Barack Hussein Obama in '08?

Looks like B.H. Obama is the latest Democrat with a questionable land deal:

Well, as long as he's not interested in underage Senate pages....

You don't like the competition?

No, I was concerned for Pariah.

He doesn't like the competition?

Exactly.

I see him similar to Guiliani (minus Rudy's serial adultery & a succesion of wives). They both have that blank canvas bit that people seem to be liking at this point.

Actually, Guiliani ran a city that has a higher population than some states and a city government more complex than a lot of statehouses.

For example, the population of New York City alone is more than ten times that of Vermont (home of former Democratic frontrunner Howard Dean).

Basically, given its size and complexity, being mayor of New York is not unlike being a 51st governor.

Reminds me of what was said when Bush was campaigning. I prefer some type of voteing record myself.

Fascinating.

Before I begin...let me qualify my short response: For those of you that don't know, I manage a retail jewelry store.

It's the Christmas season.

I am working 13 to 14 hour days. I've had 1 off day since December 1st and my next one will be Christmas day. I'm wired on 6 RedBull, 3 espressos and 4 Ginseng tablets...I've drank almost a pint and a half of scotch trying to fall asleep and, at 4:09 am EST, I'm still awake.

That said...I don't think G-Man was being bigoted in any way against Obama by mentioning his middle name.. Was he being incindiary and inciteful...?

Of course. He's G-man. Would any of the left leaning posters here expect anything less?

However...he raised a point that will be as crucial in the argument against him in the 2008 election as his skin color: Many under-educated and/or reactionary and/or bigotted and/or what-ever-adjective-you'd-like-to-pick voter: Since his name is not "merican-soundin'" he can't be for America.

Pa Kettle: "Damn, Maw...that Barak feller is OK fer a Nigra...he talks like us white folk and I bet he don't listen ta that rap music...but he's named fer one 'a dem Muslim sand niggers that's tryin ta kill us..."

Mas Kettle: "Well, Pa...he is light skinned. He cain't be all bad. Ain't his Mama white? I mean, I know she's a race traitor and all but seems like at least some of his genes would be for us God fearin' white folk..."

Here, in the MidWest, I would be willing to bet serious cash that some version of the above conversation will go on in the homes of some voters.

Barak is a great politician. His story is awesome and uplifting. He is perceived as a non-threatening Black man by many whites. He has the intelligence and ability, I'm sure, to be a great president given enough governing experience.

That said...I don't beleive that I'd vote for him as primary on a ticket. At least not right now. His lack of experience governing does concern me. I think he'd be better served as the eloquent compromiser on the bottom of a ticket rather than the unsure and untested head of same.

While I don't think Obama would do any worse a job that our governments' current "leader", I think Obama needs to make his opinions and voice more clear for those that haven't read his book and don't know much about him.

Quote:

THE Bastard said:
Was he being incindiary and inciteful...?

Of course. He's G-man. Would any of the left leaning posters here expect anything less?

No.

Quote:

wannabuyamonkey said:
The reason it's funny is because noone made it "about the middle name" G-Man just posted his name w/ teh middle included, but said nothing about it, then posted a long article that adressed other issues. It was you all who made a big deal about the mere use of his middle name.

Over half the original article is about the role of religion in Obama's life and the lives of his parents.

Quote:

wannabuyamonkey said:
It's there and if including his middle name makes you all so uncomfortable, perhaps this is about more than an embarrasing name. If his middle name was Koksmoker, we'd make fun of it, but you all wouldn;t be so up in arms about it.

It's not about being uncomfortable, as you and G-man suppose. I know it feels good to think that we on the left are uncomfortable about Obama's name, but that's really not the case. At least, it's definitely not for me. If watching Obama has taught me anything, it's that his middle name won't be an issue for very long one way or the other.

For me, it's G-man's denial of tactics that remain incredibly obvious, something that we on the left have come to expect, that renew my attention. It doesn't make me sad or angry, though.

If anything, I take G-man's naming of this thread as proof that G-man and others like him are scared of what Obama could do in '08 if he chose to run. If the midterm elections were any indication, people like Obama and Mrs. Clinton would stand a very good chance against whoever chose to run on the other side of the aisle. An Obama/Clinton ticket or Clinton/Obama ticket would be devastating.

ph34r the double quota!

Quote:

I don't think G-Man was being bigoted in any way against Obama by mentioning his middle name.. Was he being incindiary and inciteful...?

If, by incindiary, you mean did I want to incite discussion on the board, even if a pissed a few of the left leaning posters, off, then yes. Guilty as charged.

His middle name is part of who he is. His family background, his parents' beliefs, his beliefs, they are all part of who he is.

Does it wholly define him? Of course not. No more really than the fact Bill Clinton's middle name being "Jefferson" reminds us he's southern or George H.W. Bush's middle names being "Herbert Walker" remind us he comes from the wealthy upper crust of New England.

And, to be honest, I think its the "left" here, or a portion thereof, that finds his middle name the real threat. Why else, for example, would most of you guys scrupulously edit out of the thread title...if the not the fact that you don't want people to be reminded of it? Why else are so many of the "left" here incited by mentioning the truth about his middle name?

Quote:

the G-man said:
Quote:

I don't think G-Man was being bigoted in any way against Obama by mentioning his middle name.. Was he being incindiary and inciteful...?

If, by incindiary, you mean did I want to incite discussion on the board, even if a pissed a few of the left leaning posters, off, then yes. Guilty as charged.

His middle name is part of who he is. His family background, his parents' beliefs, his beliefs, they are all part of who he is.

Does it wholly define him? Of course not. No more really than the fact Bill Clinton's middle name being "Jefferson" reminds us he's southern or George H.W. Bush's middle names being "Herbert Walker" remind us he comes from the wealthy upper crust of New England.

And, to be honest, I think its the "left" here, or a portion thereof, that finds his middle name the real threat. Why else, for example, would most of you guys scrupulously edit out of the thread title...if the not the fact that you don't want people to be reminded of it? Why else are so many of the "left" here incited by mentioning the truth about his middle name?

If that was the case, why didn't you just say so the first time I asked? Odds are this whole brouhaha over why you included the middle name might have been avoided (at least by me). By not answering and seemingly dodging the question, you made me suspicious of your motives and intentions.

Because the thread should have been, and is, about Barack Hussein Obama, not about whether or not I like Islam which, as I correctly surmised, is what you were getting at.

Also, if you look at my earlier answers I said what I meant, and meant what I just said: that its his actual middle name, that it reflects who he is, and why not mention it?

Quote:

Matter-eater Man said:
I prefer some type of voteing record myself.

That's your right. However, based on voting patterns of the past forty-plus years, you're a little alone in that desire.

Every President since 1964 has had executive branch experience and ran orimarily on that experience.

In contrast, during that same time period, every candidate whose experience ended with the legislative branch lost.

In fact, if the 2008 race ends up as McCain vs Clinton or McCain v Obama, it will be the first time in forty-eight years that a sitting legislator is elected President.

And if its Guiliani or Romney vs either of those guys, there's a good chance a member of the executive branch (Governor or Mayor) will get elected again.

Quote:

If watching Obama has taught me anything, it's that his middle name won't be an issue for very long one way or the other.

In the long run I think his name will be a plus factor for him.

[quotesomething that we on the left have come to expect,

Well, not everyone can be so exalted as the left, but I'm glad you have all become content to look down on us with pitty rather than disdain.

Quote:

If anything, I take G-man's naming of this thread as proof that G-man and others like him are scared of what Obama could do in '08 if he chose to run. If the midterm elections were any indication, people like Obama and Mrs. Clinton would stand a very good chance against whoever chose to run on the other side of the aisle. An Obama/Clinton ticket or Clinton/Obama ticket would be devastating.

I would have to agree with you. I'm not so pollyannish as some others on both sides of the isle can be to ignore a genuine threat from the other side. Obamma worries me, because I dissagree with his policies and think they would be far more harmfull than even Hillary, but I also think he can win, because his would really not be a campaign of policies, but rather an "outsider vs. the status quo" campaign, wich would be very effective in teh current climate.

Quote:

the G-man said:
Quote:

...
And, to be honest, I think its the "left" here, or a portion thereof, that finds his middle name the real threat. Why else, for example, would most of you guys scrupulously edit out of the thread title...if the not the fact that you don't want people to be reminded of it? Why else are so many of the "left" here incited by mentioning the truth about his middle name?

The "most of you guys" editing out the thread title is actually just me G-man. Obama doesn't deny having Hussein for a middle name but he doesn't use it. I totally understand why you do use it but I'll follow Obama's lead & go with the usual first & last name usage.

Quote:

the G-man said:
Quote:

Matter-eater Man said:
I prefer some type of voteing record myself.

That's your right. However, based on voting patterns of the past forty-plus years, you're a little alone in that desire.

Every President since 1964 has had executive branch experience and ran orimarily on that experience.

Johnson ran as the incumbent.
Nixon ran as a former Vice President.
Carter ran as a governor.
Reagan ran as a governor, then as sitting president
Bush Sr ran as a sitting Vice President.
Clinton ran as a governor, then as sitting President
Bush ran as a governor, then as sitting President

In contrast, during that same time period, every candidate whose experience ended with the legislative branch lost.

Senator Goldwater lost
Senator Humphrey lost
Senator McGovern lost
Senator Dole lost
Senator Kerry lost.

In fact, if the 2008 race ends up as McCain vs Clinton or McCain v Obama, it will be the first time in forty-eight years that a sitting legislator is elected President.

And if its Guiliani or Romney vs either of those guys, there's a good chance a member of the executive branch (Governor or Mayor) will get elected again.

I think most people would like to see more experienced candidates in this post 9/11 world but the political process still turns experience into a liability. McCain & Kerry both had their records fuel more than a couple of negative campaign ads.

Quote:

Matter-eater Man said:
The "most of you guys" editing out the thread title is actually just me G-man. Obama doesn't deny having Hussein for a middle name but he doesn't use it. I totally understand why you do use it but I'll follow Obama's lead & go with the usual first & last name usage.

Oh.

Quote:

Pariah said:
Quote:

Matter-eater Man said:
The "most of you guys" editing out the thread title is actually just me G-man. Obama doesn't deny having Hussein for a middle name but he doesn't use it. I totally understand why you do use it but I'll follow Obama's lead & go with the usual first & last name usage.

Oh.

Yep.

I see.

Quote:

Matter-eater Man said:
I think most people would like to see more experienced candidates in this post 9/11 world...

But Obama has only been a Senator for two years. If, as your surmise, most people want experience these days, why would they vote for Obama over Guiliani, McCain or Clinton?

Quote:

wannabuyamonkey said:

Well, not everyone can be so exalted as the left, but I'm glad you have all become content to look down on us with pitty rather than disdain.

Let me know if I can be of any more assistance.

Quote:

the G-man said:
Quote:

Matter-eater Man said:
I think most people would like to see more experienced candidates in this post 9/11 world...

But Obama has only been a Senator for two years. If, as your surmise, most people want experience these days, why would they vote for Obama over Guiliani, McCain or Clinton?

Good point. Although I would include the adulterer Guiliani in with Obama for lacking a voteing record.

But Guiliani had eight years as a mayor and a number of other years as U.S. attorney. That still seems like more experience.

Not to mention that he held an entire city together during what is (arguably) America's darkest hour....

That, and he was pretty funny that time he hosted Saturday Night Live....

But Obama did a thirty second bit on ESPN's Monday Night Football opening segment a week or two ago.

Between that and his two years as a junior Senator from Illinois, how can anyone say he lacks experience?

Slightly more positive for Obama, a new poll suggests the country is a bit readier to make an African-American President than they are a woman.

I wouldn't have a problem electing a woman......just not Hillary.

This columnist argues:Barack Hussein Obama: Once a Muslim, Always A Muslim

Not sure I agree, but its an interesting read.

You left out the last lines of the editorial:

"Is that even the man we'd want to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency, if Hillary Clinton offers him the Vice Presidential candidacy on her ticket (which he certainly wouldn't turn down)?

NO WAY, JOSE . . . Or, is that, HUSSEIN?"

So...is she saying that Obama can't be trusted to lead the country because he's Muslim and will side with terrorists over the US just because of that?

(BTW, looking over this thread, I find it interesting that the only reason people could think of that I was suspicious of the "Hussein" bit was because I'm a liberal.)

BTW, Debbie Schlussel has quite an extensive history of snti-Muslim "hate speech," as some have called it.

SHe's also said some pretty scummy things about Jill Carroll.

I'm glad to hear that you don't fully agree with a lady like this.

Quote:

dogbert said:
(BTW, looking over this thread, I find it interesting that the only reason people could think of that I was suspicious of the "Hussein" bit was because I'm a liberal.)

It's not because you're liberal Whomod. It's just cuz' you're a tard.

Quote:

the G-man said:
This columnist argues:Barack Hussein Obama: Once a Muslim, Always A Muslim

while Obama may not identify as a Muslim, that's not how the Arab and Muslim Streets see it. In Arab culture and under Islamic law, if your father is a Muslim, so are you. And once a Muslim, always a Muslim. You cannot go back. In Islamic eyes, Obama is certainly a Muslim. He may think he's a Christian, but they do not.

Then, there are the other items in his background. As best-selling author Scott Turow wrote in Salon, Obama went to a Muslim school for two years in Indonesia. His mother, Anna, married an Indonesian man (likely another Muslim, as Indonesia is Muslim-dominated and has the largest Islamic population in the world).

And Obama has a "born-again" affinity for the nation of his Muslim father, Kenya, and his Kenyan sister. (Although Kenya is largely Christian, it has a fast-growing Muslim population that has engaged in a good deal of religious violence and riots against Christians. And Kenyan courts will apply Sharia law, when the participants are Muslim.) Wrote Turow:

Obama's father died in a traffic accident in Nairobi in 1982, but while Obama was working in Chicago, he met his Kenyan sister, Auma, a linguist educated in Germany who was visiting the United States. When she returned to Kenya in 1986 to teach for a year at the University of Nairobi, Obama finally made the trip to his father's homeland he had long promised himself.

There, he managed to fully embrace a heritage and a family he'd never fully known and come to terms with his father, whom he'd long regarded as an august foreign prince, but now realized was a human being burdened by his own illusions and vulnerabilities.

So, even if he identifies strongly as a Christian, and even if he despised the behavior of his father (as Obama said on Oprah); is a man who Muslims think is a Muslim, who feels some sort of psychological need to prove himself to his absent Muslim father, and who is now moving in the direction of his father's heritage, a man we want as President when we are fighting the war of our lives against Islam? Where will his loyalties be?

Not sure I agree, but its an interesting read.

Articles like this probably won't sway very many outside the fearful right who never would have voted for him anyway.

Perhaps, but if the "sensible right" or the
"cynical campaign consultant right" takes what the "fearful right" wrote, repackages it in a less histronic manner and distills it into a pithy sound bite, it may resonate with some swing voters in middle America.

After all, "once a Muslim always a Muslim" is not particularly different than, say, "once an oil man, always an oil man" (one of the left's accusations against Bush/Cheney) in terms of its inability to recognize that people change and/or can put the country's interests above their own.

Quote:

Matter-eater Man said:
Quote:

Eric Zorn
Published December 19, 2006

It's hard to tell who's shrieking louder these days: Those who are insisting that Barack Obama is a political blank slate and nobody knows what he stands for, or those who are insisting that the track record of Illinois' junior Democratic senator shows he's a hard-core, wild-eyed liberal.
It's hard to tell because both sides are being drowned out by the indignant snorts of those who say that Obama lacks the "experience" to be a presidential contender, along with the polite interjections from those who demand to know just what Obama has done in his public life to justify the broad enthusiasm for his prospective entry into the Democratic primary field for 2008.
All I hear amid the noise is the thrum of resentment and fear:
Resentment that he's not playing by the old rules--that he hasn't acquired his political capital by spending years swapping favors and grandstanding in lesser offices or by climbing the coattails of his politically powerful father.
And fear that he's going to be a hell of a good candidate--brilliant, telegenic, immensely likable and on the popular (negative) side of the war in Iraq from the git-go.
Not to say that he'll be a perfect candidate.
The skeptics, the condescending, self-congratulatory promoters of the so-called "Baracklash" against the hype (another Newsweek cover photo this week, golly!), are fond of insinuating that those who think Obama should run for president are naive idealists drunk on the idea that the man can do and has done no wrong.
Every political movement has the hypnotized true believers, of course. And at this point Obama seems to have more than his share. But there are many realists in the ranks. And they know that, while Obama has his faults and has made some dumb moves in his career (land deal with a sleazebag, golly again!), the frenzied hand-waving over his prospective candidacy today is merely the objections of those who protest too much.
Obama says he will announce in the coming weeks his decision on whether to run.
The blank-slate argument: Obama's somewhat wonky new book, his speeches and his voting record in the Illinois Senate and U.S. Senate reveal plenty about his political philosophy.
The too-liberal argument: Those who realize that Obama, does, in fact, have a record to examine fret instead that he's way off to the left. It depends on one's perspective, of course, but he's reached out in several speeches to the Christian evangelical community, supported the 700-mile fence along the Mexican border and voted against Sen. John Kerry's proposed timeline for troop withdrawal from Iraq.
To take another example, his voting record has earned him an American Civil Liberties Union approval "score" of 83 percent, same as Sen. Hillary Clinton and Kerry and lower than the score of 11 other Senate Democrats.
The no-experience argument: I'm fond of the gotcha point out there that a certain other lanky, big-eared former Illinois legislator with just two years in Washington was mocked for his lack of experience when he ran for president in 1860, and he turned out to be an OK chief executive.
But one doesn't have to see Obama as the reincarnation of Abe Lincoln to realize first that experience--the length of one's resume--is not necessarily a predictor of success in the Oval Office; second, that no experience as a mayor, governor or legislator can really prepare a person to be the leader of the free world; and third, related to the first two, that the ability to inspire, to lead, to listen and to deliberate is a personality trait, not a skill one learns in the political trenches.
The no-accomplishment argument: Obama has served in the minority party in the U.S. Senate for two years--not a position with much leverage. Still, he managed to get his name on sunshine legislation to track and search government spending online, action to send additional humanitarian relief to the Congo and a nuclear-threat reduction program. He's also promoted the interests of military veterans.
But look, this is not a brief for Obama. It's a suggestion that the cynics as well as the supporters pipe down, take a breath and judge him by the same standards by which we have always judged prospective candidates.
Don't believe the noise or the hype. Examine his record and his experience for yourself--just don't pretend he doesn't have them.

chicagotribune.com

The problem with this piece is that Zorn pretty much does what he accuses Obama's critics of doing: arguing from inconsistent positions.

In the first place, Zorn tells us that Obama has a record. In the next instance he insists that Obama's lack of record is nothing to worry about because Lincoln lacked experience too.

In addition, a good columnist will at least pay lip service to the other side, and try to explain why the other side is wrong. A good columnist will, also, acknowledge potential flaws in his or her argument and try to explain why those flaws aren't fatal. However, rather than consider the criticisms and respond to them intelligently, Zorn accuses Obama's critics of "fear" and "resentment." In essence, all he did was pull out a few buzzwords (at least he was able to refrain from calling the critics "racist Islamophobes") and assume that labeling equaled logic.

Its always a little off putting when any reporter, even in "columnist" mode gets this excited over a politician. It shows that the reporter is a little too willing to throw away objective analysis for bias.

Quote:

Pariah said:
That's interesting, very interesting.

Yes, Pariah, it is.

Quote:

Matter-eater Man said:
Quote:

the G-man said:
Quote:

Matter-eater Man said:
I prefer some type of voteing record myself.

That's your right. However, based on voting patterns of the past forty-plus years, you're a little alone in that desire.

Every President since 1964 has had executive branch experience and ran orimarily on that experience.

Johnson ran as the incumbent.
Nixon ran as a former Vice President.
Carter ran as a governor.
Reagan ran as a governor, then as sitting president
Bush Sr ran as a sitting Vice President.
Clinton ran as a governor, then as sitting President
Bush ran as a governor, then as sitting President

In contrast, during that same time period, every candidate whose experience ended with the legislative branch lost.

Senator Goldwater lost
Senator Humphrey lost
Senator McGovern lost
Senator Dole lost
Senator Kerry lost.

In fact, if the 2008 race ends up as McCain vs Clinton or McCain v Obama, it will be the first time in forty-eight years that a sitting legislator is elected President.

And if its Guiliani or Romney vs either of those guys, there's a good chance a member of the executive branch (Governor or Mayor) will get elected again.

I think most people would like to see more experienced candidates in this post 9/11 world but the political process still turns experience into a liability. McCain & Kerry both had their records fuel more than a couple of negative campaign ads.

Yes. And hypocritically, Kerry launched attacks on Bush's Vietnam-era service in the National Guard.

Even as Kerry simultaneously bemoaned Bush's counter-attack on Kerry's questionable Vietnam service.

Quote:

the G-man said:
Slightly more positive for Obama, a new poll suggests the country is a bit readier to make an African-American President than they are a woman.

A Newsweek poll finds 86% of registered voters say they would back a qualified woman nominated by their party. For a black person, 93% say they would be willing to back the candidate.

The survey also found Americans think their fellow citizens still are a bit reluctant to elect either. Only 55% say the U.S. is ready to elect a woman; 56% say they can see the country selecting an African-American.

As I've frequently pointed out when liberals here bemoan what an allegedly white racist nation we are:

Political polls have shown since 1992 that when names are offered as potential candidates for president, the consistent winner for 16 years has been Colin Powell. So a nation that is only 13% black would select a black man for president, if he would only run.

That means the 87% of America that is not black, is ready for a black president, and has been for almost two decades.

Quote:

Matter-eater Man said:
Quote:

Wonder Boy said:
Quote:

Matter-eater Man said:
I think most people would like to see more experienced candidates in this post 9/11 world but the political process still turns experience into a liability. McCain & Kerry both had their records fuel more than a couple of negative campaign ads.

Yes. And hypocritically, Kerry launched attacks on Bush's Vietnam-era service in the National Guard.

Even as Kerry simultaneously bemoaned Bush's counter-attack on Kerry's questionable Vietnam service.

You mean when all the Bush toadies made up accusations of Kerry falsifying his documented service record & he was actually defending himself? Not sure how that is hypocritical.

I seem to recall that Kerry still hasn't released everything. I think he released the files at the Pentagon, but not the ones at the National Archive.

Maybe Kerry can be Barack Hussein Obama's running mate this time. If he can keep his foot out of his mouth.

Quote:

Wednesday said:
Quote:

Matter-eater Man said:
Quote:

Wednesday said:

Articles like this probably won't sway very many outside the fearful right who never would have voted for him anyway.

I guess I disagree with you Wednesday. Working on people's fear & ignorance can be very effective in a campaign. I wish you were right though.

Rethinking things, maybe you're right.

Sad.

Politics is war by other means. Playing on fear is part of the 'art of war' for both sides.

Doesn't make it right or good or any less sad.

Quote:

Pariah said:
Quote:

Matter-eater Man said:
You mean when all the Bush toadies made up accusations of Kerry falsifying his documented service record & he was actually defending himself? Not sure how that is hypocritical.

What did they make up again?

I think they made up the idea of Kerry voting for the war. Or maybe they made up the idea that he then voted against it.

By the way, was Kerry defending himself when HIS toadie falsified National Guard records and got them aired on CBS?

Quote:

Wonder Boy said:
Quote:

Matter-eater Man said:
Quote:

Wonder Boy said:
Quote:

Matter-eater Man said:
I think most people would like to see more experienced candidates in this post 9/11 world but the political process still turns experience into a liability. McCain & Kerry both had their records fuel more than a couple of negative campaign ads.

Yes. And hypocritically, Kerry launched attacks on Bush's Vietnam-era service in the National Guard.

Even as Kerry simultaneously bemoaned Bush's counter-attack on Kerry's questionable Vietnam service.

You mean when all the Bush toadies made up accusations of Kerry falsifying his documented service record & he was actually defending himself? Not sure how that is hypocritical.

Quote:

the G-man said:
Quote:

Pariah said:
Quote:

Matter-eater Man said:
You mean when all the Bush toadies made up accusations of Kerry falsifying his documented service record & he was actually defending himself? Not sure how that is hypocritical.

What did they make up again?

I think they made up the idea of Kerry voting for the war. Or maybe they made up the idea that he then voted against it.

By the way, was Kerry defending himself when HIS toadie falsified National Guard records and got them aired on CBS?

Thanks WB

Associated Press: Former Intern in Sen. Obama's Office Linked to Indicted Fundraiser

I gotta agree with Barack Hussein Obama here. This seems pretty sketchy as evidence.

Its funny how, as soon as Barack Hussein Obama starts beating Hillary Rodham Clinton in some early polls, negative information about him starts leaking out.

Not that the Clintons would ever slander an opponent or anything.

Quote:

Matter-eater Man said:
It seems like it's time to get Obama! So far he's guilty of a legal land deal & well the cockroaches are kind of stuck for bad things beyond his middle name. Oh well.

Yes, as noted above, I think the Clintons are out of line using this land deal against him, given the evidence so far.

Quote:

the G-man said:
Quote:

Matter-eater Man said:
It seems like it's time to get Obama! So far he's guilty of a legal land deal & well the cockroaches are kind of stuck for bad things beyond his middle name. Oh well.

Yes, as noted above, I think the Clintons are out of line using this land deal against him, given the evidence so far.

Quote:

the G-man said:

While the Democrat faithful are bemoaning the malicious campaign tactics of the oh-so-hated Republicans( Bush, Rove, etc.), I think it will actually be the Clintons who manage to tank Obama's candidacy.

The rancorous attacks on Obama will come from within the Democrat party, but Democrats will somehow later find a manufactured way to blame it on the Republicans.

That post made absolutely no sense at all.

Quote:

Matter-eater Man said:
Sorry but what does that have to do with G-man just making up accustions about the Clintons?

WB is pointing out that the process is tough on all candidates and will be tough on Barack Hussein Obama too.

He is also acknowledging my point, to wit, that Clintons are as, if not more, likely to attack Obama at this point since he is Hillary's rival for the nomination.

Thanks for clarifying in my absence, G-man.

I edited my two sentences above for greater clarity. Although since G-man was able to thoroughly understand my meaning already, I suspect it was clear enough in the first place.

Translation:

If you're a right wing whacko it already made sense.

Quote:

rex said:
Translation:

If you're a right wing whacko it already made sense.

Less partisanly, if you can read and understand English, it makes sense.

Thank you for not being condescending.

Quote:

rex said:

It's nice to know some things never change.

G-tards unite!

Where?

there

everywhere?

Quote:

Matter-eater Man said:
Correction, you didn't speculate but flat out said the Clinton's were doing it.

No. I said I think the Clintons are doing it.

Barack Obama Was A Junkie?

Personally, I don't think that a guy did drugs twenty years ago disqualifies him to be President. However, it will be interesting to see if the Democrats hold Barack Hussein Obama to the same standards as they try to hold George W. Bush.

I worry that, because he is black, Obama will be scrutinized more so than a white presidential candidate.

At first, I thought he ought not to have admitted he did drugs, but at least this way, it is not a skeleton in his closet anymore.

But honesty is not always a good thing in politics....

He said that he was headed toward being a junkie, not that he was one. I know it's a small thing, but it seems his words are being written for him.

Also, the whole G. W. Bush thing has become more of a joke than anything. I don't know of very many who still hold that against him seriously, if ever.

If anything, when it becomes a standard joke, that's when its most damaging. Look at Gerald Ford and the jokes about clumsiness when the man was actually very athletic.

Heh. CNN followed in the footsteps of Ted Kennedy and accidentally confused the names "Osama" and "Obama"

I'm sure some paranoid loon will suddenly decide that Ted Turner and Ted Kennedy are both some sort of rightwingers and this is all part of a conspiracy.

Quote:

Beardguy57 said:
I worry that, because he is black, Obama will be scrutinized more so than a white presidential candidate.

At first, I thought he ought not to have admitted he did drugs, but at least this way, it is not a skeleton in his closet anymore.

But honesty is not always a good thing in politics....

You mean... the way Colin Powell was during his almost two decades since he became a public figure during the 1991 Gulf War?
The way Colin Powell was shot down by scrutiny to the point that he has consistently been shown in polls to be the presidential choice of the American public in every election since 1992, if he would only run? ( A nation that is 13% black, and 87% anti-black racists, who would oddly pick Colin Powell overwhelmingly ?)

The way Clarence Thomas was obstructed from the Supreme Court? The way Thurgood Marshall was before him ? (Except they both became Justices.)

The way Ralph Bunch was prevented from becoming the first U.S. ambassador to the U.N. ? (Except he was the first ambassador.)

The way Condolleeza Rice was prevented from becoming National Security Advisor, and Secretary of State ? (Except she's still there.)

My point is, let's stick to examples of true racism, and keep them separate from wild speculation of racist conspiracies to keep the black man down.

As I've pointed out elsewhere, if there's talk of racism, the best statistics show the hostility and violence of blacks toward whites, at a ratio of about 50 incidents to 1, against whites. Not the other way around.

I could make the same argument about alleged racism toward Jews, Hispanics, Asians, etc.
To speculate against the true facts is just pointlessly divisive. There have been plenty of prominent figures, in all these racial groups, who have enjoyed wide popularity among the oh-so-racist American public.

Rangel to Obama: Run, But I'm For Hillary

Barack Hussein Obama is in:

His official Website is here.

Quote:

Wonder Boy said:
The way Colin Powell was shot down by scrutiny to the point that he has consistently been shown in polls to be the presidential choice of the American public in every election since 1992, if he would only run? ( A nation that is 13% black, and 87% anti-black racists, who would oddly pick Colin Powell overwhelmingly ?)

I remember interviews where Powell explained he wasn't going to ever run because his wife didn't want him to.
That's not racism, that's Pussywhipism.

Quote:

The way Clarence Thomas was obstructed from the Supreme Court? The way Thurgood Marshall was before him ? (Except they both became Justices.)

well Thomas was obstructed due to allegations (made by a black woman) of sexual harrassment.

Quote:

The way Condolleeza Rice was prevented from becoming National Security Advisor, and Secretary of State ? (Except she's still there.)

Like nearly all Bush picks, she has turned out to be pretty shitty.

Remember Harriet Myers, John Bolton, and other white folks have been obstructed as well.

Quote:

the G-man said:
Its funny how, as soon as Barack Hussein Obama starts beating Hillary Rodham Clinton in some early polls, negative information about him starts leaking out. Not that the Clintons would ever slander an opponent or anything.

Quote:

the G-man said:
the Clintons are as, if not more, likely to attack Obama at this point since he is Hillary's rival for the nomination.

Quote:

Matter-eater Man said:
G-man [is] just making up accustions about the Clintons

Heh. Insight magazine confirms that the Clinton camp is behind some of the attacks on Barack Hussein Obama:

(Oh, and don't worry, there will be plenty of time to discuss that he was raised a Muslim later).

Please wath 24 every Monday night in the meantime to gain a true perspective on muslims and muslim americans!

You know I can never tell if PJP is a hilarious caricature poking fun or serious...

Me neither!

And, from PBS comes this description of what a madrassa is.

Quote:

Right-wing media figures claim Clinton behind Obama/Muslim smears
Summary: Melanie Morgan, Lee Rodgers, Rush Limbaugh, and John Gibson all forwarded the accusation made by a website controlled by Rev. Sun Myung Moon that Sen. Hillary Clinton was responsible for spreading information linking Sen. Barack Obama to a madrassa, or Muslim school. None of the four cited any evidence, other than the article, that Clinton was responsible for promoting the madrassa story, and the article cited no one by name.

On the January 19 editions of their radio programs, conservative talk show hosts Melanie Morgan, Lee Rodgers and Rush Limbaugh, as well as Fox News' John Gibson on the same day's edition of The Big Story, forwarded the accusation, originally published on the website InsightMag.com, that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) was responsible for spreading information about Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) -- specifically, that Obama "spent at least four years in a so-called Madrassa or Muslim seminary, in Indonesia." The article, bearing the headline "Hillary's team has questions about Obama's Muslim background," asserted that "researchers connected to Senator Clinton" disclosed the "details of Mr. Obama's Muslim past." Despite acknowledging near the end of his show that it "[d]oesn't seem" that "Hillary's fingerprints [are] on the story," Gibson said earlier in that program that "[t]he New York senator has reportedly outed Obama's madrassa past."

None of the four radio or television hosts cited any evidence that Clinton was responsible for promoting the madrassa story, beyond the InsightMag.com article, which cited no one by name. On December 13, Jason Zengerle, editor of The Plank, the weblog of The New Republic, predicted that Republicans would "launch a savage and despicable whispering campaign against the guy (Barack Hussein Obama, etc.) and then blame it all on Hillary." Zengerle responded to the InsightMag.com article on January 18:

The attribution on all this is broad enough ("political opponents within the Democratic Party"; "researchers connected to Senator Clinton") that I suppose this information about Obama could have originated with people in Clinton's orbit. But let's not forget where this information appeared. And let's be on the lookout for who goes on the cable shows and wonders whether "Barack Hussein Obama" is "The <strike>Manchurian</strike> Madrassa Candidate." Something tells me it isn't going to be Hillary, or any liberal for that matter.

InsightMag.com is the successor to Insight on the News, a biweekly magazine published until April 2004 by News World Communications, the company controlled by Rev. Sun Myung Moon that also operates The Washington Times and the wire service United Press International. The website describes itself as a "weekly Internet news magazine."
...

Media Matters
If anyone hasn't noticed, some far right wingers have been trying their hardest to exploit Obama's middle name. They also really hate Hillary. It's not a big surprise that they just combined the whole thing.

X infinity

even die hard politicos need to acknowledge scum when they see it.....try it, it's healthy for you.

MEM has pretty much said he is a dyed in the wool, kool aid drinking, Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton supporter.

As such, it is not suprising that he won't admit that she has more motive than any one to take down Barack Hussein Obama at this time.

The simple fact of the matter is that, pre-convention, potential candidates from both parties are as likely, if not more likely, to attack other candidate from their own parties.

After all, if a candidate can't win the nomination, it doesn't matter who the other party runs.

So Clinton is going to attack Obama and Edwards in her quest to get nominated (and vice versa).

On the GOP side, McCain is going to attack Guiliani and Rommney (and vice versa).

This is nothing new.

In 1980, Bush Sr attacked Reagan before they became running mates. In 1984, Walter Mondale went after Gary Hart. In 1988, it was a democrat who first attacked Dukakis over Willie Horton. And in 2000, Gore attacked Bill Bradley as a racist.

The idea that Hillary is now, suddenly, above doing what every other candidate does, is laughable.

plus she's a cunt.

Oh it's a given that Clinton will run a tough campaign like anyone else. It was also a given that you & some of the less credible conservatives would milk Obama going to a Muslim school when he was 6. It was just a natural progression that you would say that Clinton was behind it. Even if you think she's capable of doing it, it's very obvious that she didn't need to.

....because the fact that he is a muslim with ties to radical muslims would have come out eventually.

hopefully before a terrorist attack that he helped orchestrate.

Quote:

PJP said:
...a terrorist attack that he helped orchestrate.

The funny part of this is that the people who are going to jump all over you for saying that will most likely be the same people who think Bush orchestrated 9/11.

I can't see Obama winning this time.

But the young fella has years left in him. We'll see.

As someone whose family history doesn't involve the civil rights movement (I assume) how has he rallied the traditional black vote? How do Jesse Jackson and all those all stalwarts make of him?

They are Christian and he is Muslim.....whatever they say publicly, they will never embrace him privately.

I don't think so. Knowing how shifty some of them are they will endorse him just to have a black president.

Quote:

Matter-eater Man said:
A spokesman for Clinton, who is also weighing a White House bid, denied that the campaign was the source of the Obama claim.

He called the story "an obvious right-wing hit job."

Well, that settles that. After all, its not like a politician would lie about smearing an opponent. Or blame their problems a "right-wing" conspriacy.

Especially not a Clinton.

Praise Allah

What do muslims think of gays?.....what does good old Ayatollah Obama think?

Praise Allah.

Quote:

First Amongst Daves said:
How do Jesse Jackson and all those all stalwarts make of him?

Some reports indicate that there is a distinct lack of enthusiasm among so-called civil rights leaders:

Of course, some of this may have to do with the fact that these guys probably already cut secret deals to endorse Hillary. Or it might be, as PJP, surmised that

Quote:

PJP said:
They are Christian and he is Muslim.....

Quote:

the G-man said:
MEM has pretty much said he is a dyed in the wool, kool aid drinking, Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton supporter.

As such, it is not suprising that he won't admit that she has more motive than any one to take down Barack Hussein Obama at this time.

It's not about motive. It's about whether or not she did it.

And I doubt she did.

The New York Times

Politics

Rivals CNN and Fox News Spar Over Obama Report
Published: January 24, 2007

By BILL CARTER

Meanwhile, over at MSNBC, Chris Matthews was interviewing Hillary aide Howard Wolfson and asked him if it was true that she was engaging in "opposition research" (that is, digging into other potential nominees' backgrounds for dirt).

Wolfson flatly refused to deny they were digging up dirt.

Translation: They are digging up all the dirt they can on Obama and anyone else that stands in her way.

But keep telling yourselves that she isn't guys. That way when she smears people on her way to the Presidency you can keep deluding yourselves into thinking she's pure as the driven snow.

Okay, I'll say it more clearly: it's not about whether or not she'll dig up dirt or run the traditional smear campaign against Obama, it's about whether or not she's behind the latest Obama/Muslim smears.

But keep telling yourself that one equals the other.

The magazine reported Clinton (or her campaign) was behind it.

The only basis for saying she isn't behind it is the fact that her campaign has denied it.

So its her word against the magazine's.

In such a case, you need to examine, among other factors, the history of the parties.

In the case of Clinton's staff, we have a demonstrated history of:

All actions consistent with the article in question.

Furthermore, when you look at who has greater motive to lie, clearly Clinton, who is the person running for the job against Obama, has the most motive.

Therefore, based on past history and motive there is more reason to believe the magazine when it says Clinton's staff was behind.

Quote:

Jason E. Perkins said:
The New York Times

Politics

Rivals CNN and Fox News Spar Over Obama Report
Published: January 24, 2007

By BILL CARTER

A disputed report on the Web site of a conservative magazine about Senator Barack Obama’s childhood schooling kicked off a pointed exchange this week between the rival cable news networks CNN and Fox News when CNN seemed to make an overt effort both to debunk the report and to question the quality of Fox News’s journalism.

The CaucusKate Phillips and The Times's politics staff report on the latest political news from around the nation. Join the discussion.

The original report, posted on the online version of Insight, a magazine owned by The Washington Times, said that as a child in Indonesia, Mr. Obama had attended a madrassa, a school that teaches a radical version of the Muslim faith. Mr. Obama, who spent a few years in Jakarta as a boy, is a Christian.

Adding to the political volatility of the report was the attribution of the news to “researchers connected to” Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The two senators are expected to be the leading candidates for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, attracting intense news coverage, and the sparring between CNN and Fox News, which are often described as ideological opposites, may be a prelude to more accusations of inaccurate reporting.

The back-and-forth also comes amid a backdrop of increasingly nasty competition between the two networks, with CNN trying to promote the quality of its journalism as a counter to Fox’s ratings. Fox continues to command by far the largest news audience in cable television.

Representatives of Mr. Obama of Illinois and Mrs. Clinton of New York denounced the Insight report, calling it false and an effort by a conservative publication to smear two Democratic contenders at the same time.

The Fox News Channel discussed the report on two of its programs. It was also picked up by The New York Post, which shares ownership with Fox News, and was discussed by several conservative talk-radio hosts.

Yesterday, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton, Howard Wolfson, said in an e-mail message: “This is a textbook example of how the other side works. A right-wing rag makes up a scurrilous charge and prints it with no real attribution. The smear gets injected into the atmosphere and picked up by talk radio. In this case both Senator Obama and Senator Clinton were victimized.”

A spokesman for Mr. Obama had previously been quoted in The Washington Post as calling the report “appallingly irresponsible.”

On its Web site yesterday, Insight defended its report, saying, “Our reporter’s sources close to the Clinton opposition research war room confirm the truth of the story.”

CNN’s political director, Sam Feist, said he had seen the Insight report discussed on “Fox and Friends.” Mr. Feist said he wanted to determine the validity of what he said, if true, would be a “holy-cow political story” so he sent a correspondent, John Vause, to Jakarta from Beijing. Mr. Vause’s report, broadcast Monday on CNN, described the Jakarta school as unaffiliated with Islamic fundamentalism. The school headmaster said it was a “public school” that did not “focus on religion.”

The president of CNN US, Jon Klein, said that his network’s report was “not a response to Fox per se, though they did seem to relish repeating the Insight-reported rumor without bothering to — or being able to — ascertain the facts.”

In its report, CNN included a clip from the Fox News program “The Big Story With John Gibson.” Mr. Gibson interviewed a Republican political strategist about Mrs. Clinton’s reported role in the Obama rumors. As Fox News has in every story on the madrassa accusations, Mr. Gibson used the attribution “according to Insight magazine.” But he also said: “Look at what some anti-Obama Democrats are doing to her political rival now. They are playing the Muslim phobia card.”

On Monday, the hosts of “Fox and Friends” said they wanted to clarify earlier comments after Mr. Obama’s office contacted the show, declaring its report “absolutely false.”

In comments after Mr. Vause’s report, the CNN anchors Wolf Blitzer and Anderson Cooper seemed to chide others for not practicing legitimate journalism on the story. “CNN did what any serious news organization is supposed to do in this kind of a situation,” Mr. Blitzer said. “We actually conducted an exclusive firsthand investigation inside Indonesia to check out the school.”

Mr. Cooper said: “That’s the difference between talking about news and reporting it. You send a reporter, check the facts, and you decide at home.”

A Fox News spokeswoman, Irena Briganti, said CNN was mainly looking for publicity in attacking its higher-rated rival. Of Mr. Cooper’s comment, she said, “Yet another cry for attention by the Paris Hilton of television news, Anderson Cooper.”

In other words, some conservatives got caught trying to take out 2 strong Democrztic candidates.

Some reports indicate that Obama was a Muslim up until 1992 and that he only changed his religion only so that he could marry:

he was quite religious in Islam but only after marrying Michelle, he changed his religion

Quote:

the G-man said:
Some reports indicate that Obama was a Muslim up until 1992 and that he only changed his religion only so that he could marry:

The evidence seems to show that both Ann Dunham (Obama's mother) and her husband Lolo Soetoro Mangunharjo (his stepfather) were in fact devout Muslims themselves and they raised their son as such.

To further support this, two of Obama's classmates in Indonesia at the time one who is now the CEO of Indonesia's national airline and the other a bank manager in Jakarta remember a very different Obama, a very religious one that was well versed in Islam and liked to recite his prayers.

"[Obama] was previously quite religious in Islam. His birth father, Barack Hussein Obama was a Muslim economist from Kenya.'

"All the relatives ... were very devout Muslims"

"He was often in the prayer room wearing a 'sarong', at that time, he was quite religious in Islam but only after marrying Michelle, he changed his religion."

Why is this an issue? The bulk of muslims aren't terrorists, and pretty much all American muslims aren't terrorists. Nearly all catholics aren't members of the IRA. And most christians aren't crazy assholes.
So is this because he was in a religion you don't like or because he's not white?

Islam is not a religion of peace.

If you ever want to do some light reading chack this great book out....

Quote:

Karl Hungus said:

Why is this an issue? The bulk of muslims aren't terrorists...

If it isn't an issue, why is Obama hiding his Muslim past? Why isn't he saying "hey, I'm a Muslim, or former Muslim, and proud of it"?

Quote:

PJP said:
If you ever want to do some light reading chack this great book out....

You forgot to praise allah.

Quote:

PJP said:
If you ever want to do some light reading chack this great book out....

here's a similar book, it tells it like it is about another religion that isn't christian.

is that an autographed copy?

Ironically a lot of Muslims admire Hitler.

Quote:

PJP said:
is that an autographed copy?

not unless his name was "Nicks N. Faded Patches Hitler."

I think that was Eva Braun's pet name for him.

In any event, unless Obama is a Muslim and a Hitler admirer, which is a new one on me, isnt this off topic?

Off topic is hip and cool now in this forum ...

Quote:

the G-man said:
I think that was Eva Braun's pet name for him.

In any event, unless Obama is a Muslim and a Hitler admirer, which is a new one on me, isnt this off topic?

are you going to edit the posts and move the topic?
Go ahead!

Oh, wait....you can't. You have no power here! Now, begone! Before someone drops a house on you too.

Just trying to help, Ray. I didn't want someone thinking you were accusing our Muslim friend here of being a Nazi.

If the San Fran thought police traced your ISP you could end up in one of their reeducation camps.

Oh, by the way, how's that "Religion and Deep Thoughts" modship working out.

Quote:

PJP said:
I'm personally for the r3x29yz4a religion.

Praise...Adlah?

Adlah's WICKED SMAHT!!!

Quote:

First Amongst Daves said:
How do Jesse Jackson and all those all stalwarts make of him?

Quote:

the G-man said:
Some reports indicate that there is a distinct lack of enthusiasm among so-called civil rights leaders

More articles, from the Washington Post and the Politico, demonstrating that black support for Obama's presidential run may be tepid at best.

This could actually be a good thing for Obama, especially in the general election. The more distance there is between Obama and the Al Sharptons and Jesse Jackson of the world, the better it may be for Obama's long-term goals.

Unfortunately, it looks like Obama's church may have more in common with the Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton wing of Christianity than one might have hoped:

Uh, how about a committment to "colorblind" leadership and a non-negotiable commitment to the United States?

The article also has a link to a recent sermon from its pastor, Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr., which recites a laundry list of political, not religious, themes, including:

You know, its funny, but that speech has so little to do with Christ, or Christianity, it could almost be a speech by, dare I say, an Islamic Iman instead of a preacher.

In any event, I can't believe that no one is jumping on the mixing here of church and state.

Why would they when it serves their purposes so well?

By the way, the above church, like a number of similar churches, adheres to what's called liberation theology, basically Marxism in Christian guise and most notably the belief system of choice for Jim Jones and his followers.

Quote:

the G-man said:

More articles, from the Washington Post and the Politico, demonstrating that black support for Obama's presidential run may be tepid at best.

Al Sharpton visited with Obama and other potential candidates recently and reiterated he might run if no other candidate pays what Sharpton considers to be adequate attention on civil rights issues.

So, obviously, Sharpton's support of Obama is far from a given.

