Question for any of you that read his book FROM AUDACITY OF HOPE is their a line in it that says, I WILL STAND WITH THE MUSLIMS SHOULD THE POLITICAL WINDS SHIFT IN AN UGLY DIRECTION. If so, what does it mean.

"I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."-Fiction!

This is a corruption of a quote from Obama's book The Audacity of Hope.It is from a section that talks about the concerns of immigrants who are American citizens.

 

Here is the accurate and more complete quote: "Of course, not all my conversations in immigrant communities follow this easy pattern. In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans, for example, have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. They have been reminded that the history of immigration in this country has a dark underbelly; they need specific assurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the Japanese internments during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."

 

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/o/obama-books.htm

I understand that the Muslim Americans for Obama organization is claiming to be a non-partisan group. I give them an A for Audacity. :lol:

OK. Came off a little wrong. IF he has Muslim sympathies, it could come down to who he favors, and I am writing of the EXTREME muslims. He has already spoke of opening up dialouge with TERRORISTS who are well known for their level headed and pacivistic nature. :creepy:

Where did I come off denying liberties for anyone, Hatz? Did I say tear down every mosque?

I'm just saying that if he is muslim and hiding it just to get elected, he is plain wrong.

I spent 20+ years defending those liberties in the military.

Just don't want to see one incompetent unknown destroy what it took over 200 years to build. If it hurts his feelings that the ones who want to bring us down right now are Muslims and he leans that way, too bad. Us or them in times like we have faced since 9/11.

 

 

First of all I took your first post as an inference that if Obama has any sympathies for Muslims then there is a problem with him. Islam is a religion and Religious liberty is afforded all in this nation whether they are Jew, Christian, Hindu, Wiccan, Deist or Muslim. Reading your post it appears that you disqualify not only a Muslim but anyone with sympathy for a Muslim.

 

Let me try reversing the names and see if you get where I'm coming from. The Japanese bombed Pear Harbor. How can anyone have sympathy for a Jap who loses his home and is interred after that? (circa 1942) If they do then there is a problem with them.

 

I just have a problem with painting all Muslims as extreme terrorists and thereby they are unworthy of having anyone listen to the plight of those who have a grievence but because they are Muslim in faith they do not warrant an ear.

"I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."-Fiction!

This is a corruption of a quote from Obama's book The Audacity of Hope.It is from a section that talks about the concerns of immigrants who are American citizens.

 

Here is the accurate and more complete quote: "Of course, not all my conversations in immigrant communities follow this easy pattern. In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans, for example, have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. They have been reminded that the history of immigration in this country has a dark underbelly; they need specific assurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the Japanese internments during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."

 

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/o/obama-books.htm

 

Thank you.

I understand that the Muslim Americans for Obama organization is claiming to be a non-partisan group. I give them an A for Audacity. :lol:

 

:D

Hatz, I am not in favor of listening to the grievences of the groups that pulled off the attacks. The muslim groups involved (now combatants with the US), not the religion in whole. We know what they do when they are not agreed with or don't get their way 100% of the time. BOOM!

 

But, also, most people, by human nature, are sympathetic to those that have their own background. If he is Muslim, he would probably lean to the extremists as well as the main stream. I don't see how this is that odd compared to the supposed learnings he got from the hate filled church he attended for 20 years.

 

Once again, I did not lump everyone together. In your rush to berate, words like TERRORIST, EXTREME and DIALOUGE must have slipped your area of concentration. I did say, however, that if he is muslim and would admit it, it may change things. (By the way, jap is very deraugatory, just in case you were attacking me over what you think is a slur to a religion. You did slur an entire country/race. The Japanese do not like the term. Ask someone if you do not believe me.)

 

Would we have elected a Hiroshumu or a Eckengruber president during WW2? No.

That is what I am getting at. All Muslims are not bad. 95% are great human beings. It is the 5% that are not. We are, however, fighting that group and young americans are dying in MUSLIM countries. They are being killed by MUSLIM fanatics.

Do we want a muslim, good or bad, in power right now is what I am asking.

 

It's not the sympathies I am questioning, it is the sympathies to what part of that group. Do we negtiate with terrorists? No. Does he/has he said he wishes to? YES! You have to put the EXTREMISTS on our level of civility to negotiate, and that would include mutual respect. It is not there. They are duty bound, in their extremist views, to destroy or enslave infidels. They are interpreting litteraly, in their religion. We have it going on here int he US with snake handling and acid drinking church groups.

