Obama Dropped Flag Pin in War Statement

[Curiosity]

Sorry Talloola your quotation from an unknown source is doing the rambling. John Kennedy was physically challenged before he entered the military as well as the fact he returned a maimed and injured young man and if he appeared to be "fumbling" it was because he had a number of undisclosed (at the time) illnesses which had the public known, may have kept him out of the Presidential candidacy.

The Kennedys were indeed a political family - they ran a significant sector of the Irish Political Machine -ensuring representation on the political scene while amassing their money by not taking office themselves. Joseph Sr.'s father was a politician involved with the early days of the Democratic party and as you have written, Rose's father was in local politics.

The eldest son of the 3rd generation (Joseph Jr.) was certainly being geared for a high position in U.S. politics, and when he was killed his brother John was moved up the ladder. Young John came back from WWII with a number of physical ailments and had no burning desire to become a politician but he was destined to take his brother's place. Of all the brothers, Bobby Kennedy was the true political candidate but I guess he had to wait his turn. Wherever your quoted author had the idea Bob Kennedy fumbled at any time he is way off base - Bobby Kennedy was one of the most focused politicians of the post WWII era to the point of being obsessed. It is thought he actually ran Jack's decisions, allowing Jack to take rest and give into his illness whenever possible.

The truly endowed of any political party are not the elected who have to stand and take the eggs....
but their backers who guarantee their position of power and wealth for themselves. Joseph Kennedy was one of those backers and saw a future for all his sons in such positions.

As for the homage to the Clintons, nothing could be more disasterous for the already
failed operation of the U.S. at the present time. Talk about grease thrown on a fire !!

 

[Liberalman]

If Obama wins then he could make a payment settlement and apology of the descendants of the black slaves that were brought to America and sold like animals.

 

[Curiosity]

Oh please Liberalman..... put away your musket and join the new world!!!

Between the media and Al Sharpton - people like you believe everything you are fed. Take a look at the complete Congress and Senate of the United States, in addition to the Secretary of the United States.... it is a wonderful and beautiful rainbow of all shades of representation working together, fighting together and loving their nation.

Barack is a child of the world himself, having been born in the U.S. of a Kenyan father and a white mother, he spent time in Indonesia, Hawaii and returned to the U.S. He does however share nothing with the African-American descendants of the slavery period in U.S. history.

You might be surprised to now many people intermarry these days as race takes on an unimportant role in our world and as people are exposed more often to international travel, knowledge of people from other nations, and are better educated. Let's not plunge us back into the days of Uncle Tom because of a few stupid and ignorant folk who make it to the nightly news for want of anything better.

Why why why Americans even marry people of Japanese descent who are also Americans... didja know?

 

[Liberalman]

Curiosity

The only reason we live in the modern day with a rainbow of colors that are free to inter-marry is because of the sacrifices made during the civil rights movement where they said enough is enough.

You are living the dream that Martin Luther King talked about in his many speeches many years ago where black man was just another animal to the good ole boys in the deep south one hundred years after the civil war.

It is time for the American government to open up their purse strings and make reparations to the decedents of the black slaves.

They gave money to the Japanese when they took their property and put them in internment camps.

The black slave suffered a lot more than that.

It is time for America to pay up so that the black American can walk with dignity again.

 

[Curiosity]

Liberalman - time to join the modern world of U.S. politics now...

Meet John McWhorter - just Google his name - there is plenty to read.

In the following article....re his opinion on Obama - "take away his race and he becomes a relatively anonymous rookie". Now that's fact.

Here is one article of his multitude of essays....
http://www.nysun.com/article/40050?page_no=2

Opinion

The Color of His Skin

By JOHN McWHORTER
September 21, 2006

Imagine him white.
Barack Obama, that is. Amidst all the glowing talk about the possibility of his becoming America's first black president in 2008, it's an interesting thought experiment to imagine whether Mr. Obama would elicit this swooning buzz if he were white.
That is, let's imagine a white guy with all of Mr. Obama's pluses: crinkly smile, sincere concern for the little man, fine speech a couple of years ago about bringing the nation together, a certain charisma, wrote a touching autobiography. Let's call him Barrett O'Leary.
I do not think Mr. O'Leary would be touted a year-and-change into his Senate appointment as a presidential possibility. No knock on Mr. Obama intended, mind you. For all we know, he could have the genius for national statesmanship of a Disraeli. The point is that we don't know yet. Like any new senator, Mr. Obama has been quietly learning his way around the byzantine procedures of Senate lawmaking.
The key factor that galvanizes people around the idea of Obama for president is, quite simply, that he is black. Other things about him don't hurt, but that's all — they are not the deciding factor. Take away Mr. Obama's race and he's some relatively anonymous rookie. Barrett O'Leary, even if as cute and articulate as Mr. Obama, would have to wait at least another four years, and possibly six or seven, before being considered as a possible commander in chief.
What gives people a jolt in their gut about the idea of President Obama is the idea that it would be a ringing symbol that racism no longer rules our land. President Obama might be, for instance, a substitute for that national apology for slavery that some consider so urgent. Surely a nation with a black president would be one no longer hung up on race.
Or not. Mr. Obama is being considered as presidential timber not despite his race, but because of it. That is, for all of its good intentions, a dehumanization of Mr. Obama. We're still hung up. What Mr. Obama has done is less important than his skin color and what it "means." The content of our character is not exactly center stage here. We are a long way from Selma, but not yet where the Rev. King wanted us to be.
Another reason for my lack of enthusiasm for Mr. Obama as symbol is that the racial healing many might see him as portending would not happen. Among a certain kind of black person and non-black fellow travelers — roughly, those given to surmising that the levees near the Lower Ninth Ward in New Orleans were deliberately blown up — the going wisdom would be that Mr. Obama was elected only because he is merely the kind of black person whites are "comfortable" with.
With his light skin, African father and white mother, and only faint hint of what I call a "black-ccent" — the subtle vocal quality that makes most black Americans identifiable as black over the phone (yes, one can "sound black." It's been demonstrated repeatedly by linguistic analysis, and the "black-ccent" overlaps only partially with white Southern) — Mr. Obama would easily be cast by these types as "not too black."
The kind of person these people see as "really black" are ones like, say, Spike Lee, who view white America warily as an alternate universe (Mr. Lee considers the levee-bombing a viable possibility, for example). Such people may be good at many things, but being an American president would not be one of them, and no such person could ever be elected to the office. If the first black president since Mr. Clinton is not Mr. Obama, it will be a black person similarly unlike Mr. Lee or Al Sharpton. As such, the crowd in question will see no significant promise in any black presidential candidate who could win. This means that Obama fans should not suppose that his election would snuff out the "AmeriKKKa" routine, which would only expire under a Conyers or Waters administration.
Yet in the grand scheme of things, I'll take a little unintended dehumanization over naked bigotry. Perhaps it is inevitable that in the wake of a moral earthquake as abrupt as the civil rights revolution, for a while whites, in their quest to check themselves for racism — a quest I support in principle — will sometimes slip into seeing black people as lessons rather than as individuals. If the attention Mr. Obama has attracted on this basis gives him the floor to present us with an argument that he would be an effective chief steward of our country, then so be it and all power to him.
However, I remain convinced that checking ourselves for racism is also relevant to how we process our Great Black Hope. If Mr. Obama seeks the presidency, I will be evaluating him on the basis of his views and accomplishments, and the color of his skin will have nothing to do with it. This is what I read the civil rights revolution as teaching me to do, and I cannot see our more recent "diversity" fetish as a useful, or even civil, revision of such.

In other words, I will be keeping a close watch on Barrett O'Leary.