The Washington Post editorializes that Sen. Barack Hussein Obama's political opponents should not sneer at his middle name and argues that "a president with an understanding of Islam ... would be welcomed by those who too often feel misunderstood and slighted by the United States."

Yeah, that's what we need: a president who "understands" Islam.

Thanks G-man. Since it seems to apply so well to you I'll post the entire editorial.

Quote:

Sticks, Stones and Mr. Obama
Misleading aspersions about the senator's background only make the perpetrators look bad.

Sunday, January 28, 2007; Page B06

IT'S BECOME a fad among some conservatives to refer to the junior senator from Illinois by his full name: Barack Hussein Obama. This would be merely juvenile if it weren't so contemptible. Republican lobbyist Ed Rogers, on "Hardball," was one of the early adopters of this sleazy tactic. "Count me down as somebody who underestimates Barack Hussein Obama," he said. Radio host Rush Limbaugh, demonstrating his usual maturity, got a chuckle out of the senator's allegedly oversized ears, calling him "Barack Hussein Odumbo." And Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council issued this e-mail alert: "Joining an already glutted field of hopefuls, Sen. Barack Hussein Obama (D-Ill.) announced his candidacy for the 2008 Democratic nomination yesterday."

Insight magazine managed to further degrade the public discourse with a scurrilous "report" alleging that Mr. Obama, as a child in Indonesia, attended a radical Islamic madrassa. In fact, Mr. Obama attended a public school in Jakarta that was predominantly Muslim -- no surprise given that Indonesia is a predominantly Muslim country. Insight, whose piece was eagerly touted by Fox News Network, might have learned this if it had bothered to check its story rather than cravenly attributing the false report to "Hillary Clinton's camp," citing unnamed "sources close to the background check" that the New York senator supposedly conducted into Mr. Obama.

When the madrassa story was debunked by CNN and the Associated Press, Insight didn't even have the decency to slink away. "The media uproar over our reporting reveals a media establishment choosing not to ask the tough questions about Obama's Muslim past: If he was raised in a secular household (as he claims), why does he have -- or retain -- Muslim names, Barack and Hussein?" the magazine asked in a posting on its Web site. "Were his father and stepfather as secular as he says? What is the exact nature of Obama's current religious affiliation and what are the beliefs and teachings of his current church in Chicago, the Trinity United Church of Christ?"

Mr. Obama's slimers seem to think such name-calling and Muslim-baiting can score points with the American people. On the contrary, Mr. Obama's multicultural background (his father was Kenyan, and he spent several years living in Indonesia with his mother and stepfather) ought to be viewed as a plus. A president with an understanding of Islam and the developing world would be welcomed by those who too often feel misunderstood and slighted by the United States.

Mr. Obama has never tried to hide his past or his family name: He has written about being educated at a predominantly Muslim school. His father, a non-practicing Muslim, was Barack Hussein Obama Sr. His grandmother is Sara Hussein Obama.

The senator, however, does not use his middle name. Those who take pains to insert it when referring to him are trying, none too subtly, to stir up scary images of menacing terrorists and evil dictators. They embarrass only themselves.

Heh. Its pretty funny how the Post decries "name calling" and then goes on to deride Obama's critics as ""juvenile," "contemptible," "sleazy,""scurrilous," craven" and "slimers."

But even funnier, as noted above, is that they want a President who "understands" Islam.

Of course, by "understand," they really mean "kowtows to".

It's an editorial not a news article & I think the writer uses the appropiate words. You've pushed such missinformation as the Islamic madrassa "story" yourself & haven't even acknowledged that it was a lie.

So "name calling" is okay in an opinion piece?

Well, then...what is the controversy?

Nearly everybody the Post attacked for using Obama's middle name was doing so in the context of an opinion piece....unless, for example, you're making the claim that Rush Limbaugh and guests on "hardball" constitute "hard news."

And Hussein IS his middle name. So its hardly "name calling," is it?

Quote:

the G-man said:
But even funnier, as noted above, is that they want a President who "understands" Islam.

Of course, by "understand," they really mean "kowtows to".

there's a difference between understanding and kowtowing. A president who understands it would be able to point out the flaws in the terrorist's interpretation of the religion. and it would avoid minor diplomatic problems that can arise from ignorance.
As a rule, I think to be elected president someone should have an understanding of all the major religions and cultures of the world. Not just be some cowboy wannabe.

Quote:

Karl Hungus said:
Quote:

the G-man said:
But even funnier, as noted above, is that they want a President who "understands" Islam.

Of course, by "understand," they really mean "kowtows to".

there's a difference between understanding and kowtowing. A president who understands it would be able to point out the flaws in the terrorist's interpretation of the religion. and it would avoid minor diplomatic problems that can arise from ignorance.
As a rule, I think to be elected president someone should have an understanding of all the major religions and cultures of the world. Not just be some cowboy wannabe.

You mean well with your post and your intentions....you really do....and in theory you are 100% correct.

Only problem is that there is no understanding Islam. These people are no better than serial killers and have the same ability as Charles Manson to rationalize with people. Muslims are bad. You can say well not all of them are bad and not all of them commit terror and that is true.....but the "good" muslims don't seem to mind all that much that these terrorists are doing their dirty work. If muslims were good people you would see more muslims denouncing terror and going after the terrorists instead of supporting them in silence.

No matter who is President they will still hate us. I don't know why that is so hard for some of you guys to understand. It wasn't that long ago that Clinton was the most hated man in the Muslim world....and in 2 years they won't even remember Dubya and will focus their attention on the new fresh meat we have in the White House.

The only way the muslims will ever leave us alone is if we give into their demands and stop supporting Israel. I would like to see President Obama do that and lose half the democratic party along with his decision. He'd be a worse one termer than Carter. Part of me hopes Obama wins so you guys can see that I'm right.....the other part of me doesn't want to see him win 'cause I have hardly anything in my wardrobe that would be in style for a nuclear winter.

See...PJP understands. Barack Hussein Obama does not.

Racist skeletons in Obama's closet?

That's mighty white of you Barack

During college, Obama disapproved of what he called other “half-breeds” who gravitated toward whites instead of blacks. And yet after college, he once fell in love with a white woman, only to push her away when he concluded he would have to assimilate into her world, not the other way around. He later married a black woman.

hmmm...what was it that Freud said about hating your mother?

The Marxist

Yeah, but he's a "mainstream" politician...riiiight.

Obama’s racial suspicions were not always limited to whites. For example, after making his first visit to Kenya, he wrote of being disappointed to learn that his paternal grandfather had been a servant to rich whites.

He wrote in “Dreams” that the revelation caused “ugly words to flash across my mind. Uncle Tom. Collaborator. House nigger.”[/list]

Geez, given the times that didn't make him a slave Obama, just a working man.

So much anger in this one. I wonder if this will hurt him with voters?

But Obama's going to be a positive "uniter"....riiight.

Quote:

PJP said:
Quote:

Karl Hungus said:
Quote:

the G-man said:
But even funnier, as noted above, is that they want a President who "understands" Islam.

Of course, by "understand," they really mean "kowtows to".

there's a difference between understanding and kowtowing. A president who understands it would be able to point out the flaws in the terrorist's interpretation of the religion. and it would avoid minor diplomatic problems that can arise from ignorance.
As a rule, I think to be elected president someone should have an understanding of all the major religions and cultures of the world. Not just be some cowboy wannabe.

You mean well with your post and your intentions....you really do....and in theory you are 100% correct.

Only problem is that there is no understanding Islam. These people are no better than serial killers and have the same ability as Charles Manson to rationalize with people. Muslims are bad. You can say well not all of them are bad and not all of them commit terror and that is true.....but the "good" muslims don't seem to mind all that much that these terrorists are doing their dirty work. If muslims were good people you would see more muslims denouncing terror and going after the terrorists instead of supporting them in silence.

No matter who is President they will still hate us. I don't know why that is so hard for some of you guys to understand. It wasn't that long ago that Clinton was the most hated man in the Muslim world....and in 2 years they won't even remember Dubya and will focus their attention on the new fresh meat we have in the White House.

The only way the muslims will ever leave us alone is if we give into their demands and stop supporting Israel. I would like to see President Obama do that and lose half the democratic party along with his decision. He'd be a worse one termer than Carter. Part of me hopes Obama wins so you guys can see that I'm right.....the other part of me doesn't want to see him win 'cause I have hardly anything in my wardrobe that would be in style for a nuclear winter.

I mostly agree PJP. One thing you are missing is that Americans cherish life. We are aghast at 1,000 or 3,000 dead. We are only ever contemplating using tactical nukes not ICBMs. For all the ways people say Americans are evil we aren't because we have never used nuclear blackmail on anyone (I'm not getting into the nuking Japan thing here at all). To America a nuclear first strike other than tactical smaller nukes to destroy bunkers or caves are never an option. But to a muslim country or a communist one-this is entirely not true. China threatens it, N Korea does, Muslim states do as well. The difference is that we cherish life...they do not. Those countries and people generally think collectively not as individuals. I'm not saying they do not feel pain when someone they know dies-that would be inhuman, but they think of life, living, and spreading their idealogy differently than we do.

Slate has begun a new feature, "the Obama Messiah Watch, which will periodically highlight gratuitously adoring biographical details that appear in newspaper, television, and magazine profiles of this otherworldly presence in our midst."

The first example is a Los Angeles Times piece in which Barack Hussein Obama is praised for, of all things, his note-taking ability.

For Obama, No News Is Good News

What has he to hide? Is Obama so raw that he cannot parry with the press in a casual atmosphere?

One way to lose a Democratic presidential nomination is to alienate the press. Barack Hussein Obama seems well on his way toward that goal.

Infidel Press!

Obama to Announce White House Bid

plus he's muslim.

Praise Allah!

Obama Calls Name Recognition Big Hurdle

You know, if this were true, I bet that, if he used his middle name more often, people would never have problems recognizing his name.

I think the fact that he isn't years-deep into politics gives him a big leg up. He hasn't had quite the time to become such a soulless asshole. Plus Hilary is a giant cunt.

muslims are born souless assholes.

That fits MY ticket! Don't forget, I have no god.

I thought you said you believed in souls even thought you're an atheist.

Agnostic, and it doesn't matter anyhow 'cause it's all facetious here.

Mighty absolute for an agnostic...

On Sunday Barack Hussein Obama, speaking at Iowa State University, made accused the troops of wastingtheir lives:

We ended up launching a war that should have never been authorized, and should have never been waged, and to which we now have spent $400 billion, and have seen over 3,000 lives of the bravest young Americans wasted.

The Chicago Sun-Times reports Obama quickly fired up the nuance machine:

that have not been honored by the same attention to strategy, diplomacy and honesty on the part of civilian leadership that would give them a clear mission

But instead of those last 27 words (which don't entirely make sense--e.g., "the same attention" as what?), what came out of his mouth was "wasted."

The Sun-Times notes that Obama is sorry you took what he said the wrong way, which is to say, the way he actually said it:

Not a "botched joke," but close.

I can see Obama's point of view more readilly than I can yours, G-man.

Shocking.

Quote:

Uschi said:
I can see Obama's point of view more readilly than I can yours, G-man.

but only because you've had more black politicians inside you than you have gay lawyers?

Quote:

Pariah said:
Shocking.

Bitch, I AM black! Yo! Yo yo yo! Word!

Quote:

Uschi said:
Bitch, I AM black! Yo! Yo yo yo! Word!

Join the Senate, see the world (on the taxpayer's dime)

Again, I'm all for the US helping with the AIDS tragedy in Africa, but again-why not help with all the genocide first? We are wasting our money trying to help with Aids if the mullahs are going to wipe all the non-muslims out anyway.

What I don't understand is: why does any US Senator need to travel halfway around the world to "understand" the AIDS crisie?

What is Barack Hussein Obama saying? That he didn't know that AIDS is prevalent in Africa? That he was unaware that its a fatal disease? Seriously...what information was missing from his decision tree that required a taxpayer funded junket to know that AIDS is bad?

I posted a thread about Darfur a while ago...

Either Obama wasted the money or he was educating himself first-hand on international issues. I doubt anyone can decide which from that tiny article posted above.

Quote:

Uschi said:
Either Obama wasted the money or he was educating himself first-hand on international issues.

Why is it an either/or proposition?

As noted above, do you really need to spend thousands of dollars and go to Africa in order to "educate [ones]self first hand" about AIDS to know it's bad?

He could be seeing how the previous monies were being spent-was it quality, but I doubt it unless he is on a committee.

Quote:

Pig Iron said:
He could be seeing how the previous monies were being spent... but I doubt it...

And its not like he could ask for an actual investigation by trained investigators and auditors if that was the case.

Noooo....wouldn't want to do that.

Maybe he's like G-man and doesn't listen to anyone regardless of facts and logic and HAS to discover everything himself or he won't accept it.

Kinda like being agnostic...

The Los Angeles Times looks at a story from Barack Hussein Obama’s memoir and concludes it, ahem, stretches the importance of his role in a fight over asbestos:

To some extent, this can be seen as nothing but a typical glory-hogging politician puffing himself up. To that extent, its probably not a big deal. However, if you go into the election wanting to like this guy because he seems so affable and modest, then examples of ego-run-amok exaggerations could be pretty disappointing.

They threaten to make Obama look like Al “I took the initiative in creating the Internet/I was the inspiration for Love Story” Gore.

Obama Pulls In $1.3 Million at Hollywood Fundraiser

after that event Obamas and Clintons top aides got into a heated war of words....plus David Geffen fueled the fires bashing Clinton's camp...I'm surprised G hasn't posted it yet....must be busy at court today.

I read the shit about this yesterday in the news. The Clinton camp says they don't want to get into a mudslinging campaign and just talk issues, but then they say that Obama should give all the money back because of what Geffen said about her.

I like that Obama's camp mentioned that the Clintons had no problem with Geffen when he was raising them money and getting to sleep in the Lincoln bedroom at the White House.

And this is just the beginning of the campaign, folks. The Dems are just fighting amongst themselves. The Republicans haven't even geared up their mudslinging.

It is pretty scary that we are 2 years away and they already are trying to destoy each other.

It's just all part of the process. The Republicans will start up soon too. I suspect Clinton & Obama will patch things up just like Bush & McCain did.

Quote:

PJP said:
after that event Obamas and Clintons top aides got into a heated war of words....plus David Geffen fueled the fires bashing Clinton's camp...I'm surprised G hasn't posted it yet....must be busy at court today.

Yes, what with all the snow, there are many more traffic related issues. For example, you wouldn't believe the number of people who ignored the opposite of the street parking rules. Especially Mustang owners.

I remember a few weeks ago, speculating that Clinton was behind the stories outing Obama as a "former Muslim" and MEM seemingly disbelieving that such a thing (Clintons 'smearing' Obama) could be happening. Now I see that the considers it all "part of the process."

Quote:

the G-man said:...

I remember a few weeks ago, speculating that Clinton was behind the stories outing Obama as a "former Muslim" and MEM seemingly disbelieving that such a thing (Clintons 'smearing' Obama) could be happening. Now I see that the considers it all "part of the process."

Always amusing to see your take on previous posts G. As I said back then, Clinton will fight tough but I saw that particular bit of "speculation" just a bunch of conservatives with very little credability saying Clinton was really the one behind all their "speculation". It was around the same time I think virtually the same group made up the story that Obama went to a terrorist school. You helped peddle that bit of missinformation around too.

So you believe that Clinton is "tough" enough to have her staff misrepresent the relationship between Obama and Geffen but not "tough" enough to spread stories about Obama's Muslim background?

Quote:

thedoctor said:
I read the shit about this yesterday in the news. The Clinton camp says they don't want to get into a mudslinging campaign and just talk issues, but then they say that Obama should give all the money back because of what Geffen said about her. I like that Obama's camp mentioned that the Clintons had no problem with Geffen when he was raising them money and getting to sleep in the Lincoln bedroom at the White House. And this is just the beginning of the campaign, folks. The Dems are just fighting amongst themselves. The Republicans haven't even geared up their mudslinging.

Yeah, there's also the part where Obama hinted that Clinton's a bit racist in her choice of supporters:

For good measure, Obama himself took this shot at Hillary today: " "It is also ironic that Senator Clinton lavished praise on Monday and is fully willing to accept today the support of South Carolina State Sen. Robert Ford, who said if Barack Obama were to win the nomination, he would drag down the rest of the Democratic Party because ’he's black.’"

Just calling it how I saw it G. Who's been working the whole "Obama is secretly a Muslim" thing all along? It's the same folks who can't stand Hillary. It was 2 for 1 day for you.

If RAW came out saying Rudy "America's Ex-husband" ran to them with a similar story you would laugh your ass off. It's a two way street friend.

As I pointed out, I admit Hillary will fight tough. On the other hand you've shopped everything & anything anti-Clinton & "Obama is secretly a Muslim" around on a daily basis. Who really deserves the

Dude. He's not secretly a muslim......he is a fucking Muslim. Are you comfortable with that?

Quote:

PJP said:
Dude. He's not secretly a muslim......he is a fucking Muslim. Are you comfortable with that?

I'll take this as you not being serious. Conservatives don't get to change somebodies religion because it suits them.

I was being serious....is he not a Muslim? I'm confused.

MEM, please respond. Is Obama a Muslim or isn't he?

Sorry PJP, thought you were just playing around with G-man's "Obama is secretly a Muslim" schtick. Obama is a Christian for the record.

Quote:

...I was not raised in a religious household. My maternal grandparents, who hailed from Kansas, had been steeped in Baptist and Methodist teachings as children, but religious faith never really took root in their hearts. My mother's own experiences as a bookish, sensitive child growing up in small towns in Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas only reinforced this inherited skepticism. [...] My father was almost entirely absent from my childhood, having been divorced from my mother when I was 2 years old; in any event, although my father had been raised a Muslim, by the time he met my mother he was a confirmed atheist, thinking religion to be so much superstition.

Obama writes that his religious convictions formed during his twenties, when, as a community organizer working with local churches, he came to understand "the power of the African American religious tradition to spur social change":

It was because of these newfound understandings–that religious commitment did not require me to suspend critical thinking, disengage from the battle for economic and social justice, or otherwise retreat from the world that I knew and loved–that I was finally able to walk down the aisle of Trinity United Church of Christ one day and be baptized. It came about as a choice and not an epiphany; the questions I had did not magically disappear. But kneeling beneath that cross on the South Side of Chicago, I felt God's spirit beckoning me. I submitted myself to His will, and dedicated myself to discovering His truth.[121]

Wikipedia

As noted above, some of his friends tell a different story, that he was, in fact, a Muslim until he "converted" around the time of his marriage.

Fair enough MEM. I never read that other stuff about him and I never knew he converted. I will say that sometimes people convert simply for the sake of marriage and don't really mean it. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt but I suspect the truth lies somewhere inbetween you and G-Man.

With that said I am starting to dislike Obama for things other than his middle name.

Quote:

the G-man said:
As noted above, some of his friends tell a different story, that he was, in fact, a Muslim until he "converted" around the time of his marriage.

Is that in reference to that blog you linked to? Rather poorly sourced IMHO.

Obama has been associated with the United Church of Christ since the mid-80's.
Snopes

Quote:

PJP said:
Fair enough MEM. I never read that other stuff about him and I never knew he converted. I will say that sometimes people convert simply for the sake of marriage and don't really mean it. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt but I suspect the truth lies somewhere inbetween you and G-Man.

With that said I am starting to dislike Obama for things other than his middle name.

I'm pretty sure Obama didn't convert. He's got a fairly well documented history of being a Christian despite the one blog sited by G-man. It was also a given that you wouldn't be voting for Obama, I was just surprised that you didn't know he was a Christian. I have to admit the GOP has done a good job in this respect of redefining a candidate. Practice makes perfect I suppose.

Quote:

Matter-eater Man said:
Obama has been associated with the United Church of Christ

Quote:

the G-man said:
Obama's church may have more in common with the Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton wing of Christianity than one might have hoped:

Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain "true to our native land," the mother continent, the cradle of civilization. God has superintended our pilgrimage through the days of slavery, the days of segregation, and the long night of racism. It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a Black worship service and ministries which address the Black Community.

Trinity United Church of Christ adopted the Black Value System written by the Manford Byrd Recognition Committee chaired by Vallmer Jordan in 1981. We believe in the following 12 precepts and covenantal statements. These Black Ethics must be taught and exemplified in homes, churches, nurseries and schools, wherever Blacks are gathered [including]

Pledge allegiance to all Black leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Value System

A congregation with a non-negotiable COMMITMENT TO AFRICA.

Uh, how about a committment to "colorblind" leadership and a non-negotiable commitment to the United States?

The article also has a link to a recent sermon from its pastor, Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr., which recites a laundry list of political, not religious, themes, including:

"the painful truth of who we are and where it is we are in this racist United States of America!"

"600,000 dead Iraqi civilians who are dead for no reason other than greed and ego"

"The President who is “staying the course” and sending 1,500 more troops to their death"

"the torture of Abu Ghraib, the complete destructions of cities like Fallujah"

"the larger “war on terror” [has] been based on lies, half-truths and distortions to serve the agenda of the United States imperialism"

"the 3,000 homeless who are still living or displaced in the real life game called 'New Orleans'"

"white arrogance"

You know, its funny, but that speech has so little to do with Christ, or Christianity, it could almost be a speech by, dare I say, an Islamic Iman instead of a preacher.

In any event, I can't believe that no one is jumping on the mixing here of church and state.

It's kind of funny, I'm seeing stuff about Obama not being black enough while the conservative media is saying his church is to black (in correct pc terms of course).

Quote:

... A February 6 Chicago Tribune article reported that "conservative critics have seized on Trinity's 12-point Black Value System, especially the portion relating to 'middleclassness,' as evidence that Obama is a divisive candidate who rejects mainstream American values and is primarily focused on the black community." Carlson pointed to the "disavowal of the pursuit of 'middleclassness' " in the church's tenets, calling the church's mission a "racially exclusive theology" and "a theology that ministers to one group of people, based on race." Carlson claimed that Trinity's theology is "racially exclusive" and "wrong," adding that "it's hard to call that Christianity."
Carlson also stated that Trinity's "Black Value System" "calls for congregants to be 'soldiers for black freedom.' " In fact, Trinity encourages parishioners to be "soldiers for Black freedom and the dignity of all humankind [emphasis added]." The Tribune said that the church's "value system" was adopted in 1981 to hold "black Christians accountable for taking care of their own and for continuing to fight oppression." Further, the Tribune reported that according to Melissa Harris-Lacewell, a professor of politics and African-American studies at Princeton University, "the 'disavowal of the pursuit of middleclassness' is simply an argument against materialism and the pursuit of the American standard of wealth. Many white Christian churches also preach against materialism."

Media Matters

Oh, come on, if a white presidential candidate attended a white church that describes its belief system in such overtly racial terms you and Media Matters would be having a fit and you know it.

Well, at least if the candidate was a republican.

It's not like the congregation isn't banned from inter-racial dating G-man

Since Barack Hussein Obama is the product of interacial "dating," (white mother, black muslim father) that would be difficult, wouldn't it?

Of course, as noted above, Barack seems to have expressed contempt for his "white" half in the past.

Not an unusual thing for how old Obama was at the time. He wasn't much more than a kid. You only know he felt that way because he wrote about how he used to feel when he was young. That would only be a problem to me if he indicated that he still felt that way.

Would you expect him to admit it if he does?

I think if he really felt that way he wouldn't be where he is right now.

Because bigots never get to high office?

His support isn't from hate groups though. He's where he is right now because he inspires people in a good way.

That doesn't really answer my question. Are you saying that if someone doesn't inspire a certain number of bigots that he, himself, can't be bigoted?

No, but I think it would suggest he isn't. If he was so calculating, why would he ever have written about how he felt as a youth? (or the drug usage for that matter)

Obama Strikes Back at Pedophile

Frikkin' sicko. I hope Barack Hussein Obama's lawyers go jihad on this guy's perverted ass and sue him for everything he's got.

"Re: Obama's Pedophile Problem"

Isn't this a little... spun?

How so? He's having a problem with a pedophile, isn't he?

It insinuates more than there's merit to. I'm just expressing my displeasure. Other people got pissed about the 'middle name' shit. Whatever.

You're displeased that Barack considers pedophilia a problem?

Who are you? Pete Townshend?

You might want to edit out the pedophile's website. Not that I think it would help him out here at the RKMB but why give him any free publicity.

well jim likes to defend pedophiles, so he might enjoy the link....

I'm not sure that having the name of the website, given that its located in another country, is providing much much publicity without an actual link. That's probably why the original article saw fit to include it.

Besides, all Townshend jokes aside, I like to think the RKMBers of each party would shun the site whether the article included the link or not.

It's crystal clear in G-man's linked and quoted article that Obama is not a pedophile, doesn't support pedophelia, and wants this pedophile jerk to remove any links to Obama campaign photos that imply otherwise.

There's no negative to Obama in it, beyond the fact that he's burdened by unwanted and unsolicited association with some pedophile jerk.

However, I'd go a step further myself, beyond what either G-man or the linked article have said, and muse that it's wrongheaded and decadent liberal ideas that makes this guy bond with Obama in the first place.
The party of abortion.
The party of gay rights.
The party of gay marriage.
The party of suppression of religious freedom.
The party of purging Bible reference and prayer from all our government institutions (ignoring that we are a nation inspired by the Bible, that a contract government is an extension of the contract between God and Man in the Old and New Testaments of the Bible, and that all the founding fathers considered biblical principles and teaching the Bible in schools to be essential to the continued health of American democracy).
The party of assisted suicide.
And the party of less indirect euthanasia.
The party of attacking America as a racist society, promoting multicultural ethnic rifts that weaken America.
The party that opposes stopping illegal immigration and calls anyone who proposes stopping illegal immigration a "racist". (Although, in fairness on this last point, George W. Bush, separate from other Republicans, has been particularly weak on defending our borders.)

So... it seems to me poetic justice that some decadent schmuck would come out of the woodwork and attach himself to Obama. Because for all the sugarcoating by liberals, the decadence of liberalism is the closest political pole to endorsing pedophilism. As well as all the sickos into bondage and discipline, sadomasochism, transgender circus freaks, she-males, and whatever other freaked-out buttfuck political weirdness is out there.

Quote:

the G-man said:
Obama Strikes Back at Pedophile

Ashford, who is brazen enough to post his photo on his site along with a long biography that reveals he has a daughter, wrote Bauer to say that pedophilia itself is not the same as child molestation and is not illegal on its face.

"Pedophilia, according to the definition of the American Psychiatric Association is a sexual attraction to children. It does not imply any action whatsoever upon that attraction. ... Whilst I agree that under the laws of many nations, sexual contact with children is illegal, my website does not encourage anybody to break the law. In fact, it clearly discourages illegal activity. It does support using democratic means to encourage dialogue and reconsider such statutes," Ashford wrote.

This is precisely the kind of legalism and moral ambiguity and wiggle-room that characterizes the broader spectrum of liberalism over the last 40 years.

Why wouldn't these guys bond with Obama and other liberals?
They are ideologically the same.
There is the same complex legalistic rationalization for homosexuality, abortion, euthanasia, and other liberal causes.

Quote:

Aside from the adoration of young girls, Ashford also uses the site to rail against the United States, which he calls "the Evil Empire," and [to] post anti-Israel commentary, among other topics.

See? He's ideologically the same as other liberals, pursuing a self-serving agenda that is destructive to America.
And in this particular case, destructive to Obama's campaign.

But don't worry, the liberal media will bury this story. Whereas if it was a pedophile linking photos of a Republican candidate, or an endorsement of a Republican by the KKK or somesuch, it would be page 1, and lead the broadcast news programs for a week. So don't worry, no matter what the political damage, Obama will get a free pass.

Fortunately, there are some sane Democrats who aren't aligned with this brand of liberalism that has infected and dominated the Democrats for 40 years.

But unfortunately, these destructive liberals are the dominant force among Washington's Democrat leadership, and far-sighted pro-American Democrats (Lieberman, Dodd, Dorgan, Nunn, Biden...) are few and far between.

True, but in Obama's defense, Islam is not typically tolerant of pedophilia.

Surprisingly enough, our good friend Chris, the Matter-Eater Man himself, thinks presidential candidates have nothing to complain about here:

Quote:

Matter-eater Man said:If [he] really wanted privacy then he shouldn't have ran for President.

Oh, wait, that's right. He only thinks that about Rudy Giuliani.

Fair play, you know.

Quote:

Wonder Boy said:
It's crystal clear in G-man's linked and quoted article that Obama is not a pedophile, doesn't support pedophelia, and wants this pedophile jerk to remove any links to Obama campaign photos that imply otherwise.

Other than changing the name of the thread to "Obama's Pedophile Problem"

Quote:

However, I'd go a step further myself, beyond what either G-man or the linked article have said, and muse that it's wrongheaded and decadent liberal ideas that makes this guy bond with Obama in the first place.
The party of abortion.
The party of gay rights.
The party of gay marriage.

Are you saying all those things are should be compared to pedophilia?

WB you do know that if Rudy wins the primary you'll have two parties offering up pro-abortion candidates, don't you? The difference is Rudy can cut the kids out of his life even after their born.

Quote:

Wonder Boy said:
...it's wrongheaded and decadent liberal ideas that makes this guy bond with Obama in the first place.
The party of abortion.
The party of gay rights.
The party of gay marriage.

Quote:

rex said:
Are you saying all those things are should be compared to pedophilia?

Counting down the seconds until Pariah appears starting...now....

Quote:

Matter-eater Man said:
WB you do know that if Rudy wins the primary you'll have two parties offering up pro-abortion candidates, don't you? The difference is Rudy can cut the kids out of his life even after their born.

Although not exactly the same, it remends me of "Democrates want to kill kids! ...Republicans just want to fuck them."

The New York Times:

If Obama really didn't know about his investments in companies that would benefit from his legislation, it's a remarkable coincidence, as these weren't really two widely known or widely held companies.

Couple this with the real estate mess referred to in these paragraphs:

And this relative minor news, that Obama pays parking tickets 17 years late:

...and you end up with a bit of mud on the shoes of the Obamessiah, The Chosen One Sent To Save Washington From Itself.

It's almost as if someone wanted his reputation hit, to say "Hey, look, he's got scandals, too."

But who could possibly have motive to do that? What kind of rival would do such a thing?

According to Barack Hussein Obama, terrorists kill people, not because of hatred, not because of the religion of peace_TM because of...cynicism?

"The biggest enemy I think we have in this whole process (and why I'm so glad to see a lot of young people here, young in spirit if not young in age)--the reason I think i'ts [sic] so important, is because one of the enemies we have to fight--it's not just terrorists, it's not just Hezbollah, it's not just Hamas--it's also cynicism," Barack Obama told a reception after the AIPAC [American Israel Public Affairs Committee] policy conference last night.

Obama seems to think everything boils down to cyncism, from terrorism to the fact he has opposition for the democrat party nomination:

"My main opponent in this race isn't other candidates--it'sc cynicism."

Obama seems to think that all the problems in the world come down to "cynicism"--an excellent example of the adage that if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

It appears there is some truth to the story that Barack Hussein Obama has a Muslim background. Today's Los Angeles Times reports on the senator's childhood in Indonesia:

Obama seems to be trying to downplay this part of his background. Doesn't that run the risk of making it seem as if he has something to hide?

Definitely. I hope the Muslim bastard drops out before we run him out of the Senate!

Praise Allah!

some Obama supporters have responded with eager enthusiasm at this news. As blogger Anya Kamenetz puts it on the Huffington Post

Is there anyone else who thinks it's awesome that Obama grew up Muslim?

Good question! Anyone? Anyone? Bueller - anyone?

Quote:

Matter Eater Man said:
In an interview with NY1 Tuesday, Senator Hillary Clinton addressed the controversial new video that's attacking her credibility and promoting the presidential campaign of chief rival, Barack Obama.

In the video based on an Apple computer advertisement from 1984 smashing IBM, Clinton is portrayed as a "Big Brother"-figure lecturing to a sea of drones.

The ad ends with an image directing viewers to Barack Obama's website.

On CNN’s “Larry King Live” Monday night, Democratic challenger Obama says the clip was not made from his team.

Quote:

the G-man said:
'1984' YouTube ad creator unmasked as Ex-Employee of Firm Linked to Obama Campaign

Clinton Ad Maker Lived With Obama Press Secretary

I don't think Obama knew or was a part of this. Political idealism aside, it was only a matter of time before finding out who put this out. The media would be looking for any links to Obama. Not a good thing to happen when part of a candidates appeal is that he's somehow above this type of campaigning.

It is, of course, very possible that Barack Hussein Obama knew nothing about this. Seriously.

But I hope you'll give the republican candidates the same benefit of the doubt.

You know, cuz that would be...fair play...and all.

So, how's that "COUSIN FUCKER" banner going? Paintbrush giving you trouble?

Quote:

the G-man said:
It is, of course, very possible that ... Obama knew nothing about this. Seriously.

But I hope you'll give the republican candidates the same benefit of the doubt.

You know, cuz that would be...fair play...and all.

Not giving Obama the benefit of doubt here though. My reasoning was based on it not being strategically good move. He could have been behind it but considering how easy & inevitable it was to find out who created the ad, I just really doubt it.

I have given McCain the benefit of the doubt when *some people* were blaming him for Rudy carelessly leaving his play book out for this very campaign. How did you feel about that again

The Politico's Mike Allen argues that Barack Hussein Obama has a penchant to stretch the truth. He offers some examples that are reminiscent of Al "I Invented the Internet" Gore's 2000 exaggerations:

Suurreee.

Obviously, all politicians display a tendency to stretch the truth at times. This in itself is unlikely to derail any Barack Hussein Obama electoral jihad.

However, at this point, a fair amount of the support for Senator Obama seems to come from the perception that he's more honest than the average politician. If that remains his sole, or primary, claim on the nomination stories like this could erode his support perhaps more quickly than with another candidate.

Quote:

the G-man said:
The Politico's Mike Allen argues that Barack Hussein Obama has a penchant to stretch the truth.

Too bad he's a politician, those guys never ever stretch the truth to seem better than they are.

Quote:

He offers some examples that are reminiscent of Al "I Invented the Internet" Gore's 2000 exaggerations:

Al Gore did as he said, which was pushing through legislation that made the internet into what it is today.

You ignored my point at the end, Ray, in which I acknowledged

Quote:

the G-man said:

Obviously, all politicians display a tendency to stretch the truth at times. This in itself is unlikely to derail any Barack Hussein Obama electoral jihad.

and then went on to observe

Quote:

However, at this point, a fair amount of the support for Senator Obama seems to come from the perception that he's more honest than the average politician. If that remains his sole, or primary, claim on the nomination stories like this could erode his support perhaps more quickly than with another candidate.

he isn't very truthful about being a scum muslim.

I'm just saying.

Barack Hussein Obama is barely behind Hillary in first quarter fundraising.

This could be good news for Obama. Bad news for Hillary.

Hillary has the whole Clinton machine behind her, and the backing of prominent Democrats, and was essentially able to be two places at once by dispatching Bill.

She's been preparing for this moment for at least six years, and a young upstart comes out of nowhere to nearly tie her in the one area that was expected to be her strongest suit.

Obama also raised the money with a staggering 100,000 contributors, double the amount of Hillary, showing the depth of his support at the grassroots level.

This reinforces a view that Hillary is disliked by many rank and file members of the party, who not only disapprove of her, but resent the fact that her candidacy is being shoved down their throats. Clearly, with $26 million, she's in a strong position among Democrats, but Clinton's status as the inevitable nominee just took a huge hit.

Quote:

PJP said:
he isn't very truthful about being a scum muslim.

I'm just saying.

The Dem candidates seem to be doing better campaign donation wise than Republicans. The guy in 3rd place trounced Rudy & McCain so apparently beggars will be choosers for the GOP race.

Much of Obama's appeal as we all know is that he's new. That has a shelf life that he'll need to compensate for over this very long campaign season. The other part of his support comes from the anti-war crowd that hates Hillary. I could be wrong but I don't see that helping him in the primaries. Personally I'm hoping for a Clinton/Obama ticket that will get my whole party better united against whoever the GOP eventually ends up with.

BARACK'S BIG ARMY

Praise Allah.

Quote:

the G-man translation:I voted for Bush & fear Hillary because she'll beat the next loser I want to run the country.

Quote:

the G-man said:
BARACK'S BIG ARMY

Obama, Clinton ... poll standings and other rubbish

Praise Allah.

No no! Praise KLINTON and his ceaseless calling and asking opinions of Americans over the telephone! HE GIVES US THESE POLL RESULTS!

An attempt to summary the Chicago Sun-Times article, "Barack Obama And His Slumlord Patron" (their title, not mine):

Rassmussen is out with the first poll showing Barack Hussein Obama ahead of Hillary Diane _________ Clinton, though just slightly 32-30, with Edwards at 17.

Hmmmm....with Obama having shattered the assumptions about her fundraising dominance, he is now starting to saw off another leg from the stool of her presumed frontrunner status--her poll numbers.

Just Call Him Barack O'Bama: Records unearthed in Ireland show Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama can trace ancestry to the Emerald Isle

Well, that's one way to perhaps make people forget about his Muslim heritage.

Barack Obama was assigned Secret Service protection, it was announced today. They said the earliest a new candidate has ever been assigned Secret Service protection

It was attributed by the [liberal] press that it was due partly to his visibility as a black candidate, and partly to "white supremacist buzz and threats on the internet".

Which I really think is just the media's way to hype a guy they like, and possibly scare up some support by dredging up the race issue. If someone out there really made threats against Obama, why isn't Secret Service arresting them?

Hillary Clinton already has Secret Service protection also, due to her former first lady status.

because speech isn't against the law?

weren't there threats from extremist muslims, too?

Quote:

Uschi said:
because speech isn't against the law?

weren't there threats from extremist muslims, too?

I didn't hear about muslim threats to Obama. This topic has largely been about Obama's compatibility with muslims.

Threatening a president or presidential candidate has been widely discussed on these boards, especially during the 2004 election, and quite a few over-the-top Bush-hating comments.

Quote:

Wonder Boy said:
It was attributed by the press that it was due partly to his visibility as a black candidate, and partly to "white supremacist buzz and threats on the internet".

If you and your groups stopped threatening him he wouldn't need protection.

Quote:

Which I really think is just the media's way to hype a guy they like, and possibly scare up some support by dredging up the race issue. If someone out there really made threats against Obama, why isn't Secret Service arresting them?

Because they haven't tracked you down yet? (Its probably the holden mcgroin alt id, thats fooling everyone!)

Quote:

Wonder Boy said:
Quote:

Uschi said:
because speech isn't against the law?

weren't there threats from extremist muslims, too?

I didn't hear about muslim threats to Obama. This topic has largely been about Obama's compatibility with muslims.

Threatening a president or presidential candidate has been widely discussed on these boards, especially during the 2004 election, and quite a few over-the-top Bush-hating comments.

I remember it being part of this thread toward the begining, in one of the articles. Since he's not really muslim, some extremists wanted to assassinate his ass.

Who says he's not really muslim? Don't be fooled by him Uschit. I know you are naive and easy to fool but he is a bad guy.

You mean it so hard, you say it 4 time!

I stutter when I masturbate.

I see the Associated Press is playing up the fact that Barack Hussein Obama drastically overstated the death toll from the Kansas tornadoes as 10,000, when he meant at least 10.

I personaly don't think it's worth making an issue out of what was obviously an honest mistake.

Obama Passes the Buck

This is lame.

It comes across as phony, but even if accurate, it makes him seem like a weak leader. He wants to do something, but is held back by some subordinate staffers?

Meanwhile, according to his official schedule, he was in Iowa and St. Louis today.

I look forward to the story of him telling those crowds, "I have to tell you, I wish I weren't here, but my staff had scheduled me for this. I would rather be speaking in New Hampshire."

I've read this thread periodically....having read all of the posts over time; some significantly later after they've originally been posted.

I know most of the personalities that post here.

I respect many of the opinions of said personalities even if I don't always agree...especially when they come from the ultimate left of left.

The deal is...I can't really tell if the dislike of Obama comes from his politics or his race.

I admit to being biased. My life experience has been such that I see a certain amount of racism in many things that involve minorities. Much of it is justified, a very small portion is not.

I see many people on this thread and others that appear to be against Obama just because his skin is a different tone than their own...even the swarthy Greek participants on this thread; who are naturally darker that the subject, by the way.

Does his race make him any less qualified than the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania...? The same gentleman that has presided over the worst mismanagement of the most violent conflict this country has seen since Vietnam...? That has been the head of what will probably be the most indited administraion since the Watergate years...?

Is he really any worse than any of the candidates on the RIGHT side of the issues...? Those with issues of character as strong as any of the previous administration...? Those that have turned on their own party's rhetoric to gain favor with a country sick of war...? Those who've lost ground with the general public for being willing to stand by their (current) hawkish convictions regardless of the the overwhelming attitude against the conflict and the administration who started it and exaggerated the truth to win support of it?

Is he really that worse an alternative than the honorable Dem. senator from Illi-York...? The carpet-bagger that has more pratical experience (thru observation and advising) governing a nation than any other candidate of either political persuasion...? The candidate whose only apparent major flaws are that she has a pussy and stayed with a man who has admitted to infidelities...?

Perhaps (as most white people will always say) I'm reading too much into the situation. Maybe you Republicans folk really like us black folk...as long as we stay in our place and don't get too uppity...like running for president. You like us just fine as nannies, gardeners, postal workers and drug dealers. But when we try to get edu-ma-cated and better ourselves...well, y'all just don't cotton to that idea at all.

Perhaps I'm wrong. I'm sure several of you will definitely chime in to tell me exactly that...and why I'm a racist for even suggesting that you could possibly be the same.

That's cool. I hope I am wrong. For your sakes.

In a year or so, there is a real possibility that the could be a finally be a black memaber of the executive office of this country...possibly even a Woman AND a Black Guy.

I'd hate to see all of you have to move back to the old country to protest.

Peace and hair grease, y'all.

Obama is black?

Quote:

Captain Sammitch said:
Obama is black?

but...he's so clean.

It is about religion for me Bastard. 100%. I have no problems with a Black man or woman becoming President.

I don't believe Obama is a sincere person.

Quote:

PJP said:
It is about religion for me Bastard. 100%. I have no problems with a Black man or woman becoming President.

I don't believe Obama is a sincere person.

Isn't sincerity based on what a person says & does? What exactly did Obama say or do that makes you feel he's being insincere about his religion PJP?

First off....your definition of sincerity is accurate when you are talking about people like us...average joes. It doesn't apply to people like movie stars and politicians who pay people to tell them how to act and what to say. Take Tom Cruise for example....he fired his PR guy of many years and the result was the world got to see the real Tom Cruise.....not the Vanilla Fluff Image they made of him all these years.

I'm not a rascist just because I don't get good vibes from Obama. I hope Black people don't vote for him just cause he's Black. There are/were several Greek American politicians over the years and most of them are/were Democrats who I don't agree with most of the time. I certainly wouldn't vote for them to be President just to have someone like me in office. I'd vote for a Purple Elephant with Pink Polka Dots all over him/her if they would be strong on National Defense and keep taxes fair and get rid of the Estate tax.

MEM in another thread you said about Hillary, "I like her get over it." which is fine....

I don't like Obama and I believe he is lying about many things and trying to give you and the rest of America what he thinks they want to see no who he really is......get over it.

I will not vote for Obama because he has communist leanings. It has nothing to do with the color of his skin.

The Chicago Tribune has an amusing report on Barack Hussein Obama, who appeared last weekend on ABC's "This Week With George Stephanopoulos":

Being tough means, first of all, not having to talk about it

So Obama says the first test of toughness is "not having to talk about it"--and he then proceeds to talk about how tough he is.

If Obama is being sincere, by his own standard he's a jellyfish.

I like Hillary based on the things she's said & done though PJP. If you feel that Obama is somehow insincere because you have vibes, that's fine. I think everyone here is capable of drawing their own conclusions of how much merit something like that constitutes no matter who the candidate is.

Detente has been reached. Praise Allah!

Quote:

the G-man said:
Detente has been reached. Praise Allah!

and your doing the "Praise Allah" thing because...?

Quote:

the G-man said:
The Chicago Tribune has an amusing report on Barack Hussein Obama, who appeared last weekend on ABC's "This Week With George Stephanopoulos":

Obama's criticism of Bush for his combative rhetoric came in answer to a question about whether the senator had the capacity to act ruthlessly when necessary if elected president.

"It's not just talking tough, because the truth is nobody's talked tougher than George Bush over the last six years. Being tough means, first of all, not having to talk about it all the time," Obama said. . . .

Without going into any specifics, Obama cited his testing in Chicago politics as a sign that he had an inner toughness. "Somebody who has arrived where I am out of Chicago politics has to have a little bit of steel in them," he said. "I have the capacity, I think, to make strong decisions even if they're unpopular, even if they're uncomfortable, even if sometimes I lose some friends."

So Obama says the first test of toughness is "not having to talk about it"--and he then proceeds to talk about how tough he is.

If Obama is being sincere, by his own standard he's a jellyfish.

I like how you stopped the bold text so it wasn't immediately clear he said "all the time." To prove he went back on that statement you would need to show that he talked about being tough all the time, not just pull one instance out of your rob-soaked ass.
Seriously, G-man. Do you even read your posts anymore or are you just stalling until the election?

You have to understand Ray that G-man's candidate has all the integrity & character of a man who's been married 3 times & doesn't see his kids. When you have that to work with, I imagine that you need to get a bit creative to artificially equal things out against potential opponents.

I would like to see Bill Richardson be President. He is a good man and is not as divisive as some republicans and dems running.

But if his poll numbers climb up both sides will be destroying him too and coming up with stories on what a bad guy he is.

The whole thing is sickening.

Quote:

Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man said:

Quote:

PJP said:
It is about religion for me Bastard. 100%. I have no problems with a Black man or woman becoming President.

I don't believe Obama is a sincere person.

Noted.

But, Pete, have you ever seen or heard of a politician...check that...SUCCESSFUL politician that is completely sincere? As a group, these people will typically say anything necessary to get elected. I've heard many statements by all the candidates that I judge as sincere or insincere depending on the candidate or the circumstances.

Is there really a person out there that you beleive will absolutely say what's on his mind and truly do exactly what he claims if elected?

I think you'd have a better chance with the pink, polka-dotted elephant.

I don't understand the religion angle. He's a Christian...like you, I'm guessing. Maybe a different brand but, still fundamentally the same beliefs. Contrary to some beliefs, he's not Muslim or Buddhist or Scientologist or any other fringe sect.