 

To clarify totally:

I do not support destroying anyone's religion.

They have rights by the constitution to worship God, Allah, or a milk crate they found in a dumpster.

I do support both knowing 100% where someone's loyalties run when wanting to lead this nation, and I do support destroying the fringe groups that try to destroy us (EXTREMISTS). It does bother me that someone would want to open a dialouge with said group that has proven it cannot be trusted. It does bother me that ANY of Mr. Obama's past with hate-spewing ministers and social revolutionaries is a taboo subject now.

Hatz, I am not in favor of listening to the grievences of the groups that pulled off the attacks. The muslim groups involved (now combatants with the US), not the religion in whole. We know what they do when they are not agreed with or don't get their way 100% of the time. BOOM!

 

But, also, most people, by human nature, are sympathetic to those that have their own background. If he is Muslim, he would probably lean to the extremists as well as the main stream. I don't see how this is that odd compared to the supposed learnings he got from the hate filled church he attended for 20 years.

 

Once again, I did not lump everyone together. In your rush to berate, words like TERRORIST, EXTREME and DIALOUGE must have slipped your area of concentration. I did say, however, that if he is muslim and would admit it, it may change things. (By the way, jap is very deraugatory, just in case you were attacking me over what you think is a slur to a religion. You did slur an entire country/race. The Japanese do not like the term. Ask someone if you do not believe me.)

 

Would we have elected a Hiroshumu or a Eckengruber president during WW2? No.

That is what I am getting at. All Muslims are not bad. 95% are great human beings. It is the 5% that are not. We are, however, fighting that group and young americans are dying in MUSLIM countries. They are being killed by MUSLIM fanatics.

Do we want a muslim, good or bad, in power right now is what I am asking.

 

It's not the sympathies I am questioning, it is the sympathies to what part of that group. Do we negtiate with terrorists? No. Does he/has he said he wishes to? YES! You have to put the EXTREMISTS on our level of civility to negotiate, and that would include mutual respect. It is not there. They are duty bound, in their extremist views, to destroy or enslave infidels. They are interpreting litteraly, in their religion. We have it going on here int he US with snake handling and acid drinking church groups.

 

To clarify totally:

I do not support destroying anyone's religion.

They have rights by the constitution to worship God, Allah, or a milk crate they found in a dumpster.

I do support both knowing 100% where someone's loyalties run when wanting to lead this nation, and I do support destroying the fringe groups that try to destroy us (EXTREMISTS). It does bother me that someone would want to open a dialouge with said group that has proven it cannot be trusted. It does bother me that ANY of Mr. Obama's past with hate-spewing ministers and social revolutionaries is a taboo subject now.

 

Perhaps the rush to respond on your part ignored the use of the term "Jap" as jingoistic jargon that became prevelant when such people of Asian origin were persecuted (see circa 1942). (IOW, it was not my usage as a slur but a figure of history to show my point. Sorry you missed it.)

 

I'm not going to back and forth on this. Perhaps I took your initial statement wrong. Perhaps you can't quite see my misgivings when "guilt by association," particularly religious association makes me feel that the very things we stand for (and fight for) are somehow weakened and made less valuable.

 

You obviously have reasons to distrust Obama (as do I). We will have to settle it as differing on what all those reasons legitimately are.

IT is a slur. There were words thrown around in the 40's that you do not use now. Especially here in the south. Even if you do put the time period behind it. Try to defend it by today's standards all you want, it is a slur. You didn't need to use it, but you chose to.

 

You are still insinuating in some way that I am lumping all Muslims together. I have said extremists until I am blue in the face, I have pointed out he wants to work with them, and he will not say if he is or is not conclusively. I think it has bearing on his chances, he knows it, so he hides it. As I said before, we would not have elected an Asian or German president during WW2, and I think if the man actually admitted to being Muslim, right or wrong in american mentality, it would be enough to cost him any real shot at the election. Twist it anyway you feel like, we are just going to have to agree to disagree on what we say and what we are meaning between us.

IT is a slur. There were words thrown around in the 40's that you do not use now. Especially here in the south. Even if you do put the time period behind it. Try to defend it by today's standards all you want, it is a slur. You didn't need to use it, but you chose to.

 

Hatz is right on this one. In a historical context it is necessary to detail atrocities, and slurs are among those. Saying it is improper is a bit like the Turks refusing to acknowledge their genocide of the Armenians.