Mr. McWhorter is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.​

 

[EagleSmack]

I agree with Liberalman. We should pay off African-Americans. But once that is done... that is it. They have been paid off and they no longer have a need to complain. No more affirmative action... nothing. Clean slate. The debt is paid. Just like in a court case. Once the plaintif is paid off the defendant is no longer obligated to do anything else.

No more whinning... no more marches... no more affirmative action... no more reverse discrimination.

 

[Curiosity]

Eaglesmack

What about the new nation of Liberia and free passage home for all of those who wished to return to Africa?

Are these people 'owed' financial reparation as well?

The separatists make a fine living out of threats and debts owed - but never seek to improve the lives of the African descendants living in the U.S. Those who have found the answer - self reliance and independence have made it - and are welcomed for it.

My family weren't brought as slaves but they were as poor as slaves trying to make their way to Alberta and find enough land to farm - and the first years many of them died of starvation with nobody around to help them....

A nation of immigrants we of Canada and the U.S. and while some were forced to arrive here, they could return to Africa - however I'll bet you my car they are better off now than they would be had they never been brought to the new continent.

I don't see a mad exodus for Africa had have seen none since the slaves were freed...have you? It was an ugly time of history but there are many new immigrants facing the same segregation and being treated like animals....yet they made the choice to find themselves in the new world.

 

[Curiosity]

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/..._inconvenient_truths_about_the_us_and_slavery

A long long article on reparations and slavery - if you don't have time or are bored - don't bother.

 

[talloola]

I remember very well, the 'non' experience of john and bobby kennedy, sure they grew up in a family of wealth and power and a father who was 'determined' to have one of his sons the first catholic president of the u.s.

John Kennedy had a severe back problem, which kept him in bed for weeks at a time. That problem
followed him for the rest of his life.

They're political knowledge was learned as they rose through the ranks, first as senators, both of them
were voted into the senate on a wing and a prayer, as they were young and had not earned the experience of others who were also running. They certainly had the 'attitude' that gained them the
love from the people, and that was their strength at that time, all the genius came along gradually.
Strength and courage and determination and mistakes taught both of them how to be the great
leaders they both became, and of course, as in all political offices, much backroom haggling and
wheeling and dealing.
If it wasn't for Bobby's good relationship with Krushchef,(forgot spell) the Cuban Missile crisis might not have ended
as it did, as he made a deal for removal of missiles in Germany for the turn back of the ships at that
time.

They're dad made a big mistake as ambassador when he sympathized with Hitler and lost the trust
of the u.s. government, and lost his job. He was an arrogant rich womanizer, and I'm afraid those same traits were handed down to John, and in a lesser degree to Bobby.

I was a young mother at the time of their political lives, and followed it very closely, and I was
so happy to see some fresh new young politicians, which gave all of us hope for the future, and
then when they died, our hope died with them.

That is the only fear I have for Obama, is that some 'sicko' will want to make a name for himself,
and do the same to him.

He is a young, fresh, new face and I wish him well. I'm so sick of all the lying and sucking up we
see all the time, as they say what they know we want to hear, and they don't mean any of it.

 

[Curiosity]

Talloola - I agree with your hope .... but why should it affect Canadians? The U.S. government has no chance with the average Canadian and in the past five years, it has become common knowledge down here how Canada feels about its neighbor to the south. It has not gone over well.

No matter who is president they will still have their firmly formed opinions of the U.S. government and its 'foreign policy' .... do you really think a new president is going to effect major change? I've yet to see that happen since I moved here.

My concern is that people will elect Obama BECAUSE he is African - which is one heck of a stupid thing to do - any more than I would prefer to vote in someone because of their ancestry - if they were Chinese, Niceraguan, or a New Zealander.... it doesn't make any sense because electing a 'black' person certainly would not ensure they are more adept at leading a nation of hundreds of nationalities.