Personally, I think if he does have a personal familiarity with Muslim beliefs and customs, it could be very useful in dealing with those that seek to do us harm...either whole countries or individual organizations. Remember that the majority of the world is not Christian. Don't you think it might be a good idea to have someone in office that can relate to them as well as us?

The majority of the world doesn't believe in women's rights. Should we elect a president who doesn't just so he fits in?

I remember a time when you used to intelligently debate points rather than just snark for no reasdon at all.

What happened to you, G-Man....? You used to beautiful, man....

Quote:

THE Bastard said:
I've read this thread periodically....having read all of the posts over time; some significantly later after they've originally been posted.

I know most of the personalities that post here.

I respect many of the opinions of said personalities even if I don't always agree...especially when they come from the ultimate left of left.

The deal is...I can't really tell if the dislike of Obama comes from his politics or his race.

I admit to being biased. My life experience has been such that I see a certain amount of racism in many things that involve minorities. Much of it is justified, a very small portion is not.

I see many people on this thread and others that appear to be against Obama just because his skin is a different tone than their own...even the swarthy Greek participants on this thread; who are naturally darker that the subject, by the way.

Does his race make him any less qualified than the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania...? The same gentleman that has presided over the worst mismanagement of the most violent conflict this country has seen since Vietnam...? That has been the head of what will probably be the most indited administraion since the Watergate years...?

Is he really any worse than any of the candidates on the RIGHT side of the issues...? Those with issues of character as strong as any of the previous administration...? Those that have turned on their own party's rhetoric to gain favor with a country sick of war...? Those who've lost ground with the general public for being willing to stand by their (current) hawkish convictions regardless of the the overwhelming attitude against the conflict and the administration who started it and exaggerated the truth to win support of it?

Is he really that worse an alternative than the honorable Dem. senator from Illi-York...? The carpet-bagger that has more pratical experience (thru observation and advising) governing a nation than any other candidate of either political persuasion...? The candidate whose only apparent major flaws are that she has a pussy and stayed with a man who has admitted to infidelities...?

Perhaps (as most white people will always say) I'm reading too much into the situation. Maybe you Republicans folk really like us black folk...as long as we stay in our place and don't get too uppity...like running for president. You like us just fine as nannies, gardeners, postal workers and drug dealers. But when we try to get edu-ma-cated and better ourselves...well, y'all just don't cotton to that idea at all.

Perhaps I'm wrong. I'm sure several of you will definitely chime in to tell me exactly that...and why I'm a racist for even suggesting that you could possibly be the same.

That's cool. I hope I am wrong. For your sakes.

In a year or so, there is a real possibility that the could be a finally be a black memaber of the executive office of this country...possibly even a Woman AND a Black Guy.

I'd hate to see all of you have to move back to the old country to protest.

Peace and hair grease, y'all.

My primary objections to Obama have absolutely nothing to do with his race.

My reasons:

He's not experienced enough

He doesn't have a clear set of issues, and talks in naive-sounding high plattitudes without really saying anything specific

He talks about raising the level of political discussion, while conversely/hypocritically getting in his partisan digs

The only way it's become a race issue for me is where the liberal media, the Democrats, and Obama himself have made an issue of his being black.
They constantly raise his skin-color as an issue, and say "Heyyy, the first serious black candidate...", the same way they make an issue of Hillary being the first serious woman candidate (ignoring, of course, Elizabeth Dole, because, of course, she was a Republican candidate).

And I've suspected all along that if Obama loses, it will be blamed --of course!-- on America being a racist nation that's intolerant of black candidates.

Ignoring Colin Powell.
Ignoring Clarence Thomas.
Ignoring Thurgood Marshall.
Ignoring Alcee Hastings, Charles Rangell, Maxine Waters, J.C. Watts, and so many other successful black candidates and other high office-holders, both Democrat and Republican.

Let's not divide the nation over false phantoms of alleged racism against blacks.

Although that's what liberals and Democrats always, inevitably, do.

That's one of my greatest aversions to Democrats, their divisive tactics over the last 40 years, that constantly rift this nation over random, and often manufactured, racial incidents.
Let's limit criticism of our nation to the real and quantifiable incidents of racism.

And as I've said in past discussions, whites are not immune to racist treatment either. I suspect this will become increasingly visible as whites continue to decrease as a percentage of the U.S. population. All races on this planet, and in every nation, engage in racist behavior, but somehow only whites/Europeans are held accountable for it.

I'll grant you this, though, Obama would be hard pressed to do worse than Bush as president.

Quote:

Wonder Boy said:
My primary objections to Obama has to do with his race.

maybe Wonder Boy isn't so much offended by Obama's race, but more the fact that one of his parents was white.
WB is very big on racial purity.

Why are people offended by his face? He ain't that ugly.

OMG, Mxy is gay for Obama.

Obviously. I hate America.

Yeah, jealously will do that.

How did you know I secretely wish I was overweight?

Look, Mxy, its okay. America is the greatest nation on earth. Its only natural that you'd feel a little envy.

If by greatest you mean widest, I guess you're right in a sense...

Stupid Chilean. The United States is only the world's third largest country by land area after Russia and the People's Republic of China.

You do realize he said wide, right?

Words are often confusing for republicans.

Look at a map, people. Russia and China are both wider than the U.S.

So wide,he had to say it twice.

Quote:

rex said:
Quote:

Wonder Boy said [as trollishly scripted by rex, ignoring what WB clearly posted above]:
My primary objections to Obama has to do with his race.

Quote:

Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man said:
maybe Wonder Boy isn't so much offended by Obama's race, but more the fact that one of his parents was white.
WB is very big on racial purity.

Quote:

what Wonder Boy ACTUALLY said:
Yeah, I did describe meeting the daughter of a Pakistani couple that owned a restaurant I ate at for years, who were very friendly toward me, and when I expressed an interest in their daughter (very beautiful!) they very uncharacteristically changed, and said she's muslim and she only dates Pakistani men.

I similarly described a Vietnamese co-worker who, when I asked her out after a year on the job together, said she only dates Vietnamese men.
Both incidents I found rather racist. They certainly would have labelled me a racist if I said I only date white Protestant women.
And other incidents involving discriminatory behavior by black co-workers and employers. It happens to whites as well.

But I'm hardly traumatized by it. I've dated women from Morocco(muslim), Iran(non muslim), Spain(Catholic), the Phillipines (who I wanted to marry, but she moved away), plus women from all over central America, South America and the Caribbean.

I was just making the point that people who are quick to label myself and other white Americans as racist, are often laughably racist themselves.

Yeah, I clearly am the white racist you portray me as, who only dates women of "racial purity".

Except that both the women I almost married don't fit the racial label you slapped on me (one Phillipine, one hispanic).

So the fishing graemiln means that you can't defend yourself?

Obama Raises Record $32.5 Million

Barack Obama outraised Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton by $10 million in second-quarter contributions that can be spent on the Democratic presidential primary contest, aided by the contributions of 154,000 individual donors.

Obama's campaign on Sunday reported raising at least $31 million for the primary contest and an extra $1.5 million for the general election from April through June, a record for a Democratic candidate.

Counting this quarter's surge of donors, the first-term senator from Illinois has received donations from more than 258,000 donors through the first half of the year, an extraordinary figure at this stage of the campaign. Obama raised $25.7 million in the first three months of the year.

Barack bests well-heeled Hil in hottest money race ever

If money were the decider, Barack Obama would be the next Democratic White House nominee - not the once all-but-coronated Hillary Clinton.

After the first six months of the 2008 White House race, the freshman Illinois senator has catapulted himself past one of the world's most famous women, building a bankroll of $34 million to chase his party's nomination.

The former First Lady, in spite of getting a running start from her 2006 Senate victory in New York, has $33 million to compete with Obama, according to details released last night.

It's odd that they would report the 1 million difference between Hillary & Obama as the big news & ignore how little the top GOP candidates are getting in comparison.

I'm actually starting to like Obama, and his image as a departure from politics as usual, and a departure from partisanship, instead finding a unifying middle ground, beginning political discussion with what we can agree on, rather than where we diverge.

I still think he comes across as a bit pedantic, and as having a worldview more like that of a college professor than a skilled and effective politician. But he's a presidential candidate I could embrace more readily than Hillary Clinton.

I'd like to see Obama voice more clear objectives for the nation than I've heard from him so far. And more evidence that he can be a smart, quick and effective decision-maker. My concern is that he is too sympathetic to all sides, and might not provide effective leadership. (i.e., Jimmy Carter syndrome)

He's also one of the least tested candidates, with only two years in the Senate. John F. Kennedy similarly had little previous experience. Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, while arguably outsiders, had both previously governed a state. I'd like to see clear vision and leadership that demonstrates Obama's ability to govern.

And just as quickly, Obama's own website...

http://barackobama.com

...completely discredits him beyond redemption.

The single most important issue for me currently is illegal immigration and securing our borders. Amnesty for illegals is completely unacceptable.

As I learned from Obama's own website, he recently spoke at the annual meeting of La Raza in Miami. La Raza is a hispanic racist and anti-American organization, that I would rank on a par with the Ku Klux Klan. (Except that at least Klansmen, despite their racist beliefs, are still very patriotically American.) And yet Obama is speaking to these people, and soliciting their votes.

In the videoclip posted on Obama's own campaign website he discusses marching with illegals in a recent nationwide demonstration.

Here are some of his comments, as reported in the Washington Times.

he'll tell you whatever he think you want to hear. He's a piece of shit. He's probably al qaeda.

That's my impression. I like the sentiment of finding the political common ground, but if that common ground is rallying illegal immigrants and pandering to other enemies of the United States, count me out.

On the subject of the La Raza speech by Barack Obama, here's a blog commentary that explains the level of hostility I feel about his meeting with La Raza.

diggersrealm

If Barack Obama suicide-bombed an American military base, I could not see him as more of a traitor.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070801/ap_on_el_pr/obama_terrorism

Quote:

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Wednesday that he would send troops into Pakistan to hunt down terrorists even without local permission if warranted — an attempt to show strength when his chief rival has described his foreign policy skills as naive.

The Illinois senator warned Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf that he must do more to shut down terrorist operations in his country and evict foreign fighters under an Obama presidency, or Pakistan will risk a U.S. troop invasion and losing hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid.

"Let me make this clear," Obama said in a speech at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. "There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qaida leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

Obama's speech comes the week after his rivalry with New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton erupted into a public fight over their diplomatic intentions.

Obama said he would be willing to meet leaders of rogue states like Cuba, North Korea and Iran without conditions, an idea that Clinton criticized as irresponsible and naive. Obama responded by using the same words to describe Clinton's vote to authorize the Iraq war and called her "Bush-Cheney lite."

....

The Pakistani Foreign Office, protective of its national sovereignty, has warned that U.S. military action would violate international law and be deeply resented.

Now, isn't one of the main attacks on Bush and the war in Iraq that it was an illegal invasion of a country that has caused more hatred for America in the Muslim world? How would invading Pakistan be any different, especially considering how Musharraf has been a lot more accommodating than most Middle Eastern leaders?

that was fucking bizzare......that will come back to haunt him. I'm sure Pakistan was happy to hear an invasion is coming if he wins.

Check out this letter to the editor (fourth one) in the San Francisco Chronicle:

[Is] white America is ready to vote for a black man to be the president of the United States in the year 2008. Sadly, the answer is no!

Race is still the 800-pound gorilla sitting on the sofa in this country. Every important issue facing America today is tinged by racism. Everything, the legal justice system, schools, health care and even the illegal immigration debate. Let's be honest, we aren't talking about all illegal immigrants, just the "brown ones."

If the Democrats want to blow what should be a slam dunk, they'll nominate Barack Obama for president.

VERNON S. BURTON
San Leandro

So, to summarize: This guy argues that the Democrats should not nominate Barack Hussein Obama because Obama is black--and he claims that other people are racists.

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy, December 21, 2006

and

Originally Posted By: the G-man, December 18, 2006

Slightly more positive for Obama, a new poll suggests the country is a bit readier to make an African-American President than they are a woman.

A Newsweek poll finds 86% of registered voters say they would back a qualified woman nominated by their party. For a black person, 93% say they would be willing to back the candidate.

The survey also found Americans think their fellow citizens still are a bit reluctant to elect either. Only 55% say the U.S. is ready to elect a woman; 56% say they can see the country selecting an African-American.

POLLS ARE SHIT! Rational people hang up the phone when Klinton calls to ask poll questions!

Originally Posted By: PJP re: thedoctor

that was fucking bizzare......that will come back to haunt him.

No shit, that's a real weird move. I don't get it.

Obama's wife says he can still beat Clinton: Michelle Obama tells U.K. paper his campaign has upper hand in organization, funds raised and donor base.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Obama's wife says he can still beat Clinton: Michelle Obama tells U.K. paper his campaign has upper hand in organization, funds raised and donor base.

If they didn't have the money coming in from campaign contributions I would say they're pretty much through. Even with the money I doubt they can catch up to Hillary's lead. She's the only candidate from both parties that has pulled out from the pack with a definitive lead.

Quote:

Group to Obama: Drop Singer From Tour

By ANN SANNER – 6 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — A gay rights group has urged Barack Obama to cut ties with a gospel singer who it says spreads false information about homosexuality being a choice.

Donnie McClurkin is among several gospel singers scheduled to raise money for the Illinois senator and Democratic presidential candidate at a concert in South Carolina this weekend.

McClurkin has drawn attention from gay rights activists for his views on homosexuality.

"I don't believe that it is the intention of God," McClurkin said Monday in a telephone interview. "Sexuality, everything is a matter of choice."

McClurkin said he does not believe in discriminating against homosexuals. "What people do in their bedrooms and who they are as human beings are two different things," he said.

In a statement, Obama said he believes gays and lesbians are "our brothers and sisters" and should be afforded the same respect, dignity and rights granted all other citizens.

"I have consistently spoken directly to African-American religious leaders about the need to overcome the homophobia that persists in some parts our community so that we can confront issues like HIV/AIDS and broaden the reach of equal rights in this country," Obama said. "I strongly believe that African Americans and the LGBT community must stand together in the fight for equal rights. And so I strongly disagree with Reverend McClurkin's views and will continue to fight for these rights as president of the United States to ensure that America is a country that spreads tolerance instead of division."

The statement did not say whether McClurkin will still perform on the tour.

"We strongly urge Obama to part ways with this divisive preacher who is clearly singing a different tune than the stated message of the campaign," Wayne Besen, executive director of Truth Wins Out, said in a statement.

At a forum on gay issues in August, Obama argued that civil unions for same-sex couples wouldn't be a "lesser thing" than marriage. Obama belongs to the United Church of Christ, which supports gay marriage, but Obama has yet to go that far.

In a telephone interview Monday, Besen said he admired Obama, but wasn't ready to endorse him, especially considering McClurkin taking part in the campaign's "Embrace the Change" concert tour.

"I think he'd be a great president. But I think it's going to drive away support from people who are on the fence such as myself," Besen said.

McClurkin is a Grammy Award winner who performed at the Republican National Convention in 2004. He told AP Radio in an interview that September that he was "once involved with those desires and those thoughts," which he attributed to being raped at 8 and 13.

"That's what thrust me into it, and then God delivered me from that and gave me back who I really am and my true purpose," McClurkin said.

Quote:

Obama, the Gospel Singer and Gays

by Mike Dorning, and updated

A Gospel concert tour that the Barack Obama campaign has organized for this weekend is stirring controversy among some gay activists.

McClurkin

Grammy Award-winning gospel artist Donnie McClurkin, who has offended gay rights groups by promoting the view that homosexuality is a choice and that gays can be "cured," is among several gospel singers scheduled to campaign on behalf of Obama in South Carolina. McClurkin is one of the singers featured in the tour's finale on Sunday.

McClurkin, who is also a Pentecostal minister, has said he struggled with homosexual "demons" for 20 years--which he attributes to molestation as a child by male relatives--but is now straight.

McClurkin's involvement in the tour has stirred a flurry of heated commentary on the web from gay activists and liberal bloggers.

Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt said Monday evening that the campaign has no plans to drop McClurkin from the concert series, though Obama did issue a written statement late Monday distancing himself from McClurkin's views on homosexuality.

“I have clearly stated my belief that gays and lesbians are our brothers and sisters and should be provided the respect, dignity, and rights of all other citizens. I have consistently spoken directly to African-American religious leaders about the need to overcome the homophobia that persists in some parts our community so that we can confront issues like HIV/AIDS and broaden the reach of equal rights in this country," Obama said in the written statement.

"I strongly believe that African Americans and the LGBT community must stand together in the fight for equal rights. And so I strongly disagree with Reverend McClurkin’s views and will continue to fight for these rights as President of the United States to ensure that America is a country that spreads tolerance instead of division," the statement added.

The Huffington Post's Earl Ofari Hutchinson helped stoke the controversy on the web with a post that argues featuring McClurkin in a campaign-backed concert series amounts to an "ala Bush pander to anti-gay mania" that he calls "shameless and reprehensible."

Ameriblog's John Aravosis lambasted Obama: "Yes, sucking up to anti-gay bigots and joining them on stage - no, giving them a stage - is certainly defying conventional wisdom as to how a Democrat becomes president."

Open Left's Matt Stoller accused Obama of "hanging out with ex-gays crusading against the 'curse of homosexuality', further cementing his strong record of giving no one any reason to vote for him."

The gay-oriented blog Towleroad also has taken up the controversy, saying it "surely looks to be a huge misstep in terms of his LGBT support."

The Gospel music tour through South Carolina culminates a "Forty Days of Faith and Family" initiative in which the Obama campaign has highlighted the role of faith in the candidate's politics. African-American church-goers are an important voting segment in the state's Democratic primary, a crucial early contest in the presidential campaign.

One gay activist involved with the Obama campaign said the situation puts the candidate in a bind, since he risks offending evangelicals in South Carolina if he cancels McClurkin's appearance but could alienate gay supporters if the performance proceeds as planned.

“This story is quickly turning into a disaster for Barack,” said the supporter who is active on gay and lesbian issues. “He’s screwed if he goes through with the trip with Donnie McClurkin….But he's also screwed in South Carolina if he dumps McClurkin. I hope that the staffer who set this up has already been fired.”

Obama really needs to explain why it's okay for him to ask last week for a Justice Department official to be fired for making a racially insensitive remark, but when a notoriously homophobic gospel singer "declares war" on gays and says that gays need to be cured, suddenly Obama is all Mr. Nice Guy and refuses to "fire" the bigoted singer from hosting a concert for Obama's campaign.

Obama can't have it both ways. When he's insulted as a black man by someone who isn't black, suddenly we fire everyone. But when gays and lesbians are insulted and the offender just happens to be black, firing the offender is no longer on the table. Does Obama only have a problem with prejudice, does he only take action on bigotry, when the black community is the target and when the offender isn't black? Is he ever going to represent everyone else too? Don't get me wrong, I think people should be held accountable for their racism. But I also happen to think that bigots should be held accountable for their homophobia, anti-Semitism, and every other form of prejudice too, and that they don't get a "get out of jail free card" simply because of their race. But that would be expecting Obama to actually put his words into action. Silly me.

Barack Obama plays jokester in chief on 'SNL'

"Saturday Night Live" looked more like "Meet the Press" last night, with NBC anchorman Brian Williams as host - and a surprise appearance by Sen. Barack Obama.

The Democratic presidential candidate made his cameo in the opening skit as a guest to a Halloween costume party thrown by Bill and Hillary Clinton.

While Joe Biden masqueraded as SpongeBob SquarePants and Hillary played a bride, Obama was dressed up as Barack Obama. "I have nothing to hide," he said, after removing his own rubber mask. "I enjoy being myself. I'm not going to change who I am just because it's Halloween."

Iowa Poll Shocker: Obama Surges Ahead of Hillary

While the top three Democratic presidential candidates are locked in a fierce campaign battle for Iowa, one candidate is riding a new wave of support.

According to the latest Washington Post/ABC News poll released Tuesday, Sen. Barack Obama has surged to a 4 point lead over Hillary Clinton, and an 8 point lead over John Edwards.

In a survey of likely Democratic caucus-goers in Iowa, Obama draws support from 30 percent, compared with 26 percent for Clinton and 22 percent for former senator John Edwards. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson received 11 percent.

While Obama has seen recent gains in the early-voting midwestern state, it remains a tight three-person race for precinct caucuses, however Obama's lead over Edwards was beyond the margin of sampling error.

The poll also asked Iowans whether they are more interested in "new direction and ideas" or "strength and experience." 55 percent said they favored new ideas and direction, compared to 33 percent who prefered experience. Among the "new direction" voters, 43 percent favor Obama and 17 percent back Clinton.

The poll showed no other Democrats receiving more than 5 percent of support.

The ABC News/Washington Post telephone poll surveyed 500 adults likely to participate in the caucuses and was conducted Nov. 14-18. The poll had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4.5 percentage points.

Actually it's not much different than previous polls. A couple of points is pronounced a surge though. Another example of how the media is "corronating" Clinton I guess.

It's funny how Obama thinks he can ride Social Security reform to try to distinguish himself from Hillary.

Did he not pay attention to recent events? George W. bush tried to ride on this same issue a few years ago to complete defeat. I guess desperate times call for desperate measures. Still, it looks to me as if he's playing right into Republican hands trying to make an issue out of a non-issue.

Now whenever any Republican tries to privatize Social security again, all they need to do is to point to Barak Obama's speeches.

Obama closing in on Clinton

Perceptions are nine-tenths of reality in politics. If the voters think you're a winner, they are more likely to jump on your bandwagon. If they think you're sitting dead in the water, you're a bum, no matter how appealing your ideas might be.

That's been U.S. Sen. Barack Obama's problem. After his rock-star presidential campaign launch, the Illinois Democrat has been languishing in second place, running 20 points or more behind U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York.

Recently, though, as the clock ticks toward the casting of actual votes, Obama appears to have risen out of bum-hood and onto a roll.

he is drawing sharp contrasts and distinctions between his own positions and those of his leading opponent. The perception of decorum is important in politics, even as you quietly put on your brass knuckles.

The turning point was evident in the Oct. 30 Democratic presidential debate in Philadelphia. Clinton was questioned sharply, especially by Obama, the journalists' panel and former U.S. Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina.

After exhibiting supreme confidence in the earlier debates, Clinton sounded evasive and even self-contradictory on key issues in Philadelphia. Afterward, even she admitted that she had fallen off her game.

A good example was her awkward wavering on whether she supported granting driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. She seemed to be trying to support the idea in principle, but not necessarily in practice. Obama has since made a theme of criticizing Clinton as lacking honesty, candor and consistency. Clinton countercharges pointedly that Obama lacks experience.

knowledgeable observers noted that Clinton was stepping on shaky ground in boasting foreign policy expertise. She was a first lady, after all, not a secretary of state.

Adding to Obama's perception of momentum is a new ABC News/Washington Post poll released last week. The poll is the first in which Obama has scored a higher percentage than Clinton in Iowa, where the Jan. 3 precinct caucuses will formally launch the 2008 presidential race.

Obama's lead in the ABC/Post poll is within the survey's margin of error, pollsters caution, which means he and Clinton remain in the statistical dead heat in Iowa that they have been in since at least mid-summer. More ominous for Clinton is the apparent shift in what Iowa Democrats say they are seeking in a candidate. A majority in the new poll favor "new direction and new ideas" over "strength and experience" by 55 percent to 33 percent. A July ABC/Post poll found the ratio was 49 percent to 39 percent. Suddenly the lock that Clinton seemed to have on the nomination appears to have come unlocked.

The new battle of perceptions between Obama and Clinton is one of "honesty" versus "experience," in the Iowa poll. Even among Iowa's women, who have been more supportive of Clinton than Iowa's men, 30 percent believe Obama is more "honest and trustworthy," while just 18 percent say that for Clinton. For Obama, Iowa has turned from lackluster into a love fest.

To put that in context, Hillary was trailing in the Iowa polls 5 months ago. Since then she rallied & out of 12 polls she's lead in 11 of them. That didn't interest the pundits though & so the last poll was the story. At the same time Rudy & Fred look like they'll be battling it out for third place in Iowa. I haven't seen any pundit talk about how that could be the end of their campaigns though.

That's a straw argument, MEM. I haven't seen anyone credible say that losing Iowa would be the end of Hillary's campaign.

I have, however, seen pundits note that her losing Iowa, after spending as much time there as she has, would crack her image of inevitability and create an opening for Obama (whom, after all, this thread it about).

Just thought I would add some context to one poll G-man. The Sunday shows all played pretty much the same way by focussing on one poll & very little on context. As I noted Hillary spent alot of time in Iowa because she wasn't doing well there just 5 months ago. I remember a pundit back then even questioning why she should even bother spending much time there & just write it down as a loss. Pundits really seem extra lame these days.

I should have said "beginning of the end for their campaigns" in my previous post btw.

American Spectator:

[The Obama campaign just announced that Oprah Winfrey will tour with him in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina on December 8th and 9th. Expect a media circus to ensue. Let's see if she can sell candidates as well as she can sell books.

Hey, anyone....remember this exchange from last year:

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Its funny how, as soon as Barack Hussein Obama starts beating Hillary Rodham Clinton in some early polls, negative information about him starts leaking out.

Not that the Clintons would ever slander an opponent or anything. $;\)$

Originally Posted By: Matter Eater Man

G-man [is] just making up accustions about the Clintons...Media Matters....It was ...conservatives [who] would milk Obama going to a Muslim school when he was 6... you would say that Clinton was behind it. Even if you think she's capable of doing it, it's very obvious that she didn't need to.

Now comes the recent news that Hillary staffers were circulating the story about Obama being a Muslim and even hinting that Obama was a drug dealer.

Hillary, of course, claims to be completely ignorant of what her staff was doing.

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

It seems you want [Obama] to win the nomination

Actually, no. If I'm rooting for any democrat, its Richardson.

But I think it's fun to watch the Clinton camp squirm each time they're caught pulling these dirty tricks that you were tried to tell us the Republicans were behind.

Furthermore, why are you so against Obama, MEM? Simple marching orders from Clinton or latent dislike of black men?

After all, it can't be his politics.

Honestly, if Hillary didn't know about the tactics her own campaign was using for so many different smear jobs against Obama, all that says is that she has no control over her own people. Not a good ringing endorsement for her presidential bid. I think it's more likely that she's well aware of it, but that her people are just stupid in how they're doing it.

Originally Posted By: thedoctor

I don't agree. Campaigns like this are huge & chock full of volunteers. No way of preventing one or two volunteers doing something that Hillary would have any way of knowing. Besides, if there was some sort of mandate from Clinton it would get out. Instead what we have here is the campaign doing what it can by firing anyone who spreads the crap that G-man had been posting about Obama for all along.

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Originally Posted By: thedoctor

Maybe one such isolated attack could be an abberation of a few Hillary volunteers. But there does seem to be a consistent pattern to these attacks, from Hillary's "Left-wing attack machine".

I especially like the one where they attack Obama's comments as a five-year-old to his Kindergarten teacher, saying he's like to be president someday.

That's so much worse than, oh, say, Whitewater, or Filegate, or marching in a gay parade with men in leather thongs, while boycotting a catholic parade for not allowing gays to participate, or basing your political campaign on "triangulation" rather than firm principles...

Sorry but what is wrong with saying Obama wanted to be President all his life & providing sources that back it up WB? Hillary haters like to pretend it was just early school stuff & ignore that the bulk of it was about his adult life. To top it off some of these same people were busy running around proclaiming that Obama is a muslim based on his childhood.

Originally Posted By: thedoctor

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

I don't agree.

Wow. Never saw that coming...

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

If I was unclear, I said that it was petty and desperate of Hillary Clinton's campaign (at the link I provided to Hillary's own Campaign website, where the attack on Obama's childhood remarks to his Kindergarten teacher were posted) to attack comments Obama made as a 5-year-old, and as an adolescent, as a high school student, as a college student, etc. All Obama did was express a desire to be President someday, it's not like Hillary's campaign was exposing Obama as an embezzler, insider trader, betrayer of America, or criminal of some kind.

I'm confused by your remarks criticizing attacks on Obama being muslim, since those (I recall G-man posted the evidence) attacks came from the Hillary Clinton campaign. Which she disavowed knowledge and complicity in, of course. $;\)$

As I said earlier:

Quote:

Obama did nothing morally or criminally wrong in voicing his ambitions at various points in his life. It's not like she's exposing Obama for, oh, say, his involvement in abusing government power to prop up a failing savings and loan to protect his Whitewater land investment.
Or rifle through Vince Foster's files at the very time his body was found, and then withold those files from investigators for years.
Or have a hand in pulling FBI files on Republicans to try and intimidate/blackmail these Republicans into silence in Filegate.
Or march as Senator in a gay parade in San Francisco, with men wearing black leather thongs, and other gays in the parade dressed to mock Catholic priests and nuns. While Hillary simultaneously boycotted a Catholic parade in New York City because the parade would not include homosexual groups in the parade.

Yep, Hillary sure has exposed Obama's deep dark secret. It's a good thing Obama has nothing to expose that she's done wrong...

Hillary's campaign didn't make a big deal about it WB. They just pointed out Obama's contradictory statements.

If you think that's petty & desperate though then what do you think about these?...

Originally Posted By: the G-man

The Politico's Mike Allen argues that Barack Hussein Obama has a penchant to stretch the truth. He offers some examples that are reminiscent of Al "I Invented the Internet" Gore's 2000 exaggerations:

Speaking early this month at a church in Selma, Ala., Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) said: "I'm in Washington. I see what's going on. I see those powers and principalities have snuck back in there, that they're writing the energy bills and the drug laws." . . .

But not only did Obama vote for the Senate's big energy bill in 2005, he also put out a press release bragging about its provisions, and his Senate Web site carries a news article about the vote headlined, "Senate energy bill contains goodies for Illinois." . . .

On Sunday, the Chicago Tribune reported that an extensive search found no basis for an episode Obama recounts [in his 1995 book, "Dreams From My Father"] about a picture he ran across in Life magazine of a "black man who had tried to peel off his skin" in a failed effort to use chemicals to lighten it. Obama writes that "seeing that article was violent for me, an ambush attack." The Tribune reported: "Yet no such Life issue exists, according to historians at the magazine. No such photos, no such article. When asked about the discrepancy, Obama said in a recent interview, 'It might have been an Ebony or it might have been . . . who knows what it was?' (At the request of the Tribune, archivists at Ebony searched their catalogue of past articles, none of which matched what Obama recalled.)" . . .

As another example, consider Obama's stirring tale for the Selma audience about how he had been conceived by his parents, Barack Obama Sr. and Ann Dunham, because they had been inspired by the fervor following the "Bloody Sunday" voting rights demonstration that was commemorated March 4. "There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Ala.," he said, "because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born. So don't tell me I don't have a claim on Selma, Ala. Don't tell me I'm not coming home to Selma, Ala."

Obama was born in 1961, and the Selma march occurred four years later, in 1965. The New York Times reported that when the senator was asked about the discrepancy later that day, he clarified: "I meant the whole civil rights movement."

Suurreee. <img src="/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />

Obviously, all politicians display a tendency to stretch the truth at times. This in itself is unlikely to derail any Barack Hussein Obama electoral jihad.

However, at this point, a fair amount of the support for Senator Obama seems to come from the perception that he's more honest than the average politician. If that remains his sole, or primary, claim on the nomination stories like this could erode his support perhaps more quickly than with another candidate.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Some reports indicate that Obama was a Muslim up until 1992 and that he only changed his religion only so that he could marry:

The evidence seems to show that both Ann Dunham (Obama's mother) and her husband Lolo Soetoro Mangunharjo (his stepfather) were in fact devout Muslims themselves and they raised their son as such.

To further support this, two of Obama's classmates in Indonesia at the time one who is now the CEO of Indonesia's national airline and the other a bank manager in Jakarta remember a very different Obama, a very religious one that was well versed in Islam and liked to recite his prayers.

"[Obama] was previously quite religious in Islam. His birth father, Barack Hussein Obama was a Muslim economist from Kenya.'

"All the relatives ... were very devout Muslims"

"He was often in the prayer room wearing a 'sarong', at that time, he was quite religious in Islam but only after marrying Michelle, he changed his religion."

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

So I wonder who will be Obama's seasoned hands?

Take at look at his well known political supporters and advisors. That might give you a clue.

After watching them tag-team on Hillary in the New Hampshire debate last night, and express a shared vision of change for the country, I could see Obama picking Edwards as his Vice President.

It seemed to me Edwards was aligning his political vision with Obama's, and against Hillary's.

But again, we're still 11 months from election day. A lot can still happen, on both the Democratic and Republican sides.

It's amazing to me that there's no clear front runner, for either party. It could still wind up going to just about any of them.

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

It's still really early in the process. Bill Clinton didn't win anything till GA I believe. I kind of wondered if Edwards had his eye on the VP again myself.

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

It's amazing to me that there's no clear front runner, for either party.

Actually, what amazes me is the idea that the nomination process could be over in a couple of weeks, with more than nine months to go until the election. I just don't think that's good for the process regardless of which party we're talking about.

This weekend on Bloomberg television, conservative pundit Robert Novak discussed what Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-IL) “Achilles heel” would be if Obama prevails the in Democratic primary over the coming weeks.

Novak said Obama could be threatened by “racist prejudice” in the general election. In making this statement, however, Novak inadvertently made a racist comment of his own, arguing racist prejudice is unlikely against Obama because he is “clean” and “not a stereotype African-American”:

Quote:

Q: What is Obama’s potential Achilles heel?

NOVAK: I think the only potential Achilles heel is in a general election, if there is some racist prejudice. I’m not sure there is. He’s, as poor Joe Biden said, he’s clean. He isn’t a stereotype African-American. And I think he’s a very strong candidate.[/b]

Watch it:

Novak acknowledged borrowing language from “poor” Sen. Joe Biden’s (D-DE) insensitive remarks from last year. Recall, Biden said that Obama is a “clean” and “articulate” African-American. Biden was widely condemned for the comments.

In stereotyping African-Americans as “unclean,” Novak exemplified the type of “racist prejudice” that still exists.

What are you saying, whomod? That there is no such thing as an African American stereotype?

If you have to stop and acknowledge it, then it shows you think it needs to be stated to distinguish Obama apart from the rest of his race. If it'll make you happier, I was also struck by Keith Olbermann quipping the day after Iowa that Obama reminded him of Tiger Woods (WTF???!!)

During his speech following his victory in Thursday’s Iowa caucus, Senator Barack Obama sounded confident, inspired and ready to take the momentum into New Hampshire. It was most refreshing to see a strong turn out from younger people in Iowa and a general enthusiasm for and from Democrats. After all we’ve endured during the Bush years, it’s a most welcome sight.

Awesome speech BTW.

..If only Hillary were that moving and inspirational.

It's a shame he didn't win in NH.

Obama is pretty young so even if he doesn't win the Democratic nomination this time, he's got a couple more chances left. Plus it would give him a chance to show voters that he can do more than just inspire with words.

Media critic Tim Rutten weighs in on Obama's speech:

Quote:

A tale of two speeches

By TIM RUTTEN

January 9, 2008

Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney were supposed to leave New Hampshire today as the prohibitive favorites to win their parties' presidential nominations. It didn't happen that way. Romney has now lost twice, and Clinton, who ran third in Iowa, found New Hampshire a lot tougher than anyone could have anticipated. Some substantial part of the explanation for their difficulties might be called a tale of two speeches.

One was the address Barack Obama delivered, and the other was the one Romney should have given -- but didn't.

Obama's, obviously, was the stunning victory speech after Thursday's Iowa caucuses; he's been riding a wave of enthusiasm ever since. Even the sort of seasoned political analysts inclined to cynicism recognized that the junior senator from Illinois had delivered the sort of soul-stirring, landscape-altering address that deserves to be reckoned in a rhetorical lineage that includes, most recently, memorable public speeches by John and Robert Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr. and Ronald Reagan.

(Just for the sake of historical perspective, it's worth keeping in mind that eloquence guarantees nothing on election day; William Jennings Bryan's masterful "Cross of Gold" speech will be studied as long as there are American politics. Nevertheless, American voters rejected Bryan's presidential candidacy in three elections.)

There were, in fact, two things about Obama's speech that remain as remarkable as the campaign heads toward Tsunami Tuesday on Feb. 5 as they were in the moment of delivery. The first is that it was, at bottom, a discussion of race in which race never was mentioned. The second is that both red and blue America seem to have heard the same thing -- something worth noting in this bitterly partisan era. Thus, even a reflexively Republican commentator such as Bill Bennett praised the speech for appealing "to the better angels of our nature."

Race is America's perennially unfinished business, but what Obama did in Iowa was to offer a new way of talking about it, and it is that -- more than any policy he yet has advanced -- that marked him as a candidate of change. Race remains the great American problem, but it's a problem whose contours have been dramatically reshaped in recent years. Yes, this still is a society in which young African American men both commit and are victimized by violent crimes in wildly disproportionate numbers and are imprisoned at an alarming rate. It's also a society, however, in which two successive secretaries of State have been black, as have the recent CEOs of the nation's largest communications company -- Time Warner -- and two of its biggest financial services companies, Merrill Lynch and American Express.

America is no longer a country of the dream deferred but of the dream realized in unexpected, but perplexingly uneven, ways. Obama, the 46-year-old product of both Harvard Law and community organizing in the Chicago projects, speaks in a new emotional vocabulary that recognizes both achievement and need. It's a language he has in common with younger voters, who thus far are turning out in huge numbers.

It will be fascinating to see how this message next plays in South Carolina, which has two things neither Iowa nor New Hampshire has -- a substantial African American population and very traditional politics.

Just as surely as Obama's campaign has surged since his Iowa speech, Romney's has suffered since he failed to say what needed to be said in Texas a month ago. From the start, the former Massachusetts governor has had to cope with the problem of religious bigotry. One in four Americans say they're reluctant to vote for a Mormon. That antipathy runs even higher among evangelical Protestants, who make up most of the GOP's social-conservative wing.

In December, Romney attempted to emulate -- in an attenuated fashion -- John F. Kennedy's famous 1960 appearance before a group of Protestant ministers hostile to the notion of a Catholic president. Kennedy hit the issue head on, mentioning his Catholicism 14 times, forthrightly embracing separation of church and state and promising to resist any attempt by the church hierarchy to dictate his conduct as an elected official.

Instead of addressing the issue forthrightly, as Kennedy had, Romney temporized and attempted to placate the religious right by soft-pedaling his own faith -- which he mentioned only once -- and by attacking secular humanism and proclaiming his own belief in Jesus Christ.

It wasn't simply pandering, it was oddly bloodless. How, for example, could a Mormon candidate for the Republican presidential nomination fail to mention that his party's very first national platform was built on two planks -- the abolition of slavery and the elimination of Mormonism, both of which those first Republicans deemed "barbarous?" How could he not take the opportunity to remind his handpicked Republican audience that, as recently as the 1890s, thousands of Mormon men were arrested and imprisoned by the United States Army or that the U.S. Senate refused to seat a lawfully elected member from Utah because he was a Mormon?

Rather than do those things, he attempted to ingratiate himself to that very sector of popular opinion in which anti-Mormon prejudice remains most intact. In the process, he helped legitimize fundamentalist preacher-turned-pol Mike Huckabee's naked appeals to Christian voters in Iowa. It's a pitch Romney -- and America -- are likely to hear a lot more of in South Carolina and beyond, where the evangelical vote is even stronger.

As Romney's and Obama's contrasting experiences demonstrate, silence is seldom golden in politics.

I like Obama, but I'm still voting for Mitchell Hundred.

(Did anyone read Ex Machina #33?)

What the hell did you fools do with my avatar? I'm only asking because I'm keeping it.

Anonymous Fri Jan 11 2008 01:38 AM Reading a post
Forum: Politics and Current Events
Thread: Barack Hussein Obama in '08?

Anonymous One User 400+ posts Fri Jan 11 2008 01:36 AM Reading a post
Forum: Politics and Current Events
Thread: Barack Hussein Obama in '08?

It sure appeared as if Karl Rove was back to backing the candidate he‘d love to see beaten. The former adviser to President Bush writing it up there (in a now Murdoch-owned, Murdoch “Street Journal”) in which he explains why Mrs. Clinton won in New Hampshire and otherwise, reiterates Senator Obama, saying that the Illinois Democrat‘s performance at the debate Saturday, quote,

Quote:

“His trash talking was an unattractive carry over from his the days of playing basketball at Harvard, and capped a mediocre night.”

And Karl Rove knows his mediocre. Of Senator Obama generally, Mr. Rove is saying, quote,

Quote:

“He‘s often lazy.”

Karl Rove knows his lazy. Out of Mr. Obama‘s speeches, Mr. Rove analyzing, quote,

Quote:

“His rhetoric while eloquent and moving at times, has been too often light as air.”

What is, is he scared of a Barack Obama nomination? Is he scared not to have a Hillary Clinton one? Does he just feel the need to be involved when his time is so clearly passed?

Well, Obama's campaign is clearly a repudiation of that kind of style of politics. And Obama is pretty explicit about it. More than that though, some of Obama‘s aides detected a pretty ugly undertone in Rove there. The trash talking, the basketball, the lazy thing. Is he suggesting that some sort of color aspect to Barack Obama‘s behavior that he‘s getting at? You know, it was uncomfortably close to an edge of being plain racist.

Quote:

Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field.. Genesis 3:1

Quote:

“His rhetoric while eloquent and moving at times, has been too often light as air.”

this is really funny coming from the man who invented George W. Bush.

I wouldn't put alot of stock into what Rove is saying now. Earlier he was giving advice to Obama on how to beat Clinton. Like other GOPers, he would naturally prefer a protracted struggle between Obama & Clinton for the Democratic nomination.

I've noticed that Republicans who were attacking Obama have stopped & have been even protective of Obama. My personal feeling is he's the one they would like to go against where they can attack him on being inexperienced & all the other bs that you can find on this thread earlier. If he wins the Democratic nomination they'll start treating him like a Clinton.

With all due respect, MEM, we no more gave up our right to analyze the performance(s) of the Democrat candidates than you gave up your right to comment on the various Republicans pre-primary.

Further, while I hope you realize that Republicans have a variety of opinions on a variety of subjects (and that the following is not per se representative of any consensus), I would note that at least some conservatives are of the opinion we would much rather run against ~~the strident, angry, ethically challenged Hildebeast~~ Hillary than Obama:

Republicans have spent years gearing up for an epic battle against Hillary Clinton in the 2008 presidential race, but as Barack Obama gains momentum in the Democratic nomination fight, they are scrambling to come up with a new strategy for the general election.

With Republicans bitterly divided and facing a difficult electoral environment, the prospect of another Clinton presidency had been seen as the one development that had the potential to unify the party. In a general election, her high negatives and role in the scandals of the 1990s would be major liability, and in a change election year, Clinton is the Democrat who would make the least convincing argument for change.

But in Obama the Democrats have found a fresh face without Clinton's baggage, who even opponents acknowledge is charismatic and likable. His victory in Iowa has made "change" the buzzword in both parties.

Let's be honest, whoever wins the Democratic primary is still going to go up against a GOP attack machine that isn't going to somehow be nicer to Obama if he wins the nomination. His character will come under fire & be redefined when it's strategically important for the other side to do so. You yourself G-man for example have taken a break with Obama. If you really wanted Hillary to be the Democratic pick you would be posting much differently.

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Sure, they're like cornered animals now.

To quote Darth Sideous "All who gain power, fight to retain power". Or something like that.

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Let's be honest, whoever wins the Democratic primary is still going to go up against a GOP attack machine that isn't going to somehow be nicer to Obama if he wins the nomination.

I don't concede that engaging in a vigorous debate and examination of the issues qualifies as an "attack machine." However, you are, of course, correct that both parties will give the eventual nominee of the other party a hard time.

Quote:

His character will come under fire & be redefined when it's strategically important for the other side to do so. You yourself G-man for example have taken a break with Obama. If you really wanted Hillary to be the Democratic pick you would be posting much differently.

I hate to break it to you, but I'm not so infused with delusions of self-importance that I think my posts are going to influence the course of an election or even how you Democrats here are going to vote in your primary. I come here and give my opinions. That's all.

Same here when it comes to my opinion G-man. There is no delusion under my part that I have any influence. I think you can't help yourself not to be strategic with your posts though G-man.

I think my willingness to criticize various GOP candidates, even when they are the frontrunner(s), should dispell that.

For example, I've never been shy about reservations I have over McCain and I'm highly critical of Huckabee, even though they both have very good chances of getting the nomination and my criticisms could come back to haunt me.

I think it goes without saying G-man that we all have candidates that we favor more than others. My comment about strategy goes to your long history of going after any Democrat that you see as any type of threat. (Plame, Pelosi, Edwards, Kerry, Gore ect ect) That's not to say you don't see Obama as a threat but right now you & the GOP in general see Hillary as the one worth trying to knock out now IMHO.

Quote:

BET Founder, Clinton backer “insulted” by Obama’s MLK spin

by Aaron Bruns

Billionaire Clinton backer Bob Johnson, who founded Black Entertainment Television, said he’s “a little bit insulted, if you will, by Senator Obama letting his campaign imply that Hillary Clinton does not revere what Martin Luther King did for African Americans.”

“I think that’s taking it way too far,” he said while campaigning with Clinton in South Carolina. “I think Barack understands clearly what the senator was saying.”

Johnson argued that when Clinton said it took action by President Lyndon Johnson to realize the dream of Martin Luther King, she was merely saying that moral change has to be written into law. “That is the way the legislative process works in this nation. And that takes political leadership,” he said.

Johnson said the controversy in the black community wouldn’t hurt Sen Clinton in South Carolina, and suggested it might actually hurt her chief rival. “Nobody believes either Hillary Clinton or Bill Clinton would say anything that would denigrate either Barack Obama or Martin Luther King. And to me, what may happen is a backlash may occur when people see that Barack Obama is allowing his PR people to let out the notion that Hillary Clinton did not respect everything that Dr. Martin Luther King or any other person who faced the problems and the threats of being a part of the civil rights movement faced. “

“And to me, Barack knows better than that. And why he would let his people let that come out just shows to me either he’s not in control of what they’re saying, or he’s allowing them to say it knowing he’s wrong.”

