama states: " After all, the problems of poverty and racism, the

uninsured and the unemployed, are not simply technical problems in search of

the perfect ten point plan. They are rooted in both societal indifference

and individual callousness - in the imperfections of man. "

I prefer the solutions for those issues come from churches - NOT

government. The American " christian " church has sat back, condemned,

pointed fingers, and not taken an active role in being part of the real,

radical solution to these type of problems. But the last place I want

" solutions " is from government.

Perhaps Obama missed a different calling - a role in the ministry in order

to reform the American church.

> And here is the link to his views on the economy, and what he actually

> plans to do (not what others say he will do):

> http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/

What he says he's going to do seems to be changing day-by-day depending on

who " slips " around him - whether it is Biden-gaffs or -gaffs.

It's certainly not going unnoticed by " progressives " - case in point:

" As someone whose personal experiences indicate that American citizens

already are being terrorized by so-called " extrajudicial targeting " at the

hands of a state-supported vigilante network -- operating under the cover of

volunteer community watch programs and " service " corps -- I was extremely

troubled when I viewed the brief clip: "

*That Obama seeks to give legitimacy to what's already a Stasi-like network

of civilian stormtroopers who stalk, vandalize and employ hi-tech " directed

energy " weaponry is naive pandering at best, and dangerous demagoguery at

worst.

If Obama does not renounce this concept immediately, and demonstrate his

recognition of the danger and folly of using civilians as a domestic

security force, I will seriously consider casting my vote for Bob Barr or

Ralph Nader. " *

>

> Sharon and (and anyone else in the same camp), I've done some of

> the homework for you. All you have to do is click on the links above.

> Please educate yourself on what the man actually says he will do. Then,

> do the same for his opponent.

Your assumptions that hasn't been done, just because we're not regurgitating

propaganda from his website, are sheer silliness.

Sharon

P.S. And being a " Virginia " person, you should check out the crucial role

Davies played in the 1740's for religious toleration in Colonial

Virginia. Davies are a true radical going against the British-established

gov't-as-church: http://www.historicpolegreen.org/

--

Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according

to conscience, above all liberties. - Milton, Areopagitica

Deut 11:15 He will put grass in the fields for your cattle, and you

will have plenty to eat.

Check out my blog - www.ericsons.net - Food for the Body and Soul

[Guest guest]

Perhaps Israel would have fewer mortal enemies if it treated them

better. But admittedly, I don't have the patience to read much of

your diatribes at this point.

> On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 5:27 PM, ee Meade <scottee1@...>

> wrote:

> >

>

> >

> > " On Israel

> > " Ensure a Strong U.S.-Israel Partnership: Barack Obama and Joe Biden

> > strongly support ......blah blah blah...from Hezbollah raids.... "

>

> Do you think Biden has learned since debate gaff that Hezbollah

> hasn't been

> kicked out of Lebanon, as he claimed?

> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2098033/posts

>

> > He and Joe Biden believe

> > strongly in Israel's right to protect its citizens.

> > " Support Foreign Assistance to Israel....

>

>

http://theeprovocateur.blogspot.com/2008/07/barack-obama-to-israel-put-terrorism\

..html

>

> And yet some feel differently about what Obama/biden " support " might

> look

> like:

>

> the Republican Jewish Coalition points out...

>

> In essence, Senator Obama is asking Israelis and the American Jewish

> community to put terrorism in context. Senator Obama continues his

> rhetoric

> of moral equivalence by implying that measures taken by Israel to

> protect

> its citizens are on par with the Palestinians' frustration at border

> checkpoints. Senator Obama's attempt at even-handed diplomacy fails

> to hold

> Palestinians accountable for using terrorist tactics against innocent

> Israeli citizens as a means to achieve their ends. "

>

> Now, as a staunch defender of Israel, this is not the first time I

> have

> heard such a demand of Israel. I will reply to Senator Obama the way I

> always do. In a perfect world, Israel would be able to look at each

> decision

> and measure the global effect. Unfortunately, Israel is strategically

> located so that anywhere she turns she finds mortal enemies. It is

> of course

> easy to say that each country be concerned with global geopolitical

> decisions when making national security decisions. Unfortunately,

> that is

> not so easy in practice for the country of Israel.