Kennedy was sick long before his PT boat was blown up (which caused his back problems when he returned to civilian life) ... he suffered from Addison's Disease.... I won't bore everyone by listing its symptoms, etc.... it's on Google. It was a secret kept from the American people as stress causes immense problems for
the sufferers .... so before he became an injured veteran, he was chronically ill with a disease which should have prevented him from become a member of the military at all, but I guess in WWII the requirements were less severe as they are now.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...35753C1A964958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print

 

[Avro]

I agree with Liberalman. We should pay off African-Americans. But once that is done... that is it. They have been paid off and they no longer have a need to complain. No more affirmative action... nothing. Clean slate. The debt is paid. Just like in a court case. Once the plaintif is paid off the defendant is no longer obligated to do anything else.

No more whinning... no more marches... no more affirmative action... no more reverse discrimination.

Nobody should get paid off, a simple apology will do. It should go something like this.

We are sorry for bringing African Americans to a rich prosperous country and denying them the right to starve in an otherwise oppresed and poor nation.

 

[talloola]

Talloola - I agree with your hope .... but why should it affect Canadians? The U.S. government has no chance with the average Canadian and in the past five years, it has become common knowledge down here how Canada feels about its neighbor to the south. It has not gone over well.
It does effect canadians, as we are all connected as north americans, doesn't matter if I can vote or not, I am interested.

No matter who is president they will still have their firmly formed opinions of the U.S. government and its 'foreign policy' .... do you really think a new president is going to effect major change? I've yet to see that happen since I moved here.
I have lived through many presidents, and prime ministers, and on the world scene they do make a difference, it must be very apparant to you as you watch the world lose disrespect for the u.s. since george bush has been elected, and then elected again,which horrified much of the world. He hasn't been a good influence on americans' at all, he has done them a huge injustice, let alone what he has done to the Iraqi people


My concern is that people will elect Obama BECAUSE he is African - which is one heck of a stupid thing to do - any more than I would prefer to vote in someone because of their ancestry - if they were Chinese, Niceraguan, or a New Zealander.... it doesn't make any sense because electing a 'black' person certainly would not ensure they are more adept at leading a nation of hundreds of nationalities.
If the american people want to elect Obama or Hillary because of their race/gender it is their right in a democratic society, then they can judge if it was good or bad as time goes by.
The republicans by the millions try to elect a president based on religion, which is not right in my opinion, but if they do, it is a democracy, and, so be it.
It's the millions who don't vote at all, who are the problem, as they don't realize the freedom they have, which much of the world doesn't.

Kennedy was sick long before his PT boat was blown up (which caused his back problems when he returned to civilian life) ... he suffered from Addison's Disease.... I won't bore everyone by listing its symptoms, etc.... it's on Google. It was a secret kept from the American people as stress causes immense problems for
the sufferers .... so before he became an injured veteran, he was chronically ill with a disease which should have prevented him from become a member of the military at all, but I guess in WWII the requirements were less severe as they are now.
Or, because of his family influence, they turned a blind eye.
Yes, that's right, I remember that he had that disease from reading '1000 days.', by Arthur Slessinger I think, was a long time ago, my memory of the author is foggy.

 

[eh1eh]

I'm a bit surprised. I didn't think there was room for discusion on this matter. He's a traitor who doesn't support the troops.

 

[Curiosity]

Talloola

Regarding the world's disrespect for the U.S. This has been an issue for as long as the U.S. has been recognized as a nation since it severed ties with the old world. It was born in battle and will continue to exercise independent ways which to an entrenched Europe (from which many Canadians are taught), this is ineffective and wasteful of Canadian progress...you are not Americans...it is as Canadian as hockey....to be 'not American'.... then stop living every day embroiled in their issues.

The U.S. is unafraid to try something new and there have been many presidents since Washington who were ill suited to the job - Bush being only the most recent. Nixon was terrible, Gerry Ford was a good friend and uniter and a terrible international president, Jimmy Carter was kind but is now suffering from dementia.... it goes on and on....but that is what is so wonderful about the nation and why people will never understand. I have been a citizen since April, and yet I could stand on a podium and revile Bush or any new president and would not be killed for it.... how many nations allow that?
And we can get them out in four or eight years max. Sounds good to me.

