(emphases added)

You’re called “South Asians for McCain” and you’re supporting the Republican nominee for President. I think it’s a little bit insulting to our intelligence to try to present this now as an informational effort supported by people across party lines rather than as an outside group supporting a Republican campaign for President.

No, no, not defensive. I just wanted better from you I think that you have to look at the sum total (or as much as you have in your mind) of the candidate’s views, the party’s views, its political and social base, the ideologies of all involved, etc. To pin it down to one quote in which she’s projecting her attitudes on race towards a foreign policy situation that’s very different is grossly unfair to people who might support her. It’s as shallow, imo, as juding her entirely by that she pushed the guard in the capitol. Same applies to Obama and McCain and yes, even Barr. That’s why of the four, although I havce more in common with Obama, I’d be more likely to support McKinney (and the Green Party, really) politically.

i looked up sgt bbq btw – it took me a long time to understand what the hell you were talking about :

It is not a spinning wheel. In vernacular its Ashoka Chakra, an architectural motif from the emperor’s Buddhist pillar at Sanchi. Spinning wheel was at the center of the 1935 (?) design of the national flag and continues to adorn the Congress party’s flag now.

Cmon man (or woman), this is very knee-jerk. It’s easy to find a quote from any candidate that might objectionable or sound great, or a particular issue position that we agree with or disagree with. Compare, for example, positions on Israel/Iran:

now you’re getting defensive–unless I had let slip my deep love and undying loyalty to Sgt. BBQ at some point. These quotes tend to illustrate where exactly along the path of reality do candidates decide to stray (and to what extent their supporters are willing to acknowledge that they have done so)–McKinney, to me, is quite insane and this kind of original-sin thinking is both detestable and indicative of where her policy-making tendencies lie (unless she is playing to the redistributionist, socialist periphery and will tack closer to the mythical middle come election time.) You cannot penalize the children of white settlers who took advantage of what was certainly an odious and criminal political arrangement, just because the alternative (mugabe) mucked it all up when he had literally all the advantages that his neighbors lacked. If land redistribution is really that much of good idea, then 40 acres and a mule is appropriate public policy for the present and Idi Amin’s spectre should have Mark Kleiman’s job.

Whatev. I’m voting McKinney. “If voting changed anything they’d make it illegal.”

so, would you agree with the following statement(link to interview)?

FC: Your perspective on Haiti ? CM: We decry the United Nations occupation of Haiti. The people of Haiti had the self confidence and the perseverance after their president was stolen with U.S. weapons to vote and insure the election integrity of that vote for Renè Prèval. Renè Prèval needs to be free to lead the Haitian people. FC: And Zimbabwe? CM: People who don’t have title to the land should not be allowed to occupy the land. The title of land can’t be granted to those who have stolen the land. Land reform is the issue all over Africa. The issue is land and the land must be free to be settled by the original inhabitants who were removed from that land illegally as a result of colonialism.

Cmon man (or woman), this is very knee-jerk. It’s easy to find a quote from any candidate that might objectionable or sound great, or a particular issue position that we agree with or disagree with. Compare, for example, positions on Israel/Iran:

McCain:

<

blockquote>In A World Full Of Dangers, Israel And The United States Must Always Stand Together. As the threats to Israel’s security increase, John McCain believes America’s commitment must also grow. He strongly supports the increase in military aid to Israel scheduled to begin in October, and is committed to making certain Israel maintains its qualitative military edge….

The Foremost Threat To Israel Is The Iranian Regime. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has called Israel a “stinking corpse” and for it to be “wiped off the map.” Beyond the vile insults, the Iranian leadership acts in ways directly detrimental to the security of Israel and America.

Obama in Haaretz:

“My view is that the United States’ special relationship with Israel obligates us to be helpful to them in the search for credible partners with whom they can make peace, while also supporting Israel in defending itself against enemies sworn to its destruction,” he said. “Israelis want more than anything to live in peace with their neighbors, but Israel also has real – and very dangerous – enemies,” Obama said.

McKinney:

CM: I think it’s important for us to understand that the Green Party is a party of peace. Therefore, the Green Party is also the party of anti-imperialism. It is not necessary for the United States to subdue its neighbors and individual entities within the global community. The United States can win friends through diplomacy and through support and advocacy of the respect for human rights. Now unfortunately we are in the midst of a presidential campaign and Pakistan is being bombed literally as we speak. Somalia is occupied, the once proud leadership of Ethiopia has now become the back pocket handmaiden of the George Bush administration for rendition and torture. So things have totally been turned upside down. What we propose is that there be no more bombing, no more occupation and that respect for human rights becomes the centerpiece for our policy both domestically and internationally. With respect to what Israel is engaged in right now, it is clear, that the Israeli policy is no longer defensible and people inside Israel—human rights activists inside Israel—understand that the path that Israel is on right now is not the path for peace. What unfortunately this country (the United States) is embarked upon is another war and that war is represented or embodies the fact that we have legislation that has been drawn up by the Democrats and Congress that calls for a naval blockade of Iran. A naval blockade is an aggressive act of war. We hope that that legislation does not pass; that if that legislation passed, would never be implemented. If it is, then what the Democrats have is more blood on their hands.