Families of those who refused to work were indeed rounded up taken to "refugee" camps. And in addition people who refused to work were beaten and shot. So yes families were separated and people were killed who didn't do it. They persevered, and sacrificed, and won their independence.
I think the frustrating thing is that he doesn't have to be this way....he's clearly intelligent and not a drone, yet he plays a drone for some odd reason. I think if he dropped the act and antagonism, he could serve a useful role on a board dominated by a liberal voice. I mean, he does serve a greater purpose in a way, but the whole tone is just unecessary and is almost an attention grabbing technique to make himself feel important.
"...above my pay grade." Huh? What matters are equal to or below his pay grade that he can give answers to? <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/iBiCwLwsEfw&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/iBiCwLwsEfw&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
What I would like to know is why didn't Warren tell Sen. McCain that he would have a hard time voting for an adulterer? When asked about the Edwards situation: When asked about voting for someone who had cheated on his wife: What is the staute of limitations on how long you're considered a liar after you are an admitted adulterer? The caveat Warren gave is mighty convenient. Based on how the questions weren't even asked the same for both candidates, I'm going to go ahead and assume had it been Senator Obama who had cheated and left his first wife, Warren probably would have addressed that issue with him.
Obama as Adlai Stevenson? From my favorite blog under an entry titled: Obama - Too smart for America? [rquoter] [rquoter] "McCain did a great job of making me feel confident. He was clearly in his element at Saddleback, among supportive evangelical Christians, and he went a long way toward alleviating their fears about his inability to communicate with them in their own language. Obama came first, and he handled himself well in front of an audience that clearly disagrees with him on many issues. He also managed to put to rest the notion that he is a Muslim, which 12 percent of Americans still believe he is. He talked directly to Rick Warren as though they were having a real conversation, whereas McCain played to the audience, rarely looking at Warren. He was low-key, thoughtful and nuanced. That kind of nuance is hard to understand sometimes -- it's unclear, complicated. Obama's world can be scarier. It's multicultural. It's realistic (yes, there is evil on the streets of this country as well as in other places, and a lot of evil has been perpetrated in the name of good). It's honest. When does life begin? Only the antiabortionists are clear on that. For the majority of Americans (who are pro-choice), it is "above my pay grade," in Obama's words, where there is no hard and fast line to draw on what's worth dying for, and where people of all faiths have to be respected. I would rather live in McCain's world than Obama's. But I believe that we live in Obama's world. " Sally Quinn [/rquoter] In the fifties there were two presidential elections in which Adlai Stevenson lost to Dwight Eisenhower. Eisenhower was an intelligent man, who possessed vast experience as a leader and manager. He was cautious, restrained, not inclined to rash action. In many ways he deserved to win the election, and he did, but what happened to Stevenson in those two elections is instructive. Stevenson lost because he was, in the vulgar idiom of today, an "elitist." He was no any kind of "ist," but he was a member of the WASP elite. He came from a distinguished family, had a fine education in places like Choate, Princeton and Harvard Law and was a wit. During one of his campaigns he was told that he would have the vote "of every thinking man in America." He replied that he "needed a majority to be elected." He was soft spoken, a fine speaker, nuanced in his opinions and pronouncements and indifferent to trivialities like fancy clothes. A newspaper published a picture of the bottom of one of his shoes. It had a hole in the sole. This became emblematic of the man, interpreted by his friends as evidence of a lack of pretension and by his enemies as a pose. He was incapable of speaking in slogans. He lost, twice. Obama is a lot like Stevenson. You could see that in the "forum" held in Orange County the other night. McCain has been trained by his neocon handlers and advisers to suppress the music in his rugged old soul in favor of "memetics and neurolinguistics." He spoke to the audience, not to the host. He spoke in simplistic terms of complex issues. He exhorted the crowd to fear against the "other." It was a rally against the enemies that so many in America hold dear as a focus for their own group identity. I continue to think that McCain will win. That does not mean that I favor his candidacy. pl [/rquoter]
To me, the biggest trick Republicans have pulled over the last three elections is making their candidate (one born with a silver spoon in his mouth and the other an extremely wealthy man) out to be the non-elitist ones.
I'd want to check the facts on these assertions-- not that there weren't recorded incidents but I have to wonder how widespread it was. Can you imagine how large the refugee camps would have been for the revolt to have succeeded if this was commonplace? ...... after a little research on Gandhi: Gandhi commented upon the 1930s persecution of the Jews in Germany within the context of Satyagraha. In the November 1938 article on the Nazi persecution of the Jews quoted above, he offered non-violence as a solution: "The German persecution of the Jews seems to have no parallel in history. The tyrants of old never went so mad as Hitler seems to have gone. And he is doing it with religious zeal. For he is propounding a new religion of exclusive and militant nationalism in the name of which any inhumanity becomes an act of humanity to be rewarded here and hereafter. The crime of an obviously mad but intrepid youth is being visited upon his whole race with unbelievable ferocity. If there ever could be a justifiable war in the name of and for humanity, a war against Germany, to prevent the wanton persecution of a whole race, would be completely justified. But I do not believe in any war. A discussion of the pros and cons of such a war is therefore outside my horizon or province. But if there can be no war against Germany, even for such a crime as is being committed against the Jews, surely there can be no alliance with Germany. How can there be alliance between a nation which claims to stand for justice and democracy and one which is the declared enemy of both?" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahatma_Gandhi Seems like he is kind of saying "go get 'em boys.... but I won't be joining you."
This 'fixed' posting "joke" is right up there with such favorites as 'Splash' and 'Sura faints' as grounds to permanently and immediately dismiss the poster from serious attention as a cogent human being. Are you really so absent from independent thought that you can't think of anything even slightly original? Seriously, give it a try. Stretch that feeble mind of yours a bit. Put together a few original words, or make an original joke. Think for yourself. Your mind is like a muscle. If you don't use it, it gets all weak and flabby like yours. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
I know that from 1930 in that first year of the civil disobedience movement more than 100,000 were imprisoned. There was also the Qissa Khwani bazaar massacre. More than 400 unarmed protesters were gunned down.
So getting back to the abortion question McCain handled so well. What happens if McCain chooses a pro-choice VP such as Tom Ridge of PA? Seems he's a leading candidate for the slot. That would pretty much render his pandering, snappy answer moot hum?
And you tell that to everyone who has posted that or just people that make fun of your heart throb, Obama?