If I could change anything I would love to see two leaders such as an international one and a domestic one - perhaps the VP could have more responsibilities, but it seems one cannot rule the affairs of the internal United States and please the rest of the world. Impossible task. Not that I give a flying fig right now who dislikes the nation. It is so divided internally and that is what I find frightening. The fringies are winning....and the scare tactics they use are tantamount to terrorism within.

Whoever the American people vote in as their president, I will abide - majority rules. But NOT because of race or gender but because he/she will be best suited for the job. You make a sweeping statement about Republicans being Christians..... that is the media hype you are falling for. When I cared nothing about politics but was beginning to watch and learn, my husband voted for McCain (who is not terribly religious or preachy, nor was my husband religiously inclined).... he liked the man because he felt the nation needed someone who could deal with the upcoming foreign issues which were boiling to the surface. My husband switched parties during our marriage so he was both a Democrat and then a Republican so it wasn't party politics he was playing either. He was right on - McCain didn't win - Bush did - Bush who was poorly equipped to handle anything on an international basis. He surrounded himself with the old sharks of his father's day.... and went downhill from there. 9/11 was an event no president could have handled without tremendous loss and immediate decision making.... Bush made some tactical errors and never looked back to regroup and revamp. It will be his legacy.

And the good old days (which I am sorry I am ignorant of those enlightened days)....when the public knew very little of the White House and the presidency and were fed directly from what the White House wanted the media to extend for public consumption. Kennedy was a frail man... a reluctant president and I believe he did as well as he could - but it seems in retrospect the public elected a movie star rather than an a politician.... and I think much of the Kennedy policies were Bobbie's work not John F's. Perhaps when they elected Reagan, they were happy to finally get a real movie star.

Sorry I have blathered on... but I like what you have written... and am amazed as a Canadian you pay so much attention - even back to the Kennedy years...all I remember is my family being very sad the day John F. was killed...but who John F. was I didn't actually understand until years later.

I would hope Canadians spend more time discussing Canadian politics on this forum rather than getting mired in the stuff they cannot affect in the way of change... even less than the average American citizen can. I think it's a waste of adrenaline and you could certainly avoid the mistakes the U.S. makes in your own policies but other than that I wonder why almost every other topic is of a U.S. issue instead of Canadian.

 

[talloola]

Talloola

Regarding the world's disrespect for the U.S. This has been an issue for as long as the U.S. has been recognized as a nation since it severed ties with the old world. It was born in battle and will continue to exercise independent ways which to an entrenched Europe (from which many Canadians are taught), this is ineffective and wasteful of Canadian progress...you are not Americans...it is as Canadian as hockey....to be 'not American'.... then stop living every day embroiled in their issues.
I, as an individual have always had a very broad mind regarding the u.s. and others, till george bush was elected, and from the 911 point on, I have lost all respect for him, and his cronies. That is a
silly statement, 'as canadian as hockey' to be anti american, 'never have been that waY', but there
are many who are, and many who just follow, as followers do in many other countries.
I will not be labeled, thank you. We are independent thinkers in Canada, not on any imbilical cord to any eauropeans, and especially not joined like a child to Britian, as canadians resent that idea just as much as many of them resent being joined to the U.S.


The U.S. is unafraid to try something new and there have been many presidents since Washington who were ill suited to the job - Bush being only the most recent. Nixon was terrible, Gerry Ford was a good friend and uniter and a terrible international president, Jimmy Carter was kind but is now suffering from dementia..
He must covering it up very well, as he sounded fine on TV the other night, but he is old, and that is
life I guess.
.. it goes on and on....but that is what is so wonderful about the nation and why people will never understand. I have been a citizen since April, and yet I could stand on a podium and revile Bush or any new president and would not be killed for it.... how many nations allow that?
And we can get them out in four or eight years max. Sounds good to me.
Can't wait, too bad it was eight and not four, but it won't be long. Our prime ministers are not much different, just don't have the responsibility of the U.S., which gives the u.s. more responsibility when electing a president. Bush is so lacking in quality and leadership abilities, and took his position and trashed it, now the next guy will have lots of cleaning up to do.