You can't be the "politics of hope" & then play with divisive issues like race IMHO.
FOX

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

My personal feeling is [Barack Hussein Obama]'s the one they would like to go against where they can attack him on being inexperienced & all the other bs that you can find on this thread earlier. If he wins the Democratic nomination they'll start treating him like a Clinton.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

...at least some conservatives are of the opinion we would much rather run against ~~the strident, angry, ethically challenged Hildebeast~~ Hillary than Obama

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

If you really wanted Hillary to be the Democratic pick you would be posting much differently.

You might want to clue in Bill Maher, MEM. He thinks we want to run against Hillary:

Bill Maher, on the Friday night season debut of his HBO show, suggested that because Republicans prefer to run against Hillary Clinton than Barack Obama they engineered her victory in New Hampshire's Democratic primary.

Maher opened the panel discussion by observing how he found it “odd” that polls showed Obama ahead in New Hampshire, yet Clinton won, and “it does bother me that a private company runs the polling machines and that only they certainly seem to know what went on...Who profits from the Hillary victory? They don't want to run against Obama. Your party does not want to run against him. They want to run against Hillary Clinton and now they have a race with her in it."

Let us know which conspiracy theory you guys decide to run with, okay?

I replied to your duplicate post on the Hillary thread. Do you really need to do the double post?

There was a really funny moment when Hillary Clinton was interviewed Sunday morning on Meet the Press, where Hillary was criticizing Obama's lack of experience, and played clips of Obama (recently) and Bill Clinton (debating in 1992). And after, Tim Russert said: "Obama sounds just like Bill Clinton in 1992!"

Meaning that Like Obama against Hillary, Clinton in 1992 said he was experienced enough, and had a more comprehensive vision for changing the nation.

Something I've seen on Bill Moyers Journal, McLaughlin Group and several other panel shows, is the notion among liberals that having a black guy run for president represents the most progressive stance that Bill and Hillary have always stood for, and whether it's a contradiction of their liberal progressive vision to stand in the way of a viable black candidate for president. And whether at some point, they'll ethically have to step aside.

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

Didn't Clinton actually at least complete his govenorship? Obama is so ambitious that he can't even wait to finish his first term as a Senator.

I think it's a silly notion that anyone should feel they need to step aside to let someone else win. This is for the most important job in the world & Obama isn't going to get a free pass from the Clintons. He sure as hell isn't going to get one from the GOP either when/if it comes time.

Besides having a woman president would also be progressive. I couldn't even make a judgement as to which would be more, could you?

Yeah, MEM, that's pretty much what Hillary said in response:

Quote:

MR. RUSSERT: And we are back in South Carolina. The Democratic primary here a week from Saturday. Our guest is Senator Hillary Clinton, the Democrat from New York, candidate for president.

Experience is a big issue in this campaign...

SEN. CLINTON: Mm-hmm.

MR. RUSSERT: ...that your campaign has talked about extensively. I want to go back to a debate back in October of 1992, when a young governor from Arkansas was talking about experience. Let's listen.

(Videotape, October 11, 1992):

Pres. CLINTON: I believe experience counts, but it's not everything.

We need a new approach. The same old experience is not relevant.

And you can have the right kind of experience and the wrong kind of experience. Mine is rooted in the real lives of real people, and it will bring real results if we have the courage to change.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: That could've been written by Barack Obama.

SEN. CLINTON: Well, you know, by the time Bill ran in 1992, he was the senior most serving governor in our country. He had done a lot of work on the economic and trade issues that affected the state of Arkansas. And I do think that there's not a contradiction between experience and change. I think that they have been somehow put in these opposing categories, and I don't think that's the way that we make decisions in our life. What the question is, who has the experience we need to make the changes we want. And I believe that my experience over the course of 35 years of my life equips me very well to do exactly what Bill said in that clip.

I'm sure Obama's response would be that he had other political and legal experience before he became a Senator. And would again use Bill Clinton's 1992 line, that: "experience counts, but it's not everything", and that good judgement means more than experience.

Originally Posted By: MEM

I think it's a silly notion that anyone should feel they need to step aside to let someone else win. This is for the most important job in the world & Obama isn't going to get a free pass from the Clintons. He sure as hell isn't going to get one from the GOP either when/if it comes time.

Besides having a woman president would also be progressive. I couldn't even make a judgement as to which would be more, could you?

I'm just sayin', I've heard several liberals make the argument, and more persuasively than I paraphrased it, not recalling the exact phrasing.

There are many firsts in this election:

Barack Obama: first viable black candidate (honorable mention to Alan Keyes and Jesse Jackson, and possibly Colin Powell).

Hillary Clinton: first viable woman candidate (honorable mention to Elizabeth Dole, and Geraldine Ferraro).

John McCain: oldest man to ever run for office

Mitt Romney: first Mormon to run for president

Mike Huckabee: first baptist minister, and first blue-collar republican in a long time.

Ron Paul: first viable republican to run on independent-candidate issues

John Edwards: first Democrat to basically run as an independent candidate.

I'm kind of pushing it with a few of these. But there's no doubt that these are some radically different candidates this year. None of them are flawless, but it's certainly an interesting race.

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

I think it's a silly notion that anyone should feel they need to step aside to let someone else win. This is for the most important job in the world & Obama isn't going to get a free pass from the Clintons...Besides having a woman president would also be progressive. I couldn't even make a judgement as to which would be more, could you?

I agree that it would be silly for Obama, or anyone else, to expect other candidates to step aside on some sort of "affirmative action" theory.

Of course, some would argue that is exactly what Hillary expected would happen for her; that male candidates would be forced to step aside on the theory that "a woman president would be progressive."

Too bad for her it may not work that way. Hotline's Blogometer has a good roundup of liberal blog reaction to the race war between the Clinton and Obama camps. I found this Noam Scheiber post particularly astute:

On Friday I said that, if you were cynical, you could argue that the Clintons have an interest in polarizing the nomination fight along racial lines--the idea being that, even if it hurts them in the short-term (with African Americans in South Carolina), Obama can't win if he becomes the "black candidate," which is what racial polarization accomplishes.

Well, I no longer think you have to be cynical to make that argument. This is just despicable stuff.

Say what you want about Obama: that he's too liberal, too inexperienced, etc. And you might be right. I know I'd never vote for him.

But one of the truly positive aspects of his campaign is that he is running for office not as a black candidate, but as a candidate for president who happens to be black. He has simply not played the race card the way Clinton has played the gender card. While Hillary integrated the fact that she would be the first woman president into her standard stump speech, Obama does not emphasize race. That, at least, deserves our respect...certainly a lot more than crocodile tears and hinting that we're all sexists if we don't support here.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

I think it's a silly notion that anyone should feel they need to step aside to let someone else win. This is for the most important job in the world & Obama isn't going to get a free pass from the Clintons...Besides having a woman president would also be progressive. I couldn't even make a judgement as to which would be more, could you?

Who's some? You? Let's here that arguement & see how much of it is actually based on anything Hillary said.

Quote:

Too bad for her it may not work that way. Hotline's Blogometer has a good roundup of liberal blog reaction to the race war between the Clinton and Obama camps. I found this Noam Scheiber post particularly astute:

On Friday I said that, if you were cynical, you could argue that the Clintons have an interest in polarizing the nomination fight along racial lines--the idea being that, even if it hurts them in the short-term (with African Americans in South Carolina), Obama can't win if he becomes the "black candidate," which is what racial polarization accomplishes.

Well, I no longer think you have to be cynical to make that argument. This is just despicable stuff.

Wow you put alot of words into Hillary's mouth besides being emphathic to boot since you "know" what she's feeling. Obama just got done playing the race card & quickly backed out of it today. Trying to spin the Clintons as putting down MLK just wasn't going to play out as credable.

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

Originally Posted By: MEM

I'm just sayin', I've heard several liberals make the argument, and more persuasively than I paraphrased it, not recalling the exact phrasing.

Those are silly liberals! Same thing goes for those backing Hillary because she would be the first woman President if elected.

Quote:

There are many firsts in this election:

Barack Obama: first viable black candidate (honorable mention to Alan Keyes and Jesse Jackson, and possibly Colin Powell).

Hillary Clinton: first viable woman candidate (honorable mention to Elizabeth Dole, and Geraldine Ferraro).

John McCain: oldest man to ever run for office

Mitt Romney: first Mormon to run for president

Mike Huckabee: first baptist minister, and first blue-collar republican in a long time.

Ron Paul: first viable republican to run on independent-candidate issues

John Edwards: first Democrat to basically run as an independent candidate.

I'm kind of pushing it with a few of these. But there's no doubt that these are some radically different candidates this year. None of them are flawless, but it's certainly an interesting race.

That is pretty refreshing & a nice departure from '04 where both Bush & Kerry had similar backgrounds, went to the same school & were both "skulls".

Originally Posted By: MEM

That is pretty refreshing & a nice departure from '04 where both Bush & Kerry had similar backgrounds, went to the same school & were both "skulls".

Yeah, both attended Harvard at roughly the same time, and both shared almost exactly the same "D" average.

I'd like a president who was at the top of his class. Which is one of my objections to McCain, who graduated West Point near the bottom of his class.

Who are you rooting for these days WB or are you undecided?

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

There are many firsts in this election:

Barack Obama: first viable black candidate (honorable mention to Alan Keyes and Jesse Jackson, and possibly Colin Powell).

Alan Keyes and Jesse Jackson were never "viable." And Colin Powell never even explored the idea of running, his wife wouldn't let him.

Quote:

Hillary Clinton: first viable woman candidate (honorable mention to Elizabeth Dole, and Geraldine Ferraro).

Again, those other two weren't "viable" as President. And Ferraro ran for Vice President

Quote:

John McCain: oldest man to ever run for office

He'll be 72 on election day. But Bob Dole was 73 on election day 1996.

Quote:

Mitt Romney: first Mormon to run for president

Actually Joseph Smith the founder of the mormon faith ran in 1844 (though he died a few months after he started his campaign).

Originally Posted By: Adler

Alan Keyes and Jesse Jackson were never "viable."

In 1984, "Jackson, who had been written off by pundits as a fringe candidate with little chance at winning the nomination, surprised many when he took third place behind Senator Gary Hart and former Vice President Walter Mondale [in the Democrat primaries]. Jackson garnered 3.5 million votes and won five primaries and caucuses, including Louisiana, the District of Columbia, South Carolina, Virginia and one of two separate contests in Mississippi."

In 1988, "he captured 6.9 million votes and won 11 contests; seven primaries and four caucuses .... Briefly, after he won 55% of the vote in the Michigan Democratic caucus, he was considered the frontrunner for the nomination, as he surpassed all the other candidates in total number of pledged delegates."

But thanks for the "Rayfact"[TM]

Originally Posted By: the G-man

In 1988, "he captured 6.9 million votes and won 11 contests; seven primaries and four caucuses .... Briefly, after he won 55% of the vote in the Michigan Democratic caucus, he was considered the frontrunner for the nomination, as he surpassed all the other candidates in total number of pledged delegates."

by the time of the convention everyone but Dukakis (the clear frontrunner) had asked their delegates to support Dukakis. Jackson made a respectable showing but that's a far cry from the lead and wins Obama has had. You're just being an ass again which is evident by your attempts to reuse an old joke that no one thought was funny to begin with.
such as...

Quote:

But thanks for the "Rayfact"[TM]

The fact Jackson lost in no way means he wasn't "viable" before that. By your logic, Kerry and Gore were never viable Presidential candidates because each lost to Bush at the end.

DEM BIGS URGING 'ABRASIVE' BUBBA: COOL IT!

Bill Clinton's barbed attacks on Barack Obama are being met with warnings from his own party bigwigs.

Clinton has gotten phone calls in recent weeks from Massachusetts Sen. Edward Kennedy and Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois over comments he's made about Obama

Both men told Clinton to stop attacking his wife's rival and find a different tone

But this weekend Clinton was back at it again.

Speaking at YMCA rally in Las Vegas Friday, Clinton said he and daughter Chelsea had personally witnessed voter "suppression" in Nevada.

Campaign strategists also worry Bill's sour notes will tip Kennedy, Emanuel and other high-ranking party officials toward Obama.

Neither Kennedy nor Emanuel have made a primary endorsement.

Clinton is just doing what presidential spouses do in tight races. Obama & Edwards spouses have done the same thing. Clinton has just been more effective than the others.

Feel free to bring that up that defense at your next Democrat caucus, MEM. It's members of your own party that are criticizing Bubba.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Feel free to bring that up that defense at your next Democrat caucus, MEM. It's members of your own party that are criticizing Bubba.

And I acknowledge that, I was just adding my observations to what you posted. Clinton has been effective in getting Obama off message which allows Hillary to spend more time talking about the real issues. That's helped her win the last two states.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

The fact Jackson lost in no way means he wasn't "viable" before that. By your logic, Kerry and Gore were never viable Presidential candidates because each lost to Bush at the end.

well they were both nominees. I personally feel that someone isn't truly "almost president" or viable unless they're a nominee. I only say that Obama now (though I believe wondy actually said it) because we're in the middle of it all and he looks good to be the nominee. But until the primaries are over it's just infighting in the party.

Quote:

I personally feel that someone isn't truly "almost president" or viable unless they're a nominee.

By that logic, your argument that Obama is more viable than Jackson is a sham. Obama hasn't been nominated yet either. Similarly, the implication of that argument is that McCain isn't a viable candidate by virtue of having lost the nomination in 2000 to George W. Bush.

In fact, by your logic, no one running is yet a viable candidate except made Edwards, due to having been the 2004 VP nominee.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Quote:

I personally feel that someone isn't truly "almost president" or viable unless they're a nominee.

That would be a good point to make except that the full post was:

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

Originally Posted By: the G-man

The fact Jackson lost in no way means he wasn't "viable" before that. By your logic, Kerry and Gore were never viable Presidential candidates because each lost to Bush at the end.

grow up, G-man.

I was trying to interpret your remarks to assume that you hadn't, in fact, contradicted yourself in a single post.

But even if we interpret your remarks that way you're logic still falls apart.

If, as you say, Barack is "viable" because he enjoys frontrunner, or near-frontrunner, status, then Jackson was also viable. As noted earlier, there was a period of time during that election when Jackson was, in fact, the frontrunner. Which brings me back to my earlier point that Jackson was, in fact, a viable black candidate and that you're earlier statement to the contrary was a "Rayfact." (TM)

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Who are you rooting for these days WB or are you undecided?

I have leanings, I'm not fully decided.

I actually slightly favor Romney at this point over the other Republicans. He has a track record as governor in Massachussetts, that proves he can govern. Although conservative, he governed favorably in a liberal state, which indicates he would not be a divisive figure. He takes a hard stance on immigration. And what I like most is he advocates enforcing our existing laws, rather than complicating things in McCain-Feingold ways, with news laws that might make things even worse, as happened with campaign finance. He expresses a vision for how he plans to lead the nation. And despite being wealthy, he expresses a vision for reforming Washington.
McCain, Thompson, Paul, or Guiliani, I could possibly be convinced to support. McCain is arguably the best military leader, which is an important consideration.
Huckabee, who I initially liked, has revealed himself to have too many flaws for me to support.

On the Democrat side, I've gained some respect for John Edwards, as another populist Washington reformer, who isn't just campaigning, but passionately believes what he says.
Obama also has appeal as a reformer, and I like the guy, but his expressed ideas are too vague, although I like that he urges healing the partisan divide.
And as I said before, him and Hillary sucking up to illegals to get the hispanic votes leaves me unconvinced that either Obama or Hillary will secure our borders.

But unlike Obama, I despise Hillary, who I think combines the corruption of Bill Clinton with the divisive partisanship of George W. Bush, and would just further divide the nation politically, and further undermine our sovereignty with continued business-as-usual globalization and out-of-control immigration.

So in a nutshell, Hillary is the only candidate I've completely rejected. And Huckabee. Sorry about that, I know you favor her. Maybe you can tell me what you see in her that I don't.

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

So in a nutshell, Hillary is the only candidate I've completely rejected because I hate women, unless they are foreign and posing nude.

You know, rex, if you're going to stalk WB the same way that you stalk Beardguy, you ought to at least pay attention to what he writes.

WB didn't say Hillary was the only one he had completely rejected. He also said the same thing about Huckabee.

I would like to think you can still tell that Huckabee isn't a woman, but maybe all the sock fucking has finally rendered you incapable of distinguishing between the sexes.

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

There are many firsts in this election:

Barack Obama: first viable black candidate (honorable mention to Alan Keyes and Jesse Jackson, and possibly Colin Powell).

Alan Keyes and Jesse Jackson were never "viable." And Colin Powell never even explored the idea of running, his wife wouldn't let him.

Polls in 1992, 1996 and 2000 showed that if Powell wanted to run, he out-polled anyone, Democrat or Republican. That to me was the turning point, where a majority of Americans (polled in three different election years!) would have elected Powell as our first black president, if he wanted the job.

As G-man explained above, Jesse Jackson was far more viable than you give him credit for. At this point, he has still won more primaries than Obama or Hillary. And if not for a back-room deal, he might have obstructed or weakened Dukakis' nomination in 1988. There was a moment during Dukakis' nomination acceptance speech where Dukakis verbally reached out to Jackson at the DNC convention, and the TV cameras preserved a long, intimidating angry stare at Dukakis fro about a minute or so.

I mention Alan Keyes because he's run in at least 4 elections I can recall, and is an impressively intelligent and insightful black American who at least has the freedom to run for the presidency. He participates in debates and widens the discussion in those debates. Which I think earns him considerable recognition, even if he hasn't had wide support.
But I concede, as you say, that he isn't "viable" in the sense that he has a high probability of getting elected. But in being a qualified and well-versed black American who is at least qualified to run (something I never gave Jesse Jackson credit for), I think the mere fact that he runs and is competent to run, is noteworthy.

Originally Posted By: Ray

Originally Posted By: WB

Hillary Clinton: first viable woman candidate (honorable mention to Elizabeth Dole, and Geraldine Ferraro).

Again, those other two weren't "viable" as President. And Ferraro ran for Vice President

Ferraro was viable as Vice President. During a good portion of the 1988 election, Dukakis was 20 points ahead, and Ferraro was part of the ticket that polled that high. Ultimately she wasn't elected, but she was arguably electable, if election day was before the tide turned in November 1988.

Elizabeth Dole was qualified and widely liked, but ultimately she chose not to run. But the mere fact that many in the media tossed her up as a possible candidate I think demonstrates that she was a contender.
She wasn't "viable" in the technical sense because she didn't run, but she certainly had the potential.

Originally Posted By: Ray

Originally Posted By: WB

John McCain: oldest man to ever run for office

He'll be 72 on election day. But Bob Dole was 73 on election day 1996.

McCain would be as well, byt the time he was inaugurated.

Originally Posted By: Ray

Originally Posted By: WB

Mitt Romney: first Mormon to run for president

Actually Joseph Smith the founder of the mormon faith ran in 1844 (though he died a few months after he started his campaign).

Ah. But by your own standard, Smith wasn't a viable candidate, whereas Romney has the nationwide campaign organization to actually get elected.

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Clinton is just doing what presidential spouses do in tight races. Obama & Edwards spouses have done the same thing. Clinton has just been more effective than the others.

Well... yes and no. I'd expect anyone to campaign aggressively for their spouse. But Bill Clinton is stepping on some toes.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

DEM BIGS URGING 'ABRASIVE' BUBBA: COOL IT!

On a This Week Sunday morning panel discussion a few weeks ago, one of the panelists suggested that Bill Clinton might be somewhat threatened by Hillary potentially overshadowing his presidency, and with his charisma and rhetoric actually might be deliberately undermining her campaign. Despite campaigning for her, he might have ulterior reasons for not wanting her to win.

That's in the same mode as liberal pundits who (as I mentioned above) think that Bill and Hillary, being true progressive liberals, will at some point have to stand aside and let Obama, the first black man with wide popular support, be elected president. And that this would be the ultimate national healing for past U.S. racism, to elect a black man president, bla bla bla, liberal social theory ad nauseum.

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

...
So in a nutshell, Hillary is the only candidate I've completely rejected. And Huckabee. Sorry about that, I know you favor her. Maybe you can tell me what you see in her that I don't.

I think she's got the experience to get right in there & get more of the things done that I want done.

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Clinton is just doing what presidential spouses do in tight races. Obama & Edwards spouses have done the same thing. Clinton has just been more effective than the others.

Well... yes and no. I'd expect anyone to campaign aggressively for their spouse. But Bill Clinton is stepping on some toes.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

DEM BIGS URGING 'ABRASIVE' BUBBA: COOL IT!

It's pretty hard to run a campaign where it's so close not to step on some toes. The question becomes who's toes are being stepped on & is it worth it. I think Kennedy is being overly sensitive when it comes to Obama. If voters in general think like Kennedy, Bill Clinton will probably go softer on Obama. I don't think they do though.

Hillary, Barack, Experience

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

...
So in a nutshell, Hillary is the only candidate I've completely rejected. And Huckabee. Sorry about that, I know you favor her. Maybe you can tell me what you see in her that I don't.

I think she's got the experience to get right in there & get more of the things done that I want done.

but if that's true then why did her husband feel the need to seek gratification elsewhere? did she not get right in there and get more of the things done that he wanted done?

Originally Posted By: The Pun-isher

Hillary, Barack, Experience

Good article.

Some insightful pun-ditry.

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

...
So in a nutshell, Hillary is the only candidate I've completely rejected. And Huckabee. Sorry about that, I know you favor her. Maybe you can tell me what you see in her that I don't.

I think she's got the experience to get right in there & get more of the things done that I want done.

Please.

Most Democrats are still waiting for that day to roll around when her and the other entrenched Democrats find their spine to actually challenge this Administration with the power they possess TODAY.

It seems the only Democrat with any real backbone in Congress is John Conyers and Russ Feingold.

And did you like Hillary's response for having voted for the Iraq war? I voted FOR it but I hoped it wouldn't pass.

WTF??!!

Originally Posted By: whomod

...
And did you like Hillary's response for having voted for the Iraq war? I voted FOR it but I hoped it wouldn't pass.

WTF??!!

It's not hard to understand that answer. Many Democrats voted to give authorization to Bush but it was done with many assurances that it would be a last resort measure. As you mentioned she had alot of company in that decision of trusting the President to act wisely.

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Originally Posted By: whomod

...
And did you like Hillary's response for having voted for the Iraq war? I voted FOR it but I hoped it wouldn't pass.

WTF??!!

Quote:

If you want to understand today, you have to search yesterday. ~Pearl Buck

Once you recognize who you're dealing with, it really wasn't that hard to figure out...

Quote:

History is a vast early warning system. ~Norman Cousins

Y'know, I saw the same sordid assholes from Watergate, The Church Committee hearings and Iran Contra and managed to figure out that they'd be up to no good. And 'm not paid to figure it out.

Maybe you should run for office Whomod.

Maybe I will.

I'll just have to watch out for Wonder Boy trying to accuse me of having allegiances to Moscow of the 1970's.

I'd vote for you, ya little commie $;\)$

Not if he ran against a Clinton you wouldn't $;\)$

Originally Posted By: whomod

Maybe I will.

I'll just have to watch out for Wonder Boy trying to accuse me of having allegiances to Moscow of the 1970's.

that's not cool. Bobby Fischer just died.

Top South Carolina paper endorses Obama

South Carolina’s The State endorsed Obama for Saturday’s Democratic primary Tuesday, calling the Illinois senator “a groundbreaking nominee” and the best candidate to unite the country and repair America’s reputation around the world.

“Sen. Obama is the only Democrat who plausibly can say that he wants to work with Americans across the political spectrum,” The (Columbia) State said on its Web site.

I wonder how MEM feels about this, given he seems to think endorsements are very important in deciding primary races?

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Top South Carolina paper endorses Obama

South Carolina’s The State endorsed Obama for Saturday’s Democratic primary Tuesday, calling the Illinois senator “a groundbreaking nominee” and the best candidate to unite the country and repair America’s reputation around the world.

“Sen. Obama is the only Democrat who plausibly can say that he wants to work with Americans across the political spectrum,” The (Columbia) State said on its Web site.

I wonder how MEM feels about this, given he seems to think endorsements are very important in deciding primary races?

I didn't reallize that I thought that. Since you feel endorsements have no value I also wonder why you even bother posting them for your Rudy & Obama?

You're not going to make me dig up your posts about Hillary and the Iowa newspaper endorsements are you?

Originally Posted By: the G-man

You're not going to make me dig up your posts about Hillary and the Iowa newspaper endorsements are you?

Feel free to do whatever you want G-man. I suspect whatever you quote from me will be laden with .... &....plus some... so it fits in with how you twisted what I said. Let's keep in mind this is what you just said,

Originally Posted By: the G-man

...
I wonder how MEM feels about this, given he seems to think endorsements are very important in deciding primary races?

That's a really broad view of endorsements & I think when you review my posts on the Des Moines Register's endorsement you'll notice I'm not generalizing that as applying to all endorsements.

Actually, MEM, you are correct solely insofar as I could have more clearly stated that I was referring to what seemed to be your opinion of newspaper endorsements and not all endorsements.

I would respectfully submit, however, that my reference to Obama receiving a newspaper endorsement did provide sufficient context so that you could have understood what sort of endorsement to which I was referring.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Even narrowing it down to just newspaper endorsements, it was still clear that I wasn't saying all of them were important.

Oh, I got it. Just the ones that endorse HILLARY
$;\)$

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Oh, I got it. Just the ones that endorse HILLARY
$;\)$

So I guess your done with your latest round of exagerations?

I see you are conceding my point.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

I see you are conceding my point.

What point???

That you only believe endorsements count when the endorsement favor Hillary, of course.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

That you only believe endorsements count when the endorsement favor Hillary, of course.

Oh you were being serious? So I take it your backing off your original claim that I think all endorsements (or just newspapers in particular) are very important? Since you clearly exagerated I just assumed this was your theme for the evening.

For a breathe of fresh air, heres what I really think. Some endorsements do help a candidate. For Obama, Oprah's did & the Cullinary Union's endorsement while being touted as being important by the media wasn't so much help. Then again perhaps his loss in Nevada would have been even bigger than 6% if he hadn't had them. Much the same thing could be said of the Des Moines Registers endorsement for Hillary.

All kidding aside, MEM, I think most people have, at one point or another, a tendency to view things that seem to help "our" candidates as more important than things that don't, even to the point of rationalization. It's important, however, to not let ourselves to give in to self delusion.

I agree with you that some endorsements (for example, the Oprah endorsement of Obama) are more important that others. Where we differ is that I think all newspaper endorsements are sort of pointless and you seem to think at least some are valuable (concidentally it seems to be the ones that favor your candidate).

Originally Posted By: the G-man

G-man you do reallize the Des Moines Registers endorsement was one that Obama, Edwards & Clinton all competed for because they valued it & that it was a national story much like Obama's endorsement by the Cullinary Union? It wasn't something I just picked out because it was pro-Hillary.

I was sort of struck by the glib dismissal of the Des Moines Register myself.

It's considered a BIG endorsement on account of the importance of Iowa itself to the primary elections.

If pretty much every talking head on TV thought it was a big deal and every candidate thinks it's a big deal, why would someone assert just the opposite?

I think the press tends to overestimate their own importance in all sorts of issues, regardless of politics or political affiliation.

It goes beyond the talking heads on TV or the press. It's part of every ones campaign. It's fucking common knowledge that the Register is a BIG endorsement.

jeez. You bend over backwards every time to try to save face.

This would be the same "big endorsement" that Hillary got right before she lost Iowa?

What the fugg does that have to do with the fact that it is considered a big endorsement?

Well, this is unfortunate. Obama won South Carolina. Unfortunate because he really isn't the best candidate. All you need to know about Obama was displayed in the last Dem debate where he was stumbling all over himself to explain his vote for the credit card industry. It was frankly amateurish, disingenuous, and pitiful. Even Hillary is a better choice than him.

Quote:

Obama wins South Carolina primary

By DAVID ESPO and CHARLES BABINGTON, Associated Press Writers 1 minute ago

COLUMBIA, S.C. - Barack Obama routed Hillary Rodham Clinton in the racially charged South Carolina primary Saturday night, regaining campaign momentum in the prelude to a Feb. 5 coast-to-coast competition for more than 1,600 Democratic National Convention delegates.

"The choice in this election is not about regions or religions or genders," Obama said in remarks prepared for a victory rally. "It's not about rich versus poor, young versus old and it's not about black versus white. It's about the past versus the future."

The audience chanted "Race doesn't matter" as it awaited Obama to make his appearance.

But it did.

About half the voters were black, according to polling place interviews, and four out of five of them supported Obama. Black women turned out in particularly large numbers. Obama, the first-term Illinois senator, got a quarter of the white vote while Clinton and Edwards split the rest.

Former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina was running third, a sharp setback in the state where he was born and scored a primary victory in his first presidential campaign four years ago. Even so, aides said he would remain in the race.

The victory was Obama's first since he won the kickoff Iowa caucuses on Jan. 3. Clinton, a New York senator and former first lady, scored an upset in the New Hampshire primary a few days later. They split the Nevada caucuses, she winning the turnout race, he gaining a one-delegate margin. In an historic race, she hopes to become the first woman to occupy the White House, and Obama is the strongest black contender in history.

The South Carolina primary marked the end of the first phase of the campaign for the Democratic nomination, a series of single-state contests that winnowed the field, conferred co-front-runner status on Clinton and Obama but had relatively few delegates at stake.

That all changes in 10 days' time, when New York, Illinois and California are among the 15 states holding primaries in a virtual nationwide primary. Another seven states and American Samoa will hold Democratic caucuses on the same day.

Obama took a thinly veiled swipe at Clinton in his prepared remarks.

"We are up against conventional thinking that says your ability to lead as president comes from longevity in Washington or proximity to the White House. But we know that real leadership is about candor, and judgment, and the ability to rally Americans from all walks of life around a common purpose — a higher purpose."

Looking ahead to Feb. 5, he added that "nearly half the nation will have the chance to join us in saying that we are tired of business-as-usual in Washington, we are hungry for change, and we are ready to believe again."

Clinton issued a statement saying she had called Obama to congratulate him on his victory. She quickly turned her focus to the primaries ahead. "For those who have lost their job or their home or their health care, I will focus on the solutions needed to move this country forward," she said.

Returns from 86 percent of the state's precincts showed Obama winning 54 percent in the three-way race, Clinton gaining 27 percent and Edwards at 19 percent.

Obama also gained at least 11 convention delegates and Clinton won at least six. Another 28 remained to be allocated on the basis of the results.

All three contenders campaigned in South Carolina on primary day, but only Obama and Edwards arranged to speak to supporters after the polls closed. Clinton decided to fly to Tennessee, one of the Feb. 5 states, leaving as the polls were closing.

After playing a muted role in the earlier contests, the issue of race dominated an incendiary week that included a shift in strategy for Obama, a remarkably bitter debate and fresh scrutiny of former President Clinton's role in his wife's campaign.

Each side accused the other of playing the race card, sparking a controversy that frequently involved Bill Clinton.

"They are getting votes, to be sure, because of their race or gender. That's why people tell me Hillary doesn't have a chance of winning here," the former president said at one stop as he campaigned for his wife, strongly suggesting that blacks would not support a white alternative to Obama.

Clinton campaign strategists denied any intentional effort to stir the racial debate. But they said they believe the fallout has had the effect of branding Obama as "the black candidate," a tag that could hurt him outside the South.

Nearly six in 10 voters said the former president's efforts for his wife was important to their choice, and among them, slightly more favored Obama than the former first lady.

Overall, Obama defeated Clinton among both men and women.

The exit polls showed the economy was the most important issue in the race. About one quarter picked health care. And only one in five said it was the war in Iraq, underscoring the extent to which the once-dominant issue has faded in the face of financial concerns.

The exit poll was conducted by Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International for The Associated Press and the networks.

Clinton and Obama swapped accusatory radio commercials earlier in the week.

The former first lady aired an ad saying Obama had once approved of Republican ideas. His camp responded quickly that Clinton "will say anything." First she, then he, pulled the commercials after a short run on the air.

Given the bickering, Edwards looked for an opening to reinvigorate a candidacy all but eclipsed by the historic campaign between Obama and Clinton. He went on the "Late Show with David Letterman" at midweek to say he wanted to represent the "grown-up wing of the Democratic party."

That was one night after a finger-wagging debate in which Obama told Clinton he was helping unemployed workers on the streets of Chicago when "you were a corporate lawyer sitting on the board at Wal-Mart."

Moments later, the former first lady said she was fighting against misguided Republican policies "when you were practicing law and representing your contributor ... in his slum landlord business in inner city Chicago."

Obama pulls big victory in South Carolina.

Two to one over Hillary and nearly three to one over Edwards.

Little slow on the draw there, quickdraw.

Look at the post times whomod. We posted almost simultaneously.
But, hey, if being about ten seconds faster than me with news from the Democrat party is that important to you, savor your victory.

$;\)$

Obama is speaking to a very happy crowd of supporters right now. An anchor just pointed out that Obama's 270,000 votes is almost as large as all 290,000 people who turned out in the Democratic 2004 primary.

Obama Is Whistling Dixie: The Illinois senator's big win in So. Carolina Democratic primary proves he has mass appeal among voters.

Praise Allah!

Quote:

Obama 'Backer' Rezko Ordered to Jail

By BRIAN ROSS
Jan. 28, 2008

A federal judge sent accused Illinois political fixer Antoin "Tony" Rezko to jail today after federal prosecutors accused him of violating his bail terms by a convoluted series of financial transactions with Mideast banks.

Rezko has become an "Achilles heel" for Illinois Sen. Barack Obama after disclosures he and people associated with him had raised almost $200,000 for Obama and that Obama sought Rezko's "help and advice" in the purchase of a new home.

In a court hearing in Chicago, prosecutors detailed a $3.5 million wire transfer from a bank in Beirut, Lebanon that they said was moved through a series of accounts until it reached Rezko or some of his relatives who had posted property for his bond.

Under the terms of his agreement, prosecutors said in a filing with the court, Rezko was obligated to disclose any change in his financial status.

In court, prosecutors said Rezko had become a "flight risk" because of his secretive transactions in the Mideast.

According to the court filings, the money came from a company, General Mediterranean, owned by a British-based Iraqi billionaire, Nadhmi Auchi, who was convicted in France on fraud charges.

The filing says when Auchi was unable to obtain a visa to visit the United States in 2005, Rezko intervened and "asked certain Illinois government officials" to appeal the State Department's ruling.

The officials who Rezko approached are not specified. Sen. Obama had just taken office as a U.S. senator in 2005, the same year he sought Rezko's help in the purchase of his home.

The senator has said he was unable to afford both the home and an empty lot next to it which were effectively being sold as a package. Rezko's wife ultimately bought the empty lot, closing the same day as Obama did on his home.

ABC News
This wouldn't hurt to many candidates except most of Obama's appeal is that he's going to be different I have to wonder. So far so good it seems but it's a story that isn't going to go away anytime soon.

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Obama 'Backer' Rezko Ordered to Jail

Photo surfaces of smiling Clintons with Tony Rezko

I would hope you would agree G-man that photo isn't even close to the 17 yr relationship Obama has had with "slumlord Rezco". Presidents sign photos for friends, this looks like one of those quicky photos that the Clintons had taken with thousands of people.

As someone who has been in politics, and been to fundraisers with state and national figures, I know for a fact that you don't get a picture like that (posed in front of a neutral background, with the flag) with any major political figure, let alone two, unless you donate a very, very, large sum of money to that figure or their party.

So, clearly, Rezco is not just an "Obama backer" as you noted. He is, or was, a "Clinton backer."

Beyond the unsigned picture there isn't anything else though connecting them. Rezko did contribute to the DNC though. However with Obama there is a 17 yr relationship of Rezko helping out Obama. He even helped Obama buy a home. They were friends & neighbors. Again I think you would have to agree with me that there isn't a comparison.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Obama 'Backer' Rezko Ordered to Jail

Photo surfaces of smiling Clintons with Tony Rezko

Barack Obama receiving the endorsement of Ted Kennedy

I wonder.......

So how many FOX pundits couldn't resist mentioning Chappaquiddick?

Nonetheless, this is what you call momentum. Big time.

Actually I didn't see that brought up once. Kinda strange that for a day at least, Ted Kennedy was free of his past.

i think it'd kind of funny if they just showed his brothers being shot and said "Ted Kennedy, best known for having his brothers murdered by liberal commie Lee Oswald and Muslim guy Sirhan Sirhan endorsed B. Hussein Obama."

Originally Posted By: whomod

Barack Obama receiving the endorsement of Ted Kennedy

I wonder.......

So how many FOX pundits couldn't resist mentioning Chappaquiddick?

Nonetheless, this is what you call momentum. Big time.

He's still using his mountaintop voice.

Originally Posted By: whomod

Barack Obama receiving the endorsement of Ted Kennedy

I wonder......how many FOX pundits couldn't resist mentioning Chappaquiddick?

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Actually I didn't see that brought up once.

whomod

by MEM, of all people.

Perhaps in your mind G-man but it wasn't my intent. I just noticed that yesterday Ted was being treated much differently then he usually is. The WP didn't have just one article about how important Kennedy's endorsement was but several just in case a reader didn't get it the first time. The man is hardly perfect & while endorsement was nice news for Obama it's being treated as a decisive endorsement. We'll see about that.

One can only hope.

Quote:

The man is hardly perfect & while endorsement was nice news for Obama it's being treated as a decisive endorsement. We'll see about that.

I don't know how decisive if will or won't be but I did hear an interesting take on it this afternoon. The commentator opined that Kennedy's endorsement, coming from perhaps the best known democrat outside of Bill and Hillary alive today, may be seen as (and this is me paraphrasing) permission for the rest of the Democrat mainstream to sign on to Obama against Hillary.

I don't know if that will be the case but it was an interesting take.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Obama has a long relationship with Rezko:

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/432197,CST-NWS-obama18.article

And just to show that Hillary doesn't have any high ground from which to attack Obama:
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-dr...asked-about-hsu

More often I feel like Obama gets a free pass and the heat goes more toward Hillary's past and remarks. In this case, the free pass was given to Hillary.

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Hillary may not have the high ground but that didn't prevent her from giving Obama's pedestal a good kick $\:\)$ He really isn't any better than the rest of them when you look at his relationship with Rezko. Who knows what else will come out before now & November?

Originally Posted By: Matter Eater Man

He really isn't any better than the rest of them

Wow. MEM finally came out and admitted that Democrats are no better than Republicans when it comes to corruption. This Obama thing really does have him rattled.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Originally Posted By: Matter Eater Man

He really isn't any better than the rest of them

Wow. MEM finally came out and admitted that Democrats are no better than Republicans when it comes to corruption. This Obama thing really does have him rattled.

We agreed about that quite a long time ago G-man. You just get stuck in partisan mode & forget $\:\($

Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man User I hope wondy has a nice day. I just don't have the same level of anger a true follower of Christ has
10000+ posts Wed Jan 30 2008 12:51 AM Reading a post
Forum: Politics and Current Events
Thread: Barack Hussein Obama in '08?

Quote:

Obama refutes e-mails calling him "closet Muslim"

BY MARTIN C. EVANS AND KEITH HERBERT | martin.evans@newsday.com; keith.herbert@newsday.com
January 24, 2008

SUMTER, S.C. - Barack Obama broke into his stump speech throughout a day of campaigning in South Carolina yesterday to take on an e-mail whisper campaign that included allegations that he refuses to take the Pledge of Allegiance and is a "closet Muslim."

Obama referred to the whisper campaign during a morning radio program and later at campaign stops, telling an audience at a Sumter church that some had been "bamboozled."

"I've been a member of the same church for nearly 20 years, praying to Jesus with my Bible," Obama told 1,200 people at a church-run community center in Sumter. "Don't let people turn you around because they're just making stuff up. That's what they do, they try to bamboozle you."

Obama is a longtime member of a Trinity United Church of Christ, in Chicago. Members of the U.S. Senate regularly recite the Pledge of Allegiance while that body is in session.

For the past two weeks, South Carolina residents have been receiving e-mail containing false information regarding Obama.

The candidate is locked in a struggle with rival Hillary Rodham Clinton to win Saturday's South Carolina primary. A Zogby poll released yesterday showed him leading her there, 43 percent to 24 percent.

The state represents a huge opportunity for Obama, who has gained overwhelming support among the largely black Democrats since winning in Iowa.

The Obama campaign also defended itself against a Clinton radio spot referring to his comments about Ronald Reagan.

The radio ad implies Obama supported Reagan's policies. Obama has said the former president was a transformative figure but stressed repeatedly that he does not agree with Reagan's policies.

Obama, who has been the subject of campaign attacks by former President Bill Clinton, hit back hard this morning, saying Americans "are looking for a president they can trust."

"That's not what we're seeing out of the former president and the Clinton campaign over the last several weeks," he said.

Clinton, campaigning in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, steered clear of the controversy between her husband and Obama. At a rally in Hackensack with a large and enthusiastic crowd, she gave a stump speech that hit on universal themes, including health care and ending the war in Iraq. But she never mentioned Obama by name and kept away from the sharp attacks that have marked the campaign recently.

Her only veiled reference to Obama came when she talked about her plans for bringing the troops home from Iraq. She urged a more cautious approach. "Some people will come here and tell you it can be easily done," she said. "You have to do it carefully." She restated her plans to begin bringing troops home within 60 days of becoming president - one or two divisions a month.

Ah yes. An OVERT attack along that line. A cowardly one at that since it was done with no way to trace it's origin.

While I'm not sure that Hillary is completely wrong about Obama being a closet Mulsim, I must say: my favorite part of this whole election cycle is watching so many liberals come to the conclusion that many of us came to as far back as 1992: the Clintons really are sleazy people.

Hillary Clinton never said that G-man. When you & other conservatives pull this spin you just show who you really want to be on the ticket. Shame on you!

I know, MEM, I know. Because Hillary refuses to admit what everyone knows (namely, her complicity in these attacks) you can cling to the fiction that she isn't behind it.

It's pretty sleazy of you to say stuff like that. At best your guessing she's guilty because you want her to be. That just demonstrates your utter lack of character.

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

I know, MEM. I know. You hope we'll forget about her having to fire various staffers when they were caught spreading anti-Obama rumors.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

I know, MEM. I know. You hope we'll forget about her having to fire various staffers when they were caught spreading anti-Obama rumors.

do the partners at your "lawfirm" or your "clients" know how many billable hours you spend either on a message board or on photoshop preparing for a message board?

I do most of the photoshopping on weekends and evenings and save it for later.

And I don't spend as much time on the board as you think. I tend to keep a browser window open most of the time (so it looks like I'm here) but only post during breaks between meetings, lunch hours, etc.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

I know, MEM, I know. Because Hillary refuses to admit what everyone knows (namely, her complicity in these attacks) you can cling to the fiction that she isn't behind it.

The Boston Globe” reports three federal employees in two different unidentified agencies are now under investigation for forwarding it from their government computers, a violation of a law banning civil servants from engaging in politics while on the job.

Nobody knows where the Obama smear began, but it has been promoted on right-wing Web sites. At least one official Republican Party Web site pulled it down only by the Clark County GOP in Washington with an admission that they thought it was true.

The e-mail has also spread across the globe via military e-mail, with some U.S. Army members admonished by superiors for having forwarded it. An almost literal version of an aphorism usually credited to Mark Twain but probably actually said in an 1855 sermon by Baptist preacher Charles H. Spurgeon: “A lie will go around the world while truth is pulling its boots on.”

Yep. Sounds like if it's Hillary.

From MSNBC:

the Clinton campaign has "acknowledged that an Iowa county chair volunteering for the campaign passed along the now-notorious email" that repeats "the false claim that [Obama] attended a madrassa as a child."

Also:
Hillary Silent on Bob Johnson's Obama Smear

Second Clinton Volunteer Resigns Over Obama Muslim Email

Third Clinton Volunteer Knew Of Smear E-Mail

Clinton Co-Chair Resigns Over Obama Drug Remark

Hillary's Nixonian Tactics Against Obama

Heh. Must be the vast ring conspiracy making all her supporters do these things.

First, we're discussing 2 entirely different E-mail campaigns. Second, while I don't support and rightly condemn Hillary Clinton and her own sleaze merchants and DO NOT support her candidacy on account of these sort of political attacks, you have to acknowledge however that the right wing blogosphere is doing their own share of running with the ball they've been given.

I know it's been debated here and you like to play innocent about it, but honestly, what is the point of repeatedly emphasizing Obama's middle name when I see NO ONE doing the same anywhere in the media save for the right wing blogosphere, right there alongside whatever rumour and slander about his religion they can get? Not even Clinton is trying to get traction from that.

Yes yes, well, THAT IS his name, isn't it??

Quote:

First, we're discussing 2 entirely different E-mail campaigns.

That's an interesting spin, given that the emails I mentioned are, like the emails you mentioned, chain emails about Barack Hussein Obama being a Muslim.

Originally Posted By: whomod

Originally Posted By: the G-man

I know, MEM, I know. Because Hillary refuses to admit what everyone knows (namely, her complicity in these attacks) you can cling to the fiction that she isn't behind it.

Thank you Whomod, I know your no fan of Hillary but this sums thing up nicely.

And G-man, I recognize that you not only hold Hillary accountable for the actions for everyone in her huge campaign but that she actually had those two campaign workers carrying out her implicit orders. You also believe all the misinformation that conservatives are running around & saying about Obama. Whatever

Come on, MEM. Even your fellow liberals have been complaining about the public cheap shots that Bill and Hillary are talking against Obama in terms of his race and similar areas. And you expect us to believe that they wouldn't approve of a behind the scenes campaign as well?

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Those would be the super-sensitive liberals and/or the Obama supporters who are only trying to spin the Clintons as racist. It's truly shameful to see so many Obama supporters take Bill Clinton's "fairy tale" comment & turn it into him playing the race card.

And no I don't think they would approve of the "Obama is a muslim" attack. That takes a person like yourself for example. (and even then you probably only do it when your ID is secret)

Who gives a rats ar$e if Obama is a muslim?

Apart from ignorant yanks, that is?

Originally Posted By: Captain Sweden

Who gives a rats ar$e if Obama is a muslim?

Apart from ignorant yanks, that is?

7 years of GOP rule has taught us that Muslims are akin to Hitler and the devil rolled into one.

Thus the need for G-Man to emphasize Obama's middle name every chance he can.

I wonder what middle name G-man has?

Reagan

Heh.

I wanted to name a daughter "Reagan" (since some people use that as a girl's name) but Mrs G wouldn't let me.

Okay, now it looks like Obama is in real trouble: MoveOn Endorses Obama, Pledges to Mobilize on Feb. 5.

