Maybe next we can help him 'move beyond race' since he's now claiming that anyone that opposes him is a racist telling people not to vote for him because he's black.

Anybody know what the over/under was on Obama playing the race card?

Ah, but Obama hasn't played the race card. He's only pointing out that McCain is playing the race card, by using images of white women and using 'code words' like 'inexperienced'.

In the Obamapedia, any criticism of him is 'racism'.

Thank you much, Jay Tea!

So if Obama labels any criticism of him is 'racism' what's the downside of a real racist attack? Maybe that's what's needed to demonstrate the difference between the imagined and the real thing.

Now all we have to do is convince some has been democrat with no political future to make the attack. Lets see... what's Bill Clinton doing nowadays?

I see the Obama camp is using their own code: "Barack Obama in no way believes that the McCain campaign is using race as an issue, but he does believe they're using the same old low-road politics to distract voters from the real issues in this campaign."

Which, of course, is the race card players way of saying, 'yes, I accused you of being a racist, but if you point it out it means that you're a racist.'

Maybe that's what's needed to demonstrate the difference between the imagined and the real thing.

This is sort of like hoping for another 9/11 to get everybody all scared again, Mac. The ends do not justify the means. And yes, I know you weren't being serious. But just don't say it, it's tactless. Not like it hasn't already happened anyway--remember the terrorist fist bump, for instance?

Maybe not funding the school was Obamas way of getting somebody else to pay for it. That's what liberals do. Spend other peoples money.

Can anybody provide any links to a national or intenational news source that Obama even made a pledge to the school?

The only sources I could find are right wing blogs.

This smells fishy...could be another of the many false accusations against Obama. Prove me wrong if you can.

Would this suffice ?

London's Evening Standard dated 25.07.08 ?

Headline: "Barack Obama's broken promise to African village"

There is a link from the American Thinker website.

No, Hyper, 9-11 is not sort of like ruffling someone's over sensitive feathers.
Your analogy is even more "tactless" than Mac's rhetorical question.

Dave, wasn't it the Evening Standard that broke this story. Last I checked, that is a London paper, not a blog.

Hussein O's broken promise to his grandmother among others was a story with many 'real' interviews with real people who are still living in squalor due to Hussein's failure. But then all Islamist lie, it's approved of in the Koran.

"...I will stand with them (Muslims) should the political winds shift in an ugly direction." B Hussein Obama,

page 261 of his book, Audacity of Hope...

Sometimes I question why the desire to stay a Republican has left me. Then I read what the posters here have to say and it sickens me much the way reading DU or KOS does.

Thanks - you guys rock.

This is sort of like hoping for another 9/11 to get everybody all scared again, Mac. The ends do not justify the means.

You're joking, right? Elevating my comment to the level of 9/11 is despicable. Obama is trying to insulate himself from any criticism by using the race card to claim nearly every negative comment about his positions or his character is a racial slur. Obama is playing politics with race, which opens the door to others doing the same. There are legitimate racial issues in this nation, but they can't be resolved when politicians like Obama claim the opposing position is racist and when we get his apologists making foolish comparisons to 9/11.

But then all Islamist lie, it's approved of in the Koran.

Would you shut the fuck up already, you senile racist swine? Read the entire page of that book (even if it takes you two hours). Do you know what the word context means?

Mac--the analogy was tactless, sure, but germane. Wishing evil on someone to prove a point is the wrong thing to do. When WildWillie and Scrapiron say things like "I hope Islamic terrorists murder people in San Francisco when liberal judges release them from jail" (to paraphrase), that's like what you said--wishing a racial attack on someone. It's tacky and immoral, and you're better than that.

Again, matter of degree hyper.

Comparing Mac's rhetorical to a stubbed toe or other minor injury would be germaine.

Comparing someone making an actual racist remark to someone killing 3000 innocent civilians it just asinine. Someone what works for "one of the largest PR firms in the world" ought to be able to grasp that. And then man up when you're called out on it, rather than continue to spin and act like butter won't melt in your mouth.

