The partisanship accusation is based on how you have responded. The snyde title to this thread, the leaving out of the entire context., etc., etc.

Forgive me if I misunderstood your position but you posted comments like this,
There is not much to misunderstand. You took his comments out of context (see the bolded parts) and miss-stated his stance on crime.

__________________
Fortunatus sum! Pila mea de gramine horrido modo in pratum lene recta volvit!

You seem to be avoiding my question. Do you think that, applied to as narrow a subset of thugs as you like, his premise is valid?

As far as the Bush - OB/GYN thing, that was a joke.

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

Because it is a red herring. The point I am making is about your out of context misstatement of this candidate's position. Not my opinion on causes of crime. We can discuss that as a separate subject. Not much to do with being out of context, however.

Yes, I figured as much. But what was the joke poking fun at?

__________________
Fortunatus sum! Pila mea de gramine horrido modo in pratum lene recta volvit!

Both Bush's mis-statement and Obama's "love" comment.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on Obama's comment.

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

Which one? That loving criminals will get them to stop being criminals or that taking guns away will stop people from killing each other?

__________________
A federal judge ruled today that graphic pictures of detainee abuse at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison must be released over government claims that they could damage America's image.

Someone should tell them that bad press can be prevented by not abusing prisoners in the first place. Censorship is only needed to preserve the good reputation of those who have tortured and/or murdered already.

How about both - the seem equally silly.

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

Here is Obambi's political message broken down so that even an illiterate (his constituency?) can understand:

__________________
"My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world. I hope you'll join with me as we try to
change it." -- Barack Obama

If it is "love" how you have defined it, no. The problem is you seem to have defined this "love" thing as some kind of squishy, hugs and kisses, permissive, "here, let me hug you to make you feel better", kind of simplistic notion, if your comments are any indication. I believe this interpretation to be incorrect. What he, I believe, is saying is that "we"(as in black fathers, in this case) don't love them enough to be the fathers they need when they are growing up. A father that loves their kids enough to get off drugs himself, to provide an example by treating his wife with love and respect, to discipline and direct them to do the right thing when they need it, to love them enough to spend the time a growing kid needs. To forcefully get them out of a situation that they think will get them into trouble., etc, etc. In other words, love the kids enough to be good fathers. Does that sound like a a mamby-pamby, wiennie kind of love to you? I don't think so. I do think it sounds like what most family oriented groups are preaching, though.

I also think by the time they are running around with guns in the neighborhoods with other gangbangers, it's probably too late anyway. The odds of a kid turning away from that life get smaller, the older they get.

I do strongly believe that this kind of love can and will make a difference. It may not work in all cases (well, duh!), but I think it can make a big difference in the statistics of these crime ridden neighborhoods. That, is what I believe he is talking about. I don't think he believes it's the only thing that will "fix" crime, just one aspect, as the story says.

Sorry, this doesn't sound like "liberal" or "conservative" speak to me. It sounds like the obvious way to raise kids.

__________________
Fortunatus sum! Pila mea de gramine horrido modo in pratum lene recta volvit!

Fair enough.

You seem to be adding a whole lot to Obama's statement to make it work, though.

And if this is in fact the solution, why is there a need for more gun bans?

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

Well there you go. Obama in a nutshell... That was enlightening! Geez, no wonder this country is going downhill...

__________________
Fortunatus sum! Pila mea de gramine horrido modo in pratum lene recta volvit!

No, I've just heard the same theme from several pastors.

__________________
Fortunatus sum! Pila mea de gramine horrido modo in pratum lene recta volvit!

Again, it is not the only solution. The story doesn't say he thinks this is the only solution.

Personally, I don't think gun bans do any good either. I don't agree with him on that. But, I do think that laws that are already in the books need to be followed correctly though. But isn't that what he is saying also, according to the story?

__________________
Fortunatus sum! Pila mea de gramine horrido modo in pratum lene recta volvit!

As I said above, I agree with him re: enforcing current gun laws.

In particular, IMHO, the laws regarding penalties for criminal use of firearms.

If it were not for advocating bans, I could actually support Obama as a candidate. Unfortunately, though, he seems to be influenced by the Feinstein / Schumer / Kennedy gang on this topic.

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum