[GCFL-discuss] FW: Is America Really Going to To this?

Wed Oct 29 23:11:22 CDT 2008

I felt it was worth sharing, if only to sit back and see how siarlys
disected it, as i knew he would.
As to the yellow text, i can't read it at all in yellow, so i convert
the whole email into plain text, and then i can read it.

greenBubble

________________________________

Subject: Re: [GCFL-discuss] FW: Is America Really Going to To this?

Au contraire, I think you SHOULD read these two articles in full, AND I
think you should read one specific video paid for by Obama in full, and
then you should analyze them, cross-check them, to your heart's content.
I find these articles easy to discredit, but if you find them credible,
so be it. We each have one vote. greenBubble thought this article was
worth sharing. I thought it was worth dissecting. What I did note about
both articles is that, LIKE materials that issue from any candidate's
campaign, they BEGIN with a point of view they want to persuade the
reader to, rather than beginning with a set of facts they wish to
report.

Siarlys

Incidentally, a Lutheran pastor I forwarded the discussion to thought it
was neat to put the citations in yellow text, because they were
obviously yellow journalism.

On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 11:21:34 -0700 "Discussion of the Good, Clean
Funnies List" <gcfl-discuss at gcfl.net> writes:

	Wait, so 2 independent articles attacking Obama are being
discredited because you find they have conservative tendencies. And then
Claim their all lies (yet neither companies have anything to do with
each other so 2 lies saying the same thing is in need of mathematical
explanation).

	BUT believe I should watch videos PAID for by Obama and believe
it to be all fact?

	Come on sir, I find this very hard to swallow.

	~Lance

	On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 9:53 PM, Discussion of the Good, Clean
Funnies List <gcfl-discuss at gcfl.net> wrote:

		Dear greenBubble and everyone,

		As you might expect, I can't find any merit in this
article at all.

		The important reason is, why not?

		I note in passing that The Spectator and World magazine
are somewhat MORE partisan in their peculiar caterwauling than either of
the candidate's campaign organizations are. They have a right to express
their opinion, but there is nothing factually reliable there.

		I have a long term view of politics. Barack Obama became
a plausible candidate for president because he broke the decripit
stereotypes that American politics had been locked into. The artificial
monstrosities of "blue states" and "red states," the tired and almost
meaningless terms "liberal" and "conservative," the infatuation with
cultural polarization that accurately describes very few Americans. We
are each much more complex than either the media or the professional
politicos give us credit for, and we exist in much more complex webs of
inter-relation to each other.

		Obama understands those complex interconnections that
make us Americans, and those voters who have supported him, and seem
ready to do so again, sense that, respond to it, look forward to
leadership of the nature he offers.

		Also, he has a capacity to think about what he is doing,
or saying, and to then answer decisively, as opposed to acting without
thinking (the Bush style) or dithering without saying or doing anything
(the style which cost John Kerry the 2004 election). He doesn't run away
or go into loud denial either -- for instance, he waded right into the
Jeremiah Wright controversy, and refused to cater to any loud demands
from either admirers or critics of Wright.

		The Rush Limbaughs and Ann Coulters of the world (and
add Melanie Phillips to the list) feel threatened by Obama, because
their careers and influence, such as it is, are built in the very
hatreds and polarizations which Obama is capably demolishing. So, rather
than criticize him for what he is, they are trying to demonize him with
the same tired old characterizations. It is not working, because these
characterizations do not fit him, and a majority of voters recognize
that.

		This article you just posted is exactly the kind of
desperate hysteria I am referring to.

		By contrast, the Chicago Tribune, the most conservative
Republican major daily in the country, has probably endorsed a Democrat
for the first time in its history in choosing Barack Obama. The Tribune
has been the source of the most critical factual data about Obama's less
than savory associations with Chicago politics. The Tribune observes,
however, that having had the opportunity to observe his career close-up
for many years, before he became a national figure, and since, it is
satisfied he is the most qualified candidate this year. By all accounts
from Illinois, people in the state like a combination of vision with
pragmatic political strategy, and don't hold some compromises with
whoever is in power against Obama.