Those "MoveOn" wackjobs are a curse, if you ask me.

$;\)$

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Heh.

I wanted to name a daughter "Reagan" (since some people use that as a girl's name) but Mrs G wouldn't let me.

I can imagine the Lears she would've gotten if you'd done that.

(In Shakespeare's "King Lear," Regan was the name of one of Lear's daughters)

(It's not funny if you have to explain it)

Originally Posted By: PCG342

(It's not funny if you have to explain it)

I post what I post for my own amusement, not anyone else's. No need to kick up a Tempest about it.

The RNC sent out a mailer to their list (.pdf) based on a study from the allegedly “non-partisan” (ha!) National Journal:

Looking at the analysis, the numbers don’t add up. *shock*

They claim that Obama and Clinton only differed on 10 votes, but somehow Obama comes in first and Clinton is #16. Fuzzy math, I tell ya. In fact, looking at the voting chart the NJ uses to draw their conclusions, it’s obvious that there are a few senators who are clearly more liberal than Obama. In fact, as this poll from Progressive Punch suggests, every Democratic Senator has a more liberal voting record than Obama, except Baucus, Biden, Pryor, Dodd (due to absenses on crucial votes), Landrieu and Ben Nelson — but since when do right wing journalists let those pesky facts get in the way? Let us not forget that in 2004, they claimed that…you guessed it, John Kerry and John Edwards were the most liberal senators. What a coincidence.

And besides, after the havoc the Republicans have wreaked on our country and around the world the past seven years, being called a Liberal isn’t a bad thing. Considering how wrong Bush and his enabling Republican cronies have been, does the National Journal really want to be saying that Barack Obama has been right more often than any other senator?

Originally Posted By: Whomod

And besides, after the havoc the Republicans have wreaked on our country and around the world the past seven years, being called a Liberal isn’t a bad thing. Considering how wrong Bush and his enabling Republican cronies have been, does the National Journal really want to be saying that Barack Obama has been right more often than any other senator?

That's because on the issues of (1) domestic spending, (2) the deficit, and (3)not cracking down on illegal immigration, and even (4) nation-building, Bush has behaved like a tax-and-spend liberal, rather than like a Republican.

And don't forget that the Democrats you exalt as the Great Alternative, are the same individuals who voted for the Iraq war, and for all the domestic spending you deceptively blame entirely on Bush.

Although Bush deserves criticism for not exerting his veto power to cut Congressional spending and earmarks. At the end of his presidency, he finally talks tough about actually using it.

Time on Obama's side as his momentum grows

Coast to coast, everywhere you looked, the Democratic presidential candidates - and more importantly, the voters - shattered stereotypes and defied conventional wisdom.

Barack Obama, who was criticized by Hillary Clinton's supporters as the "black" candidate with little cross-racial appeal, won caucuses in some of the whitest states imaginable - Utah, Minnesota, Idaho, North Dakota and Kansas - along with largely black Georgia and Alabama.

Clinton had a trick up her sleeve as well, delivering a delicious snub to the Kennedy clan - and throwing shade on Obama's second-coming-of-JFK pose - by winning Massachusetts.

Assuming the candidates more or less split the main prize of California, the Democratic race today will be deadlocked. And that is bad news for Clinton.

In one remarkable month, Obama erased Clinton's double-digit lead in national polls, raised more than twice as much money - $32 million to $13.5 million - and destroyed any notion that the Democratic presidential nomination is Clinton's to lose.

Top members of Clinton's team have publicly acknowledged what Tuesday's results made clear: They cannot check Obama's momentum.

A top Clinton spokesman told The Wall Street Journal the campaign is likely to remain unresolved all the way up to the August convention in Denver.

That's not just an admission that Clinton's inevitability strategy has failed: It also means Obama will have the time and money to march his formidable field organization - and advertising team - into the next battlegrounds, Louisiana, Nebraska and Washington State.

Most of all, the next week will bring more of the phenomenon that most bedevils Team Clinton: Obama's fast-growing, improbable status as a cool, iconic figure among students and artists.

Obama sounds like Osama.
Anyone else notice that? It could hurt him, the way that Joey Clitler was hurt by having the same name as Stalin.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

[url=http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2008/02/06/2008-02-06_untitled__2louis06m.html]...Barack Obama, who was criticized by Hillary Clinton's supporters as the "black" candidate with little cross-racial appeal, ....
[/list]

What a gross generalization to make! I'm sure there are some out there that felt that way but that doesn't justify such a statement. Is this a tabloid paper?

Apparently Obama has offered a bit of a threat to superdelegates...

Quote:

... they [superdelegates] "would have to think long and hard about how they approach the nomination when the people they claim to represent have said, 'Obama's our guy,'" he said.

Mark Nickolas Blog

This is the unity guy who has no problem with all those voters from Florida & Michigan not getting to send delegates?

How is it a "threat" to point out that it would something of an ethical quandry if the super delegates vote against the wishes of those they claim to represent?

In any event, it's my understanding that Obama may actually ahead of Clinton in delegates at this point:

In a surprise twist after a chaotic Super Tuesday, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) passed Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) in network tallies of the number of delegates the candidates racked up last night.

The Obama camp now projects topping Clinton by 13 delegates, 847 to 834.

NBC News, which is projecting delegates based on the Democratic Party's complex formula, figures Obama will wind up with 840 to 849 delegates, versus 829 to 838 for Clinton.

Clinton was portrayed in many news accounts as the night’s big winner, but Obama’s campaign says he wound up with a higher total where it really counts — the delegates who will choose the party’s nominee at this summer’s Democratic convention.

With the delegate count still under way, NBC News said Obama appears to have won around 840 delegates in yesterday’s contests, while Clinton earned about 830 — “give or take a few,” Tim Russert, the network’s Washington bureau chief, said on the “Today” show.

The Obama campaign attached an Excel spreadsheet containing “state-by-state estimates of the pledged delegates we won last night, which total 845 for Obama and 836 for Clinton — bringing the to-date total of delegates to 908 for Obama, 884 for Clinton.”

Superdelegates are not supposed to be just rubber stamps. There is no ethical quandry unless they pick someone that they think shouldn't be President.

By bringing up the issue in the way he did I see it as a bit of a threat. After all why bring it up unless he feels they should just be rubber stamps?

There's a difference between criticism and threats.

Even if one concedes that Obama is incorrect on the role of a superdelegate, I don't see how suggesting those delegates "think long and hard" about how to vote can be fairly viewed as an act of intimidation or retaliation.

At worst, Obama seems to be saying that failure to listen to their constitency may have political implications for them.

If, on the other hand, you can show that Obama is promising to use his influence to create political implications I could see what you mean. But from what you posted I don't see it.

Like for example Kennedy?

Btw unless Obama thinks superdelegates don't think long & hard about their choice why say it? Does anyone think they don't think about who they pick?

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Like for example Kennedy?

Are you saying that, if the superdelegates don't vote for Obama he plans to drive them off a bridge and leave them to drown?

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

Obama sounds like Osama.
Anyone else notice that? It could hurt him, the way that Joey Clitler was hurt by having the same name as Stalin.

I heard his middle name ain't much better.

Speaking of middle names...

I remember when I first started this thread, MEM kept changing the title to remove references to Obama's middle name. In fact, he was very critical of mentioning that name, calling it "a sad attempt to play on people's uglier sides." (#761721 - 12/10/06 06:45 PM)

Then, about the same time Obama starting beating Hillary in the primaries, MEM stopped removing the middle name, even though he still studiously changes the "Hillary" thread title (and certain other titles) whenever he posts there.

In fact, MEM is so O-C about changing thread titles that he sometimes does it just to add an explanation point to the title, in place of a question mark.

Further, he stopped removing the reference to Obama's middle name about the same time that some of Hillary's staff/volunteers were caught circulating an email about how Obama was a closet Muslim.

Funny about that....especially given MEM's near Jihadist devotion to Senator Clinton and all...

sometimes you can be so silly & anal about thread titles. I stopped changing Obama's thread title way before the primaries. Hillary's is about the only one that I really go out of the way to change everytime you change it. I don't know why it's such a big deal but it seems to really bother you when someone besides yourself titles their own post. As I've said before, it's my post & I'll title it myself.

I like writing nasty stuff in the thread titles!

me too!

One for the money, two for the show, three for the win?

Originally Posted By: The Pun-isher

One for the money, two for the show, three for the win?

Maybe four:"He then took the cherry on top with a Virgin Islands caucuses victory."

As the "Pun-isher" you must be proud of Fox for that one.

Obama had a very good day as expected. I think next week will also be a good one for him also.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Originally Posted By: The Pun-isher

One for the money, two for the show, three for the win?

Maybe four:"He then took the cherry on top with a Virgin Islands caucuses victory."

As the "Pun-isher" you must be proud of Fox for that one.

Hey, a pun's a pun. No sense in being fennecy over where it comes from.

Man, that pun took some time to figure out.

Fennecy, rhimes with finicky

And fennec is a fox, as in FOX news, the source of the news story mentioned above.

I never worked so hard to get a joke in my life!

You could have spent that time looking up more pedo porn.

rex, why do you keep accusing so many different posters of pedophilia?
granted wondy did imply that he believed seducing an underage male was the same or less than seducing an adult female of consenting age. but i took that more to be a reflection of his overall hatred of women and puritanical view of sex.

http://www.rkmbs.com/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/922903#Post922903

O'S SURGE MAY SWING SUPERDELEGATES HIS WAY

Hillary Rodham Clinton faces losing previously committed superdelegates if Barack Obama's upward momentum carries him to victory in three looming primaries.

A Texas lawmaker who'd pledged his superdelegate vote to Clinton told The Post he'd have to "weigh" his decision if she doesn't win his district on March 4, when his state and Ohio hold elections.

Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, a staunch Clinton backer who expects her to win his state's April 22 contest, acknowledged that voting results matter.

"Individually, if a candidate in my district won 60 to 40, I might feel I have to take into consideration the feelings of the people who are voting," said the governor. But if the results were close, he said, "I don't think it would make a difference."

ABC is reporting that Obama is Up Almost 3-2 Over Hillary In Maine (with 58% Reporting).

Shit.

If Hillary doesn't get the candidacy, I'm gonna........Do something.

I don't want either of them on a political basis. I think Hillary would be easier to beat in the general election but I don't want to take a chance that she might win because she's an insane, power mad, harpy.

Obama is a closet socialist who will damage the economy but I see his damage to the country being much more short term than hers.

I also think Obama is at least a relatively honest human being.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

I also think Obama is at least a relatively honest human being.

http://www.whereskilroy.com/?p=57

Quote:

Barack Hussein Obama has built his political campaign around being the “honest” guy. I ran across a Politico article that points out a lot of dishonesty from Obama, check this out:

Speaking early this month at a church in Selma, Ala., Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) said: “I’m in Washington. I see what’s going on. I see those powers and principalities have snuck back in there, that they’re writing the energy bills and the drug laws.” . . .

But not only did Obama vote for the Senate’s big energy bill in 2005, he also put out a press release bragging about its provisions, and his Senate Web site carries a news article about the vote headlined, “Senate energy bill contains goodies for Illinois.” . . .

On Sunday, the Chicago Tribune reported that an extensive search found no basis for an episode Obama recounts [in his 1995 book, “Dreams From My Father”] about a picture he ran across in Life magazine of a “black man who had tried to peel off his skin” in a failed effort to use chemicals to lighten it. Obama writes that “seeing that article was violent for me, an ambush attack.” The Tribune reported: “Yet no such Life issue exists, according to historians at the magazine. No such photos, no such article. When asked about the discrepancy, Obama said in a recent interview, ‘It might have been an Ebony or it might have been . . . who knows what it was?’ (At the request of the Tribune, archivists at Ebony searched their catalogue of past articles, none of which matched what Obama recalled.)” . . .

As another example, consider Obama’s stirring tale for the Selma audience about how he had been conceived by his parents, Barack Obama Sr. and Ann Dunham, because they had been inspired by the fervor following the “Bloody Sunday” voting rights demonstration that was commemorated March 4. “There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Ala.,” he said, “because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born. So don’t tell me I don’t have a claim on Selma, Ala. Don’t tell me I’m not coming home to Selma, Ala.”

Obama was born in 1961, and the Selma march occurred four years later, in 1965. The New York Times reported that when the senator was asked about the discrepancy later that day, he clarified: “I meant the whole civil rights movement.”

I think as the race narrows Obama will have more and more scrutiny, we will find out he is just like 99.9% of the politicians out there. We already know he has the backing of Oprah Winfrey one of the biggest left wing nuts out there. Often in her talk you can hear racial undertones. If Obama is going to associate himself with someone who is always talking in the us vs. them mentality, and this person is a major backer of his campaign what does this mean his policies will be influenced by this?

Have you ever checked out the website of Obama’s Church? Check out this excerpt from there About Page:

"We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian… Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain “true to our native land,” the mother continent, the cradle of civilization. God has superintended our pilgrimage through the days of slavery, the days of segregation, and the long night of racism. It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a Black worship service and ministries which address the Black Community.

The Pastor as well as the membership of Trinity United Church of Christ is committed to a 10-point Vision:

1. A congregation committed to ADORATION.
2. A congregation preaching SALVATION.
3. A congregation actively seeking RECONCILIATION.
4. A congregation with a non-negotiable COMMITMENT TO AFRICA.
5. A congregation committed to BIBLICAL EDUCATION.
6. A congregation committed to CULTURAL EDUCATION.
7. A congregation committed to the HISTORICAL EDUCATION OF AFRICAN PEOPLE IN DIASPORA.
8. A congregation committed to LIBERATION.
9. A congregation committed to RESTORATION.
10. A congregation working towards ECONOMIC PARITY."

I really thought we as a nation have moved past this kind of thinking? Martin Luther King fought for equality and Barrack goes to a church that apparently supports segregation. Remember David Duke? Didn’t he go to a church that supported the preservation of the “white race”, this kind of thing disgusts me. It did with Duke, and it does with Obama.

The more you learn about this man the less Presidential he sounds. Even the Obama Girl will change her mind

Relative to the Clintons I meant.

maybe it was his racism that drew you in?

A black man can't be racist. Haven't you listened to Spike Lee?

Praise Allah!

Originally Posted By: the G-man

I think Hillary would be easier to beat in the general election

No goddammit! I'm not trying to set her up to lose! I want her to win.

I want her to destroy everything and plunge this country into chaos instead of having McCain or Obama destroying it softly and ambiguously through their moderate "reach across the aisle" nebulousness.

Sincerely,
Pariah

Originally Posted By: Pariah

Originally Posted By: the G-man

I think Hillary would be easier to beat in the general election

when obama puts white people in concentration camps you wont find this funny.

Originally Posted By: Pariah

Originally Posted By: the G-man

I think Hillary would be easier to beat in the general election

I addressed that. I think both Obama or Clinton have the potential to plunge the country into chaos. But I think it would be easier for the next president to fix whatever chaos Obama creates than Clinton. She's pure "the Time Bandits say don't touch it" evil.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Originally Posted By: Pariah

Originally Posted By: the G-man

I think Hillary would be easier to beat in the general election

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

when obama puts white people in concentration camps you wont find this funny.

I think the odds of being put in a concentration camp by Hillary are greater, if only because she'll put all the men in, just to fuck with Bill.

white concentration camps. mark it.

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

Originally Posted By: Pariah

Originally Posted By: the G-man

I think Hillary would be easier to beat in the general election

when obama puts white people in concentration camps you wont find this funny.

Quite the contrary: I will be laughing my head off when the suffering reaches its peak and the democrats have finished sucking my blood dry. With my last dying breath, I'll watch them whither when they see that wells eventually dry up.

Sincerely,
Pariah

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

white concentration camps. mark it.

That might explain why PJP supports Obama, what with being orange and all.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

That might explain why PJP supports Obama, what with being orange and all.

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

You're such a slanderous lying sack of shit, Ray.

In this post, and in dozens if not hundreds of others, I didn't endorse pedophilia, and clearly condemned it, but gave emphasis to the hypocrisy of liberals, who condemn Foley while giving a free pass to their own, who more blatantly committed sexual acts with minors, while Foley, according to the only teen congressional page who came forward, said that while Foley flirted with him by e-mails, they never had sex until he was 21 --well over 18.

As I emphasized in multiple topics that raised the issue, beginning with the Mark Foley topic, when the story first broke, as an "October surprise" by the Democrats, to smear of the entire Republican party just before the election, before there was time to sort out what the true facts were.

Which again, is a liberal attack on Republicans, that ignores that Democrats hypocritically attack Foley, who flirted with a minor but didn't have sex with him till the teen congressional page was in his 20s, while over the last 20 years , Democrats covered up and even RE-ELECTED Democrats who unquestionably did have sex with minors. Something Foley didn't do, despite that he abused his position to a lesser degree.

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy, 10-18-2006

the new TIME magazine, for the week of October 23, 2006, gave this obituary:

DIED. Gerry Studds, 69. Former Democrat Representative from Massachusetts, and the first openly gay member of Congress, whom the House censured in 1983 for having had an affair with a 17-year-old male page; of complications from a blood clot in his lung; in Boston.
After surviving the sex scandal, Studds was elected to several more terms, and in 1996 Congress named a national marine sanctuary after him in recognition of his environmental work.

Funny how Republicans didn't demand the then-Democrat-speaker's resignation for not preventing Studds' abuse.
Democrats, in the same stiuation as Foley, slapped Studds' wrist with a minimal "censure" (a la Clinton), kept him in office, and then honored him, ignoring his crimes.

So much for the oh-so-superior and morally outraged Democrats.

And:

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

I haven't defended the fact that Foley is a pedophile scumbag.

I've only pointed out that Democrats have blown this Foley event way out of proportion, insinuating a wider Republican conspiracy in the Foley scandal, while in truth Pelosi and other Democrats are just as culpable for "sitting on" knowledge that something wasn't right with Foley.
And the liberal media as well, who knew about and sat on this story for a year, so they could whack the Republicans with an October Surprise.

I've pointed out that Democrats have likewise not exposed their own in similar sex-scandal incidents.

And Democrats have done even worse in protecting criminal sexual activity to protect their political hegemony, a prime example being the Clinton/Lewinsky affair, in which case Clinton was guilty of cover-up, perjury, and likely rape as well. And yet every Democrat Senator and all but five Democrat Representatives voted to keep Clinton in power, and preserve their liberal/Democrat political control.

That's not defending Foley, that's exposing the Democrat double-standard.
Democrats vilify Republicans, while remaining opportunist scumbags themselves.

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

I endorse pedophilia

Originally Posted By: Rex

My sole pleasure in life is slandering people on a message board.

(i.e., being a troll)

Are you finally catching on?

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

Originally Posted By: the G-man

That might explain why PJP supports Obama, what with being orange and all.

I think this is my cue for an "orange you glad..." pun, but even I won't sink to such an una-peel-ing level.

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

Originally Posted By: Pariah

Originally Posted By: the G-man

I think Hillary would be easier to beat in the general election

when obama puts white people in concentration camps you wont find this funny.

I will...

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

white concentration camps. mark it.

That might explain why PJP supports Obama, what with being orange and all.

you whites are in for it!

wondy is gonna be so smug.

He'll win the others too, it was a given that Obama was going to have a couple of very good weeks.

once the black history month bump is over, he's finished.

Could be, but at this rate some pundits are predicting Hillary won't make it past March 4.

Pundit predictions have been worth how much so far? I've seen a couple of them try to compare her to Rudy with Florida but unlike Rudy who won nothing, she's won some & lost some. Obama wins states like Idaho & South Carolina, she wins ones like New York, Florida & California. Voters might not be so quick to write her off even as Obama wins a bunch of states in a couple of weeks.

Florida didn't count.

Geez, don't get him started on THAT again, P.

Quote:

Obama Buying Super Delegates!!

by linfar, Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:48:21 PM EST

Take a look at who is buying super delegates:

Obama: $694,000 (40% of his superdelegates)
Clinton: $194,000 (12% of her superdelegates)
...

MyDD

It's something a typical politician would do & I'm sure it's all legal but I wonder if this is something Obama wants to stop as part of his "change" (after he gets a return from his investments of course) $;\)$

damn. I wish I was a super delegate. I have a very long list of things I want and I would definitely put my vote up for sale.

Quote:

Mr. Obama's Waffle
His commitment to pursue public financing for the fall campaign suddenly looks soft.

Saturday, February 16, 2008; Page A20
AS RECENTLY as November, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) was unequivocal about whether he would agree to take public financing for the general election if his Republican opponent pledged to do the same. "If you are nominated for president in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?" the Midwest Democracy Network asked in a questionnaire. Mr. Obama's answer was clear. "Yes," he wrote. "If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election."

Or maybe not. Mr. Obama deserves credit for obtaining a ruling from the Federal Election Commission that allowed him to raise money for the general election campaign but reserve the right to return the funds if he were to win the nomination and manage to arrange a cease-fire with the other side. That outcome, once improbable, is now within reach. The presumptive Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, agreed long ago to Mr. Obama's deal, back when his prospects for securing the nomination seemed slim. Mr. McCain's campaign manager, Rick Davis, reaffirmed that pledge this week at a lunch with reporters sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor.

But Mr. Obama's campaign, which has been raking in money at an astonishing clip of more than $30 million a month, is starting to hedge. Speaking to the Associated Press, Mr. Obama's spokesman, Bill Burton, downgraded the Obama plan to "something that we pursued with the FEC and it was an option that we wanted on the table and is on the table." Asked about the campaign's earlier position, Mr. Burton said, "No, there is no pledge."
...

Washington Post
This is a problem for Obama, since he was pretty clear where he stood up till just a couple of months ago. If he stands by what he said then he gives up a great advantage for him. If he goes back on what he said, he loses the illusion that he's going to be different.

My guess is he'll go back on what he said & rake in the money just like any other politician would do.

Quote:

What would JFK do?

Globe Columnist / February 17, 2008
IN 1963, John F. Kennedy was murdered in Texas by a fervent admirer of Cuban dictator Fidel Castro. In 2008, a large Cuban flag emblazoned with the image of Che Guevara, Castro's brutal henchman, is prominently displayed in a Barack Obama campaign volunteer office in Houston.

Obama has been widely compared to JFK, most notably by the late president's brother and daughter. President Kennedy, a stalwart anticommunist, despised Castro and his gang of totalitarian thugs. But when word broke last week that Obama's supporters in Houston work under a banner glorifying Che, the campaign's reaction was to brush it off as an issue involving volunteers, not the official campaign. After two days of controversy, the campaign issued a statement calling the flag "inappropriate" and saying its display "does not reflect Senator Obama's views." Would JFK have reacted so mildly?

In December 1962, Kennedy offered a blunt summary of the Castro/Che record. "The Cuban people were promised by the revolution political liberty, social justice, intellectual freedom, land for the campesinos, and an end to economic exploitation," he said. "They have received a police state, the elimination of the dignity of land ownership, the destruction of free speech and a free press, and the complete subjugation of individual human welfare." Eleven months later, in a speech intended for delivery on the day he was assassinated, Kennedy regretted that Castro's "Communist foothold" in Latin America had "not yet been eliminated."

Were he alive today, it's hard to imagine JFK feeling anything but contempt for those who extol a dictatorship that has been crushing freedom and human beings for nearly 50 years. And it would surely pain him that so many of the cheerleaders are members of his own party.

The lionizing of Che, a sociopath who relished killing and acclaimed "the pedagogy of the firing squad," is not just "inappropriate." It is vile. No American in his right mind would be caught dead wearing a David Duke T-shirt or displaying a poster of Pol Pot. A celebrity who was spotted with a swastika-festooned cap or an actress who revealed that she had gotten a tattoo depicting Timothy McVeigh would inspire only repugnance. No presidential campaign would need more than 30 seconds to sever its ties to anyone, paid staffer or volunteer, whose office was adorned with a Ku Klux Klan banner. Yet Che's likeness, which ought to be as loathed as any of those, is instead a trendy bestseller and a cult favorite.

....

Boston.com

i told you so.

that's if Oswald was the shooter and the most recent official investigation say he most likely wasn't involved or wasn't alone.
also Oswald had a murky past including various activities both pro and anti communist that look more like an anti-communist CIA agent than a Castro supporter.

Also, let's not forget - let's NOT forget, Dude - that keeping wildlife, an amphibious rodent, for uh, domestic, you know, within the city - that aint legal either.

Originally Posted By: whomod

I'm sorry. Hillary Clinton is just a bitch and she deserves to lose.

The NYT [reports that] about 80 election districts among the city’s 6,106 where Mr. Obama supposedly did not receive even one vote, including cases where he ran a respectable race in a nearby district.

Same thing happened to a lot of Obama votes in NH.

New York Post:

Supporters expect Barak Obama to pick up one or two delegates when primary results from New York City are recounted.

The unofficial results were strikingly under-recorded in several districts around the city - in some cases leaving him with zero votes when, in fact, he had pulled in hundreds, Board of Elections officials have said.

Those results gave Obama no votes in nearly 80 districts, including Harlem's 94th and other historically black areas - but many of those initial tallies proved to be wildly off base.

"Every election has problems, but in this case, all the problems seem to have been his," said state Sen. Bill Perkins (D-Harlem). "He got all the zeroes and undercounting.

"Some gross mistakes have been made. Very often, there are clerical errors. In this case, it was strictly with regards to Obama." Perkins told The Post the issue is more than the "one or two delegates" that could be added to Obama's tally, noting that if the results were accurately represented, there would not have been a "false momentum" for Hillary Rodham Clinton.

"It reflects the popularity and the weakness to her in her home state. It contributes to a false momentum," he said.

Point of correction, according to the NYT there were also districts where the same thing happened to Hillary. Perkins is not being honest by saying it only happened to Obama.

Took me a minute to realize you were talking about Senator Perkins.

You all look alike to Clinton and her supporters, Wednesday. It's a terrible thing, really.

Quote:

Sleaze charge: 'I took drugs, had homo sex with Obama'
Minnesota man takes his case to court, YouTube, $100,000 polygraph challenge

Editor's note: The accompanying YouTube video contains sexual language that some will consider offensive. The article itself contains material that is inappropriate for children.

Larry Sinclair accuses Barack Obama of homosexual acts and drug use in video posted on YouTube

WASHINGTON – The electrifying presidential campaign of Barack Obama faces a new challenge – a Minnesota man who claims he took cocaine in 1999 with the then-Illinois legislator and participated in homosexual acts with him.

When his story was ignored by the news media, Larry Sinclair made his case last month in a YouTube video, which has now been viewed more than a quarter-million times. And when it was still ignored by the media, Sinclair filed a suit in Minnesota District Court, alleging threats and intimidation by Obama's staff.

Sinclair, who says he is willing to submit to a polygraph test to validate his claims, will now get his chance – thanks to a website offering $10,000 for the right to record it and $100,000 to Sinclair if he passes.

"My motivation for making this public is my desire for a presidential candidate to be honest," Sinclair told WND by telephone. "I didn't want the sex thing to come out. But I think it is important for the candidate to be honest about his drug use as late as 1999."
...

WorldNetDaily
OK first of all I'm not Sinclair & secondly I think this is pretty silly & patently untrue. However I hear the video is pretty funny to watch.

WorldNetDaily

Knowing WND, it's probably one of their own people out to net-tle Obama.

I couldn't sit through the other 3.

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

The electrifying presidential campaign of Barack Obama faces a new challenge – a Minnesota man who claims he took cocaine in 1999 with the then-Illinois legislator and participated in homosexual acts with him.

OK first of all I'm not Sinclair

I hadn't even thought of that.

Well the guy is from MN so I figured eventually you would G-man.

Since no one (other than you, MEM) discussed it in the Hillary Clinton '08 topic...

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

February 3, 2008

On the subject of the Rezko scandal, and how it affects both Clinton and Obama, this Mclaughlin Group transcript, from 1/29/2008 :

Issue Two: Hot Rage.

(Begin videotaped segment [televised debate between Clinton and Obama].)

SENATOR BARACK OBAMA (D-IL, Democratic presidential candidate): Let's talk about Ronald Reagan. What you just repeated here today is patently --

SEN. HILLARY CLINTON (D-NY), Democratic presidential candidate): Barack --

SEN. OBAMA: Wait. No, Hillary, you just spoke --

SEN. CLINTON: Barack, I did not say --

SEN. OBAMA: You just spoke for two minutes.

SEN. CLINTON: I did not say anything about Ronald Reagan. You said two things.

SEN. OBAMA: You just spoke --

SEN. CLINTON: You talked about admiring Ronald Reagan --

SEN. OBAMA: Hillary, I'm sorry, but --

SEN. CLINTON: -- and you talked about the ideas of the Republicans.

SEN. OBAMA: -- you just --

SEN. CLINTON: I didn't talk about Ronald Reagan.

SEN. OBAMA: Hillary, we just had the tape. You just said that I complimented the Republican ideas. That is not true. What I said -- and I will provide you with the quote -- what I said was that Ronald Reagan was a transformative political figure because he was able to get Democrats to vote against their economic interest to form a majority to push through their agenda, an agenda that I objected to. So these are the kinds of political games that we are accustomed to.

SEN. CLINTON: No. Now, wait a second.

SEN. OBAMA: I'm sorry.

SEN. CLINTON: Wolf [CNN reporter Wolf Blitzer] -- wait a minute.

(End videotaped segment.)

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Question: Did this exchange unveil a hidden side of Obama's personality? I ask you, Monica.

MS. CROWLEY: Well, the Clinton team fights like biker chicks at a biker bar with broken beer bottles, right, and they've got you on the defensive. And the next thing you know, they've got their combat boot on your neck. Barack Obama is like Wile E. Coyote. Finally the anvil has landed on his head and he's woken up to the tactics of the Clinton team. And what you saw in that clip is Obama finally wising up to the fact that the Clintons play gutter politics. And unless he is willing to be as aggressive on the substantive points and actually calling her out -- and him, by the way, meaning Bill -- calling them out on their tactics, he's going to be sunk --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: You think Obama --

MS. CROWLEY: -- (inaudible).

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Do you think Obama appeared mean-spirited in any way in that exchange?

MS. CLIFT: Actually, that reminded me of the McLaughlin Group. And when I heard him say, "Let me finish," I identified with him -- (laughs) -- not with her. And I have to admit, I wanted to close my eyes and imagine Romney or Giuliani standing in Obama's place, because, look, Hillary Clinton knows how to fight, and that's the whole premise of her campaign is that she can handle it in the fall.

I think it was hard to watch and I think Obama is beginning to find his voice in fighting back. But he doesn't want to damage his brand as a healer and a unifier. And if he gets down there in the back and forth --

MR. BUCHANAN: He's been dragged --

MS. CLIFT: -- it hurts him.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: The public is concerned about health insurance. They're concerned about the price of gasoline. They're concerned about the state of the economy. And they're talking about whether or not you're a Reaganite.

MR. BUCHANAN: What happened is --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: What is that, dancing on the head of a pin?

MR. BUCHANAN: No, I think the Clintons have done a job on Obama. He came out of Iowa. He was a transcendent, transformative figure. He'd gotten all these white votes. He's running way up high. And they gutted him and kicked him and dragged him down. And now he's fighting back, and it's very unseemly. And he's being reduced to the African-American vote in South Carolina. He's lost the women. He's lost the Hispanics. He's lost the --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Because of the evil Clintons.

MR. BUCHANAN: Because they all got him into this ugly brawl.

MS. CLIFT: I'm not going to go that far. MR. ZUCKERMAN: The way she is now fighting in this campaign is the kind of -- it's an echo of the partisan politics that was associated with the Clintons while they were in office. And I think both of them were diminished as a result of it, because he went off -- she forced him off the pedestal.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Why don't you focus on the weakness of his campaign, Obama's campaign?

MR. ZUCKERMAN: No, I think -- not only I have focused on it, frankly, because I think the real problem with it is it's too ethereal. There is not enough substance in the way of policy.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Okay. Icy rage -- icy rage.

Obama taunted Hillary by saying that during Ronald Reagan's presidency, he, Obama, was pounding the streets in Chicago as a community organizer at the same time Hillary was a director on Wal- Mart's board.

SEN. OBAMA: (From videotape.) While I was working on those streets, watching those folks see their jobs shift overseas, you were a corporate lawyer sitting on the board of Wal-Mart.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: That Wal-Mart barb from Obama triggered Clinton to correct Obama, saying that she actually fought the Reagan policies while Obama was on the payroll of a lowlife influence-peddler.

SEN. CLINTON: (From videotape.) I was fighting against those ideas when you were practicing law and representing your contributor, Rezko, in his slum landlord business in inner-city Chicago.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: The Rezko that Hillary named is Tony Rezko, a Syrian-born American restaurateur and real estate developer. Rezko is regarded as a political fixer and a back-room operator.

1990 -- Obama, still at Harvard Law School, interviews for a job at one of Rezko's development companies and declines it.

'93 -- Obama joins a Chicago law firm that represents Rezko.

'95 -- Rezko contributes $2,000 to Obama's Illinois Senate campaign.

'98 -- Illinois Senator Obama seeks government funding for a Rezko housing development.

2003 -- Rezko foots the bill for a $1,000-a-head kickoff cocktail reception for Obama's U.S. Senate run. Obama appoints Rezko to serve on his U.S. Senate campaign finance committee.

'04 -- FBI begins investigating Rezko for business fraud, influence-peddling, extortion, conspiracy and money laundering. June '05 -- Obama executes land transaction with Rezko involving an Obama $1.65 million home purchase, $300,000 under the asking price, and the purchase of land adjacency involving Mr. And Mrs. Rezko.

December '05 -- Obama purchases a piece of the adjacent lot from Mr. And Mrs. Rezko for $104,000.

'07 -- Obama divests himself of $44,000 in funds tied to Rezko.

January '08, one week ago, on the eve of the debate, Obama divests himself of an additional $40,000 in Rezko-linked contributions.

February 25, '08, one month from now, Tony Rezko goes on trial on federal charges of business fraud, influence-peddling, extortion, conspiracy, money laundering, with Patrick Fitzgerald as prosecutor -- the same U.S. attorney who gained headlines and the conviction of Scooter Libby.

Rezko and Obama have had dealings for 17 years.

FYI, there is no evidence whatsoever that Barack Obama or Mrs. Obama were involved in anything illegal regarding Tony Rezko.

Question: Is Obama tarnished by Rezko? Eleanor Clift.

MS. CLIFT: With all due respect, John, you're not the first person to turn over all these rocks. It's been examined by the Chicago newspapers.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Sun-Times.

MS. CLIFT: Right. And, yeah, I mean, I think the Clintons are going to try to make this seem like Jim McDougal and Whitewater, the 2008 version of that, which was a whole lot about nothing.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: They've been on it for a year, examining it.

MS. CLIFT: Right. But, you know, if you want to make charges like this stick, there has to be some underlying characteristic about this candidate that makes you uneasy. I really don't think people look at Barack Obama and think corrupt; they think he's in it for the money somehow.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: The public will say, "Why is he hanging out with this guy?"

MR. BUCHANAN: Well --

MS. CLIFT: Well, and the Clintons also hung out with this guy.

MR. BUCHANAN: But John, you know, this --

MS. CLIFT: There's actually photographic evidence of that.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Okay. Okay. She's raised a point. This photograph has emerged of the Clintons and Rezko.

(Begin videotaped segment.)

MATT LAUER (NBC "Today"): It is undated, I'm going to tell you right now. We know it's him. We don't know when it was taken. We think it was taken during your husband's presidency. I'm just curious. Do you know anything about the picture? Do you know when it was taken? Do you remember meeting this man?

SEN. CLINTON: No, I don't. You know, I probably have taken hundreds of thousands of pictures. I don't know the man. I wouldn't know him if he walked in the door. I don't have a 17-year relationship with him.

MR. LAUER: Does it make sense to use someone like this, Tony Rezko, against Senator Obama when there really is no such thing as political purity anymore?

SEN. CLINTON: There's a big difference between standing somewhere taking a picture with someone you don't know and haven't seen since and having a relationship.

(End videotaped segment.)

MR. BUCHANAN: You know, John --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Question: Has this photograph turned Hillary's bullets, destined for Obama, into blanks? Pat Buchanan.

MR. BUCHANAN: No, it hasn't. Look, anybody that's been in politics know they walk people through hundreds of them at fund- raisers and you take a photograph and move on. That's what that is.

Now, this thing -- he does have a connection with a sleazy character, but let me defend Obama. I have seen no hard evidence that this guy did anything criminal at all -- I'm talking about Obama -- for this guy. He's got a guy who hangs around politics, who turned out to be very sleazy and maybe a crooked character. And I think it's tarnished Obama. And I think it's somewhat unfair, all this attention focused on that.

MS. CROWLEY: Yeah. And you know what? The reason that Hillary did this is because that's the only thing that they have on the guy. Barack Obama is a very intelligent, skilled, class act. They found one guy, and so she gets panicky in the debate. She goes nuclear on Obama by dragging up the Rezko guy, which is particularly rich coming from the queen of the mother of all shady land deals, Whitewater, okay.

MS. CLIFT: Which was a whole lot about nothing.

MS. CROWLEY: Wait a minute. What the Clintons are so good at is accusing their rivals and opponents, accusing them of exactly what they are guilty themselves of.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Are you so positive towards --

MS. CROWLEY: It's -- (inaudible) -- from them.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Are you so positive towards Obama because of your odium for the Clintons?

MS. CROWLEY: Look --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Is that why you're positive towards him?

MS. CROWLEY: I would not -- no, no, no. Look, I think that the Clintons have a rap sheet of shady donors going right up to Norman Hsu as of, what, last week. But there's some nerve on the part of the Clintons to attack Barack Obama for one night --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Do you think a list could be put together --

MR. BUCHANAN: How about Marc Rich?

MS. CROWLEY: He has apologized and given the money to charity.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Two-part exit question. Part one: Will Rezko's association with Obama torpedo Obama's prospects in the primaries to come? Second part: Will Rezko torpedo Obama's prospects long term?

MR. BUCHANAN: No. But look, there's a tarnish, a bit of a smear on Obama. But, no, that's not what's going to kill him, John. What's going to kill him (is) what's already been done in Nevada and South Carolina, which is turn him from a candidate who happened to be black into the black candidate.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Have you forgotten something?

MR. BUCHANAN: And second --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: I'm doing this for the rest of the panel so they will not embarrass themselves. We've got a trial coming up. The trial is going to be prolonged. There are many counts.

MR. BUCHANAN: I don't know of --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: It's Patrick Fitzgerald. It's day in and day out, video every night --

MR. BUCHANAN: I don't know that Rezko --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: -- of Rezko.

MR. BUCHANAN: I don't know of a thing that Obama has done for Rezko that is in any way shady or criminal.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: I'm telling you, the trial is not going to leave a pleasant odor.

MS. CLIFT: The answer is double no. Barack Obama is not on trial. And every politician in Washington has a rap sheet of donors. It's unfortunately the system that we operate under.

MS. CROWLEY: Well, what is going to torpedo Barack Obama is the Clinton war machine. It's not this individual Rezko charge.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: You mean, there's more that they have on him?

MS. CROWLEY: Well, I mean, look at how the Clintons are playing this game. Barack Obama is trying to run a class operation, and the Clintons wouldn't know class if it hit them on the head.

MS. CLIFT: It's called politics, Monica. (Laughs.)

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Could there be a counter-sympathy for Obama because of what the alleged Clintons are doing?

MR. ZUCKERMAN: Well, I think there is. There's been a lot of editorial comment really hostile to both Bill Clinton and Hillary for doing exactly this. And frankly, both of them end up being diminished by it. The country is just sick and tired of this kind of stuff. If you want to go back through the Clintons, you could find all kinds of material, okay, that could be brought up. I think this is an absolute non-issue.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: The trial will be a non-factor?

MR. ZUCKERMAN: Absolutely. He is not on trial. You know, it is really a ridiculous issue. It is just another attempt to smear. And I think both of them --

MR. BUCHANAN: Hey, Mort -- you've got to get behind Romney, Mort. (Laughs.)

MR. ZUCKERMAN: I will. I will, if I knew who he was, okay?

MR. BUCHANAN: (Laughs.)

MS. CLIFT: Which Romney should you get behind?

MR. ZUCKERMAN: Right. Which Romney?

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: My feeling is Obama --

MR. ZUCKERMAN: Who is he today?

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Can we get out? My feeling is Obama will not be hurt permanently by the Rezko matter.

...I thought I'd raise the issue again.

The pundits, both conservative and liberal, downplayed its impact. But McLaughlin seems confident "the trial is not going to leave a pleasant odor" as Rezko goes to trial on federal corruption charges.

And that it stains both the Clinton and Obama candidacies.

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

...

...I thought I'd raise the issue again.

The pundits, both conservative and liberal, downplayed its impact. But McLaughlin seems confident "the trial is not going to leave a pleasant odor" as Rezko goes to trial on federal corruption charges.

And that it stains both the Clinton and Obama candidacies.

It won't matter unless Obama wins the nomination. It's been brought up but Obama supporters just don't accept that he's not perfect. In a general election however with conservatives interested in using it to a wider audience it might hurt him.

Heh. I see that MEM is still editing thread titles to accuse his own party's likely nominee of being a gay coke fiend.

"Fair play" indeed.

Fox and CNN are reportedly calling Wisconsin for Obama and he is also supposedly leading in Hawaii

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Heh. I see that MEM is still editing thread titles to accuse his own party's likely nominee of being a gay coke fiend.

"Fair play" indeed.

I just replied to posts & didn't change the the title. Is that really editing a title? Was anyone here in danger of thinking the title was anything but silly?

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Fox and CNN are reportedly calling Wisconsin for Obama and he is also supposedly leading in Hawaii
...

It's still a bit early but it looks like his win is going to be tighter than his previous ones. Perhaps a sign that the momentum is slowing?

Actually, the Wisconsin exit polls may indicate the exact opposite, as Obama continued to make progress among several key demographic groups. This is potentially very bad news for Hillary.

Clinton's strategy in Ohio and Texas is based on winning working class white voters and women, but in Wisconsin, Obama won whites 52-46, those without a college degree 54-45, and those with an income of less than $50,000 by 53-46. Among women, Clinton's edge was just 51-48. Obama also won among every age group other than those over 60.

As far as I can tell, if these polls are accurate and indicative of national trends, Hillary's base has now narrowed to elderly democrat white women.

I was looking at actual poll results though G-man. Hillary's been losing races lately with getting 30 percent something & even dipping into the 20's. It looks like this one will be over 40 something percent. Still a loss but better than the last 2 weeks.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Fox and CNN are reportedly calling Wisconsin for Obama and he is also supposedly leading in Hawaii

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Fox and CNN are reportedly calling Wisconsin for Obama and he is also supposedly leading in Hawaii

Sorry but that's actually Rudy in drag.

It's pretty much over for Hillary if she doesn't do phenominally well in the next two primaries.

Yeah.

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

ObamaHipHop.com - The Beat of the Movement

I'll admit that Hillary fought the good fight, though. Surely her supporters will find comfort in that.

McCain's campaign mastermind will quit if Obama is nominated

Said campaign mastermind is Mark McKinnon, who helped put Bush and Cheney in the White House. Apparently, he doesn't want to aim any Kinnons at Obama.

Originally Posted By: Jason E. Perkins

I'll admit that Hillary fought the good fight, though. Surely her supporters will find comfort in that.

While it's looking very good for Obama winning the nomination right now, the race isn't over & she still has a shot at winning. It was well known that there was going to be drought for her till the big states in March. I'll admit I'll be surprised if she pulls wins in all 3 states but then again she wasn't suppossed to win CA or NH before that so who knows.

It would probably be best for the party if she does lose them though. Then at the convention it will be safe to "break" the rules & seat MI & FL

I kiiiid! I kiid. Of course she still has a shot.

I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that a drought was expected, though. No one was expecting it as far as I saw. If people were, please post it here.

Also not sure where you got the quotes around the word break. You don't need them. That would be breaking the rules that everyone, including Clinton, agreed to.

Originally Posted By: Jason E. Perkins

I'll dig some stories up later but yeah it was pretty much acknowledged that Clinton was going to have to manage to hold out till Ohio after Super Tuesday ended up not knocking either one out.

If she loses PA and Texas it's over. All the money will flow to Obama. She had a lead in the polls in Wisconsin till he spent money and time there and then poof it was gone. CNN was saying just 'cause she has a lead now doesn't mean much. She has a foundation made of sand......just like the Articles of Confederation.

Early voting starts today in Texas. In Waller County, a primarily rural county about 60 miles outside Houston, the county made the decision to offer only one early voting location: at the County Courthouse in Hempstead, TX, the county seat.

Prairie View A&M students organized to protest the decision, because they felt it hindered their ability to vote. For background, Prairie View A&M is one of Texas’ historically Black universities. It has a very different demographic feel than the rest of the county. There has been a long history of dispute over what the students feel is disenfranchisement. There was a lot of outrage in 2006, when students felt they were unfairly denied the right to vote when their registrations somehow did not get processed.

According to an article in today’s Houston Chronicle:

Quote:

Waller County has faced numerous lawsuits involving voting rights in the past 30 years and remains under investigation by the Texas Attorney General’s Office based on complaints by local black leaders. Those allegations, concerning the November 2006 general election, related to voting machine failures, inadequate staffing and long delays for voting results.

The article adds,

Quote:

“I was angry after registering to vote in the 2006 election only to be turned away at the voting booth,” said sophomore Dee Dee Williams.

So what are the students doing?

Quote:

1000 students, along with an additional 1000 friends and supporters, are this morning walking the 7.3 miles between Prairie View and Hempstead in order to vote today.

According to the piece I saw on the news (there’s no video up, so I can’t link to it), the students plan to all vote today. There are only 2 machines available at the courthouse for early voting, so they hope to tie them up all day and into the night.

I love stories like this. In the face of an obvious ploy to suppress the vote, these young people stood up for their rights and showed that they will not be cowed. Republicans should be worried, because this is a committed electorate.

Hilary should be worried too.

they dont all rape white women....

the disenfranchised really do make the easiest marks.

Originally Posted By: whomod

Quote:

The article adds,

Quote:

“I was angry after registering to vote in the 2006 election only to be turned away at the voting booth,” said sophomore Dee Dee Williams.

So what are the students doing?

Quote:

1000 students, along with an additional 1000 friends and supporters, are this morning walking the 7.3 miles between Prairie View and Hempstead in order to vote today.

Does the KKK know about this? They could get a lot of work done.