>

> This Jewish state in the Middle of Islamic states, most of which are

> ruled

> by tyrants and monarchs has its security threatened at all times. For

> Israel, its own security is always the most important thing, and in

> the

> words of Vince Lombardi, the only thing.

>

> The sort of moral relativism that Senator Obama just engaged in simply

> refuses to recognize the reality of what Israel deals with on a

> daily basis.

> Just today a terrorist attempted to ram his vehicle into a crowd in

> Israel.

> Furthermore, Barack Obama asks of Israel something he would never

> demand of

> himself and his nation. The same person that asks Israel to take a

> worldview

> before making national security decisions, also is attempting to cut

> off

> free trade in order to save domestic jobs. Certainly, Barack Obama's

> protectionist free trade policy doesn't pass the test of the world

> view that

> he asks of Israel.

>

> Every country in the world does and should take a self interest view

> when

> making national security decisions. The idea that a country should

> put the

> world view ahead of its own national interests is naive and

> ridiculous. That

> view is even more absurd given the geographic position of Israel. It

> is one

> thing to say that a country should respect the world view when making

> national security decisions. It is quite another when that same

> country is

> under constant threat of attack.

>

> > The fact of the matter is that he is a committed Christian, and you

> > would know that if you went to the proper sources and checked for

> > yourself. Here is a link to the facts on his faith, in the form of a

> > speech he gave a couple of years ago:

> > http://www.barackobama.com/2006/06/28/call_to_renewal_keynote_address.php

>

> Oh, I think evidence of being a " committed Christian " takes more than

> expecting the " progressives " and the government to take on the role

> of the

> church. Obama states: " After all, the problems of poverty and

> racism, the

> uninsured and the unemployed, are not simply technical problems in

> search of

> the perfect ten point plan. They are rooted in both societal

> indifference

> and individual callousness - in the imperfections of man. "

>

> I prefer the solutions for those issues come from churches - NOT

> government. The American " christian " church has sat back, condemned,

> pointed fingers, and not taken an active role in being part of the

> real,

> radical solution to these type of problems. But the last place I want

> " solutions " is from government.

>

> Perhaps Obama missed a different calling - a role in the ministry in

> order

> to reform the American church.

>

> > And here is the link to his views on the economy, and what he

> actually

> > plans to do (not what others say he will do):

> > http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/

>

> What he says he's going to do seems to be changing day-by-day

> depending on

> who " slips " around him - whether it is Biden-gaffs or -

> gaffs.

> It's certainly not going unnoticed by " progressives " - case in point:

>

> " As someone whose personal experiences indicate that American citizens

> already are being terrorized by so-called " extrajudicial targeting "

> at the

> hands of a state-supported vigilante network -- operating under the

> cover of

> volunteer community watch programs and " service " corps -- I was

> extremely

> troubled when I viewed the brief clip: "

>

>

>

> *That Obama seeks to give legitimacy to what's already a Stasi-like

> network

> of civilian stormtroopers who stalk, vandalize and employ hi-tech

> " directed

> energy " weaponry is naive pandering at best, and dangerous

> demagoguery at

> worst.

>

> If Obama does not renounce this concept immediately, and demonstrate

> his

> recognition of the danger and folly of using civilians as a domestic

> security force, I will seriously consider casting my vote for Bob

> Barr or

> Ralph Nader. " *

>

> >

> > Sharon and (and anyone else in the same camp), I've done

> some of

> > the homework for you. All you have to do is click on the links

> above.

> > Please educate yourself on what the man actually says he will do.

> Then,

> > do the same for his opponent.

>

> Your assumptions that hasn't been done, just because we're not

> regurgitating

> propaganda from his website, are sheer silliness.

>

> Sharon

>

> P.S. And being a " Virginia " person, you should check out the crucial

> role

> Davies played in the 1740's for religious toleration in

> Colonial

> Virginia. Davies are a true radical going against the British-

> established

> gov't-as-church: http://www.historicpolegreen.org/

>

> --

> Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according

> to conscience, above all liberties. - Milton, Areopagitica

> Deut 11:15 He will put grass in the fields for your cattle, and you

> will have plenty to eat.

> Check out my blog - www.ericsons.net - Food for the Body and Soul

>

>

[Guest guest]

--- Gene Schwartz <implode7@...> wrote:

> He's not getting us out. His plan is quite nuanced...he's still

> leaving tons of troops there, and I believe that he still permits

> military contractors. Plus he wants to escalate the conflict in

> Afghanistan.