If I could change anything I would love to see two leaders such as an international one and a domestic one - perhaps the VP could have more responsibilities, but it seems one cannot rule the affairs of the internal United States and please the rest of the world. Impossible task. Not that I give a flying fig right now who dislikes the nation. It is so divided internally and that is what I find frightening. The fringies are winning....and the scare tactics they use are tantamount to terrorism within.
Good idea, an international scholar and leader, and another who could spend his/her time cracking down on crime, drug problems, corporate greed/crime, and the immigration problem on the mexican border, watched Vincente Fox chatting with Hannity on TV, and the mexicans don't recognize the illigality of the problem, (or won't). I think they want back what they used to own, and maybe someday they will be the majority of population in those states, then what.

Whoever the American people vote in as their president, I will abide - majority rules. But NOT because of race or gender but because he/she will be best suited for the job. You make a sweeping statement about Republicans being Christians..... that is the media hype you are falling for. When I cared nothing about politics but was beginning to watch and learn, my husband voted for McCain (who is not terribly religious or preachy, nor was my husband religiously inclined).... he liked the man because he felt the nation needed someone who could deal with the upcoming foreign issues which were boiling to the surface. My husband switched parties during our marriage so he was both a Democrat and then a Republican so it wasn't party politics he was playing either. He was right on - McCain didn't win - Bush did - Bush who was poorly equipped to handle anything on an international basis. He surrounded himself with the old sharks of his father's day.... and went downhill from there. 9/11 was an event no president could have handled without tremendous loss and immediate decision making.... Bush made some tactical errors and never looked back to regroup and revamp. It will be his legacy.
The maJority of fundamental christians are republicans, as the abortion issue is their big so called moral issue, and sure the media hypes up everything, I know that, they make themselves look ridiculous doing it too. I am savvy to the media, but we have to watch all of the media and give them their place in the news, then figure it out.

And the good old days (which I am sorry I am ignorant of those enlightened days)....when the public knew very little of the White House and the presidency and were fed directly from what the White House wanted the media to extend for public consumption. Kennedy was a frail man... a reluctant president and I believe he did as well as he could - but it seems in retrospect the public elected a movie star rather than an a politician.... and I think much of the Kennedy policies were Bobbie's work not John F's. Perhaps when they elected Reagan, they were happy to finally get a real movie star.
Yeah, that's about it.

Sorry I have blathered on... but I like what you have written... and am amazed as a Canadian you pay so much attention - even back to the Kennedy years...all I remember is my family being very sad the day John F. was killed...but who John F. was I didn't actually understand until years later.
He made us pay attention, wasn't boring, had a sense of humour, and bought many young people to the polls, as did Pierre Trudeau, that is a talent on it's own.

I would hope Canadians spend more time discussing Canadian politics on this forum rather than getting mired in the stuff they cannot affect in the way of change... even less than the average American citizen can. I think it's a waste of adrenaline and you could certainly avoid the mistakes the U.S. makes in your own policies but other than that I wonder why almost every other topic is of a U.S. issue instead of Canadian

I am not interested in Internal American Politics, but the u.s. government affects all of us internationally, and that is important for all of us pay attention, and to react to as well. The
president can't go off on a 'killing spree', as he has done in Iraq, and then expect us to treat it as though it is an american 'thing', and not our business.

Nice chatting, now I'm off for a coffee and goodie, and out and about our town, have a good day.

 

[Curiosity]

Better judgment and disinterest has resulted in deleting this message

 

[talloola]

Better judgment and disinterest has resulted in deleting this message

delete