BTW, Scrapiron's comment may be biggoted and prejudiced, but not racist. Islam is not a race. Despite how Canada's human rights inquisitions may behave. ;)

SCSI--fair enough. It is a regrettable comparison. Logically valid, but totally tactless. I don't think I've ever said I work for a PR firm--marketing and social/demographic/policy research--but close enough.

Scrapiron's comment was xenophobic, and lots of other shit he's smeared on this blog is certainly racist, so I think labeling him a racist is fair. He's free to dispute the charge. (Having a Clarence Thomas rookie card on his fridge would not suffice.)

For what it's worth, I think our human rights tribunal is a joke. However, nobody seemed to mention it when they spent all their time defending Jews against anti-semites and Holocaust deniers. Now that Islam is the most hated religion, though, free speech advocates seem to care a lot more about what Canadians are allowed to say. Hmm...

Wishing evil on someone to prove a point is the wrong thing to do.

Parents let disobedient kids make mistakes to change their behavior. For example, letting their 10 year-old kid get sick smoking a cigar so they learn to distinguish between the phony effects being advertised and the real effects. That's neither evil nor wrong.

Obama is like a disobedient kid making light of real racial slurs by applying that label to legitimate criticism. In doing so he damages his own reputation and discounts the effects real racial slurs have on minorities. Suggesting Obama suffer a real racial slurs in order to correct his bad behavior is not evil nor wrong. It's certainly nothing comparable to killing people or 9/11. You only look more and more foolish the more you try to characterize it as such.

You want him to be subjected to an "actual" racist attack instead of what you perceive to be innocuous slights perceived only by liberals and the media as racist--I get it. He has already been subjected to such attacks, though you aren't willing to acknowledge as much.

This is one of the most idiotic threads I have read. You have nothing substantial to criticize Obama on so you're all notpicking on the most inconsequential.

Scrapiron receives the idiot of the year award!

You must live under rock or be the biggest moron ever for thinking Obama is muslim.

The fact that no one corrected him proves that the readers of this site have no regard for the truth.

You want him to be subjected to an "actual" racist attack instead of what you perceive to be innocuous slights perceived only by liberals and the media as racist--I get it.

I doubt that.

He has already been subjected to such attacks, though you aren't willing to acknowledge as much.

Well then he's a slow learner or and opportunist to continue his harmful behavior of crying wolf when there's no wolf there.

This is one of the most idiotic threads I have read. You have nothing substantial to criticize Obama on so you're all notpicking on the most inconsequential.

You want substantial criticism? Ok, Obama is a far leftwing liberal. I know, I know; some will label that a racist attack comparable with the 9/11 attacks.

Obama is a far leftwing liberal

Mac Lorry,

That would be a complement!

That would be a complement!

And yet it's the fact that he's a far leftwing liberal that Obama is trying to cover up by distracting the media with phony racial issues. Why? Because Obama knows it's that fact that will cost him the election should it become widely understood.

Mac Lorry, your starting to sound link a member of the racist right yourself.

Mac Lorry, your starting to sound link a member of the racist right yourself.

I see, now that you understand that criticizing Obama as a far leftwing liberal may cost him the election you went from thinking that label was a complement to it being a racist attack. Thanks for proving my point Dave!

Mac Lorry,

You're funny

I see, now that you understand that criticizing Obama as a far leftwing liberal may cost him the election you went from thinking that label was a complement to it being a racist attack. Thanks for proving my point

Mac Lorry,

You do not appear to understand sarcasm. I thought it was democrats who don't understand humor. Are you sure your not really a democrat just posing as a republican?

Now that Islam is the most hated religion, though, free speech advocates seem to care a lot more about what Canadians are allowed to say. Hmm...

Oddly enough, it is the islamists that are so very concerned about what people in Canada are allowed to say.
I don't think many people outside of Canada knew Cardinals Biggles and Fang had found work with the tribunals, or that they existed, until recently. I don't think it was islam that triggered it, but the excesses of the HRC's own people. Certain islamic groups just found some very useful idiots and together helped shine sunlight on each other.