Gene, I'm disappointed, but not terribly surprised to hear that. Do

think Obama is worth voting for?

[Guest guest]

Well - I think that whenever you have a lesser of 2 evils situation,

you essentially have 3 choices - vote for one of them, vote for a 3rd

party, or don't vote (in place of a 'none of the above' choice).

The reasoning should be based on a cost/benefits analysis - is the

difference great enough so that some people will be helped by it, and

is it enough so that it outweighs voting for a 3rd party, or

protesting the vote.

I think that in this case it's worth a vote for Obama. I think that

his proposed tax structure is a bit more progressive, and despite the

closeness of the rhetoric, I'd be more worried about McCain going

ballistic and actually bomb-bomb-bombing Iran. For all of the 'less

government' talk on this list, I'm more of a good government person -

I think that you want to get government to actually help people. I

think that Obama, for all of his faults, is more likely to emphasize

programs that will actually help people, increase funding to social

services, etc...

The more you read about McCain, the more unstable he appears, and I

don't trust him at all. And the thought of Palin actually being

president is absolutely frightening.

My situation is mitigated by the fact that I live in California, which

is overwhelmingly for Obama. So, given that, I'll probably vote for

Nader. In a contested state, I'd definitely vote for Obama. I can see

voting for a third party, or sitting it out (if it's a thoughtful

decision). I have deep suspicions of anyone who could even consider

voting for McCain. I think that his ad campaign says a lot about

the type of man he is.

> --- Gene Schwartz <implode7@...> wrote:

> > He's not getting us out. His plan is quite nuanced...he's still

> > leaving tons of troops there, and I believe that he still permits

> > military contractors. Plus he wants to escalate the conflict in

> > Afghanistan.

>

> Gene, I'm disappointed, but not terribly surprised to hear that. Do

> think Obama is worth voting for?

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I agree with on picking Obama just for the Iraq pull-out alone, though as

time goes by, I am liking the man more and more as a person...

Deb in NC

[Guest guest]

Apparently you are unaware then that evidence suggests that he might

be a Satanist who eats human babies.

> I agree with on picking Obama just for the Iraq pull-out

> alone, though as time goes by, I am liking the man more and more as

> a person...

> Deb in NC

>

>

[Guest guest]

Yes - he is caring, thoughtful, rational, introspective, emotionally

intelligent, multi-cultural, and passionate about retaining America's

military dominance in the world and ensuring that we are still

beholden to major corporations.

I don't like the viciousness at all, however, there is nothing about

Obama that suggests anything other than typical, middle of the road

democrat.

> Sharon,

>

> I have great sympathy for those who suffered at the hands of Hitler.

> I especially relate to the fear that Hitler used to take and hold

> power. I've felt that fear these past 8 years under bush/chaney.

> I've never felt so afraid of what had and is happening to our nation.

>

> What I fear most is the viciousness against Obama - intolerance at

> it's finest!

>

> I just finished reading Obama's book " The Audacity of Hope " and I urge

> you to read the chapter on Faith instead of getting all of your news

> from web sites designed to use FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) to

> shape your world.

>

> I was a Hillary supporter and liked McCain 8 years ago. I decided

> that I needed to know this new guy, Barack Obama, and figured that

> reading his books would be a great way to learn the truth from his own

> words, not just sound-bites and internet slander.

>

> I voted for Barack Obama because he is caring, thoughtful, rational,

> introspective, emotionally intelligent, multi-cultural, and passionate

> about changing our disfunctional political system. His 2nd book

> logically lays out his beliefs and ideas.

>

> If you want to know the real person, read the book.

>

> From my heart,

>

> Sherry

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Gene-

> Yes - he is caring, thoughtful, rational, introspective, emotionally

> intelligent, multi-cultural, and passionate about retaining America's

> military dominance in the world and ensuring that we are still

> beholden to major corporations.

>

> I don't like the viciousness at all, however, there is nothing about

> Obama that suggests anything other than typical, middle of the road

> democrat.

I don't think military dominance and major corporations are the ONLY

things he cares about, though I more or less agree on those points.

