2008 US Presidential Poll - Page 10

[Ancient Dragon]

Obama campaign HQ in Texas

You point? What's that picture have to do with anything?

[Aia]

You point? What's that picture have to do with anything?

Che Guevara was a very well known communist revolutionary that fought in Cuba and in many
other South American countries.
I guess a picture is not worth a 1000 words like it has been advertised. ;)

[Dave Sinkula]

You point? What's that picture have to do with anything?

His supporters seem to be proud to post a communist Cuban flag superimposed with a sociopathic murderer silhouette on it. It strikes me as odd that you cozy up to that camp.

[Ancient Dragon]

Che Guevara So what's your problem with the man who's been dead since 1967? Apparently he's considered quite a hero today.

[Aia]

Che Guevara So what's your problem with the man who's been dead since 1967? Apparently he's considered quite a hero today.

If you enter in a house where the cross is hanging in the wall and a representation of Virgin Mary is in the other wall, you would think "they must be Catholics believers".
If you enter in a house where a playstation or xbox is connected to a big 50" plasma screen, certainly, you'll think "they like games and play them".
If you enter in the Obama campaign HQ in Texas and a pictures of Che Guevara is in the wall, what do you think? Nope, they are not believers in communism, they are just great admires of a freedom fighter, a revolutionary for the people.

[edit]: However I think their true color shows. And is looking a lot like communism.

[Dave Sinkula]

Che Guevara So what's your problem with the man who's been dead since 1967? Apparently he's considered quite a hero today.

My problem with Che Guevera is that idiots don't care that he simply loved killing. I'm curious, what other executioners are heros these days?

If your chosen candidate had a bust of Lenin or portrait of Mao the campaign HQ, I'd be equally appalled.

[jephthah]

che guevera is a pop icon, symbolizing "revolution" for disaffected white middle class youth.

that is all.

so you can quit trying to attach some sinister meaning to it. His image is about as insidious as Andy Warhol's "Campbell Soup" or "Marilyn Monroe" artwork.

[Dave Sinkula]

Well, maybe idiots need a slap in the face.

Hollywood, Madison Avenue, and the mainstream media celebrate Che as a saint and a sex symbol - a selfless martyr with a love of humanity second only to Jesus Christ's.

But their ideas about Che - Fidel Castro's henchman whose face adorns hipsters' T-shirts, posters, and ad campaigns - are based on a murderous communist regime's outright lies.

As Humberto Fontova reveals in this myth-shattering book, Che was actually a bloodthirsty executioner, a military bumbler, a coward, and a hypocrite. This biographical account proves it's no exaggeration to state that Che - who was captured and killed nearly forty years ago - was the godfather of modern terrorism.

And yet Che's followers naively swallow Castro's historical revisionism. They are classic "useful idiots." the name Stalin gave to foolish Westerners who parroted his lies about communism's successes.

Not exactly "Campbell Soup" or "Marilyn Monroe".

[jephthah]

you know what?

In my neighborhood of Seattle -- literally right in front of a taco join -- stands a 20 foot tall statue of Lenin. it is a master sculpture rescued from the Russian junkyards shortly after the fall of the Soviet Union.

do I care that he also was a murderer?

nope. because he's an important historical figure, and its really a cool statue, as a work of art.

anyhow, Bush the Younger is responsible for far more deaths of innocent women and children than Guevera could have ever imagined. At least Guevera killed his military enemies, regardless of how cowardly you want to paint him.

http://www.bridgeandtunnelclub.com/bigmap/outoftown/washington/seattle/fremont/09lenin.jpg

[vegaseat]

Obama campaign HQ in Texas

Obama does attract the younger generation, but this picture most likely is a fabrication by the Birchers to create hatred.

[Dave Sinkula]

Thank you for presenting the side of America I despise in such a concise manner.

[Dave Sinkula]

Obama does attract the younger generation, but this picture most likely is a fabrication by the Birchers to create hatred.

Care to make a wager?

[edit]While you consider it, I'll watch a video.

[vegaseat]

Dave, I think you are going off the deep end! So stifle yourself a little and keep this thread pleasant.

[bumsfeld]

Obama campaign HQ in Texas

This Fox News fake has Karl written all over it. He is working for them now.

I guess Obama should have had this picture on the wall:

[EnderX]

This Fox News fake has Karl written all over it. He is working for them now.

Before declaring something is a fake, please provide evidence that this is the case in reality, and not merely in your own opinion.

[bumsfeld]

EnderX, please provide evidence that this is not fake.

[Ezzaral]

My problem with Che Guevera If your chosen candidate had a bust of Lenin or portrait of Mao the campaign HQ, I'd be equally appalled.

Oh please, do you think Obama placed that flag there himself? Do you believe that the actions of some junior level staffer have any bearing whatsoever on his platform?

This is just something for the right-wingers to wave their hands and shout over. It's irrelevant and pathetic and they know it, if they can be completely honest with themselves.

Poor taste? Yes. Indicative of Obama's character and intentions? No.

[joshSCH]

Who are you to say that Obama didn't place it there? You don't know, and therefore shouldn't make assumptions.

[EnderX]

EnderX, please provide evidence that this is not fake.

Instead of evidence, I offer a bit of advice: Give it an Occam Shave, then you tell me.

[Ezzaral]

Who are you to say that Obama didn't place it there? You don't know, and therefore shouldn't make assumptions.

And neither should you. That is why it is a non-issue. If they showed him tacking that to the wall, pointing to it proudly, or bragging about it, that would be something else altogether.

