Obama, watch your back
expatbrian
Now that Obama has basically bagged the nomination (is Hilary ever going to do the right thing and quit?) the questions are getting more frequent and pointed about a possible running mate. I fear that if Obama chooses someone more conservative, in order to bridge the gap - someone more to the liking of the Repubs - especially the big business boys, that his life will immediately be in danger.
Obama, if he honors what he has said in his speeches, is an enormous threat to many huge industries. Anyone who profits from the wars considers him an enemy. I think he is in formidable danger already but if he makes it into the White House and especially if he has a more conservative VP, I don't think its being overly fatalistic to believe he will be a target. And a serious target of these folks will become a dead president. We do that in America. We kill leaders with progressive ideas. Obama fits the mold.
And keep in mind, once McCain became a shoe-in, there was a drive to get Republican voters to vote for Hilary in an effort to stop Obama. Republicans prefer her and, to me, that means she should NOT be the running mate. I'm not worried about that because I don't think Obama would do that anyway.
Whoever the running mate is, I hope it's someone that is even more frightening to the Republicans than Obama is. That will help insure his safety.
cross posted at World Gone Mad
Now that Obama has basically bagged the nomination (is Hilary ever going to do the right thing and quit?) the questions are getting more frequent and pointed about a possible running mate. I fear that if Obama chooses someone more conservative, in order to bridge the gap - someone more to the liking of the Repubs - especially the big business boys, that his life will immediately be in danger.Obama, if he honors what he has said in his speeches, is an enormous threat to many huge industries. Anyone who profits from the wars considers him an enemy. I think he is in formidable danger already but if he makes it into the White House and especially if he has a more conservative VP, I don't think its being overly fatalistic to believe he will be a target. And a serious target of these folks will become a dead president. We do that in America. We kill leaders with progressive ideas. Obama fits the mold.
And keep in mind, once McCain became a shoe-in, there was a drive to get Republican voters to vote for Hilary in an effort to stop Obama. Republicans prefer her and, to me, that means she should NOT be the running mate. I'm not worried about that because I don't think Obama would do that anyway.
Whoever the running mate is, I hope it's someone that is even more frightening to the Republicans than Obama is. That will help insure his safety.
cross posted at World Gone Mad
Labels: America, crime, life in the big city, politics
posted by Libby Spencer at 7:02 PM
14 Comments:
I actually agree that Obama could be a target . . . by just plain ol' kooks of all stripes. Your theory is paranoid. Which progressives have been killed recently? JFK by a Commie. RFK by an Arab. MLK by a white supremacist.
Yeah, right, Dick -- go back to the playground sonny, this is where the grown ups hang out.
Your usual ignorant comment, dick. They were all killed by the same people. If you want to subscribe to the governments ridiculous propoganda that each was killed by a lone, insane gunman with his own personal agenda, go ahead. We haven't had a president as threatening to these folks as Obama might be since Kennedy.
"...if Obama chooses someone more conservative..." What's this? "More conservative"? BHO doesn't have a snippet of conservative. Less leftist you should have said, but, except for a few bold ones, most leftists hide their colors and that of their comrades. Your belief that "Republicans prefer her..." means that the Left has bitten the bait; in reality, BHO is dimensions easier to beat in November than Hillary. Even a physically and mentally gerontic and uninspiring McCain can cream him easily, as it will happen, except if a goliath of an skeleton is found in McCain’s closet. And what’s that crap of hiding leftists behind the term “progressive”? What “progress” could exist in an ideology that inherently gives birth to mass-murderous monsters such as, for example, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Ho, Abimael Guzman, “Tirofijo” and others? What difference can be in practice with that other abomination of an ideology that gave birth to Hitler, Heydrich, Mussolini, Mengele? “Progressives”? My rear fat behind!
Sorry expatbrian - now you've demonstrated you're a true nut. It's sad because any worthy commentary you've written is now immediately rendered suspect. So, in summary, big business killed JFK, RFK, and MLK. Fascinating! Were the Rockefellers and Carnegies behind it? Maybe today it will be Gates and Buffett.
No, i believe the primary culprits behind both kennedy's, at least as far as the financing was Texas oil. I indeed hope you consider my posts suspect, as that might persuade you to comment elsewhere.
And Salty dog...whoever that might be (I just love these non bloggers that comment)...sigh..how is it that I am attracting the bottom of the right wing barrel all of a sudden.
LOL Brian. I think all our trolls are the same anon who is inventing sock puppet friends to agree with him now that we've banned anon commenters. At least we're forcing him to use his brain a little to come up with his lame nicks.
No, I am not salty dog, but I was forobama08 (that was a good one!!) and the instigator, as well as anon at some points. Anyway, big oil killed the Kennedy's - ABSOLUTE HORSESHIT, and I'm sure plenty of left-wingers agree with me. And by the way, I consider myself fiscally conservative and socially moderate, and, frighteningly for you, conservative on national security issues.
I didn't say big oil. I said Texas oil, who clearly wanted our involvement in Vietnam to expand and had a very convenient replacement for Kennedy in Lyndon Johnson, the convenient VP.
Don't let the dogs lead you up a blind alley. It doesn't matter who shot Kennedy - what they're tryng to do with the false dichotomy is label Obama as a member of the same non-existent club as Adolph Mengele. Of course there is not only no evidence, but it's on the order of David Berkowitz's communications with Sam the dog.
This is the kind of extremity extremists have to go these days to make their angry fringe attitudes seem a response to reality instead of animal rage at the advance of mankind.
There's no need to go into the technicalities of this fatuous farrago of far-out fallacies; Obama simply isn't "left wing" and that term is totally meaningless both in this context and in recent years in any context. The whole idea of dividing all things into left and right is simply a gambit made the worse by the undefined yet flexible labels. Instead of addressing Obama or his statements, they simply attach the yellow star of "left" and then attack the self-serving construct.
All things are left or right.(without support)
X is left ( again by assumption and without definition)
Left is next to far left which is next to far, far left which is next to [fill in some historical monster and label it left by assumption]and therefore X is equivalent to the monster. It's logically false as anyone can tell and factually false and unsupported by any evidence or argument.
I can't even dignify it by calling it soritical - it's just too lame to call a false syllogism. What can you call it but the barking of mad dogs and insulting to the intelligence of a barnacle.
Oh THAT one! Either Johnson (or his friends) has Kennedy killed so we could enter a quagmire in Vietnam. That's almost as good as Ted Kennedy talking about the Iraq war being cooked up in Texas for political GAIN! Let's see -- what's the political gain been? The incumbent president, with a 48% approval rating in 2004, somehow wins reelection because his opponent is both boring and arrogant. In 2006, the Congress goes to the Democrats. In 2008, the president's approval rating is anywhere from the high 20's to low 30's and were it not for the Obama/Hillary lunancy, the Democrats would be poised to recapture the White House with ease.
Johnson was the one who approved the creation of the non-existent attack on the American navy in order to get us into the war. By the time I got there there were Shell and Mobile stations in the cities. Like Iraq, no one expected a ragtag army like the North Vietnamese to be serious rivals. And like Iraq, our leaders were dead wrong. Johnson was encouraged not to run again (of course the Texans wanted a Repub in the White House and got just the one they were hoping for).
Yes, the Gulf of Tonkin fiasco - I'm well aware of it. I guess my issue is how does any leader REALLY think that a war is going to be helpful to him? Just because some gas stations go in????? God, Woodrow Wilson was hated by many for WWI, and even FDR didn't win as big in '44 as he had in '32, '36, and even '40. And Truman was certainly in the toilet for Korea.
Post a Comment
<< Home