I'm not sure those students are really driving their point home, insofar as they seem to be demonstrating that they have plenty of free time. That would seem to undercut the argument that the location of the polling place hinders their ability to vote.

Originally Posted By: The New Adventures of Old PJP

There have been a couple of states that are considered her "firewalls". New Hampshire, California fell into that category. Wisconsin wasn't one of them though. It's not that different from Minnesota that went even more heavily for Obama. I think she got a little over 30 percent here.

Teamsters Union to Endorse Obama

These are the types of endorsements that, in my mind, matter, certainly moreso than an editorial in a newspapers. The teamsters have a lot of power and a lot of money they can put behind a candidate.

Rudy looks much better with the sparkly red shoes.

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Is that a pic when Rudy was younger G-man? Geez you've been with Rudy for a long time!

in the ass!

Originally Posted By: the G-man

you're killing me

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Originally Posted By: The New Adventures of Old PJP

CNN reported today that if Obama does even fairly well the rest of the way Hilary will need to win 54% of the delegate vote in the rest of the primaries just to catch up to him.....if he wins one of the next big primaries the number automatically jumps to 64%.

It's pretty much over.

Hillary doesn't have to totally catch up to Obama though. If she is able to win the big states that are left over & have favored her so far it will be a problem of perception for Obama. Talk of Obama momentum will become talk about Hillary the comeback kid. If Hillary somehow manages to continue the winning streak till the clock runs out, she would probably be able to win many of the superdelegates over at the convention. (minus the ones Obama has spent some big bucks on)

Originally Posted By: The New Adventures of Old PJP

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Originally Posted By: The New Adventures of Old PJP

tell that to Theodore Roosevelt!

Michelle Obama has been attacked over a recent comment she made by the right wing the last few days about being proud of America. She was targeted as being unpatriotic even by McCain’s wife. Well, you knew it was only a matter of time before “lynching references” would pop up when discussing Obama’s campaign.

Listen

Quote:

O'Reilly: "I don't want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama unless there's evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels"

Summary: In a discussion of recent comments made by Michelle Obama, Bill O'Reilly took a call from a listener who stated that, according to "a friend who had knowledge of her," Obama " 'is a very angry,' her word was 'militant woman.' " O'Reilly later stated: "I don't want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama unless there's evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels. If that's how she really feels -- that America is a bad country or a flawed nation, whatever -- then that's legit. We'll track it down."

Just recently a reporter from the Golf Channel apologized to Tiger Woods for using the word “lynching” when talking about his play on the tour which resulted in her suspension. An editor was also fired.

O’Reilly has a history of racially charged remarks. He took a lot of heat for his callous description of the behavior of African Americans eating at Harlem’s Sylvia’s restaurant not too long ago. Will Juan Williams swoop in to try and eflect criticism from BillO this time too?

are you really a politically correct twat? or is this just for partisan purposes?

I've said a couple times that unless Michelle Obama stays very quiet & just smiles & waves, she will be made the next Hillary Clinton. Considering that many on the left have picked up the rights dirty habits when talking about Hillary I gotta say what comes around goes around.

If it's any consolation, at least the kids are cute & the folks won't have to worry about them being compared to dogs.

President Bush: Don't Say 'Lynching' In Jest

Quote:

"The noose is not a symbol of prairie justice, but of gross injustice," the president said. "Displaying one is not a harmless prank, and lynching is not a word to be mentioned in jest."

As a civil society, Americans should agree that noose displays and lynching jokes are "deeply offensive," Bush said. "They are wrong. And they have no place in America today."

I guess O'Reilly didn't realize how much of a de factor standard this was.

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

I'd say that's somewhat a fair call. Although, really, she'd have to hold considerable wins for that to happen.

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

If Hillary somehow manages to continue the winning streak till the clock runs out...

I think you mean Obama, and at this like this looks most probably.

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

she would probably be able to win many of the superdelegates over at the convention. (minus the ones Obama has spent some big bucks on)

First, probably not. Many of the superdelegates, especially those in elected positions, would rather not go against the people's vote. Again, that's a probably not. It could happen the way you way.

Second, I'm surprised you're still working on this notion that Obama bought superdelegate votes. That's just silly.

They are both equally schmoozing the super delgates. I wish I was one. They are going out to dinners and having face to face private breakfasts with Clinton and Obabma.

but with that said I believe they will vote the way the DNC tells them to vote and that will be for whoever is leading.

Originally Posted By: The New Adventures of Old PJP

They are both equally schmoozing the super delgates. I wish I was one. They are going out to dinners and having face to face private breakfasts with Clinton and Obabma.

Really? Now this I haven't heard.

Not always Clinton and Obama personally but Bill and Chlesea are doing it for Hillary.....and I'm sure Obabma is doing it too. They had a few of the super delegates on CNN I think it was. One of them was only 20 years old! He had just finished having breakfast with Chelsea. Many of the super delegates are very ordinary people. Which is why I am wondering how you become one. I could get into that.

How is using money to buy influence silly?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080221/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_delegates

Quote:

Barack Obama won the Democrats Abroad global primary in results announced Thursday, giving him 11 straight victories in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination.

The Illinois senator won the primary in which Democrats living in other countries voted by Internet, mail and in person.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has not won a nominating contest since Super Tuesday, more than two weeks ago.

More than 20,000 U.S. citizens living abroad voted in the primary, which ran from Feb. 5 to Feb. 12. Obama won about 65 percent of the vote, according to results released by the Democrats Abroad, an organization sanctioned by the national party.

Voters living in 164 countries cast votes online, while expatriates voted in person in more than 30 countries, at hotels in Australia and Costa Rica, at a pub in Ireland and at a Starbucks in Thailand. The results took about a week to tabulate as local committees around the globe gathered ballots.

"This really gives Americans an opportunity to participate," said Christine Schon Marques, the international chair of Democrats Abroad.

There is no comparable primary among Republicans, though the GOP has several contests this weekend in U.S. territories, including party caucuses in Puerto Rico Sunday.

Obama's win comes just two days after he defeated Clinton in a primary in Wisconsin and caucuses in Hawaii. He leads Clinton 1,351 delegates to 1,262 delegates, not including the 7 delegates yet to be awarded based on the global primary voting results.

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

How is using money to buy influence silly?

I never said that using money to buy influence is silly. I said that working on this notion that Obama bought superdelegate votes is silly.

Pay attention reax.

Yeah, I brought it back. And proud of it.

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

are you really a politically correct twat? or is this just for partisan purposes?

"political correctness" is just a phrase people use to excuse their general assholeness and sometimes outright bigotry.

You know he’s saying exactly what he thinks — that’s the whole trick. You know it’s coming straight from his gut. That’s what his appeal has always been.

Can someone explain to me when this became a more admirable character trait than being a decent person? I hear it all the time. “Well, he may be a racist and a child molester, but you know where he stands,” as if being a straight-talking asshole somehow negates the fact that you are … an asshole.

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

are you really a politically correct twat? or is this just for partisan purposes?

Partisanship.

If Martin Luther King said something along the lines of "Fuck you Cracka'!" Whomod would just explain it away. But a conservative pundit who he speculates to be racist (because it would serve his interests) based on the use of the term "lynch" doesn't get a reprieve even though he has no proof that it was racially motivated.

....Oh yeah, and he's also PC twat.

Originally Posted By: whomod

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

are you really a politically correct twat? or is this just for partisan purposes?

politically correct twat.

There's also a certain level of irony here that whomod is more upset about O'Reilly saying he didn't want to go after Mrs Obama than he is about her original comment that she's never been proud of our country until the time it considers nominating her husband for president.

Actually I guess there is no irony. It's just another example of whomod's "Fox Derangement Syndrome."

Originally Posted By: Jason E. Perkins

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

How is using money to buy influence silly?

I never said that using money to buy influence is silly. I said that working on this notion that Obama bought superdelegate votes is silly.

Pay attention reax.

Sure he just helped out many people who happened to be superdelegates. It's all legal & Hillary has been doing it too, he's just been doing it better. I just didn't phrase it correctly sorry.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Everybody's guilty of doing this to an extent. Your comment towards the recent McCain story for example, where you somehow managed to turn it into a positive for McCain & a negative towards the NYT.

BTW does anyone else think Michelle's little moment of pride won't be going away soon? I couldn't believe she said it & thought that ought to be a good rallying cry for the GOP come election time.

...yeah, and for Billary come Ohio and Texas time.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

...yeah, and for Billary come Ohio and Texas time.

I don't think so. If they wanted to make an issue of it they would have jumped on it like McCain had his wife do. My guess is they'll be concentrating squarely on Obama.

GO OBAMA!

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Wow.

the comment was not that she's never been proud of her country. That was the EDITED FOX version that you heard most likely. The original comment was “For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback.” FOX was heard first misquoting “For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country,” then later a version with the words really garbled.

FOX and several right wing commentators, pretended to quote Michelle Obama and saying quote, “I have never been proud of America really until now.” As you just did G-Man.

Y'know, it's insidious the subtleties you right wingers employ to deceive old folks and willfully ignorant, but to say that the misquotation is the same or comparable as talking about lynching someone?? Or even just using the word "lynching" when discussing a black woman?

It's not. It's the same ballpark.
Ain't no fuckin' ballpark neither. It ain't the same fuckin' ballpark, it ain't the same league, it ain't even the same fuckin' sport.

I swear sometimes the callousness and oblivious attitude towards race that you guys display makes me sick to my stomach.

A couple of days ago, I wrote about the Prairie View A&M students walking 7 miles from campus to the one voting location alloted for their district. Well, we now have video of the march:

and This Update

Quote:

I just spoke with the elections office in Waller County.

The day closed yesterday with:

Rep: 82 voters
Dem: 472 voters

In a county that votes for Republicans in large numbers, this number is HUGE!!!!

Also, I can report that in Austin County, the race was almost equal yesterday. That is HUGE information because Republicans normally out vote Democrats (at least in primaries) at the rate of 10-to-1.

This is a promising sign as I feared the superdelegates were going to try to coronate Hillary against the will of the electorate.

Quote:

AP survey: Superdelegates jump to Obama

By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER, Associated Press Writer 49 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The Democratic superdelegates are starting to follow the voters — straight to Barack Obama.

In just the past two weeks, more than two dozen of them have climbed aboard his presidential campaign, according to a survey by The Associated Press. At the same time, Hillary Rodham Clinton's are beginning to jump ship, abandoning her for Obama or deciding they now are undecided.

The result: He's narrowing her once-commanding lead among these "superdelegates," the Democratic office holders and party officials who automatically attend the national convention and can vote for whomever they choose.

As Obama has reeled off 11 straight primary victories, some of the superdelegates are having second — or third — thoughts about their public commitments.

Take John Perez, a Californian who first endorsed John Edwards and then backed Clinton. Now, he says, he is undecided.

"Given where the race is at right now, I think it's very important for us to play a role around bringing the party together around the candidate that people have chosen, as opposed to advocating for our own choice," he said in an interview.

Clinton still leads among superdelegates — 241 to 181, according to the AP survey. But her total is down two in the past two weeks, while his is up 25. Since the primaries started, at least three Clinton superdelegates have switched to Obama, including Rep. David Scott of Georgia, who changed his endorsement after Obama won 80 percent of the primary vote in Scott's district. At least two other Clinton backers have switched to undecided.

None of Obama's have publicly strayed, according to the AP tally.

There are nearly 800 Democratic superdelegates, making them an important force in a nomination race as close as this one. Both campaigns are furiously lobbying them.

"Holy buckets!" exclaimed Audra Ostergard of Nebraska. "Michelle Obama and I are playing phone tag."

Billi Gosh, a Vermont superdelegate who backs Clinton, got a phone call from the candidate herself this week.

"As superdelegates, we have the opportunity to change our mind, so she's just connecting with me," Gosh said. "I couldn't believe she was able to fit in calls like that to her incredibly busy schedule."

In Utah, two Clinton superdelegates said they continue to support the New York senator — for now.

"We'll see what happens," said Karen Hale. Likewise, fellow superdelegate Helen Langan said, "We'll see."

Other supporters are more steadfast.

"She's still in the race, isn't she? So I'm still supporting her," said Belinda Biafore, a superdelegate from West Virginia.

Obama has piled up the most victories in primaries and caucuses, giving him the overall lead in delegates, 1,361.5 to 1,267. The Illinois senator's half delegate came from the global primary sponsored by the Democrats Abroad.

It will take 2,025 delegates to secure the nomination at this summer's national convention in. If Clinton and Obama continue to split delegates in elections, neither will reach the mark without support from the superdelegates.

That has the campaigns fighting over the proper role for superdelegates, who can support any candidate they want. Obama argues it would be unfair for them to go against the outcome of the primaries and caucuses.

"I think it is important, given how hard Senator Clinton and I have been working, that these primaries and caucuses count for something," Obama said during Thursday night's debate in Austin, Texas.

Clinton argues that superdelegates should exercise independent judgment.

"These are the rules that are followed, and you know, I think that it will sort itself out," she said during the debate. "We will have a nominee, and we will have a unified Democratic Party, and we will go on to victory in November."

Behind the scenes, things can get sticky.

David Cicilline, the mayor of Providence, R.I., indicated this week that his support for Clinton might be wavering after — he contended — members of her campaign urged him to cave to the demands of a local firefighters union ahead of her weekend appearance there. The firefighters, in a long-running contract dispute with Cicilline, have said they would disrupt any Clinton event the mayor attends. A Clinton spokeswoman said the campaign would never interfere in the mayor's city decisions.

Obama has been helped by recent endorsements from several labor unions, including the Teamsters on Wednesday.

"He's our guy," said Sonny Nardi, an Ohio superdelegate and the president of Teamsters Local 416 in Cleveland.

The Democratic Party has named about 720 of its 795 superdelegates. The remainder will be chosen at state party conventions in the spring. AP reporters have interviewed 95 percent of the named delegates, with the most recent round of interviews taking place this week.

The superdelegates make up about a fifth of the overall delegates. As Democratic senators, both Clinton and Obama are superdelegates.

So is Cincinnati Mayor Mark Mallory, which is one reason his phone rings often.

He is a black mayor, and Obama has been winning about 90 percent of black votes. His state has a March 4 primary with 141 delegates at stake. The Democratic governor, Ted Strickland, is stumping hard for Clinton — and perhaps a spot on the national ticket.

A phone call from former President Clinton interrupted Mallory's dinner on a recent Saturday.

"I continue to get calls from mayors, congresspeople, governors, urging me one way or another," said Mallory, who is still mulling his decision. "The celebrities will be next. I guess Oprah will call me."

Obama May Face Grilling on Patriotism

Sen. Barack Obama's refusal to wear an American flag lapel pin along with a photo of him not putting his hand over his heart during the National Anthem led conservatives on Internet and in the media to question his patriotism.

Now Obama's wife, Michelle, has drawn their ire, too, for saying recently that she's really proud of her country for the first time in her adult life.

Conservative consultants say that combined, the cases could be an issue for Obama in the general election if he wins the nomination, especially as he runs against Vietnam war hero Sen. John McCain.

"The reason it hasn't been an issue so far is that we're still in the microcosm of the Democratic primary," said Republican consultant Roger Stone. "Many Americans will find the three things offensive. Barack Obama is out of the McGovern wing of the party, and he is part of the blame America first crowd."

On Monday, Michelle Obama told an audience in Milwaukee, "For the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country. Not just because Barack is doing well, but I think people are hungry for change."

Cindy McCain, McCain's wife, days later responded by saying, "I have, and always will be, proud of my country." Barack Obama has expressed frustration that his wife's remarks had been taken out of context and turned into political fodder - both the Obamas say she was talking about politics in the United States, not the country itself.

Last summer, Obama was photographed by Time magazine at an event in Iowa standing with his hands folded during the national anthem. His primary rivals Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson appear beside him, with their hands on their hearts.

It has been repeatedly reported that the moment came during the Pledge of Allegiance, but that's not the case.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Obama May Face Grilling on Patriotism

Sen. Barack Obama's refusal to wear an American flag lapel pin along with a photo of him not putting his hand over his heart during the National Anthem led conservatives on Internet and in the media to question his patriotism.

Now Obama's wife, Michelle, has drawn their ire, too, for saying recently that she's really proud of her country for the first time in her adult life.

Conservative consultants say that combined, the cases could be an issue for Obama in the general election if he wins the nomination, especially as he runs against Vietnam war hero Sen. John McCain.

"The reason it hasn't been an issue so far is that we're still in the microcosm of the Democratic primary," said Republican consultant Roger Stone. "Many Americans will find the three things offensive. Barack Obama is out of the McGovern wing of the party, and he is part of the blame America first crowd."

On Monday, Michelle Obama told an audience in Milwaukee, "For the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country. Not just because Barack is doing well, but I think people are hungry for change."

Cindy McCain, McCain's wife, days later responded by saying, "I have, and always will be, proud of my country." Barack Obama has expressed frustration that his wife's remarks had been taken out of context and turned into political fodder - both the Obamas say she was talking about politics in the United States, not the country itself.

Last summer, Obama was photographed by Time magazine at an event in Iowa standing with his hands folded during the national anthem. His primary rivals Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson appear beside him, with their hands on their hearts.

It has been repeatedly reported that the moment came during the Pledge of Allegiance, but that's not the case.

You maybe want some sort of loyalty oath? Conservatives are really big on wearing their patriotism and faith on their sleeves and or using it as a blunt instrument.

Like it or not, whomod, people normally prefer a President who seems to love and respect the country that he leads and who tends to participate in the nation's patriotic rituals.

I'm not saying Obama isn't patriotic, but I wouldn't be surprised to see him dig that flag pin out of the mothballs if he gets the nomination.

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Obama 'Backer' Rezko Ordered to Jail

Rezko has become an "Achilles heel" for Illinois Sen. Barack Obama after disclosures he and people associated with him had raised almost $200,000 for Obama and that Obama sought Rezko's "help and advice" in the purchase of a new home.

Originally Posted By: whomod

birds of a feather

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Originally Posted By: whomod

birds of a feather

Obama's donated the Rezko money he received to charity, and there's some debate about how much Obama knew about his shady dealings, from what I hear. So I don't know how damaging this'll really be.

But I still expect these charges to be rezkoreccted ad nauseum by Obama's opponents.

Okay, more evidence of just how far reaching and aggressive the right wing smear machine is. Again, we have to know how this is going to operate this year if we are going to fight it. And, again, this relates to something Barack Obama said at the debate Thursday night:

Quote:

You know, I've heard from an Army captain who was the head of a rifle platoon -- supposed to have 39 men in a rifle platoon. Ended up being sent to Afghanistan with 24 because 15 of those soldiers had been sent to Iraq.

And as a consequence, they didn't have enough ammunition, they didn't have enough humvees. They were actually capturing Taliban weapons, because it was easier to get Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped by our current commander in chief. Now, that's a consequence of bad judgment.

ABC's Jake Tapper talked to the Army captain in question and verified it was true.

Tapper cited ten right wing blogs that were attacking Obama on this issue. But, it's worse. Two pillars of the Republican defense establishment, the Pentagon and Senator John Warner, also weighed in.

NBC, also spoke to the soldier, but gave the McCain campaign the headline it wanted "Pentagon questions Obama’s soldier story." NBC quoted Bush appointee/Pentagon flack Bryan Whitman:

Quote:

"I find that account pretty hard to imagine," Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman told reporters.

"Despite the stress that we readily acknowledge on the force, one of the things that we do is make sure that all of our units and service members that are going into harm's way are properly trained, equipped and with the leadership to be successful," he said.

Okay, that is so not true. But what else would you expect. Whitman's been flacking at the Pentagon since the Rumsfeld days. Think of all the misinformation and lies he spewed at us.

Also, yesterday's Washington Post reports that Senator John Warner dashed off a "stern letter" to Obama challenging his assertions:

Quote:

Warner -- a World War II veteran and former Navy Secretary -- has been a staunch advocate for U.S. troops. Warner's letter to Obama asks the senator to provide "essential facts" about the Army captain's story, including his personal information, so members of the committee can interview him and others to establish accountability, "depending of course, on the accuracy of the facts."

It's almost amazing how quickly the Republican machine will respond to a perceived attack on their strengths. This was clearly a concerted effort to beat back a very damaging story. What Obama said on Thursday night shines another spotlight on the failures of the gOP record. The Republicans respond very quickly when politics are involved. It's disturbing they don't respond as quickly when soldiers' lives are on the line.

Now, we have two networks that have verified Obama's account. The right wing machine was wrong again. Not just the blogs, but the Pentagon and the "esteemed" John Warner. That should tell the media something. Don't just regurgitate the right wing spin -- and that includes the Pentagon. Verify first because none of them can be believed.

Barack Obama and His Support for Islamic Sharia Law and al Qaeda: It's from a blog, so take it for what it's worth, but it's an interesting theory.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Barack Obama and His Support for Islamic Sharia Law and al Qaeda: It's from a blog, so take it for what it's worth, but it's an interesting theory.

Heh. Guess who circulated the above photo:

Barack Obama’s campaign is expressing outrage at a new photo attributed to Clinton campaign sources that depicts the Democratic presidential candidate dressed in Somali garb.

The picture, which appeared at the top of Monday’s Drudge Report, says Clinton staffers circulated the 2006 photo over the weekend. It shows the Illinois senator fitted as a Somali elder, during his visit to northeastern Kenya that was part of a five-country tour of Africa.

Actually, I kind of have to defend Hillary. If Obama doesn't want us to think he's a closet Muslim (or overly sympathetic to the religion of peace), he probably shouldn't dress like one.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Barack Obama and His Support for Islamic Sharia Law and al Qaeda: It's from a blog, so take it for what it's worth, but it's an interesting theory.

Heh. Guess who circulated the above photo:

Barack Obama’s campaign is expressing outrage at a new photo attributed to Clinton campaign sources that depicts the Democratic presidential candidate dressed in Somali garb.

The picture, which appeared at the top of Monday’s Drudge Report, says Clinton staffers circulated the 2006 photo over the weekend. It shows the Illinois senator fitted as a Somali elder, during his visit to northeastern Kenya that was part of a five-country tour of Africa.

Actually, I kind of have to defend Hillary. If Obama doesn't want us to think he's a closet Muslim (or overly sympathetic to the religion of peace), he probably shouldn't dress like one.

That's not specifically Muslim garb.

But I don't expect certain someones to not try and garble the meaning behind those clothes.

concentration camps. mark it.

Originally Posted By: The Pun-isher

That's not specifically Muslim garb.

Actually, CIA World Fact Book lists no other religion other than “Sunni Muslim” for Somalia.

So if that's traditional religious or ceremonial garb, it's Muslim.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Originally Posted By: The Pun-isher

That's not specifically Muslim garb.

Actually, CIA World Fact Book lists no other religion other than “Sunni Muslim” for Somalia.

So if that's traditional religious or ceremonial garb, it's Muslim.

Yeah, but the garb may not be religious in nature - that was my point. I won't go so far out on a limb and say Obama's NOT wearing Muslim garb - just that we can't assume what he's wearing has religious significance. It may be simply what they wear over there and have been wearing long before Islam reached Somalia. Just because all of Somalia is Muslim doesn't make what Obama's wearing specifically Islamic garb.

If I go to a synagogue and put on one of those hat thingies Jews wear, then I'm wearing religious garb, no question. But if an entire Christian community wears Hawaiian shirts, if I go there and dress in a Hawaiian shirt, am I dressing in Christian garb, since the shirt has no direct connection to Christianity?

Just sayin', we can't be so clothes-minded about stuff like that.

So, by that logic, if John McCain was meeting with a bunch of Southerners and put on a Confederate Flag lapel pin, people wouldn't criticize him for it?

Originally Posted By: the G-man

So, by that logic, if John McCain was meeting with a bunch of Southerners and put on a Confederate Flag lapel pin, people wouldn't criticize him for it?

Oh, of course people WILL criticize him for it. Some people are nit-picky bastards who criticize people for liking the wrong kind of toppings on their pizza. The untold story of how Eugene McCarthy lost his bid to become president has to do with the pepperoni lobby making some phone calls and mailing out fliers that McCarthy was a closet vegetarian who wanted to outlaw putting pepperoni on pizza, and it mushroomed into this whole big debacle for McCarthy.

Whether people are right to slam McCain for wearing the lapel pin or what exactly the Confederate Flag represents are different questions.

I think my earlier comment about Obama's Muslim garb was pretty mild, however. I didn't say "this is proof he's a secret Muslim." I only observed that photos of him in this sort of garb are going to encourage that sort of speculation.

Similarly, it's not particularly encouraging to read that Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan has jumped on the Obama bandwagon:

Nation of Islam Minister Louis Farrakhan said Sunday that presidential candidate Barack Obama is the "hope of the entire world" that the U.S. will change for the better.
Farrakhan compared Obama to the religion's founder, Fard Muhammad, who also had a white mother and black father.

"A black man with a white mother became a savior to us," he told the crowd of mostly followers. "A black man with a white mother could turn out to be one who can lift America from her fall."

I don't mean to suggest that Obama can help who does or doesn't endorse him. But it would be nice to see him repudiate the Nation of Islam's leader and its racist, anti-Semetic, ideology.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Yeah, I know. And I'm not disagreeing with you, either. Just pointing out that there will be shmucks out there who will be wrong to assume that what Obama is wearing is specifically Muslim in nature.

After all, some dickheads out there make their living by discrediting people with logical phallusies.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Similarly, it's not particularly encouraging to read that Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan has jumped on the Obama bandwagon:

Nation of Islam Minister Louis Farrakhan said Sunday that presidential candidate Barack Obama is the "hope of the entire world" that the U.S. will change for the better.
Farrakhan compared Obama to the religion's founder, Fard Muhammad, who also had a white mother and black father.

"A black man with a white mother became a savior to us," he told the crowd of mostly followers. "A black man with a white mother could turn out to be one who can lift America from her fall."

I don't mean to suggest that Obama can help who does or doesn't endorse him. But it would be nice to see him repudiate the Nation of Islam's leader and its racist, anti-Semetic, ideology.

Yeah, Farrakhan's support ain't gonna help, I'll grant that.

As for your other point, Obama has taken issue with Farrakhan in the past, saying Farrakhan didn't deserve an award because of his anti-Semitism.

We'll see what he has to say about Farrakhan's latest speech. But for some people, no matter what, Obama's supposed Islamism is a farrakhan conclusion.

You know, the real issue might not be that this reveals him as a Muslim, but as a DORK:

He looks like a cross between Gilligan and Hadji in that getup.

all bad...

why is obama's camp upset? if the photos are innocent and he feels it was appropriate, why the outrage?

Secret Muslim kind of sounds awesome. It's like a James Bond for Allah.

Or a sequel to "Undercover Brother," with a "Nation of Islam" twist.

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

why is obama's camp upset? if the photos are innocent and he feels it was appropriate, why the outrage?

It gives the false impression that he's a muslim. The photo has apparently been making the rounds on conservative blogs before Drudge used it...

Quote:

The photo apparently first appeared in this report on Obama's 2006 trip from an African news agency.

Supermarket tabloid The National Examiner reportedly ran the photo in its Feb. 4 issue. The photo appeared on right-wing message board Free Republic and conservative blog Sweetness & Light before Drudge picked it up. At least one Freeper recognized the need for wider distribution.

"Good Job," a user on Free Republic said Sunday to the person who posted the tabloid pic. "[I]t needs to get to Drudge,M.Malkin,Debbie Schussel etc....I want to see his explanation on this."

RAW

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

why is obama's camp upset? if the photos are innocent and he feels it was appropriate, why the outrage?

Manipulations people can drudge up about what the photos represent?

The knowledge that some people are going to be narrow-minded about this and call Obama a covert Muslim, not knowing the significance of what he's wearing?

The fear that people aren't ready for a president who engages in cosplay?

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

The photo has apparently been making the rounds on conservative blogs before Drudge used it...

Um, yeah. We know that. If you go back and re-read the thread, on 02/24 I posted the pic and an article entitled "Barack Obama and His Support for Islamic Sharia Law and al Qaeda," with the notation that "It's from a blog, so take it for what it's worth..."

It wasn't until the next day that I noted that Hillary's campaign was apparently also distributing the photograph:

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Heh. Guess who circulated the above photo: Barack Obama’s campaign is expressing outrage at a new photo attributed to Clinton campaign sources that depicts the Democratic presidential candidate dressed in Somali garb.

But you can't have it both ways, MEM. If it's a "hit piece" on Obama, that's the case no matter who posted it, including her royal thighness.

Personally, as noted above, I think Hillary's campaign was well within its rights to publicize it and agree with her camp when it argues that Obama "doth protesteth too much."

So I find it really funny that you're so blindly loyal to Hillary that you even defend and deny when she didn't do anything wrong.

Quote:

Supermarket tabloid The National Examiner reportedly ran the photo in its Feb. 4 issue. The photo appeared on right-wing message board Free Republic and conservative blog Sweetness & Light before Drudge picked it up. At least one Freeper recognized the need for wider distribution.
"Good Job," a user on Free Republic said Sunday to the person who posted the tabloid pic. "[I]t needs to get to Drudge,M.Malkin,Debbie Schussel etc....I want to see his explanation on this."

My guess is one of these guys just sent Drudge an e-mail & said that they were from the Hillary campaign.

I heard his popularity rating is OVER NINE THOUSAND!

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Supermarket tabloid The National Examiner reportedly ran the photo in its Feb. 4 issue.

The National Examiner is owned by the same company as the National Enquirer. As noted a few months, (in connection with the Enquirer hit piece on Edwards), the owners of the the company are connected to the Clintons.

So, once again, all signs point to Hillary.

Nice try G-man but when you have conservative bloggers saying we need to send this to Drudge & then he gets it, well your "I hate Hillary" motivated conspiracy theories look weaker than usual.

Quote:

[/quote]

Conservative Blog: Obama played Chaotic Evil character in D&D campaign

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Nice try G-man but when you have conservative bloggers saying we need to send this to Drudge & then he gets it, well your "I hate Hillary" motivated conspiracy theories look weaker than usual.

Quote:

so basically regardless of how much evidence establishes that the clintons were behind it since they are denying it you are determined to stand by your [wo]man. times like this I wonder if you're really gay after all. then I look at hillary's photo and realize that probably wouldn't impact things either way.

It's very interesting that you use the word evidence cap since there actually hasn't been any beyond conservatives doing their usual "Hillary is a bitch & I really really hate her dance" It might all make sense to you but I tend to think of evidence as being more than that. Like for example conservative bloggers circulating the same photo & commenting that someone ought to send it to Drudge.

keep telling yourself that...

No, Sammitch, don't you get it?

The VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACYTM first sent the photo to a tabloid owned by a Clinton supporter, KNOWING that the tabloid would publish it so they could then SCAN it and post it on a conservative blog and very PUBLICLY tell everyone who reads the blog that they should send it to Drudge.

The VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACYTM then, after publicly announcing their evil scheme on the aforementioned blog, thought it would be a good idea to pretend that they were from the Hillary camp, because, after all, it isn't like "Media Matters" or "Raw Story" monitor the conservative blogs all day to find shit like this out.

No, Sammitch, MEM got it all figured out. Acting on orders from Karl Rove and Haliburton, the VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACYTM constructed this elaborate plan to attack Hillary by making her opponent look like a 9/11 hijacker.

Damn. And we have gotten away with it too. If it wasn't for those meddling kids.

It's not just me...

Quote:

GOPAC head and FOX News contributor Michael Steele said he’d be surprised to find out the photo came from the Clinton campaign.”If there is a staffer who sort of in their own roguish way had gone out and put this out there, this will be their last day on the job,” Steele said.

“I think this is something that just kind of popped up on the ‘Net and they are attributing it to her. I’d be hard-pressed to find someone on the staff who is wasting their time in the heat of this battle to do something like that.”

FOX

Actually, MEM, Steele doesn't blame conservatives. He speculates that one of her staffers did it without her knowledge. That might be true, but unless she's hiring members of the hated VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACYtm, that hardly makes it the work of "conservatives."

Originally Posted By: the G-man

You know, the real issue might not be that this reveals him as a Muslim, but as a DORK:

He looks like a cross between Gilligan and Hadji in that getup.

It just occurred to me, with Barack Hussein Obama doing his best imitation of "Hadji," maybe Hillary could do her own tribute to Jonny Quest. She's certainly got the voice to play this character:

As I pointed out though g-man, we know that conservatives were circulating that photo around. One even commented that it should be sent to Drudge on one conservative blog. It's not a mystery who was circulating the photo G-man.

Originally Posted By: Matter eater Man

Originally Posted By: Hillary Clinton

Since G-man is reposting...

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Quote:

My guess is one of these guys just sent Drudge an e-mail & said that they were from the Hillary campaign.

According to ABC News:

During a Monday interview with ABC's Dallas affiliate, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., did not flatly deny the DrudgeReport's charge that her campaign forwarded a photo of rival Barack Obama in traditional African dress.

During a Monday conference call with reporters, Clinton communications director Howard Wolfson said that the former first lady's campaign "did not sanction" the leaking of the photo. But he stopped short of denying whether a Clinton aide may have passed it to the DrudgeReport.

"I'm not in a position to ask 700 people to come in," said Wolfson.

Back in October, The New York Times identified Tracy Sefl as the Clinton campaign's conduit to the DrudgeReport.

Asked by ABC News on Monday if she gave the photo to the DrudgeReport, Sefl, who is vice president at the Glover Park Group, said, "no."

Like Wolfson, she could not speak for all Clinton campaign associates.

Asked if she has contacted the DrudgeReport to seek a correction to its claim that the Clinton campaign is the source of the photo, she said, "No comment."

Here's the picture as it appeared at Free Republic Sunday:

It's an obvious scan.

Now, here's the copy that Drudge posted at this site, ostensibly from the Clinton campaign:

You'll note it is much clearer. It doesn't look like a scan.

Furthermore, in the picture at Free Republic you can see part of the right side white border where the National Examiner cropped the photo, cutting off Obama's elbow. The Drudge photo, however, isn't cropped and his whole arm is visible.

So it can't be the same photo that was posted at Free Republic.

Matter-eater Man argumentative User Fair Play!
4000+ posts 02/25/08 11:24 PM Making a new reply
Forum: Politics and Current Events
Thread: Re: Obama in Muslim Garb

Oh boy, another.. "LEAVE HILLARY ALONE" post is coming.

How is the Clinton campaign able to say that they know it couldn't be anyone working for her campaign? Like they said it's over 700 people. They're just being honest by saying they don't know. They also said it wasn't anything sanctioned by them. Considering that conservative bloggers were circulating & talking about sending the photo to Drudge, might I suggest that's what happened.

I take it that your most recent post was started before I posted the comparison of the two photos and noted that the one at FR was not the same version as the one Drudge received?

Quote:

Originally Posted By: the G-man

....I posted the comparison of the two photos and noted that the one at FR was not the same version as the one Drudge received...

MEM, I take it that you have no response to this point. Simply noting that someone at FR might have had the same idea as someone in the Hillary campaign doesn't exaplain the differences between the two pictures.

Matter-eater Man argumentative User Fair Play!
4000+ posts 02/25/08 11:38 PM Making a new reply
Forum: Politics and Current Events
Thread: Re: Obama in Muslim garb

I'd like to think he's actually going to respond to what I wrote instead of cutting and pasting the same discredited quote from Raw Story, but I won't count on it. Still, maybe he'll surprise us this time.

Sorry G-man I'm quite familiar with photoshop & scanning, so I know a photo can be made to look very different quality wise. (actually I think everyone knows that but you seem to think you had something there)

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Quote:

Photoshop can't put back in part of a scanned photo that wasn't there when it was scanned, MEM. At least not to that level of quality.

That's why I pointed out that, in the FR photo, you could see the white margin where the original source (the Examiner) had cropped it for publication; but in the Drudge version, the white margin wasn't there.

This demonstrates that the Drudge photo was from a different source than the Examiner. Therefore, it isn't the same one that was at FR.

Does it prove Hillary sent it in? Of course not. But it tends to disprove that FR was Drudge's source.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Obama May Face Grilling on Patriotism
[list]Sen. Barack Obama's refusal to wear an American flag lapel pin along with a photo of him not putting his hand over his heart during the National Anthem led conservatives on Internet and in the media to question his patriotism.

Now Obama's wife, Michelle, has drawn their ire, too, for saying recently that she's really proud of her country for the first time in her adult life.

Conservative consultants say that combined, the cases could be an issue for Obama in the general election if he wins the nomination, especially as he runs against Vietnam war hero Sen. John McCain.

"The reason it hasn't been an issue so far is that we're still in the microcosm of the Democratic primary," said Republican consultant Roger Stone. "Many Americans will find the three things offensive. Barack Obama is out of the McGovern wing of the party, and he is part of the blame America first crowd."

During Friday night’s Real Time with Bill Maher, Republican Congressman Jack Kingston took to the airwaves to echo the right wing talking points of Obama being “not patriotic enough”. One of the memes that Kingston brought up was about Obama not wearing his lapel pin. Let’s take a look at people not wearing their lapel pin:

How interesting. That looks like Rep. Jack Kingston talking about Obama not wearing his lapel pin. What’s missing? Jack Kingston’s lapel pin.

So does this make Kingston unpatriotic, a hypocrite or just plain stupid.

Of course this isn’t the first time Kingston played a game of “open mouth, insert foot”. A little over a year ago, Kingston said if families couldn’t survive on the old minimum wage then they needed to work longer hours. Just a month before that he was crying that working a 5 day work week in Congress would “take away from families“. I guess his family is more important than yours or mine.

I myself didn’t know lapel pins were so important to national security. Glenn Greenwald explains how easy it was for Obama to handle this nonsense:

Quote:

Far more notable is Barack Obama’s response to these depressingly familiar attacks. In response, he’s not scurrying around slapping flags all over himself or belting out the National Anthem, nor is he apologizing for not wearing lapels, nor is he defensively trying to prove that — just like his Republican accusers — he, too, is a patriot, honestly. He’s not on the defensive at all. Instead, he’s swatting away these slurs with the dismissive contempt they deserve, and then eagerly and aggressively engaging the debate on offense because he’s confident, rather than insecure, about his position

“A party that presided over a war in which our troops did not get the body armor they needed, or were sending troops over who were untrained because of poor planning, or are not fulfilling the veterans’ benefits that these troops need when they come home, or are undermining our Constitution with warrantless wiretaps that are unnecessary?

“That is a debate I am very happy to have. We’ll see what the American people think is the true definition of patriotism.”

Never mind the fact that John McCain often doesn't wear a flag lapel pin either. But that's the far right for you, always up in arms over proper reverence towards symbols rather than substantive things like Constitutional and international law.

muslim lover.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Maybe but as I've pointed out repeatedly conservative bloggers were circulating the photo & talking about sending it to Drudge. Drudge probably just got a better photo after the freepers sent him the crappy one.

It's just funny btw how you can rail on the NYT & then turn around and act as if Drudge is the gospel when it suits your purposes. At least I can look at both these stories & see that their wrong, just like the story about Obama being a muslim which you've been pushing.

I think the thing with Obama and the pin is less that he doesn't always wear a pin and that he launched into some sort of tortured defense where he conciously doesn't wear a pin to make "a statement."

One thing I've noticed about a lot of liberals I've encountered is that they don't want any "questioning [their] patriotism" but, at the same time, they don't fly the flag (some of the goofier ones even fly UN flags or "PACE" flags) and accuse anyone who flies, or wears, the flag of being "jingoistic" or some such thing. Instead they talk about how "true patriotism" consists of, in essence, constantly running down the country, never acknowledging the good and endlessly harping on the bad.

There's even a thread here about it and whether liberals hate America.

So, when Obama, the great half-white hope of the far left, starts in with that whole argument, it sounds suspiciously like the members of the "blame America first" crowd who, really, AREN'T that patriotic.

Originally Posted By: The Pun-isher

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

why is obama's camp upset? if the photos are innocent and he feels it was appropriate, why the outrage?

still isnt obama the guy who doesnt hide from anything, why be upset? i mean if you dressed up as Muslim why be ticked off someone distributed the picture? it sounds to me like he knew it was wrong.

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

Originally Posted By: The Pun-isher

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

why is obama's camp upset? if the photos are innocent and he feels it was appropriate, why the outrage?

still isnt obama the guy who doesnt hide from anything, why be upset? i mean if you dressed up as Muslim why be ticked off someone distributed the picture? it sounds to me like he knew it was wrong.

Because it's not about the pic itself - it's about anticipating the manipulative spin people (like a certain spinsteress) are gonna put on it.

But Obama was that worried about the "spin" that people would put on it, then why put on the outfit in the first place?

This isn't some twenty year old photo from his time in law school. It's only a couple of years old and after people started talking about him as a national political figure.

i just find it ridiculous that they are furious. look he was kissing up to the muslim faction in kenya and that is that. he needs to learn to live with his decisions.

Yep. That's it in a nutshell. Like I said before, I don't agree with Hillary on much in this world, but when she pointed out that his protest in this was out of line, she was right on the money.

Funny thing is that THIS picture

appeared in a far right web site. But when the accusations of outright racism started, the picture remained but the caption changed to THIS:

2009 Inaugural, as imagined by unnamed Clinton staffers

So although I hate Hillary's guts, I think there is more happening here. It looks as if the right is simultaneously trying to smear Obama while blaming Hillary for it. Like killing 2 birds with one stone. Scurrilous low lives that they are, I wouldn't put it past them.

BTW who wrote that bullshit "Obama in Muslim garb" title?? I'm so glad the far right is going to continue to play the low life role seeing as how the electorate, an energized and inspired electorate at that, is vehemently rejecting that kind of politiking. It's sort of the 2008 version of shouting "i'm an asshole" from the treetops.

thats ridiculous, the one tribesman is wearing red white and blue, obama would never stand for that!

During a February 26 rally for Sen. John McCain, conservative radio talk-show host Bill Cunningham "repeatedly referred to [Sen. Barack] Obama as Barack Hussein Obama -- at least three times," according to a post on the MSNBC.com blog First Read. In an update to the post, First Read reported that "McCain addressed the issue, saying he repudiated the comments and has respect for his Democratic opponents," and that "McCain accepted responsibility for the speaker while also saying he had not been in the room and had not heard the comments himself."

Originally Posted By: BSAMS

the one tribesman is wearing red white and blue, obama would never stand for that!

Exactly, BSAMS. As Barack Hussein Obama has reminded us in the past, wearing our nation's colors is "a substitute for ... true patriotism."

In any event, however, I still find it funny that, just because Obama's getting hit from the right wing for his patriotism, or alleged lack therof, people like whomod and MEM think it's impossible that Hillary would also hit him on a lack of patriotism.

I guess that's their way of saying that Hillary would never criticize an unpatriotic person?

Originally Posted By: the G-man

I guess that's their way of saying that Hillary would never criticize an unpatriotic person?

And again we see G-man's right wing leaps of logic and smear. You really are a low life.

Originally Posted By: whomod

and people want Obama as president? We aren't allowed to show pictures of him that are unflattering, we can't call him by his full name?

Let's hope if he is elected the terrorists dont have photoshop, they could post a unflattering pic WITH his full name, he'd have to go into hiding!

That's disgusting, BSAMS. I admit that it's not as disgusting as it would be if Obama weren't half white, but it's at least half as disgusting as it would be if he were totally of black decent. Your comments are clearly being made on the basis of racism since you're white and Obama is black (well, half black). You could in no way be reacting to his actual actions and character due to said fact. You should be ashamed of yourself. Hopefully, when Barack takes control, he'll completely outlaw such actions and have you imprisoned for the hate crime that I'm pretty sure you must have possibly committed.

Here's a video of Bill Cunningham whipping up the crowd on this page:

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080226/NEWS01/302260085

it's funny cuz it's true!

Originally Posted By: whomod

So, what whomod is saying is that REPUBLICAN John McCain treats Barack Hussein Obama better than some leading members of the DEMOCRATic party, including Clinton supporter Bob Kerrey?

Maybe whomod should call his posts "McCain repudiates Democrats"? Nah.

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

and people want Obama as president? We aren't allowed to show pictures of him that are unflattering, we can't call him by his full name?

He didn't used to be this uptight. Back in 2006, it was reported:

Obama has joked that he worried his political career was over after 9/11 because his name sounded too much like Osama.

In fact, it appears that he was more comfortable with it than most of his fellow libs were. I guess becoming the frontrunner has changed him.

Praise Allah!

Praise Allah?

Are you a Muslim G-Man or are you just comfortable insinuating that Obama is one?

Again, you're low life.

is everyone in LA as oversensitive as you?

Praise Allah!

Cunningham fucked him good today.

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

Free from tranny!? That bastard!

Yahoo! News

McCain disavows comments about Obama
Tue Feb 26, 6:42 PM ET

By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer

CINCINNATI - Republican John McCain quickly denounced the comments of a radio talk show host who while warming up a campaign crowd referred repeatedly to Barack Hussein Obama and called the Democratic presidential candidate a "hack, Chicago-style" politician.

Hussein is Obama's middle name, but talk show host Bill Cunningham used it three times as he addressed the crowd before the likely Republican nominee's appearance.

"Now we have a hack, Chicago-style Daley politician who is picturing himself as change. When he gets done with you, all you're going to have in your pocket is change," Cunningham said as the audience laughed.

The time will come, Cunningham added, when the liberal-leaning media will "peel the bark off Barack Hussein Obama" and tell the truth about his relationship with indicted fundraiser Antoin "Tony" Rezko and how Obama got "sweetheart deals" in Chicago.

McCain wasn't on stage or, he says, in the building when Cunningham made the comments, but he quickly distanced himself from the radio talk show host after finishing his speech. McCain spoke to a couple hundred people at Memorial Hall in downtown Cincinnati.

"I apologize for it," McCain told reporters, addressing the issue before they had a chance to ask the Arizona senator about Cunningham's comments.

"I did not know about these remarks, but I take responsibility for them. I repudiate them," he said. "My entire campaign I have treated Senator Obama and Senator (Hillary Rodham) Clinton with respect. I will continue to do that throughout this campaign."

McCain called both Democrats "honorable Americans" and said, "I want to dissociate myself with any disparaging remarks that may have been said about them."

Asked whether the use of Obama's middle name — the same as former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein — is proper, McCain said: "No, it is not. Any comment that is disparaging of either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama is totally inappropriate."

McCain said he didn't know who decided to allow Cunningham to speak but said he was sure it was in coordination with his campaign. He said he didn't hear the comments and has never met Cunningham, but "I will certainly make sure that nothing like that happens again."