That said, I think his instincts tend to be slightly leftwards of

Clinton's, and he appears to be a far more disciplined and effective

politician than Clinton could've ever dreamed of being, so I do have

some hope that his presidency will be a significant improvement on

anything we've had lately.

-

[Guest guest]

Well, I certainly hope you're right (about him having leftward

instincts of Clinton's) but I don't see anything to suggest that.

I do think that he's a remarkably effective politician, but how good

that is, is filtered through his actually views/policies.

And yes - it was certainly worth voting for him over mccain/palin, and

he will not be as horrible as Bush - but that wasn't the point. I just

can't see any reason to be enthused other than that the bush/cheney

era is over.

> Gene-

>

> > Yes - he is caring, thoughtful, rational, introspective, emotionally

> > intelligent, multi-cultural, and passionate about retaining

> America's

> > military dominance in the world and ensuring that we are still

> > beholden to major corporations.

> >

> > I don't like the viciousness at all, however, there is nothing about

> > Obama that suggests anything other than typical, middle of the road

> > democrat.

>

> I don't think military dominance and major corporations are the ONLY

> things he cares about, though I more or less agree on those points.

> That said, I think his instincts tend to be slightly leftwards of

> Clinton's, and he appears to be a far more disciplined and effective

> politician than Clinton could've ever dreamed of being, so I do have

> some hope that his presidency will be a significant improvement on

> anything we've had lately.

>

> -

>

>

[Guest guest]

Ok, I just came into your group.  Is Politics part of this groups?  If so,

I'm gone.

Into real food/ food freedom , but not political parties: Obama, says he cares

about poor, leaves relative in Africa in slum, says for openess in government,

then seals his birth records, says he wants to help economy grow, then talks new

taxes which slows an economy; I see the ruthlessness of Nixon, coupled with the

economics of .  If you want to know who someone is, don't look at their

words, look at what they do.

gardenlady

From: Idol <paul.idol@...>

Subject: Re: Re: POLITICS: Greedy Zionists Bankers

Date: Friday, November 14, 2008, 10:06 AM

Gene-

> Yes - he is caring, thoughtful, rational, introspective, emotionally

> intelligent, multi-cultural, and passionate about retaining America's

> military dominance in the world and ensuring that we are still

> beholden to major corporations.

>

> I don't like the viciousness at all, however, there is nothing about

> Obama that suggests anything other than typical, middle of the road

> democrat.

I don't think military dominance and major corporations are the ONLY

things he cares about, though I more or less agree on those points.

That said, I think his instincts tend to be slightly leftwards of

Clinton's, and he appears to be a far more disciplined and effective

politician than Clinton could've ever dreamed of being, so I do have

some hope that his presidency will be a significant improvement on

anything we've had lately.

-

[Guest guest]

I get it. You want to be the only one who can express yourself in an

off topic political thread. Cool.

> Ok, I just came into your group. Is Politics part of this

> groups? If so, I'm gone.

> Into real food/ food freedom , but not political parties: Obama,

> says he cares about poor, leaves relative in Africa in slum, says

> for openess in government, then seals his birth records, says he

> wants to help economy grow, then talks new taxes which slows an

> economy; I see the ruthlessness of Nixon, coupled with the economics

> of . If you want to know who someone is, don't look at their

> words, look at what they do.

>

> gardenlady

>

>

> From: Idol <paul.idol@...>

> Subject: Re: Re: POLITICS: Greedy Zionists Bankers

>

> Date: Friday, November 14, 2008, 10:06 AM

>

> Gene-

>

> > Yes - he is caring, thoughtful, rational, introspective, emotionally

>

> > intelligent, multi-cultural, and passionate about retaining

> America's

>

> > military dominance in the world and ensuring that we are still

>

> > beholden to major corporations.

>

> >

>

> > I don't like the viciousness at all, however, there is nothing about

>

> > Obama that suggests anything other than typical, middle of the road

>

> > democrat.

>

> I don't think military dominance and major corporations are the ONLY

>

> things he cares about, though I more or less agree on those points.

>

> That said, I think his instincts tend to be slightly leftwards of

>

> Clinton's, and he appears to be a far more disciplined and effective

>

> politician than Clinton could've ever dreamed of being, so I do have

>

> some hope that his presidency will be a significant improvement on

>

> anything we've had lately.

>

> -

>

>