 

You are still insinuating in some way that I am lumping all Muslims together. I have said extremists until I am blue in the face, I have pointed out he wants to work with them, and he will not say if he is or is not conclusively. I think it has bearing on his chances, he knows it, so he hides it. As I said before, we would not have elected an Asian or German president during WW2, and I think if the man actually admitted to being Muslim, right or wrong in american mentality, it would be enough to cost him any real shot at the election. Twist it anyway you feel like, we are just going to have to agree to disagree on what we say and what we are meaning between us.

 

This is laughable.

1. How do you know Obama is a Muslim again?
   
2. An extremist one at that?
   
3. You may say "extremist" Muslims, but I don't see much evidence of actually separating them from the Muslim population as a whole.
   

I think I would rather have a Muslim president right now.

I didn't say Obama was an EXTREMIST. I said he MAY be a regular-old-run-of-the-mill-good-guy Muslim, period. I said he was willing to negotiate/speak with the EXTREMISTS. I said he MAY be a Muslim. I never once said he was for sure a muslim. I used an opinion that apparently is not appreciated. I used a speculation.

 

Extremists are to the Muslims what the church protestors from Kansas are to Baptists.

 

Habib, Show me where I said that Obama was an EXTREMIST. Y'all may be twisting a phrase or two, but I never have said the man was an EXTREMIST.

 

I was a history major, too. Once again, I did not say he was incorrect, just that he did not have to use the phrase to prove his point. He just used it.

Habib, your points #1 and 2 have no solid fact from anything I posted, so it's not laughable, just misunderstood by you.

As for your 3rd point:

 

OK, here is how you seperate the extreme muslims from the good-guy muslims (If it is really that hard to do):

1.) IF they are blowing something up, probably an extremist

2.) IF they are shooting at you, they are probably extremist

3.) IF they are getting ready to behead you, probably an extremist

4.) IF they are using terms like JIHAD or DEATH TO THE INFIDELS, again, probably an extremist

5.) IF they are currently involved in a conflict with the US, Israel or themselves, they are probably an extremist

6.) If they are not doing these things, they are probably good guy muslims

7.) IF this does not explain it well enough, ask a Young Vet. Bet they can explain it to you and Hatz, Habib.

It really is not hard to tell that the guys are a little more than regular church goers when the IED's and bullets they are handling have your name written on them.

IT is a slur. There were words thrown around in the 40's that you do not use now. Especially here in the south. Even if you do put the time period behind it. Try to defend it by today's standards all you want, it is a slur. You didn't need to use it, but you chose to.

 

You are still insinuating in some way that I am lumping all Muslims together. I have said extremists until I am blue in the face, I have pointed out he wants to work with them, and he will not say if he is or is not conclusively. I think it has bearing on his chances, he knows it, so he hides it. As I said before, we would not have elected an Asian or German president during WW2, and I think if the man actually admitted to being Muslim, right or wrong in american mentality, it would be enough to cost him any real shot at the election. Twist it anyway you feel like, we are just going to have to agree to disagree on what we say and what we are meaning between us.

 

So if we run Roots on TV again then we should eliminate the use of the "N" word because though it is correct in it's historical context (a slur to demean and control a race) it is offensive in 2008? We obviously have a misinterpretation on both parts (yours and mine). We will both have to accept that neither of us will be able to find an understanding beyond this empasse on this matter (just as you pointed out in your last phrase above.)

I think I would rather have a Muslim president right now.

 

 

WOW! Please feel welcome to buy yourself a one-way plane ticket to a country where you could have one. My guess is that it wouldn't take long before you would be willing to wash our current President's feet just to be able to touch the soil of the USA.

WOW! Please feel welcome to buy yourself a one-way plane ticket to a country where you could have one. My guess is that it wouldn't take long before you would be willing to wash our current President's feet just to be able to touch the soil of the USA.

 

I could actually have one in this country to my knowledge. I don't recall being a Muslim as an eliminating factor in Presidential eligibility. Are you saying you would vote against a President simply because they are a Muslim? If so, what's wrong with having a Muslim president?

WOW! Please feel welcome to buy yourself a one-way plane ticket to a country where you could have one. My guess is that it wouldn't take long before you would be willing to wash our current President's feet just to be able to touch the soil of the USA.

 

I could actually have one in this country to my knowledge. I don't recall being a Muslim as an eliminating factor in Presidential eligibility. Are you saying you would vote against a President simply because they are a Muslim? If so, what's wrong with having a Muslim president?

 

Furthermore, what if I was a Muslim? Would it be wrong to want a President of my faith? It seems ok for Christians.