It would be strange if you were familiar with the history of the HRC, SCSI. It's of no consequence to Americans.

Asshole Zionists have appealed to the HRC to attempt to silence their critics when people point out that Zionists are, in fact, assholes. I hate the tribunal because religious people ought to have no protection from rational criticism. The right way to look at this issue is: if you can't substantiate your views with some empirical evidence (or worse--if your views are the sort that are impossible to verify or falsify)--then people ought to be able to make fun of you because you're part of a cult and incapable (or afraid) of drawing your own conclusions about the universe and what it means.

if your views are the sort that are impossible to verify or falsify)--then people ought to be able to make fun of you because you're part of a cult and incapable (or afraid) of drawing your own conclusions about the universe and what it means.

Luckily in the U.S. we have that right excpt when it comes to critiziaing evolusionists in a public school setting. If not for the protection that view has under the law it could never stand on it's own merit.

Luckily in the U.S. we have that right excpt when it comes to critiziaing evolusionists in a public school setting.

Mac Lory just proved a statement I made on a different thread here about comentors ignoring scientific evidence.

Dave,

Mac Lory just proved a statement I made on a different thread here about comentors ignoring scientific evidence.

My comment was intended for hyperbolist as he seems to have a lot going on in the thinking department and I want to probe his thoughts a bit to see if his post 30 is sarcasm or if he really believes religion can be logically dismissed.

From your comment it's obvious you believe it can be, but I doubt you really understand what's required to make such a statement in regards to religion. Also, I doubt your seriousness in exploring such a subject because, as you demonstrated in post 27, you use smokescreen comments as soon as your position suffers damage.

If you're comfortable believing you know the answer to life's ultimate question, then I recommend you just use one of your smokescreen comments to signal that you really don't want me to guide you to the edge of what's knowable.

Mac Lorry,

Creationism is not science, it does not belong in a science class. If anything its anti-science. If we let religion dictate what should be taught, we would still be teaching that the world is flat. If the U.S. is to remain the world leader in scientific discoveries we must maintain the integrity of science.

Dave,

When we talk about evolution, science is limited in it's search for truth. Evolution, as the only explanation for life, is founded on a fundamental tenet that cannot be proven, and in that regard, evolution is like a religion. Assuming we don't want the government establishing a religion, exploration of the tenet of faith evolution is founded on should be taught in public schools as part of evolution? Teaching this limitation is not "religion" but rather, it's necessary to remove the religious connotations of evolution. The result will be better educated kids who understand the limitations of what's knowable.

I am not anti-religion I am just against people who try to pass off their view of religion as science. The following link explains why relgion should not be confused with science.

Why religion should not be confused with science.

Evolution, as the only explanation for life, is founded on a fundamental tenet that cannot be proven, and in that regard, evolution is like a religion.

If you look hard enough you can find similarities between anything. The significant difference is in how science and religion each reach a conclusion. In that regard science and religion are as different as day and night.

Science continously modifies its theory based on an accumulation of evidence and the result of experiments. Since a faith based explanation such as creationism does not meet this criteria it does not belong in a science class.

Science continuously modifies its theory based on an accumulation of evidence and the result of experiments. Since a faith based explanation such as creationism does not meet this criteria it does not belong in a science class.

Like many others, including the creators of the web site you linked, you don't realize that evolution as the only explanation of life is based on a fundamental tenet that can't be proven. Because it's the foundation upon which evolution is based, that tenet is not subject to modification. To do so would overturn evolution as the only explanation of life. Thus, the scientific method is no different from religion in that regard as it rests on faith. Anyone who believes evolution explains life does so by faith even if they don't realize it. Because they didn't teach you that in school you have a false sense of certainty, which often leads to a belief that religious people are ignorant. The fact is, it's people like yourself who are ignorant. Why not teach the limits of what's knowable when teaching evolution? Isn't logic a subject for science?