		I believe the authors will be surprised at how Obama
does in office. I believe that his administration will not only be the
end of pseudo-"conservative" hysteria, it will be the end of liberalism
as we know it. Nancy Pelosi will just have to go along for the ride,
because she doesn't have any other options.

		Now, as to the specific matter of Israel, I am a little
disappointed that Obama has catered so much to the mantra required of
American politicians to loudly proclaim their commitment to Israel. I
don't believe that the foreign policy of the United States of America
should be held hostage to any nation, including Israel. It speaks poorly
of our democracy when any ethnic voting bloc can exercise a veto for its
pet nation. (By the same token, I am not offended that Jonathan Pollard
felt impelled to spy on the U.S. for Israel -- they are, after all, two
distinct sovereign nations, and their interests do not always perfectly
coincide). I feel the same way about urban concentrations of Slovaks,
Serbs and Croats sabotaging George F.  Kennan's diplomatic work with
President Tito of Yugoslavia during circa 1960. This is America, not a
surrogate for any foreign power. I also feel the same about President
Reagan appointing an ambassador to the Vatican, which is not a state
except in its own pretensions.

		Israel does have a right to exist. Some of its policies
are, in the long run, going to jeopardize its own existence, and perhaps
our nation should firmly make that clear and refuse to give any Israeli
government carte blanche. Likewise, we should stop catering to brutal
dictatorships in Arabic-speaking nations, which simply turn the
oppressed population hostile to us, when we should be a beacon of hope
to them. (Hosni Mubarak in Egypt comes to mind, and our schizophrenic
relationship to the Wahabi theocracy in Saudi Arabia).

		But I expect President Obama will for the most part
leave US policy toward Israel about as it is. That is the safe thing to
do, politically, particularly during a president's first term. He may be
able to help Israel by reaching out more credibly to its neighbors.

		There are, in fact, millions of Arab-Americans, who have
endured the absurdity of being cast as second class citizens as Obama
was accused of being Muslim or Arab. As Colin Powell finally had the
courage to point out, "So what if he is?" He's not, but neither Muslim
faith nor Arab descent disqualifies any native-born American citizen
from being president. A large portion of Arab-Americans are fifth
generation. Labor unions in 1900 had to translate leaflets into Arabic,
among a dozen other languages, because so many Syrian and Lebanese
immigrants were in the work force. Generally, these Americans have not
held candidates hostage by demanding that they denounce Israel, or
pledge military aid to whatever country their grandparents or great
great grandparents emigrated from.

		Is America really going to do this? I believe we are,
and thank G-d for it.

		Siarlys

____________________________________________________________ 
		Click here to find the perfect picture with our powerful
photo search features.
<http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2142/fc/Ioyw6i3mDcGP5ENLgIQNlIEmQUu
pQtMJZHKEnawKgfjGihEWpixSna/> 

		_______________________________________________
		GCFL-discuss mailing list
		GCFL-discuss at gcfl.net
		http://gcfl.net/mailman/listinfo/gcfl-discuss

	-- 
	No animals were harmed in the sending of this message.
	However, a few million electrons were extremely
inconvenienced...

____________________________________________________________ 
Click here for a free search to find an interior design school near you.
<http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2142/fc/Ioyw6i3oLOnmBgeB9YzBsO7rntd
5gg6PkDIibn93iIqVTmNvKkaZQY/> 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message and any included attachments are from Siemens Medical Solutions 
and are intended only for the addressee(s). 
The information contained herein may include trade secrets or privileged or 
otherwise confidential information. Unauthorized review, forwarding, printing, 
copying, distributing, or using such information is strictly prohibited and may 
be unlawful. If you received this message in error, or have reason to believe 
you are not authorized to receive it, please promptly delete this message and 
notify the sender by e-mail with a copy to Central.SecurityOffice at siemens.com 

Thank you
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://gcfl.net/pipermail/gcfl-discuss/attachments/20081030/a1415466/attachment.htm 