Responding to McCain's apology, Obama spokesman Bill Burton said, "It is a sign that if there is a McCain-Obama general election, it can be intensely competitive but the candidates will attempt to keep it respectful and focused on issues."

Last fall, McCain faced criticism for initially not repudiating a voter in South Carolina who called Clinton a "bitch." McCain chuckled in response to the voter's question, but didn't embrace the epithet. A few minutes later, he said he respected Clinton, a New York senator and colleague.

Aside from using Obama's middle name, Cunningham also mocked the Illinois senator's foreign policy statements about his willingness to meet with the leaders of rogue nations. He said he envisions a future in which "the great prophet from Chicago takes the stand and the world leaders who want to kill us will simply be singing Kumbaya together around the table with Barack Obama."

At one point, Cunningham compared Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to Madeleine Albright, whom he said "looks like death warmed over." He also commented on the difference between former Ohio Rep. Rob Portman, whose wife is named Jane, and Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank, an openly gay member of Congress. "Jane's the main difference. But that's a different story," Cunningham said.

As Cunningham finished, Portman, who is mentioned as a possible vice presidential candidate, took the microphone to introduce McCain.

"Willie, you're out of control again. So, what else is new? But we love him," Portman said. "But I've got to tell you, Bill Cunningham lending his voice to this campaign is extremely important. He did it in 2000, he did it in 2004. It was crucial to victory then and it's even more important this year with his bigger radio audience. So, Bill Cunningham, thank you for lending your voice."

Speaking to reporters later alongside McCain, Portman said: "I was backstage so I didn't hear everything he said. Bill Cunningham is a radio talk show host who is often controversial so it does not surprise me that he was controversial." He added: "That's, I guess, how he makes his living."

Yahoo! News

Former rival Dodd endorses Obama
Tue Feb 26, 3:44 PM ET

By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent

CLEVELAND - Sen. Christopher Dodd endorsed one-time presidential rival Barack Obama on Tuesday and said it is time for Democrats to join forces to defeat the Republicans in the fall campaign.

"I don't want a campaign that is divisive here, and there's a danger in that," Dodd said, although he denied he was nudging Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton to end her candidacy.

Dodd said Obama was "ready to be president and I am ready to support him in this campaign."

The two men appeared together at a news conference. Dodd is the first of the Democratic campaign dropouts to endorse another candidate.

He said Obama "has been poked and prodded, analyzed and criticized, called too green, too trusting and for all of that has already won" more than half the states and millions of votes.

"It's now the hour to come together. ... This is the moment for Democrats and independents and others to come together, to get behind this candidacy," he said.

Dodd said he spoke with Clinton on Monday evening to tell her of his decision.

Dodd said he wasn't worried that the candidates would go too far in their pursuit of victory, but that their aides and supporters might.

"We've witnessed a little bit of that" in recent days, he said.

That was an apparent reference to a photograph that shows Obama wearing a white turban and a wraparound white robe that was presented to him by elders in Wajir, in northeastern Kenya.

The gossip and news Web site The Drudge Report posted the photograph Monday and said it was being circulated by "Clinton staffers" and quoted an e-mail from an unidentified campaign aide. Drudge did not include proof of the e-mail in the report.

The Clinton campaign has said it did not sanction circulation of the photo.

Obama told reporters, "I don't think that photograph was circulated to enhance my candidacy, I think that's fair to say.

"... Do I think that is reflective of Senator Clinton's approach to the campaign, probably not."

Originally Posted By: The New Adventures of Old PJP

Cunningham fucked him good today.

How so?

Lemee guess. More unfounded insinuations that Obama is a Muslim perchance in order to scare up more FEAR and prejudice?

Gotta love the right wings only trump cards.

...speaking of which... It seems the gOP is worried about being labeled bigots and did polling to gauge how slimy is TOO slimy.

Even for them.

It never struck me as especially complicated. Once there was a clear Democratic presidential nominee, the Republican National Committee would label him or her weak on terror, liberal (on everything), and desperate to raise your taxes. Throw in some references to 9/11, a few pictures of menacing-looking Middle Easterners, and a dash of immigrant bashing, and voila!

But it appears the RNC is hesitating, not because they’re unsure how to attack, but rather, because they want to prefer to avoid being labeled bigots.

Quote:

Top Republican strategists are working on plans to protect the GOP from charges of racism or sexism in the general election, as they prepare for a presidential campaign against the first ever African-American or female Democratic nominee.

The Republican National Committee has commissioned polling and focus groups to determine the boundaries of attacking a minority or female candidate, according to people involved. The secretive effort underscores the enormous risk senior GOP operatives see for a party often criticized for its insensitivity to minorities in campaigns dating back to the 1960s.

Look, RNC officials know the difference between a clean attack and a dirty one. They recognize when an attack is driven by race-based politics, and when one is substantive and above-board. The only reason they would need a focus group to help them out on this is if they planned to walk right up to the decency line, and wanted to know how far they could go without crossing it.

And that's part of the beauty of Obama. Not only is he inspiring the nation but the GOP are unsure how to slime him. They know perfectly well how to slime the Clinton's. Hell, they've been doing it for years! It seems for now all they have to play with is peoples fear and ignorance about Obama's religion and yeah, it's payed divedends for them with their ignorant misinformed base, weaned on a diet of FOX News and Limbaugh.

True.

You'd think that Obama's opponents would have realized by now that the he's-a-Muslim-terrorist-OMG! fearmongering thing hasn't worked very well. I've spoken to a good number of people about it, and while too many still think he's Muslim, too few equate that with being a terrorist.

That and, you know, eleven in a row.

your biased though.

Originally Posted By: Jason E. Perkins

Notch up a few more wins.

Hillary didn't do herself any favors last night at the debate.

Originally Posted By: whomod

Hillary didn't do herself any favors last night at the debate.

Her bitching about 'always' being asked the first question didn't help at all. She tried to play it off as a joke, but it sounded like a bitch. It's really odd, too, since being asked the first question has helped her in setting the tone of the whole debate.

Let's face it. Hillary is a bitch, has always been a bitch and will always be a bitch. But now that she's running, for the first time in her life, against an appealing candidate of her own party, and losing, it's harder and harder for her to mask that essential bitchiness, especially now that the media isn't covering it up for her.

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

your biased though.

As are you.

However, the poll numbers are what they are. Nothing Obama's opponents are throwing at him is sticking, and that includes the emails, pictures, and all else that try to tie him to Islam.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Report: Lewis to Endorse Obama

1 hour ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — Civil rights leader John Lewis has dropped his support for Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential bid in favor of Barack Obama, according to a newspaper report Wednesday.

Lewis, a Democratic congressman from Atlanta, is the most prominent black leader to defect from Clinton's campaign in the face of near-majority black support for Obama in recent voting. He also is a superdelegate who gets a vote at this summer's national convention in Denver.

"It's been a long, hard difficult struggle to come to where I am," Lewis told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution in an interview. "But when I am, as a superdelegate, I plan to cast my vote at the convention for Barack Obama."

Lewis' constituents supported Obama roughly 3-to-1 in Georgia's Feb. 5 primary. His endorsement had been a coveted prize among the Democratic candidates thanks to his standing as one of the last major civil rights leaders of the 1960s.

Sen. Byron Dorgan of North Dakota endorsed Obama on Wednesday, citing his record on trade.

"Senator Obama has never felt ... that NAFTA was good for America," Dorgan said in a campaign conference call with reporters.

Dorgan said Obama has supported key trade issues. "He and I feel the same way. We both believe in trade and plenty of it. We just insist it that it be fair to our country — the rules be fair."

NAFTA, the free trade agreement with Canada and Mexico, is unpopular with blue-collar workers whose votes are critical in the Democratic primary Tuesday in Ohio.

Obama has won 11 straight primaries and caucuses since Super Tuesday, increased his advantage in the all-important delegate count and has attracted the support of his congressional colleagues. On Tuesday, he secured the endorsement of one-time presidential candidate Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut.

Clinton has been endorsed by 13 of her Senate colleagues, Obama 10.

Dorgan was an ally of former President Clinton and a vocal critic of President Bush. As chairman of the Democratic Policy Committee, he has led hearings on government accountability issues related to the Iraq war and hurricanes on the Gulf Coast.

Dorgan has built a reputation for championing populist farm programs, criticizing Republican free-trade policies and assailing big business. He made headlines in 2005 when he called for a windfall profits tax on major oil companies.

Last year, he authored a measured to block funding of a Department of Transportation pilot program required under NAFTA that would have opened the U.S. to cross-border long-haul Mexican tractor trailers. The program was opposed by the Teamsters Union, among others.

Originally Posted By: thedoctor

Originally Posted By: whomod

Hillary didn't do herself any favors last night at the debate.

Apparently her handlers thought she had to come out there and be "tough". And yeah, all she did was come off as an overbearing whiny bitch. How the fuck do you whine about the moderator giving you the advantage??!! It just boggles the mind. It just came off as sounding like "waaa, everyones against me even Brian Williams!!!"

I'm tempted to make a quip about something vast.....

Originally Posted By: Jason E. Perkins

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

your biased though.

As are you.

no i'm not. i'm politically neutral.

I'm not a right winger.

I don't see why he is defensive about a pic that he posed for.

Originally Posted By: whomod

Originally Posted By: thedoctor

Originally Posted By: whomod

Hillary didn't do herself any favors last night at the debate.

I'm sure if I were to guess what you're thinking, I'd be right on the money, but I'm reluctant to post it.

Although maybe if I posted in wingding font, like in code...

$;\)$

Yeah, we members of the VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACYTM are really excited to welcome Brian Williams and the rest of the NBC news department into the fold. I just wish they got the memo that we don't like Obama either. That's why we made up a fake middle name and photoshopped him into a picture with a turban on his head.

Don't you feel better now that you've said it out loud?

Originally Posted By: whomod

Originally Posted By: thedoctor

Originally Posted By: whomod

Hillary didn't do herself any favors last night at the debate.

You & many other Obama supporters really sound just like Rush republicans in your nastiness.

Originally Posted By: Matter Eater Man

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Somebody care to explain to me G-man's fascination with the she-males?

Obama Catches Heat Over Farrakhan Support

Farrakhan, who has drawn attention for calling Judaism a “gutter religion,” dubbed the Illinois senator the “hope of the entire world” on Sunday.

Obama was asked during a debate with Hillary Clinton Tuesday night if he would reject that support — but the Illinois senator at first hedged.

“I can’t say to somebody that he can’t say that he thinks I’m a good guy,” Obama said. “You know, I have been very clear in my denunciations of him and his past statements.”

Clinton then chimed in to say she rejected support from an anti-Israel group during her 2000 Senate run, and that Obama’s denunciation of Farrakhan is not as strong as a rejection.

Obama relented: “I have to say I don’t see a difference between denouncing and rejecting. There’s no formal offer of help from Minister Farrakhan that would involve me rejecting it. But if the word ‘reject’ Senator Clinton feels is stronger than the word ‘denounce,’ then I’m happy to concede the point, and I would reject and denounce.”

He earned the crowd’s applause, but his handling of the question could spell trouble.

An article in the latest edition of Newsweek reported that Clinton’s surrogates are already floating the word that Obama has a shaky commitment to Israel

Originally Posted By: Jason E. Perkins

Report: Lewis to Endorse Obama

1 hour ago

[list]WASHINGTON (AP) — Civil rights leader John Lewis has dropped his support for Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential bid in favor of Barack Obama, according to a newspaper report Wednesday.

Lewis, a Democratic congressman from Atlanta, is the most prominent black leader to defect from Clinton's campaign in the face of near-majority black support for Obama in recent voting. He also is a superdelegate who gets a vote at this summer's national convention in Denver.

"It's been a long, hard difficult struggle to come to where I am," Lewis told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution in an interview. "But when I am, as a superdelegate, I plan to cast my vote at the convention for Barack Obama."

Lewis' constituents supported Obama roughly 3-to-1 in Georgia's Feb. 5 primary. His endorsement had been a coveted prize among the Democratic candidates thanks to his standing as one of the last major civil rights leaders of the 1960s.

So he actually thinks Clinton would be the better candidate personally but since his constituents like Obama more he's switching his support?

Quote:

Sen. Byron Dorgan of North Dakota endorsed Obama on Wednesday, citing his record on trade.

"Senator Obama has never felt ... that NAFTA was good for America," Dorgan said in a campaign conference call with reporters.

Dorgan said Obama has supported key trade issues. "He and I feel the same way. We both believe in trade and plenty of it. We just insist it that it be fair to our country — the rules be fair."
...

Does Obama actually have much of a record on trade? I'm also pretty sure that all the candidates believe in & are for trade with fair rules to our country.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Obama Catches Heat Over Farrakhan Support

Farrakhan, who has drawn attention for calling Judaism a “gutter religion,” dubbed the Illinois senator the “hope of the entire world” on Sunday.

Obama was asked during a debate with Hillary Clinton Tuesday night if he would reject that support — but the Illinois senator at first hedged.

“I can’t say to somebody that he can’t say that he thinks I’m a good guy,” Obama said. “You know, I have been very clear in my denunciations of him and his past statements.”

Clinton then chimed in to say she rejected support from an anti-Israel group during her 2000 Senate run, and that Obama’s denunciation of Farrakhan is not as strong as a rejection.

Obama relented: “I have to say I don’t see a difference between denouncing and rejecting. There’s no formal offer of help from Minister Farrakhan that would involve me rejecting it. But if the word ‘reject’ Senator Clinton feels is stronger than the word ‘denounce,’ then I’m happy to concede the point, and I would reject and denounce.”

He earned the crowd’s applause, but his handling of the question could spell trouble.

An article in the latest edition of Newsweek reported that Clinton’s surrogates are already floating the word that Obama has a shaky commitment to Israel

Funny.

Because amost all the media outlets are laying praise on Obama and saying that he defused a potentially embarrassing situation cooly and expertly.

I watched that segment and it came across to me that Hillary was splitting hairs between "denounce" and "reject" and Obama was like,"well,if it'll make you feel better,then I'll say "reject"." Hillary came across,to me,grasping at straws to make him look bad.I don't think it worked though.

Originally Posted By: whomod

almost all the media outlets are laying praise on Obama and saying that he defused a potentially embarrassing situation cooly and expertly.

Even if that is the case, it doesn't contradict what the article said, namely that he "caught heat" for it. It simply means that he allegedly defused it.

Originally Posted By: allan1

Yes. Sort of like how G-man is also grasping at straws, above.

It’s unexpected, but even Karl Rove is discouraging Republican attack dogs from throwing around Barack Obama’s middle name.

No less an authority figure than Karl Rove has warned Republican operatives from demagoguing Barack Obama’s middle name.

At a closed door meeting of GOP state executive directors in late January, Rove said the safest way to refer to Obama would be to use his honorific, “Sen. Obama.”

Quote:

“The context was, you’re not going to stigmatize this guy. You shouldn’t underestimate him,” one of the executive directors said. Rove said that the use of “Barack Hussein Obama” would perpetuate the notion that Republicans were bigoted and would hurt the party.

Rove’s remarks come just one day after John McCain said he believes use of “Hussein” is inappropriate.

G-Man however is unswayed as he takes his marching orders from a higher power. AM hate radio. And there no one is ever concerned if they come off as sounding bigoted.

It’s unlikely the rest the party’s far-right base is going to listen to either of them either. Indeed, the Republican Party of Tennessee already seems anxious to reinforce the notion that Republicans are bigoted and don’t care whether it hurts the party or not.

OH NO!!! The aP is publishing a story setting the record straight. G-Man and his far right slime merchants are going to have to work doubly hard now to reinforce the notion and deceive people that Obama is Muslim!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quote:

Obama fights false links to Islam

By JIM KUHNHENN, Associated Press Writer Thu Feb 28, 2:22 AM ET

WASHINGTON - For Barack Obama, it is an ember that he has doused time and again, only to see it flicker anew: links to Islam fanned by false rumors, innuendo and association (and G-Man). Obama and his campaign reacted strongly this week when a photo of him in Kenyan tribal garb began spreading on the Internet.

And the praise he received Sunday from Nation of Islam Minister Louis Farrakhan prompted pointed questions — during Tuesday night's presidential debate and also in a private meeting over the weekend with Jewish leaders in Cleveland.

During the debate, Obama repeated his denunciation of Farrakhan's views, which have included numerous anti-Semitic comments. And, after being pressed, he rejected Farrakhan's support in the presidential race.

The Democratic candidate says repeatedly that he's a Christian who took the oath of office on a family Bible. Yet on the Internet and on talk radio — and in a campaign introduction for John McCain this week — he is often depicted, falsely, as a Muslim with shadowy ties and his middle name, Hussein, is emphasized as a reminder of Iraq's former leader.

"If anyone is still puzzled about the facts, in fact I have never been a Muslim," he told the Jewish leaders in Cleveland, according to a transcript of the private session.

The photo of Obama wearing Kenyan tribal raiments — taken by an Associated Press photographer during his visit in 2006 to the country where his father was born — resurfaced on the Internet amid unsubstantiated claims that it was being circulated by members of Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign. Clinton and her aides said they had nothing to do with it. The Obama campaign accused them of "shameful, offensive fear-mongering."

On Tuesday Republican candidate McCain denounced the introduction he got in Cincinnati that criticized Obama in vivid terms. Talk show host Bill Cunningham referred to Obama three times as "Barack Hussein Obama" and called him a "hack, Chicago-style" politician during the introduction of McCain.

The Obama campaign is closely attuned to the rumors and insinuations. Information on Obama's Christian faith is prominently available on the "Know the facts" page of his Web site. The campaign has distributed flyers to churches in states with presidential contests. And it encourages supporters to flag any attack that may make its way into cyberspace.

"Our campaign is vigilant in quickly responding to any information about Senator Obama that surfaces, be it on the Internet, in the media or from our opponents," spokesman Bill Burton said Wednesday.

If there is confusion — and opportunity for political mischief — it derives at least in part from Obama's rich cultural background. His mother was a white woman from Kansas, his father was Kenyan and he spent part of his childhood in Indonesia, a largely Muslim country.

"My grandfather, who was Kenyan, converted to Christianity, then converted to Islam," Obama said Sunday. "My father never practiced; he was basically agnostic. So, other than my name and the fact that I lived in a populous Muslim country for four years when I was a child, I have very little connection to the Islamic religion."

Obama has become careful in denouncing the links, lately noting that some rumors about him also have been insulting to Muslims. Jim Zogby, founder and president of the Arab American Institute, said many Arab Americans are drawn to Obama because of his cultural background.

"It is clear he wants to have a broader relationship with the Muslim world," Zogby said. "He has a biography that connects him to the Muslim world."

Obama, though in the presidential limelight now for more than a year, is still introducing himself to voters. An AP-Yahoo poll in January asked people to volunteer the first few words that came to mind about each of the candidates, and 4 percent of the respondents, unprompted, mentioned the word Muslim when describing Obama.

Some of the rumors and allegations about Obama are clearly not true, yet still spread, often anonymously:

• A debunked chain e-mail circulating widely on the Internet suggests he is hiding his Islamic roots. It says he was sworn into the Senate on the Quran and turns his back on the flag during the Pledge of Allegiance.

He took his Senate oath with his hand on a family Bible, and he says, "Whenever I'm in the United States Senate, I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America." In fact, no candidate could survive if he publicly spurned the pledge.

• Another false report says he attended a Muslim madrassa school as a child in Jakarta. Obama was born in Hawaii and moved to Indonesia when he was 6 to live with his mother and stepfather. He returned to Hawaii when he was 10 to live with his maternal grandparents. Interviews last year by The Associated Press at the elementary school in Jakarta found that it is a public and secular institution and has been open to students of all faiths since before Obama attended in the late 1960s. Said vice principal Akmad Solichin: "Yes, most of our students are Muslim, but there are Christians as well. Everyone's welcome here."

• Obama also has faced questions about his pastor at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, where he has been a member for 20 years. Trinity calls itself "Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian." But it accepts non-black congregants. The United Church of Christ's president and general minister, the Rev. John H. Thomas, was quoted in a church publication as pointing out that the Rev. Jane Fisler-Hoffman, Illinois Conference Minister, who is white, "has been a member of the congregation for years."

• Obama has been asked about Farrakhan's words of praise and Farrakhan's receipt of an award from "Trumpet Newsmagazine," a Trinity church publication last month. Obama told Jewish leaders Sunday: "An award was given to Farrakhan for his work on behalf of ex-offenders completely unrelated to his controversial statements. And I believe that was a mistake and showed a lack of sensitivity to the Jewish community and I said so."

Farrakhan did not endorse Obama but said Sunday: "This young man is the hope of the entire world that America will change and be made better." Asked Tuesday night whether he would accept support from Farrakhan, Obama said: "I live in Chicago. He lives in Chicago. I've been very clear, in terms of me believing that what he has said is reprehensible and inappropriate. And I have consistently distanced myself from him."

Following an exchange with Clinton, he then added: "There's no formal offer of help from Minister Farrakhan that would involve me rejecting it. But if the word 'reject' Senator Clinton feels is stronger than the word 'denounce,' then I'm happy to concede the point, and I would reject and denounce."

(This version CORRECTS to show that elementary school in Jakarta was not Catholic.))

I like the URL to this story too. "Obama Muslim myth". As i've said repeatedly though, the far right though likes to deal in myth as per Leo Strauss and neoconseratism. Whether it's against someone or for their own particular worldview.

So, basically, the moral of this story is that the GOP is treating Obama better than Clinton and certain other members of his own party are.

Our party is truly the party of inclusion. Thank you for pointing his out, whomod.

Depends if you're listening to Karl Rove and John McCain or if you and Rove and McCain are just paying lip service and things will continue as they are and have been.

Seeing you're still using "Hussein" in your title, you're full of shit.

Hillary has fired people for going that route so I don't see how you can say she was ever for those tactics. Rove isn't for better treatment though, I think he knows that type of thing isn't going to help McCain win.

..or is that un-witted?

witless?

Ignorant?

I think G-Man might attend that church and is the guy they refer to as spreading that "info" about Obama.

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Hillary has fired people for going that route

But, as noted above, some of her supporters, including Bob Kerrey, have openly referred to Obama with his middle name. I am unaware of any sanction or disavowal of that by Mrs. Clinton, let alone one made as strongly as Rove and/or McCain v Cunningham (who, as whomod pointed out, promptly switched his allegiance to Hillary).

Originally Posted By: whomod

Seeing you're still using "Hussein" in your title, you're full of shit.

Why aren't you? I mean, that is his middle name after all. so what's the big deal?

Only polititards use his middle name.

Why? It isn't as if his middle name is "Sockfucker" or something.

because you're trying to draw a link between him and saddam hussein. the name hussein isn't that rare, it only has negative tones because of one guy who had the name. remember the seinfeld where elaine dated a guy named joel rifkin? or how before 1987 the name homer was linked with intellect? or simpson meaning "great football player who never misses his flight" not "killed his ex and her boyfriend."

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Why? It isn't as if his middle name is "Sockfucker" or something.

You really need to stop obsessing over me.

heh you called yourself a sockfucker

That's nothing new. He started a whole thread once to call himself a sockfucker.

I think this editorial makes some good points about the whole 'Barack Hussein Obama' and turban picture uproars.

Quote:

Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.: that is the full name of the junior Senator from Illinois - neither a contrivance nor, at face value, a slur. But John McCain couldn't apologize quickly enough after Bill Cunningham, a conservative talk radio host, warmed up a Cincinnati rally with a few loaded references to "Barack Hussein Obama." Asked afterwards if it was appropriate to use the Senator's middle name, McCain said, "No, it is not. Any comment that is disparaging of either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama is totally inappropriate."

The pundits were quick to applaud McCain's fatwa against the use of Hussein, and broadcasters began trying to report on the controversy without actually saying the name too much, dancing around the offending word as if they were doing a segment on The Vagina Monologues. In both cases, the word comes off as not quite illicit, but certainly a little taboo.

So who gets to say Hussein? At the Oscars, host Jon Stewart took innuendo about as far as it can go, saying that Barack Hussein Obama running today is like a 1940's candidate named Gaydolph Titler. But that reference, served up to a crowd that presumably swoons for Obama, got laughs. So maybe the H-word is more like the N-word: you can say it, but only if you are an initiate. Blacks can use the N-word; Obama supporters can use the H-word.

Obama's campaign thanked McCain's for his apology, claiming a victory for the high road. Fine. But McCain might also know that if middle names become fair game, John Sidney McCain III has his own liabilities. Recently, it has been the unmanly middle names that have caused their owners the most political trouble. In 2006, Jim Henry Webb hammered home the fact that his Virginia Senate opponent was actually George Felix Allen - a middle name that conjured up images of Felix Unger, or perhaps the real life Prince Felix of Luxemburg, either one a far cry from the tobacco-chewing good ole boy Allen styled himself as. In the last presidential election, both Bush and Kerry had middle names inherited from elite East Coast families. But Bush's middle name had much more swagger; you'll never see a TV show called Forbes, Texas Ranger.

Online, the onomastics are already in high gear. Lefty bloggers, in full Obama rapture, point out that Hussein means "beautiful". One conservative observer insinuated that Obama, as a Christian with a Muslim name, might be marked for death by even our allies in the Islamic world, if they think he converted from Islam (for the record, he was never Muslim). By that ornately twisted logic, though, one might add that it was the martyrdom of Hussein in the year 680, beheaded at Karbala in a clash with the caliphate, that gave rise to 1400 years or so of Sunni/Shi'a violence. So how on earth could Obama be a fair broker in Iraq?

The real problem is that if the right wants to start a whispering campaign about the name Hussein, Obama is only helping them. By cutting short the discussion, Obama is banishing his name to the voters' subconscious, where the dark opposites of hope - bigotry and fear - can turn the word over and over again in their minds until November.

The same day that Cunningham was dropping H-bombs on Cincinnati, Obama was at the Democratic debate in Cleveland, hastily accepting Hillary Clinton's assertion that she didn't order the leak of a picture of Obama wearing a turban in Kenya. "I think that's something we can set aside," he said.

It was a missed opportunity. He could have explained that he has nothing to hide. Explained why there's nothing wrong with him dressing in ceremonial clothes on official visits - like batik Bill in Indonesia in 1994 or headscarf Hillary in Eritrea in 1997. Maybe even explained why his middle name is Hussein - what his heritage means, and what it doesn't mean. In short, to reintroduce himself to those general election voters who are just starting to pay closer attention.

No matter what his advisers say, Obama wins nothing by shying away from his differences. After all, Obama is the candidate of change. He should take a cue from McCain's courage on Iraq. Say what you will about McCain, but he knows he's the war candidate. And though may have regretted saying it out loud, McCain clearly accepts that if voters don't buy his vision for the war, he'll lose. It's not too much risk for Obama to stake his campaign on voters' ability to rationally understand the difference between a Hawaii-born Christian and Saddam Hussein, the butcher of Baghdad. View this article on Time.com

Obama's campaign may just have been caught in some heavy duty double speak & then lying about it.

Quote:

The Obama campaign told CTV late Thursday night that no message was passed to the Canadian government that suggests that Obama does not mean what he says about opting out of NAFTA if it is not renegotiated.

However, the Obama camp did not respond to repeated questions from CTV on reports that a conversation on this matter was held between Obama's senior economic adviser -- Austan Goolsbee -- and the Canadian Consulate General in Chicago.

Earlier Thursday, the Obama campaign insisted that no conversations have taken place with any of its senior ranks and representatives of the Canadian government on the NAFTA issue. On Thursday night, CTV spoke with Goolsbee, but he refused to say whether he had such a conversation with the Canadian government office in Chicago. He also said he has been told to direct any question to the campaign headquarters.

MyDD

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Obama's campaign may just have been caught in some heavy duty double speak & then lying about it.

Quote:

MyDD

that's racist. theyre are just capitalizing on people's fears.

Originally Posted By: thedoctor

I think this editorial makes some good points about the whole 'Barack Hussein Obama' and turban picture uproars.

Quote:

Good article. I approve.

Apparently, will.i.am has gotten a lot of his fellow stars to come out in support of Obama.

Originally Posted By: Captain Sweden

Quote:

Obama's campaign thanked McCain's for his apology, claiming a victory for the high road. Fine. But McCain might also know that if middle names become fair game, John Sidney McCain III has his own liabilities. Recently, it has been the unmanly middle names that have caused their owners the most political trouble. In 2006, Jim Henry Webb hammered home the fact that his Virginia Senate opponent was actually George Felix Allen - a middle name that conjured up images of Felix Unger, or perhaps the real life Prince Felix of Luxemburg, either one a far cry from the tobacco-chewing good ole boy Allen styled himself as. In the last presidential election, both Bush and Kerry had middle names inherited from elite East Coast families. But Bush's middle name had much more swagger; you'll never see a TV show called Forbes, Texas Ranger.

Good article. I approve.

So shall we all wait for G-Man to change his titles to "John Sidney McCain in '08"?

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Whomod is eager to demonize Republicans for raising issues about Obama, when all the real trashing of Obama is coming from the Hillary Clinton campaign.

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

Whomod is eager to demonize Republicans for raising issues about Obama, when all the real trashing of Obama is coming from the Hillary Clinton campaign.

Um.. are you stupid or do you just not read my posts?

I've criticized BOTH Clinton and the right wing media for their attacks and insinuations about Obama.

Originally Posted By: whomod

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

Whomod is eager to demonize Republicans for raising issues about Obama, when all the real trashing of Obama is coming from the Hillary Clinton campaign.

Um.. are you stupid or do you just not read my posts?

I've criticized BOTH Clinton and the right wing media for their attacks and insinuations about Obama.

Yes, but you save your real venom for the alleged "right wing attack machine", when in truth McCain condemned the Barack Hussein Obama remarks by the guy who indroduced him, at the rally he attended.

You never miss an opportunity to scapegoat the Republicans as EEEEEEEEVVVVVVIIIIIILLLLLL!, despite that the real venom and character assassination of Obama is coming from the Hillary Clinton campaign.

What's "stupid" is how your own hate-filled remarks reveal your partisanship, and ultimately, your own evil.

No, you probably just don't give a shit when I criticize Hillary and you get your back up when it's to any right winger.

Originally Posted By: whomod

No, you probably just don't give a shit when I criticize Hillary and you get your back up when it's to any right winger.

Yeah, I must have totally ad-libbed that "right-wing attack machine" remark. You didn't actually write that, right?

You're a lying cocksucker, just like always.

Just like you said you admire McCain, but when he's the nominee, you suddenly portray him as Bush II, and have nothing nice to say about him. And before you say I'm a right-wing partisan, try and remember that I didn't vote Republican in 1992, 1996, or 2000, and look at what I've said recently about McCain being questionably conservative on a number of issues.

From just the last few days of this topic:

Originally Posted By: whomod, 2-26-08, 2:50 AM

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Quote:

Originally Posted By: whomod, 2-27-08, 4:13PM

...speaking of which... It seems the gOP is worried about being labeled bigots and did polling to gauge how slimy is TOO slimy.

Even for them.

Quote:

Again, you habitually slander the Republicans' intentions, when they haven't even launched any attacks on Obama as you describe them, while simultaneously ignoring that precisely the kind of attacks you describe *ARE ALREADY BEING LAUNCHED* by the Hillary Clinton campaign (i.e., the Clinton Attack Machine).

Slander, deceit, and divisive fear tactics are the traditional hallmark of Democrats, and I haven't seen that Obama has put himself above those tactics, either against Hillary, or in his attacks the last few days on McCain.
The Hillary Clinton campaign publicized the islamic-dressed Osama photo.
Bill Clinton said that blacks are voting their skin color for Obama, rather than on the merits of qualification for president. Even the liberal media has criticized the Clintons for race-baiting.
Hillary Clinton pulled Rezko's 17-year relationship and ties to Obama out, and his representing a "slumlord".
And on and on. Not the Republicans.

i.e., you're a lying partisan sack of shit.

Here Wonder Boy. Pay attention:

Dan Abrams punks Rep. Jack Kingston.

On MSNBC’s Live With Dan Abrams last night, Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) said it was okay to “question” Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-IL) patriotism because he doesn’t regularly wear an American flag lapel pin. Kingston claimed that “everybody” in politics “wears them.” Asked by Abrams if he was wearing one, Kingston had to admit he wasn’t, saying, “I will wear one and I have worn one.” Kingston then feigned ignorance about the irony between his criticism of Obama and his own lack of a lapel pin. Watch it above:

You'd think after he was embarrassed about his hypocrisy on Bill Maher's show regarding the "patriotic" flag pin, he'd remember to wear one since a lapel pin is the true test of patriotism in his book. What a moron. He deserves to have his ass handed to him by Abrahams.

Also in the clip, Drudge was mentioned and the infamous Cunningham remarks were again aired. But oh no, in your fucked up worldview, those aern't attacks therefore no Republican ever attacks anyone.

BTW Wonder Boy. How do you feel about a black President?

Will you guys secede from the Union again? can you guys take this numbnut lapel pin obsessed fool with you? And tell him also that placing your hand over your heart is a requirement of the Pledge of Allegiance and not the fucking National Anthem.

Originally Posted By: whomod

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Obama Catches Heat Over Farrakhan Support

Farrakhan, who has drawn attention for calling Judaism a “gutter religion,” dubbed the Illinois senator the “hope of the entire world” on Sunday.

Obama was asked during a debate with Hillary Clinton Tuesday night if he would reject that support — but the Illinois senator at first hedged.

“I can’t say to somebody that he can’t say that he thinks I’m a good guy,” Obama said. “You know, I have been very clear in my denunciations of him and his past statements.”

Clinton then chimed in to say she rejected support from an anti-Israel group during her 2000 Senate run, and that Obama’s denunciation of Farrakhan is not as strong as a rejection.

Obama relented: “I have to say I don’t see a difference between denouncing and rejecting. There’s no formal offer of help from Minister Farrakhan that would involve me rejecting it. But if the word ‘reject’ Senator Clinton feels is stronger than the word ‘denounce,’ then I’m happy to concede the point, and I would reject and denounce.”

He earned the crowd’s applause, but his handling of the question could spell trouble.

An article in the latest edition of Newsweek reported that Clinton’s surrogates are already floating the word that Obama has a shaky commitment to Israel

Funny.

Because amost all the media outlets are laying praise on Obama and saying that he defused a potentially embarrassing situation cooly and expertly.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Even if that is the case, it doesn't contradict what the article said, namely that he "caught heat" for it. It simply means that he allegedly defused it.

The larger question is why Farrakhan is the litmus test for black politicians’ views on race and not the politicians’ own record of comments, actions and legislative votes? Why is it that only after they repudiate Farrakhan are they then deemed not to be closet black militants? Farrakhan does not have the political influence over black people that some white Americans apparently believe. Nor does Rev. Al Sharpton, or Rev. Jesse Jackson Sr., or any of the other prominent black people that the media treat as proxies for all black people. I've repeatedly said this, especially about Jackson and Sharpton. These are just 2 race baiting assholes that the media always trots out as the representatives of black America as if anyone besides the media actually made them that.

Reporters did not run out in droves to ask white politicians to reject Don Imus after he made his remarks about the black female basketball players at Rutgers University. White politicians did not eagerly line up to do so. Nor did they repudiate fellow white politicians who did not. A few, and only a few, said they would no longer go on the Imus show. Tim Russert himself, who appeared often on the Imus show, was not among those who said they would no longer be a guest.

Most black people saw Imus as an irresponsible white man with a powerful microphone, not as the living embodiment of white America. Most black people (and white) know the difference.

I’d suggest a shout out to Tim Russert to ask repeatedly if McCain will disavow his endorsement by John Hagee, as he did to Obama with Farrakhan’s, but since McCain has been courting Hagee for a year, that might be too pointed a question to ask.

Quote:

Some African-American superdelegates who support Hillary Clinton are reporting threats and intimidation from people wanting them to switch to Barack Obama.
Pressure on black superdelegates has intensified since civil rights icon John Lewis switched his allegiance from Clinton to Obama earlier this week.
Missouri Congressman Emanuel Cleaver II tells The Politico some superdelegates are receiving what he called nasty letters and phone calls, along with threats that they'll now be opposed by other Democrats in reelection bids. Cleaver says some even report being called an "Uncle Tom."
Adding — "This is the politics of the 1950's. A lot of members are experiencing a lot of ugly stuff. They're not going to talk about it, but it's happening."
California Congresswoman Diane Watson reports she also has received threatening mail — but says she would rather lose her seat than violate her principles. She says she cannot switch her vote simply because Obama is black.

FOX
This would be a good time for Obama to maybe step in & say something but since this is helping him I doubt we'll see it.

New York Post:

Furious Kenyan tribal elders said yesterday that they may slap Hillary Rodham Clinton with a fine for her campaign's alleged role in publicizing photos of Barack Obama wearing a turban - and it must be paid in cows, goats or camels.

The elders, steaming over the Obama photo smear on the other side of the world, announced plans to convene a traditional tribal court to deal with the matter. The court could require Clinton to pay a fine in livestock, which is of great value in the far-flung Wazir region of Kenya.

Interesting. Apparently, you need to pay to "smear" Obama with the truth.

Therefore, I will be forwarding a delivery of Omaha steaks to Kenya and, as a result, expect that I will henceforth be allowed to use his full name "Barack Hussein Obama", or his pictures in a man-burka whenever I want.

It's a shame that Drudge is somehow the gospel now.

Bill Maher gives his latest New Rules, with a special condemnation for the right wingers and their whisper campaign to appeal to the bigotry of the voting public:

Quote:

A fundamental trait of today’s right wing is the willingness to lie, baldly and repeatedly and without shame. And it always catches the Democrats off guard. Just ask war criminal John Kerry or Munchausen Syndrome sufferer Al Gore. Are people like Sean Hannity really so dumb that they think Barack Obama is an African spy who’s plotting to be the Lion King? Well, in his case, yes, but…People like Karl Rove know that the more ridiculous the charge you make, the better. Because they’re not aimed at rational people. They’re aimed at that great teeming mass of Americans who wept with joy when they heard “American Gladiators” was coming back. They’re called “undecideds” or “swing voters”, but I prefer the traditional term, “morons”.

the rage continues.

Quote:

...People like Karl Rove know that the more ridiculous the charge you make, the better. Because they’re not aimed at rational people. They’re aimed at that great teeming mass of Americans who wept with joy when they heard “American Gladiators” was coming back. They’re called “undecideds” or “swing voters”, but I prefer the traditional term, “morons”.

remember, the poster who quoted this is 'with' the majority of Americans.

concentration camps.

Originally Posted By: Captain Sammitch

Quote:

remember, the poster who quoted this is 'with' the majority of Americans.

What happened?

Bill Maher cut a little too close there?

i think bill maher is a racist, he showed pics of osama obama in his terrorists garb.

Remember when Bill Maher used to call himself "politically incorrect"?

Now he's one of the most politically correct guys on TV.

no he's not he's a racist, he showed that picture. its a racism picture.

Originally Posted By: whomod

Originally Posted By: Captain Sammitch

Quote:

remember, the poster who quoted this is 'with' the majority of Americans.

What happened?

Bill Maher cut a little too close there?

it just amuses me that the left is all about 'the little guy' unless 'the little guy' decides not to vote or respond the way they want them to. at which point they become ignorant, scum-of-the-earth little peons of no use whatsoever to the revolution™. granted, it's understandable that the left's attitude toward its cannon fodder is capricious at best - otherwise they wouldn't be cannon fodder - but isn't it the democrat way to keep the charade going right up until election day?

I'm not mad, just amused. amused because it's always entertaining to see those who claim to speak for 'the people' try and explain away things like the 2004 presidential election. but don't worry, little peons - I'm sure the limousine liberals will at least have some table scraps left over for you on the other side of the revolution™.

Well you're conflating those who choose to believe the rights smears, which is mainly the rights willing audience, with most people in general, who as poll after poll show, are not the same people. As it stands now, those people constitute about 1/4 of the public. And they're going to believe this sort of crap and then either willingly or unwittingly spread it to others who may not be politically attuned and trust their friend, relative co-worker, brother/sister at church etc.. as telling them something factual and true. As was the case with that church lady video I posted earlier.

Now despite the pictures, despite Limbaugh and his fellow right winger talk radio peers spreading this stuff and yes, despite Hillary Clinton, Obama continues to enjoy momentum. So I don't think MOST people are falling for this stuff. Still there is a small percentage of people who either directly or thru word of mouth, will. As was the case with John Kerry and his medals. And that small percentage may be enough sometimes to swing n election. Something those that continue to spread lies and innuendo in the media know all too well.

racist supporter.

Originally Posted By: whomod

Originally Posted By: Captain Sammitch

Quote:

remember, the poster who quoted this is 'with' the majority of Americans.

What happened?

Bill Maher cut a little too close there?

you make me sick, thats a KKK promo video!

Originally Posted By: whomod

so the left has no problem with people who support its agenda. gotcha.

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

Originally Posted By: whomod

Originally Posted By: Captain Sammitch

Quote:

remember, the poster who quoted this is 'with' the majority of Americans.

What happened?

Bill Maher cut a little too close there?

you make me sick, thats a KKK promo video!

I appreciate a little irony as much as the next guy...

Quote:

"The KKK Took My Baby Away" is a song written by Joey Ramone. It appears on the Ramones' 1981 album Pleasant Dreams.

Many Ramones fans claim that the song was penned by Joey after Ramones' guitarist Johnny Ramone "stole" Joey's ex-girlfriend Linda from him, although he claims that he wrote the song years before the incident. The KKK reference refers to Johnny's conservative political stance, which influenced Johnny's management of the band in a militant, slightly authoritarian way. Johnny first started to cheat on his girlfriend at the time, to see Linda. When he wanted to see one girl he would claim to visit his uncle in Philadelphia. To add insult to injury, Johnny eventually married Linda, while his relationship with Joey never recovered—even when Joey was stricken with cancer.

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

Slander, deceit, and divisive fear tactics are the traditional hallmark of Democrats, and I haven't seen that Obama has put himself above those tactics, either against Hillary, or in his attacks the last few days on McCain.

Man, you really don't pay attention to or you enthusiastically endorse ANYTHING the right wing does.

Quote:

The Hillary Clinton campaign publicized the islamic-dressed Osama photo.
Bill Clinton said that blacks are voting their skin color for Obama, rather than on the merits of qualification for president. Even the liberal media has criticized the Clintons for race-baiting.
Hillary Clinton pulled Rezko's 17-year relationship and ties to Obama out, and his representing a "slumlord".
And on and on. Not the Republicans.

i.e., you're a lying partisan sack of shit.

And that is a large part of why I don't support her and have called her a bitch here publicly. The other part is her denouncing gOP policies while having had voted FOR them. That doesn't make the rest of the right wing and some state gOP's innocent from spreading what may or may not have come from Clinton. Same pieces of shit if you ask me.

As for the "attack" on McCain. You mean THIS?:

That is not so much "attack" as stupidity on McCain's part that Obama handled expertly..

Still, i'm glad you've been reduced to frothing at the mouth insults. It brings a wide grin to my face. $\:\)$ Really it does.

I wonder, if Obama wins the Presidency and the south doesn't secede, will some of you guys down there reenact the '08 election for the next 150-some years?

Just asking.

Originally Posted By: whomod

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

Originally Posted By: whomod

Originally Posted By: Captain Sammitch

Quote:

remember, the poster who quoted this is 'with' the majority of Americans.

What happened?

Bill Maher cut a little too close there?

you make me sick, thats a KKK promo video!

I appreciate a little irony as much as the next guy...

Quote:

wow it is ironic. joey was the liberal crying into a song about somebody "stealing" "his" girlfriend, while johnny was the conservative that saw what he wanted, went and got it on his own.

heh.

MUSLIM FURY AT 'PICTUREGATE'

The circulation of pictures of Sen. Barack Obama in traditional Somali garb - said to be an effort by Clinton operatives to tar him - have stoked Muslim extremists' anger at the United States, a terror expert says.

"May Allah kill them" and "May Allah destroy them" are among sentiments expressed toward the United States in Web posts about the controversy on al Qaeda- and extremist-oriented sites, said Evan Kohlmann of Global Terror Alert.

Some posts even claim Obama is an Iranian agent sent to take over the US government and wage war against Sunni Muslims.

"They are suggesting there is no difference between Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, George Bush and Satan," Kohlmann said.

It's safe to say that muslim extremists are going to hate the new president no matter what. They got pissy when MN elected the first muslim to the senate too. And of course Obama isn't even a muslim to begin with despite efforts of conservatives like yourself G-man to paint him as one.

I've been saying that for years to all of you especially our European members and our more liberal memebers. George Bush has very little to do with how much the world hates us. They will hate whoever is the President and they will always hate the USA.

To be candid, they liked us a little better under Clinton but, then, he kissed their ass way more than they deserved.

But, yeah, they'll always hate us to some extent.

Quote:

Oops, it seems that Ohio Union officials have some questions for Senator Barack Obama. In a letter sent by them to the Obama campaign, Gary Dwyer, Secretary-Treasurer, Ohio State Building and Construction Trades Council Barry Pickett, Business Representative, Sheet Metal Workers International Association, Local 24, write: “We were surprised and disappointed to learn that your top economic adviser reportedly had a secret meeting with a representative of the Canadian government where he dismissed your anti-NAFTA rhetoric.”

It is therefore that they have some questions. Questions that need to be answered:

1) Did you direct your top economic adviser - Austan Goolsbee - to tell the Canadian government that your speeches railing against NAFTA are just political rhetoric? If so, why?

2) Are you aware that Mr. Goolsbee held a secret meeting with the Canadian Counsel General Georges Rioux? Have you spoken with Mr. Goolsbee about that meeting and will you repudiate his comments?

3) Why has Mr. Goolsbee been unwilling to deny that he discussed your positions on NAFTA with Mr. Rioux? Why won’t your campaign disclose the full details about that meeting?

4) Given these reports, why should Ohioans believe that you will act on the campaign promises you have made about NAFTA?

5) Sen. Clinton has issued a comprehensive plan to fix NAFTA. Why haven’t you done so as well?

They conclude: “The people of Ohio are eager to hear from you - there’s too much at stake.”

Poligazette

racist.

Originally Posted By: whomod

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

Man, you really don't pay attention to or you enthusiastically endorse ANYTHING the right wing does.

As usual, all you have is insults and mischaracterizations.

What exactly have I "endorsed"?

I already said that McCain is difficult to support on a number of issues, particularly amnesty for illegals, and the mess he's made of campaign finance reform with the McCain/Feingold bill.