[jephthah]

Ezzeral, don't feed the troll.

[Dave Sinkula]

Oh please, do you think Obama placed that flag there himself? Do you believe that the actions of some junior level staffer have any bearing whatsoever on his platform?

This is just something for the right-wingers to wave their hands and shout over. It's irrelevant and pathetic and they know it, if they can be completely honest with themselves.

Somehow, if some Bush supporter had a Confederate flag in volunteer HQ I think it would have been necessary for the candidate himself to kiss the press' ass for at least a week begging forgiveness, disavowing any relationship to the campaign, and jettisoning these erstwhile folks. It's just fun to watch the double standard live.

But frankly the point being drawn, much like with the fringe supporters of Ron Paul, is the followers of a candidate reflect on the candidate himself. Does a lack of a candidate response implicitly acknowledge tacit support?

[Dave Sinkula]

This Fox News fake has Karl written all over it. He is working for them now.

OMG! Karl Rove has gotten to Investor's Business Daily too! The conspiracy grows. :scared:

[Ezzaral]

Somehow, if some Bush supporter had a Confederate flag in volunteer HQ I think it would have been necessary for the candidate himself to kiss the press' ass for at least a week begging forgiveness, disavowing any relationship to the campaign, and jettisoning these erstwhile folks. It's just fun to watch the double standard live.

It is a pathetic attempt to throw out irrelevant incidents and paint them as ominously revealing. I get what you mean, but I don't know that it is so much of a double standard. Both sides do it and it's equally reprehensible in all cases. That doesn't mean you need to buy into it and add to the tide of intellectually dishonest smearing just because you think the "other side" should face the same music. Given the Republican campaigners penchant for this kind of thing ("Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" and the hit jobs they've pulled on their own in the case of McCain), I'm not seeing what "double standard" you feel is evident.

But frankly the point being drawn, much like with the fringe supporters of Ron Paul, is the followers of a candidate reflect on the candidate himself. Does a lack of a candidate response implicitly acknowledge tacit support?

So you feel that a candidate has a duty to acknowledge or disavow the opinions and actions of every single one of their supporters? Do you figure that there are no nutjobs working in support of Huckabee and McCain? Do they owe you a personal explanation of their views on said nutjobs? No, you know perfectly well that this is nonsense and that the Che flag put up by a misguided volunteer has no bearing on Obama's campaign - just as a Bush volunteer putting up a Confederate flag would be equally irrelevant (and I guarantee that plenty of his supporters display them).

[Dave Sinkula]

It is a pathetic attempt to throw out irrelevant incidents and paint them as ominously revealing. I get what you mean, but I don't know that it is so much of a double standard. Both sides do it and it's equally reprehensible in all cases. That doesn't mean you need to buy into it and add to the tide of intellectually dishonest smearing just because you think the "other side" should face the same music. Given the Republican campaigners penchant for this kind of thing ("Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" and the hit jobs they've pulled on their own in the case of McCain), I'm not seeing what "double standard" you feel is evident.

I suppose not. It takes an open mind.

So you feel that a candidate has a duty to acknowledge or disavow the opinions and actions of every single one of their supporters? Do you figure that there are no nutjobs working in support of Huckabee and McCain? Do they owe you a personal explanation of their views on said nutjobs? No, you know perfectly well that this is nonsense and that the Che flag put up by a misguided volunteer has no bearing on Obama's campaign - just as a Bush volunteer putting up a Confederate flag would be equally irrelevant (and I guarantee that plenty of his supporters display them).

Of course it is utter nonsense. That's why I point out that the other side of the aisle has to do backflips and every major TV network in similar circumstances. And by your own admission, you are oblivious to this.

[jephthah]

Ezzeral, unfortunately Sinkula thinks we're all so stupid that he can pass snarky witticisms and thinly-veiled ad hominems off as meaningful answers.

[EnderX]

Please point out said snarky witticisms and thinly-veiled ad hominems; I'm having trouble seeing them in his writing.

[jephthah]

Please point out said snarky witticisms and thinly-veiled ad hominems; I'm having trouble seeing them in his writing.

read his responses in his two most-recent posts.

if you cant comprehend them, i can't help you.

[Dave Sinkula]

If you really need assistance, let me try to show some examples of double standards. Similar biases are displayed here regularly. And gee, I hope folks here have the ability to read the IBDeditorial article as to why the flag issue has significance.

[Ezzaral]

If you really need assistance, let me try to show some examples of double standards. Similar biases are displayed here regularly. And gee, I hope folks here have the ability to read the IBDeditorial article as to why the flag issue has significance.

See, that is where I'm seeing a difference here and not viewing this as part of a double standard. The incidents listed in the Gateway Pundit entry all revolve around the direct involvement of the individual in criminal or highly suspect / egregious behavior. I see no evidence of that in the flag case as yet though. As I mentioned, if Obama himself displayed the flag/picture or indicated approval of it, then I can understand why it would generate pointed questions. Currently though, you have the individual actions of a volunteer prior to the arrival of official staff. As yet there remains no evidence of any approval from Obama nor his campaign staff and that is why I do not see it in the same light as the incidents that you refer to.

I certainly won't defend any of the inconsistencies noted in the links you posted, but without any direct or even officially sanctioned involvement on his part, I do not see that Obama has anything to answer for at this time. Perhaps more will come to light on it that suggests an explanation is warranted, but currently I don't believe he should even deign to acknowledge it.