Originally Posted By: WB

Originally Posted By: Whomod

Uhh, most of the Democrat leadership, with the exception of Obama, ALSO voted for those GOP policies, particularly Iraq. The 9.2 trillion dollar deficit is largely liberal spending that Bush did not use his veto power to restrain as a true Republican would have. And before you rant further about the Iraq war, annual budgets under Bush have run higher in domestic spending than on the War on Terror.

I haven't seen the Republican candidates take any noteworthy shots at Hillary and Obama, preferring instead to just let them bloody each other.
Even conservative pundits such as Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh are thrashing McCain more than Clinton or Obama. Coulter said she'd vote for Hillary over McCain !

So except for one guy who announce John McCain when he was on the stump campaigning, who said "Barack Hussein Obama" about 6 times (some nameless conservative radio commentator from the styx, who McCain immediately denounced and distanced himself from) I don't see this EEEEEEEVVVVVVIIIIIILLLLL Republican attack machine you keep harping about.

Originally Posted By: Whomod

As for the "attack" on McCain. You mean THIS?:

That is not so much "attack" as stupidity on McCain's part that Obama handled expertly..

Obama said "Bush and McCain chose to invade Iraq", which slandered McCain as being 100% backing Bush in the invasion and conduct of the Iraq war. Whereas in truth, McCain has vocally opposed many aspects of Bush's conduct of the war in Iraq, ongoing, for years. McCain, like Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, has occasionally supported W.Bush regarding Iraq, and at least as often opposed Bush policy, and pressed for Rumsfeld's removal and a more effective strategy in Iraq, which finally happened with "the Surge".

Obama's remarks were mired in pedantic monotone, but were slanderous nonetheless. If Obama is going to raise such arguments as "Bush and McCain chose to invade Iraq," Obama could include John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and most of the other Democrats in Washington in that "chose to invade Iraq" characterization.

If Obama were a U.S. Senator in Sept 2002 when the Senate voted to invade Iraq, he probably would have voted "present" instead of "yes" or "no", as Obama did so often in the Illinois State Senate, where he served before his brief little field trip to Washington.
But yeah, Obama's an agent of change, not just another politician.

Originally Posted By: Whomod

Still, i'm glad you've been reduced to frothing at the mouth insults. It brings a wide grin to my face. $\:\)$ Really it does.

If you want to see "reduced to frothing at the mouth insults", just re-read the two lengthy apoplectic rantings of yours I quoted in my previous post.

Originally Posted By: Whomod

I wonder, if Obama wins the Presidency and the south doesn't secede, will some of you guys down there reenact the '08 election for the next 150-some years?

Just asking.

More slander on your part.

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

No, that's just more ad-hominem attack. You label anyone who disagrees with you a bigot, homophobe, hater, extremist, etc.

Your tactics come straight from the Moscow Central Committee:

Quote:

Members and front organizations must continually embarrass, discredit and degrade our critics. When obstructionists become too irritating, label them as fascist, or Nazi, or Anti-Semitic... the association will, after enough repitition, become "fact" in the public mind.

Slander as an alternative strategy to honest political debate.

The Revolution continues, even after the fall of the Soviet Union.

You insinuate some racist mindset for my resistance of Obama, while ignoring that I many times have praised widespread support of Colin Powell as a potential candidate, and have often quoted polls that show Powell would have nationally beaten any other candidate in 1992, 1996 and 2000, if he had chosen to run for president. Powell is a black man who is highly qualified and experienced for the job of President.

It's not about race, as you slanderously attempt to make it at every turn. It's about whether the candidate in question is a pandering liberal who will give amnesty to illegals (because they're reliable Democrat voters) and in other ways will raise taxes and expand the welfare state, in the testing of their pet liberal theories.
At the expense of U.S. sovereignty and taxpaying citizens.

Quote:

Memo Recounts Meeting

By NEDRA PICKLER | Associated Press Writer
11:14 AM EST, March 3, 2008

SAN ANTONIO, Texas - Barack Obama's senior economic policy adviser privately told Canadian officials to view the debate in Ohio over trade as "political positioning," according to a memo obtained by The Associated Press that was rejected by the adviser and held up Monday as evidence of doublespeak by rival Hillary Rodham Clinton.
The memo is the first documentation to emerge publicly out of the meeting between the adviser, Austan Goolsbee, and officials with the Canadian consulate in Chicago, but Goolsbee said it misinterprets what he told them. The memo was written by Joseph DeMora, who works for the consulate and attended the meeting.
"Noting anxiety among many U.S. domestic audiences about the U.S. economic outlook, Goolsbee candidly acknowledged the protectionist sentiment that has emerged, particularly in the Midwest, during the primary campaign," the memo said. "He cautioned that this messaging should not be taken out of context and should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans."
...

Newsday
Kiss Ohio goodbye Obama.

WHOOPSY!

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

WHOOPSY!

Big time WHOOPSY, he's been waving the anti-NAFTA flag heavilly lately & now he's been caught telling Canada that it's just political rhetoric. I'm sure he still has certain votes that he can count on but I think the days of his inevitablity of winning the nomination is over.

This is typical of the old way of doing politics. We can't look at what I may or may not have said to a consulate in Canada in the past. We need to look to the future.

I give you my word, that in the future I will not secretly meet with Canadian politicians and tell them that I'm just kidding about my campaign promises.

I'm bringing real change to Washington. Change you can count on. In the past many politicians would make a campaign promise, get elected, then back out.

I don't follow the traditional path.

I have decided that in order to move this country forward, we as politicians should make campaign promises, and break them before we get elected. Let's take the special interest out of the White House, and cater to them on the campaign trail.

Vote for change you can believe in.

My name is Barack Hussein Obama, and I support this message(publicly anyways).

this is racist.

Speaking of "Whoopsie":

Obama criticized Clinton expressly for failing to read the classified National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's weapons capabilities, a report available at the time of her October 2002 vote authorizing the Iraq war. "She didn't give diplomacy a chance. And to this day, she won't even admit that her vote was a mistake--or even that it was a vote for war," Obama said.

"When it came time to make the most important foreign policy decision of our generation the decision to invade Iraq Senator Clinton got it wrong," Obama said.

He said that Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a fellow Democrat from neighboring West Virginia, had read the intelligence estimate as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee and had voted against the war resolution.

Rockefeller, who is now chairman of that committee, endorsed Obama on Friday and campaigned with him on Saturday.

Just one problem: Rockefeller voted for the war.

Not only that, but Clinton said in a debate, with Obama sitting right next to her, that she regrets her vote and wished she could take it back.

Of course, the more these two fight for the nomination, the longer it'll take to have a Democrat nominee. The longer it takes them to get a nominee, the further behind their campaigns are going to be on McCain.

Yeah, that's why Limbaugh has been encouraging Republicans to vote in the Democrat primaries: to prolong their "agony."

Originally Posted By: thedoctor

Well if fund raising is any indication, that may not be entirely true.

Hillary Fundraising in Feb:

Quote:

In a remarkable financial recovery, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton raised $35 million in February even as Democratic rival Barack Obama was outspending her in key March 4 battlegrounds.

McCain:

Quote:

Likely Republican presidential nominee John McCain raised a little over $12 million in February, two campaign sources tell CNN’s John

King.

Obama has raised possibly 50 million from some reports in the same time period. Didn’t the McCain camp say they raised tons of cash over the NY Times story? What an embarassing turnout for McMaverick.

Following up on this, the NYT noted that the contests in Ohio and Texas are going down to the wire between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, with Obama hoping to use a fundraising advantage to deliver a “knock-out blow.” Both sides have the resources, though, to oversee massive campaign operations in both states — in just February, Clinton raised $32 million, while Obama is believed to have taken in at least $50 million.

And, across the aisle, there’s John McCain, who reportedly collected about $12 million in February — the same underwhelming number he raised in January.

Republicans are not oblivious to the problem.

Quote:

For Republicans, watching Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama fight for supremacy in fundraising is not just a spectator sport. It is a look into the future, and the GOP isn’t cheering.

Obama and Clinton together raked in as much as seven times as much cash in February as John McCain, the all-but-certain Republican nominee.

The Democrats, particularly Obama, are also developing a broad base of fervent donors whose help goes beyond sending money.

Some Republicans are sounding alarms. “Since the midterm election of 2006, Democrats have had an enthusiasm gap with Republicans,” said GOP strategist Scott Reed. “They have big crowds, raise more money and appear to have more excitement on the campaign trail. Couple this with turnout numbers, which are off the charts, and Republicans are going to have a big challenge in the fall.”

Worse, they don’t seem to have any idea what to do about it.

It’s a dynamic Republicans haven’t faced in the modern political era. I couldn’t be more pleased. $\:\)$

And overall, if G-Man and his fellow Republicans are voting in Democratic primaries to try to "prolong the agony", they'll still be voting for someone they despise and could handily win the Presidency. Big whoop.

Originally Posted By: whomod

...if G-Man and his fellow Republicans....

Where did I say I did this, or even approved of it? The fact I mentioned something was happening does not imply endorsement or participation.

Furthermore, whomod, it's no secret that I live in New York. New York is a closed primary state. Therefore, as a registered Republican, I couldn't vote in the Democrat primary, or any other primary outside my party.

For someone who likes to pretend he's sophisticated about how politics works, you sometimes display some very woeful ignorance of the processes.

Also, McCain was behind in fund raising before the primaries and was all but counted out of the running. In fact, Romney outspent everyone in the campaign and lost Iowa to Huckabee, who hadn't spent much at all and just stayed on the ground and won voters with personal appearances.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Originally Posted By: whomod

...if G-Man and his fellow Republicans....

Well you didn't but you did mention it. With no hint of dissaproval. If I assumed you approved of it then my mistake.

Second, on the same note you sound about me, I'd assume that you were politically sophisticated enough to know that there is no such thing as a "Democrat primary". As I've said innumerable times in the past, it tends to make one sound like an ignorant dittohead when one repeats the politically motivated renaming of a political party espoused by the likes of Limbaugh, despite the fact that everyone outside of the fringe right knows that there is no "Democrat Party" or "Democrat Primary".

Thirdly, I have no idea where you live. Why should I?

Originally Posted By: whomod

...early on in the campaign, Obama had a strained relationship with the gay community over statements made from ...his campaign manager, another one of those so called "ex gays". Donnie McClurkin, a gospel singer (and Bush supporter)...

And the fact he supports Bush as well as Obama is relevant because...?

Oh, I forgot: the obsession continues.

Obama Wins Vermont

Not a big surprise or particularly dispositive, but it should be noted that he's now won, what, twelve or thirteen in a row?

do you think this has anything to do with Obama's support for finding a cure for gays? there are a lot of gays in Vermont.

they want to be cured!

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Obama Wins Vermont

Not a big surprise or particularly dispositive, but it should be noted that he's now won, what, twelve or thirteen in a row?

Only twelve.

Originally Posted By: Captain Sammitch

they want to be cured!

Just because your boyfriend says so doesn't make it true for all homosexuals cap $\:p$

chewy is happy just the way he is.

Chewey hasn't been around much lately, has he? Maybe that's because the cure took this time.

Praise allah!

Obama said, "Tony Rezko was a friend and supporter of mine for many years. These charges are completely unrelated to me, and nobody disputes that."

"There's no dispute that he raised money for us, and there's no dispute that we've tried to get rid of it,"

"I have been very open about what I called a boneheaded move,"

Quote:

Obama regains ground in Texas caucuses

By JIM KUHNHENN and CALVIN WOODWARD, Associated Press Writers Wed Mar 5, 11:49 AM ET

WASHINGTON - Barack Obama regained lost ground in the fierce competition for Democratic convention delegates on Wednesday based on results from the Texas caucuses, partially negating the impact of Hillary Rodham Clinton's string of comeback primary victories.

Late returns showed Clinton emerged from Rhode Island, Vermont, Texas and Ohio with a gain of 12 delegates on her rival for the night, with another dozen yet to be awarded in The Associated Press' count.

That left Obama with an overall lead of 101 delegates, 1,562-1,461 as the rivals look ahead to the final dozen contests on the calendar. It takes 2,025 to win the nomination.

The two presidential contenders made the rounds of the morning television news shows, agreeing on little — except that their historic struggle would continue at least until the Pennsylvania primary on April 22.

That left six weeks for public campaigning, and for private appeals to party leaders, known as superdelegates, who attend the convention but are not chosen in primaries or caucuses.

Clinton has the support of 241 superdelegates, and Obama 202. But more than 350 remain uncommitted, a large enough bloc to swing the nomination should they band together.

Clinton, in particular, projected confidence on the day after her candidacy-saving victories, suggesting she might want Obama as her vice presidential running mate.

"That may be where this is headed, but of course we have to decide who is on the top of ticket. I think the people of Ohio very clearly said that it should be me," she said on CBS.

Obama no doubt had other thoughts.

He said he would prevail in the nominating battle despite facing a tenacious candidate who "just keeps on ticking."

Democrats plunged into the next round of their campaign as Republican John McCain was visiting the White House to confirm his status as the party's nominee-in-waiting. Lunch with President Bush headlined his day.

Bitter rivals in the 2000 presidential primaries, the two have forged an uneasy relationship during Bush's administration and have clashed on issues such as campaign finance, tax cuts, global warming and defining torture.

There were 370 Democratic delegates at stake in Tuesday's contests, and nearly complete returns showed Clinton outpaced Obama in Ohio, 74-65, in Rhode Island, 13-8, and in the Texas primary, 65-61.

Obama won in Vermont, 9-6, and was ahead in the Texas caucuses, 30-27. Ten of the dozen that remained to be awarded were in Texas; the other two in Ohio.

"We still have an insurmountable lead," Obama said.

Clinton and Obama spent most of the past two weeks in Ohio and Texas in a bruising campaign, with the former first lady questioning his sincerity in opposing the North American Free Trade Agreement and darkly hinting he's not ready to be commander in chief in a crisis.

Based on their current delegate counts, neither candidate can win enough delegates in the remaining primaries and caucuses to secure the nomination without the help of nearly 800 party officials and top elected officials who also have a voice in the selection. On Wednesday, Clinton and her campaign clearly aimed their case at those so-called "superdelegates" — a strategy that could take the nomination fight all the way to the party's August national convention in Denver.

"New questions are being raised, new challenges are being put to my opponent," she said. "Superdelegates are supposed to take all that information on board and they are supposed to be exercising the judgment that people would have exercised if this information and challenges had been available several months ago."

She said voters are being drawn to her argument that she would be the better commander in chief, the best steward of the economy and that she can better confront McCain in the general election.

Obama countered that on a key national security issue — the war in Iraq — "she got it wrong" by supporting Bush's call for authority to use of force.

As for superdelegates, Obama said he expected them to rally around him.

"I don't think it will necessarily go to the convention floor," he told reporters aboard his plane before taking off from San Antonio for Chicago.

He also said he will challenge Clinton on her foreign policy credentials.

"Was she negotiating treaties? Was she handling crises? The answer is no," he said. "She made a series of arguments on why she should be a superior candidate. I think it's important to examine that argument."

The count does not include delegates from Florida and Michigan, who were penalized by the Democratic Party for moving up their primaries ahead of a schedule set by the Democratic National Committee. None of the Democratic candidates campaigned in either state. But Clinton, who won the popular vote in both state primaries, on Wednesday renewed her call for Florida and Michigan to be counted in the nomination race.

"It's a mistake for the Democratic Party to punish these two states," she said. "I don't see how a Democratic nominee goes forward alienating two of the most important states."

McCain surpassed the 1,191 delegates needed to win his party's nomination against odds that seemed steep only a few months ago, and all but impossible last summer.

Facing a couple of well-financed marquee candidates in a crowded field, the Arizona senator opened his comeback in New Hampshire's leadoff primary, rolled over Rudy Giuliani in Florida and finished off Mitt Romney after Super Tuesday on Feb. 5.

Mike Huckabee hung in until Tuesday night, gamely keeping up the fight weeks after dropping from long shot to afterthought.

___

Associated Press Writer Tom Raum in San Antonio contributed to this report.

I can't really tell from the article, but it almost reads as if Obama might have won Texas after all.

He didn't win Texas. He won the much much much smaller attended caucus though.

But if he picked up more total delegates in Texas, wouldn't that be a "win"?

Never mind. I just read the totals. It looks like even with the caucus delegates added in, Hillary still picked up one more delegate than Obama in Texas so she won either way.

Obama's answer to the 3 am phone call is apparently that neither cnadidate is ready...

Quote:

Clinton camp targets Obama adviser saying neither candidate ready for 3 a.m. call
David Edwards and Nick Juliano
Published: Thursday March 6, 2008

...Clinton distributed a clip of Obama adviser Susan Rice arguing that neither candidate would be ready for the type of 3 a.m. phone call Clinton portrayed in a recent ad. A cable host asked when Obama had been in the position to handle a similar crisis.

"He hasn't. And he hasn't claimed that he's been in a position to have to answer the phone at three o'clock in the morning in a crisis situation," Rice said on MSNBC Wednesday night. "That's the difference between the two of them. Hillary Clinton hasn't had to answer the phone at three o'clock in the morning, and yet she attacked Barack Obama for not being ready. They're both not ready to have that phone call."

Clinton's response...

Quote:

"With one of his top foreign policy advisers acknowledging yesterday that he is not ready to take the 3am call ... Senator Obama’s time would be better spent making the case for why he can do the most important job in the world just three years out of the state senate," read the campaign release.

RAW

I think Obama needs a new foriegn policy adviser!

Yeah, Obama had a good answer (at least if you oppose the Iraq war) to this ad originally but this lady completely just fucked him.

She sure seems to be doing an outstanding job of making the case for John McCain.

you make a good case for pro choice....

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

In a letter sent by them to the Obama campaign, Gary Dwyer, Secretary-Treasurer, Ohio State Building and Construction Trades Council Barry Pickett, Business Representative, Sheet Metal Workers International Association, Local 24, write: “We were surprised and disappointed to learn that your top economic adviser reportedly had a secret meeting with a representative of the Canadian government where he dismissed your anti-NAFTA rhetoric.”

According to the Globe and Mail, turns out Clinton's campaign called Canada:

The conversation turned to the pledges to renegotiate the North American free-trade agreement made by the two Democratic contenders, Mr. Obama and New York Senator Hillary Clinton.

Mr. Brodie, apparently seeking to play down the potential impact on Canada, told the reporters the threat was not serious, and that someone from Ms. Clinton's campaign had even contacted Canadian diplomats to tell them not to worry because the NAFTA threats were mostly political posturing.

The Canadian Press cited an unnamed source last night as saying that several people overheard the remark.

The news agency quoted that source as saying that Mr. Brodie said that someone from Ms. Clinton's campaign called and was "telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt."

Meanwhile, the CBC appears to exonerate Obama:

According to CBC, all the details were wrong. Canada contacted the campaigns. Michael Wilson was not involved. And, most damning, they are now admitting that the memo at the heart of the controversy "may not accurately reflect what they were told".

I wonder if this will get the same press.

Corrections never do. Just ask Rudy Guiliani.

Heh.

I read about the campaign managers and their talks with the Canadians in my paper here.

Whether or not Obama is telling the truth, I think it's a good thing for non-yanks to know that Obama is a protectionist. (I hope we won't get another silly "trade war" between USA and EU, if he or Clinton becomes president.) I'm puzzled why he has a problem with NAFTA, USA do need Canadian and Mexican oil and gas, so it's bad politics to not buy other goods from them. Besides, US industry is hardly threatened by those nations, but by China and India.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080307/ap_on_el_pr/obama_adviser

Quote:

An adviser to Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama apologized Friday for telling a Scottish newspaper that rival Hillary Rodham Clinton is "a monster."

Samantha Power, a foreign policy adviser to Obama's presidential campaign and Pulitzer Prize winner, was quoted in remarks she later attempted to retract as saying in The Scotsman newspaper that Clinton was stooping to low tactics to recover ground in the race to win the party's presidential nomination.

The Harvard professor is quoted as telling the newspaper Obama's team had been disappointed with Clinton's campaign win in Ohio on Tuesday.

"In Ohio, they are obsessed and Hillary is going to town on it, because she knows Ohio's the only place they can win," Power is quoted as saying. "She is a monster, too — that is off the record — she is stooping to anything."

Power issued a statement Friday in which she acknowledged the comments but said she "deeply regretted them."

"It is wrong for anyone to pursue this campaign in such negative and personal terms," she said in the statement. "I apologize to Senator Clinton and to Senator Obama, who has made very clear that these kinds of expressions should have no place in American politics."

Obama's spokesman Bill Burton said in an e-mail: "Senator Obama decries such characterizations which have no place in this campaign."

Though Power immediately attempted to withdraw the remark, the newspaper insisted she had agreed in advance that her interview — part of a book tour — would be conducted on the record.

"You just look at her and think, 'Ergh'," Power is quoted as telling the newspaper. "But if you are poor and she is telling you some story about how Obama is going to take your job away, maybe it will be more effective. The amount of deceit she has put forward is really unattractive."

In a separate interview for Britain's left-leaning New Statesman magazine, published Thursday, Power warned Clinton's campaign against reveling in the trial of an Obama donor Antonin "Tony" Rezko on corruption charges.

"I don't think it's a good idea for the Clintons to get into a competition over who's got the most unsavory donations, you know what I mean?" Power was quoted as telling the magazine.

It's funny cuz it's true.

I gotta give Obama this: he has possibly the most honest advisor who ever worked in politics.

Close Obama Adviser Quits After Calling Clinton a 'Monster'

Too bad. Didn't anyone ever tell her that truth is an absolute defense?

This is politics, G-man. There's no room for truth here.

That almost sounds like a line from "Chinatown" when you put it like that.

she is a monster isnt she? arent advisers supposed to be telling you the truth?

Originally Posted By: thedoctor

This is politics, G-man. There's no room for truth here.

Obama is going to be just like Bush.

Obama's Grandmother Changes Islam Story.

Last year, she told the press she was a devout Muslim. Now she's claiming to be Christian. Did she convert or is someone hiding something?

Praise Allah?

Originally Posted By: the G-man

I gotta give Obama this: he has possibly the most honest advisor who ever worked in politics.

Just out of curiosity, G-man, which part of Powers' statements and actions do you think makes her the "most honest"?

The fact that she called Hillary Clinton a monster?
That she owned up to the remarks, and apologized to Obama and Clinton for making them?
The fact that she resigned to remove her remarks from further association with Obama?

I'm just curious, because once she made the slip, there are a lot of parts that could be seen as admirable, in her attempt to make amends for the "monster" remark.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Obama's Grandmother Changes Islam Story.

Last year, she told the press she was a devout Muslim. Now she's claiming to be Christian. Did she convert or is someone hiding something?

Praise Allah?

if Obama can claim to be Christian after being caught on camera dressed a a Mullah then why cant she?

At 3:15 PM Eastern time, with 78% of precincts reporting, Obama leads 59% - 40%.

AP reports Wyoming Democrats "were showing up in "record numbers."

Hillary Clinton has been positively apoplectic for days over Barack Obama's "speech in 2002." The speech she's so critical of, so afraid of, is this speech below. It's the speech in which Barack Obama, over five years ago - two weeks before Hillary Clinton sided with George Bush and voted to authorize the Iraq war - predicted that everything would go horribly wrong if we invaded Iraq. That's why Obama opposed the Iraq war. Had Hillary read Obama's speech then, rather than criticizing it now, perhaps we wouldn't be in the mess we're in. Read for yourself the speech that Hillary mocks on a regular basis:

Quote:

October 2, 2002

Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances. The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don't oppose all wars.

My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain. I don't oppose all wars.

After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again. I don't oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism.

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income - to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear - I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the President today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings. You want a fight, President Bush?

Let's fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe. You want a fight, President Bush?

Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil. Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not -- we will not -- travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.

gosh he is a pussy, we cant have a pussy as commander in chief. this aint france.

amen captain!

You're welcome.

America!

North, Central and South!

I wonder how Louisiana and Quebec feel about the other Captain's remark.

quebec isnt in america, and Louisiana could prolly care less!

You hate Canucks, and the Canucks hate you!

i love canada, its the only country that our dollar is worth more!

Not to mention their maple syrup and (Canadian) bacon!

... and their tar sand, important to make you independent of foreign oil!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080309/ap_on_el_pr/democrats_blacks;_ylt=AvjYwLlZ0zD8Bfhng5b8vVWs0NUE

Quote:

Obama's black support shows its limits

Barack Obama would not be leading the Democratic presidential race without the enthusiasm and high turnout of black voters.

They spearheaded his comeback win in South Carolina, where Obama trounced Hillary Rodham Clinton and John Edwards with the backing of four out of every five black voters. They provided his margin of victory in many other states, and will play a key role in Tuesday's primary in Mississippi, where Clinton is the underdog.

But Obama's campaign saw the limits of black support in last week's losses in Ohio and Texas, which kept Clinton's campaign alive. And the role black voters will play in the next big contest, Pennsylvania's April 22 primary, is unclear.

Moreover, some analysts think it's possible Obama's heavy black support is nudging some working-class white Democrats into Clinton's camp. If true, it could be an important factor in a contest that remains remarkably tight after a year of campaigning.

Obama, the son of a white mother from Kansas and a black father from Kenya, won slightly more white votes than Clinton in Wisconsin, Virginia and a few other states last month, helping him to a string of wins and the overall lead in delegates to the party's national convention.

But Clinton won nearly two out of every three white votes in Ohio, and 56 percent of those in Texas, where she also ran well among Latinos. Strategists are pondering the results, wondering if Pennsylvania's demographic similarities to Ohio will deliver another important win to Clinton in six weeks.

Ronald Walters, a University of Maryland political scientist who tracks racial trends and is writing a book on Obama, thinks Obama's strong support from blacks made it easier for some whites in Ohio and Texas to vote for Clinton.

"There's some of that," Walters said in an interview. He pointed to exit polls from Ohio, where 62 percent of all whites lack college degrees and many are anxious about their jobs in a weak economy.

"This is a racially sensitive group," he said, referring specifically to whites who earn less than $50,000 a year and did not attend college.

"They are the quintessential Reagan Democrats," he said. "They feel they've been left" and their resentment can have social and racial overtones.

Ohio exit polls support Walters' view. Eighteen percent of white Ohio voters said race was an important factor in their decision, and of that group, three in four voted for Clinton.

In general elections, which pit Democrats against Republicans, the racial sensitivity of white voters has been pronounced and well-documented for decades. It's a chief cause of the realignment of the South, where blacks remained intensely loyal to the Democratic Party as whites moved to the GOP by the millions.

In the intraparty world of Democratic primaries, however, racial divisions are much less prevalent, and hard to measure. Many white Democrats, especially in the South, tend to be liberal, racially tolerant and usually happy to join blacks in opposing Republicans.

The Obama-Clinton rivalry may be straining that comity. Some blacks resented remarks Clinton made in New Hampshire, which they viewed as minimizing Martin Luther King Jr.'s role in achieving landmark civil rights laws. And after Obama's South Carolina victory on Jan. 26, former President Clinton seemed to equate the Illinois senator with Jesse Jackson as a candidate who could not draw widespread white support.

Many blacks felt the Clintons "were trying to use race to their political advantage, to cede the black vote to Obama and take the rest," said David Bositis, senior political analyst for the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, which tracks issues important to black Americans.

The Clintons said they intended no slights, and many blacks still hold great affection for the former president and his eight-year term. But Hillary Clinton's sharp-elbowed campaign is alienating others, Bositis said, and it could hurt the New York senator in November if she becomes the nominee.

Bositis said it was unclear whether Obama's black support is driving some working-class whites into Clinton's corner, but he noted the steep drop in Obama's share of the white vote in Ohio compared to Wisconsin. One possible factor other than race, Bositis said, was Clinton's strong support within the Ohio Democratic establishment, starting with the governor.

One thing is not in doubt: Obama's candidacy and the closeness of the contest are triggering record turnout among black voters. "In many states, the black vote has doubled," Bositis said.

Similar turnout in Philadelphia's black neighborhoods could help Obama next month. But he would have to make deeper inroads into Pennsylvania's white electorate than he did in Ohio if he is to avoid another solid defeat.

Meanwhile, Clinton continues to draw about 10 percent to 20 percent of black voters, who sometimes have to defend their choice.

"She has the most experience," said Elexis Griffin, a black worker at a law office who attended a Clinton fundraiser in Canton, Ohio. "Obama has only been in the Senate three years. I'm not anti-Barack. I'm just pro-Hillary."

Griffin, who is 25 and considering law school, said, "I sit here almost every single day and hear debating: Hillary or Obama? My closest friends, I have very much influenced their vote for Hillary. They accuse me of being against the social movement. And I accuse them of voting with their emotions and not looking at the facts."

I hope Perkins can overcome his emotions.

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080309/ap_on_el_pr/democrats_blacks;_ylt=AvjYwLlZ0zD8Bfhng5b8vVWs0NUE

Quote:

I hope Perkins can overcome his emotions.

Told you guys the GOP really wants Hillary to win.

dont vote with your emotions...

Well, let's see:

That means I won't vote Republican out of fear of some foreign threat.

And I won't vote Hillary because her last name = better times.

So I'll just vote sense.

Originally Posted By: Jason E. Perkins

Well, let's see:

That means I won't vote Republican out of fear of some foreign threat.

And I won't vote Hillary because her last name = better times.

So I'll just vote sense.

Wow. There goes the GOP's election strategy for the past six years!

whomod, please stick to quoting fake AP stories, you at least had a chance at fooling someone....

Obama Wins Mississippi

it was a very emotional vote.

I'd like to take this moment to try and bring a end to the fighting on this board. The politics of division are tearing us a part.

Let us rally around words of peace and virtue. Here are some soothing words from the pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ, my church Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr.

Quote:

“Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run!...We [in the U.S.] believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God.”

Quote:

“In the 21st century, white America got a wake-up call after 9/11/01, White America and the western world came to realize that people of color had not gone away, faded into the woodwork or just ‘disappeared’ as the Great White West kept on its merry way of ignoring black concerns. The Israelis have illegally occupied Palestinian territories for over 40 years now, divestment has now hit the table again as a strategy to wake the business community and wake up Americans concerning the injustice and the racism under which the Palestinians have lived because of Zionism.”

I hope that we can somehow come together as I do with this man in church each Sunday to better understand how to battle the politics of division.

concentration camps.

for the record i think it's racist to quote the reverend.

G-man posted this in the religion forum but since it's Obama spiritual advisor it deserves a post here as well...

Quote:

ABC: Is former Reverend a liability for Obama?
David Edwards and Nick Juliano
Published: Thursday March 13, 2008

Sen. Barack Obama's former preacher has delivered some controversial sermons in which he said the US invited the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, and he has said African Americans should sing "God damn America" instead of God bless America.

ABC News has reviewed dozens of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's sermons, and the network aired some of his most inflammatory rhetoric in a segment Thursday on Good Morning America. Wright was Obama's pastor at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago for the last two decades, until his retirement earlier this year.

The Democratic presidential candidate credited Wright for the title of his book, "The Audacity of Hope," and Wright performed Obama's marriage and baptized his two daughters. But Obama has described the preacher as "like an old uncle who says things I don't always agree with."

The latest statements unearthed by ABC, which reviewed videos of the sermons the church offers for sale, could cause more headaches for Obama during a campaign in which supporters' comments have increasingly drawn scrutiny.

"The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people," Wright said in a 2003 sermon. "God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme."

It's unclear whether Obama was in the audience when Wright gave that sermon, but he has previously told the New York Times that he did not attend a service in which Wright implied that the US invited the 9/11 attacks.

"We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye," Rev. Wright said in a sermon on Sept. 16, 2001.

"We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans," Wright said, "and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."

Obama religious adviser Shaun Casey appeared on Good Morning America to defend Obama saying he had already repudiated Wright's controversial remarks. Casey said other candidates were not getting the same scrutiny.

"I mean, it's interesting to me you haven't vetted Hillary Clinton's pastor's sermons, you haven't vetted President Bush's pastor's sermons," he said. "You haven't vetted John McCain's pastor's sermons. So, you're not holding them to that standard, which I think is very interesting."

RAW
This isn't something you just quietly dissagree with & expect to win a general election.

Doesn't this, therefore, effectively disqualify Obama as a VP also? Otherwise, isn't Hillary endorsing this sort of rhetoric from the crazy reverend?

I seem to recall Falwell and a few other reverends saying the same thing about 9/11.

Not that it shouldn't be denounced, but I don't recall anyone on the right caring too much when it's some conservative christian blaming the gays for 9/11 or hurricanes.

Actually, people on the left and right, including President Bush, denounced Falwell and Robertson for those 9/11 remarks and they promptly apologized.

So, then, why would this disqualify Obama for anything if he's already denounced it.

But he didn't reject it.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Doesn't this, therefore, effectively disqualify Obama as a VP also? Otherwise, isn't Hillary endorsing this sort of rhetoric from the crazy reverend?

Originally Posted By: Jason E. Perkins

So, then, why would this disqualify Obama for anything if he's already denounced it.

My point was that MEM seemed to think it was a problem for Obama. I was asking MEM why, if that were the case, it didn't also disqualify him as Hillary's VP. I was pointing out the strange, if not demeaning, logic that Hillary and her supporters seem to be using: that argues Obama is unqualified and/or dangerous but would be a great VP.

Originally Posted By: Jason E. Perkins

So, then, why would this disqualify Obama for anything if he's already denounced it.

This is Obama's "spiritual leader", the whole crux for his supposed Christianity. sounds to me like this pastor is a closet muslim too.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Doesn't this, therefore, effectively disqualify Obama as a VP also? Otherwise, isn't Hillary endorsing this sort of rhetoric from the crazy reverend?

Originally Posted By: Jason E. Perkins

So, then, why would this disqualify Obama for anything if he's already denounced it.

Who's to say the VP offer was made knowing his guy said these things? Your assuming much to play gotcha I think.

First off does anyone think this falls in the positive or even neutral category? I don't think it's a stretch to say this "damn America talk" appeals to many voters but please enlighten me if I'm missing something.

It wasn't really an effort to play "gotcha," MEM, at least against you. I was just observing that it tends to show that Hillary's talk of a "unity ticket" is unlikely to result in an actual shared ticket.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

So then you feel this does hurt Obama so much that he couldn't win the general & not even make it as a VP on a unity ticket?

here whomod, have a field day with this http://www.boydgraves.com/

Originally Posted By: Barack Hussein Obama

Quote:

“Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run!...We [in the U.S.] believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God.”

Quote:

I hope that we can somehow come together as I do with this man in church each Sunday to better understand how to battle the politics of division.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080314/ap_o...ZCXxswSSG2s0NUE

Quote:

"I have never heard an anti-Semitic (remark) made inside of our church. I have never heard anything that would suggest anti-semitism on the part of the pastor,"

I'd like to explain my statement. I'm sure to many the Reverend's statements are anti-semantic. But I ask you if you want to get a long with one another to approach his words as I have.

Take both index fingers. Stick them in your ears. Slowly swivel your head back and forth. Then in a lyrical tone repeat these words, "La La La, I can't hear you. La La La". When my spiritual leader is done condoning 9-11, and the extinction of jews, take your fingers out of your ears, and repeat after me. "What anti-semitic remarks?"

Daddy said everyone should vote for Obama because we've held back the blacks for so long. He said it would make up for slavery and make America stronger.

Rolling Stone Magazine endorses Barak Obama:

Quote:

A New Hope

JANN S. WENNER

The tides of history are rising higher and faster these days. Read them right and ride them, or be crushed. And then along comes Barack Obama, with the kinds of gifts that appear in politics but once every few generations. There is a sense of dignity, even majesty, about him, and underneath that ease lies a resolute discipline. It's not just that he is eloquent — with that ability to speak both to you and to speak for you — it's that he has a quality of thinking and intellectual and emotional honesty that is extraordinary.

I first learned of Barack Obama from a man who was at the highest level of George W. Bush's political organization through two presidential campaigns. He described the first-term senator from Illinois as "a walking hope machine" and told me that he would not work for any Republican candidate in 2008 if Obama was nominated. He challenged me to read Obama's autobiography, Dreams From My Father.

The book was a revelation. Here was a man whose honesty about himself and understanding of the human condition are both deep and compassionate. Born to a white mother and an African father, he was raised in multiracial Hawaii and for several years in Indonesia. He drifted through some druggy teenage years — no apologies! — before emerging as a star at Harvard Law School. He chose to work as a community organizer in the projects of Chicago rather than join the wealthy insider world of corporate law. And as a young adult, he searched, in the distant villages of Kenya, for the father and family he never knew.

As I read all this, so elegantly written, my mind kept rolling over: Might it be possible? Is there some fate by which we could have this man as president of the United States?

Throughout the primaries, and during a visit he paid to our offices, we have come to know Barack Obama, his toughness and his grace. He would not be intimidated, and he declined to back down, when Senator Clinton called him "frankly, naive" for his willingness to meet leaders of hostile nations. When one of her top campaign officials tried to smear him for his earlier drug use, he did not equivocate or backtrack. On the matter of experience and capability, he has run an impressive, nearly flawless campaign — one that whupped America's most hard-boiled political infighters. Indeed, Obama was far more prepared to run a presidential campaign — from Day One — than Senator Clinton. And at no point did he go negative with personal attacks or character assassination; as much as they might have been justified, they didn't even seem tempting to him.

Obama has emerged by displaying precisely the kind of character and judgment we need in a president: renouncing the politics of fear, speaking frankly on the most pressing issues facing the country and sticking to his principles. He recognizes that running for president is an opportunity to inspire an entire nation.

All this was made clearer by the contrast with Hillary Clinton, a capable and personable senator who has run the kind of campaign that reminds us of what makes us so discouraged about our politics. Her campaign certainly proved her experience didn't count for much: She was a bad manager and a bad strategist who naturally and easily engaged in the politics of distraction, trivialization and personal attack. She never convinced us that her vote for the war in Iraq was anything other than a strategic political calculation that placed her presidential ambitions above the horrifying consequences of a war. Her calibrated course corrections over the past three years were painful. Like John Kerry — who also voted for the war while planning a presidential run — it helped cost her that goal.

Although Obama declined to attack her personally for her vote for the war in Iraq, he did call it, devastatingly enough, a clear demonstration of her so-called experience and "judgment." He has also spoken forcefully about the need to break the grip of lobbyists — at a time when Clinton is the largest recipient of drug-company donations of anyone in Congress. Clinton could not address this issue at all, and neither will John McCain, who is equally a player in Washington's lobbyist culture.

Obama also denounced the Republican campaign of fear. Early in the campaign, John Edwards took the lead, calling the War on Terror a campaign slogan, not a policy. Obama rejected the subtle imagery of false patriotism by not wearing a flag pin in his lapel, and he dismissed the broader notion that the Democratic Party had to find a way to buy into this entire load of fear-mongering War on Terror bullshit — to out-Republican the Republicans — and thus become, in his description of Hillary Clinton's macho posturing on foreign policy, little more than "Bush-Cheney lite."

The similarities between John Kennedy and Barack Obama come to mind easily: the youth, the magnetism, the natural grace, the eloquence, the wit, the intelligence, the hope of a new generation.

But it might be more to the point to view Obama as Lincolnesque in his own origins, his sobriety and what history now demands.

We have a deeply divided nation, driven apart by economic policies that have deliberately created the largest income disparities in our history, with stunning tax breaks for the wealthiest and subsidies for giant industries. The income of the average citizen is stagnant, and his quality of life continues to slowly erode from inflation.

We are embittered and hobbled by the unnecessary and failed war in Iraq. We have been worn down by long years of fear- and hate-filled political strategies, assaults on constitutional freedoms, and levels of greed and cynicism, that — once seen for what they are — no people of moral values or ethics can tolerate.

A new president must heal these divides, must at long last face the hypocrisy and inequity of unprecedented government handouts to oil giants, hedge-fund barons, agriculture combines and drug companies. At the same time, the new president must transform our lethal energy economy — replacing oil and coal and the ethanol fraud with green alternatives and strict rain-forest preservation and tough international standards — before the planet becomes inhospitable for most human life. Although Obama has been slow to address global warming, I feel confident that his intelligence and morality will lead him clearly on this issue.

We need to recover the spiritual and moral direction that should describe our country and ourselves. We see this in Obama, and we see the promise he represents to bring factions together, to achieve again the unity that drives great change and faces difficult, and inconvenient, truths and peril.

We need to send a message to ourselves and to the world that we truly do stand for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And in electing an African-American, we also profoundly renounce an ugliness and violence in our national character that have been further stoked by our president in these last eight years.

Like Abraham Lincoln, Barack Obama challenges America to rise up, to do what so many of us long to do: to summon "the better angels of our nature."

The current issue also has a fascinating feature on how Obama's campaign is being run.

Excerpt:

Quote:

The Machinery of Hope

Inside the grass-roots field operation of Barack Obama, who is transforming the way political campaigns are run

Over the past year, the Obama campaign has quietly worked to integrate the online technologies that fueled the rise of Howard Dean —as well as social-networking and video tools that didn't even exist in 2004 — with the kind of neighbor-to-neighbor movement-building that Obama learned as a young organizer on the streets of Chicago. "That's the magic of what they've done," says Simon Rosenberg, president of the Democratic think tank NDN. "They've married the incredibly powerful online community they built with real on-the-ground field operations. We've never seen anything like this before in American political history."

In the process, the Obama campaign has shattered the top-down, command-and-control, broadcast-TV model that has dominated American politics since the early 1960s. "They have taken the bottom-up campaign and absolutely perfected it," says Joe Trippi, who masterminded Dean's Internet campaign in 2004. "It's light-years ahead of where we were four years ago. They'll have 100,000 people in a state who have signed up on their Web site and put in their zip code. Now, paid organizers can get in touch with people at the precinct level and help them build the organization bottom up. That's never happened before. It never was possible before."

This is the same grass-roots effort that has trounced the Clinton campaign — a classic top-down operation run by high-paid consultants — in ten straight contests by an average of more than thirty points. It has evolved into the mother of all get-out-the-vote campaigns, one that has enabled Obama to collect more votes in Virginia and Wisconsin than all of the GOP candidates combined.

Well, then the election's over. From John Kerry, to Al Gore, to Gary Hart, all the way back to George McGovern, if there's one thing that Rolling Stone is known for, it's having its' finger on the pulse of the voting public.

Well the thing all those candidates you mention had is the Democratic nomination.

So what are you saying, whomod? That the Democrat[ic] Party nomination is the kiss of death?

the greatest part is whomod has had so many sources disproved, he had to start quoting a entertainment magazine!

whomod is probably waiting with baited breath to find out if Obama gets the all-important "Toyfare" and "Wizard" endorsements next.

Quote:

Obama supporters pressed officials to keep Colbert off ballot

COLUMBIA, South Carolina (CNN) -- Two prominent supporters of Illinois Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign in South Carolina called state Democratic Party officials and urged them to keep funnyman Stephen Colbert's name off the primary ballot, according to party officials and Obama supporters.

The Obama campaign denied any connection to the phone calls.

"Democrats in South Carolina, including supporters of ours, had strong feelings on both sides of the ballot issue, and ultimately it was South Carolina Democrats who made this decision," said Obama's South Carolina communications director Kevin Griffis.

The South Carolina Democratic Party Executive Council voted last week 13-3 to block Colbert's bid for the Democratic primary.

To get on the ballot, a candidate had to demonstrate two requirements: that he or she was viable nationally and had spent time campaigning in the state.

The majority of voters said Colbert, host of Comedy Central's "The Colbert Report," did not meet the standard of national viability.

At least one member of the executive council, who requested anonymity, told CNN he felt "pressured" by former State Superintendent of Education Inez Tenenbaum to oppose placing Colbert on the ballot.

Tenenbaum, who ran for U.S. Senate in 2004, is a high-profile supporter of Obama. Her endorsement of Obama in April was touted by the campaign, and she has appeared at several Obama campaign events, including the opening of a campaign headquarters this summer.

"She said it wouldn't be fair to the other candidates. That he [Colbert] wouldn't be sincere. That he was only running in one state," said the executive council official.VideoWatch CNN's Peter Hamby's explain why Obama's supporters wanted Colbert off the ballot »

The official added: "The Obama people, they just didn't want him at all."

Tenenbaum disagreed with characterization that she lobbied to keep Colbert off the ballot for political reasons.

"I think lobbying was too strong a word," she said in an interview with CNN.

"I called them to see what they were thinking and if they had made up their mind. I am a volunteer in that campaign, and so I am not a staffer. And I thought it could have taken votes away from a lot of people."

Another Obama endorser who regularly appears at campaign events, state Rep. Bakari Sellers, also made phone calls to members of the party's executive council about Colbert, according to Sellers.

"I placed the calls as a concerned Democrat, realizing that we are a country in despair," Sellers told CNN. "It is not a time for games or to make a mockery of the process."

Given the lopsided vote of the executive council, it was unclear if the calls had significant bearing on Colbert's fate as a bona fide presidential candidate.

But the calls raise questions about the Obama supporters' motives, given their close ties to the campaign and the fact that Colbert and Obama both draw support from a similar demographic.

"A lot of Obama's support is among younger, college-educated folks, and a lot of Colbert's watchers are younger, college-educated folks," said Scott Huffmon, a political scientist at Winthrop University.

"I understand that Obama might potentially lose some voters," said Huffmon, who also noted that having Colbert on the ballot would likely bring in new primary voters rather than take them from other candidates. "But in a race where every vote counts it's a valid concern."

A

Tenenbaum said her quarrel with having Colbert's name on the ballot was pragmatic rather than political. In deciding which candidates to allow in the primary, the state Democratic Party also had to consider that for every name on the ballot, they would have to pay $20,000 to the state election commission.

"The whole thing is just the money," said Tenenbaum, who said she is fundraising for the party. "He did not meet the criteria. ... It's all in fun and let's just leave it at that."

The three members of the executive council who voted in favor of putting Colbert on the ballot were Charles Hamby, former chairman of the Oconee County Democratic Party; state Rep. Gilda Cobb-Hunter of Orangeburg; and Lumus Byrd.

The Columbia-based lawyer who represented Colbert in his bid to be placed on the ballot, Dwight Drake, is a supporter of Sen. Hillary Clinton, although Drake has told CNN in the past he was initially contacted by Colbert's surrogates to assist in the comedian's bid.

As for Colbert, he issued a statement late Monday declaring that his campaign is officially over.

"I am shocked and saddened by the South Carolina Democratic Executive Council's 13-to-3 vote to keep me off their presidential primary ballot," Colbert said. "Although I lost by the slimmest margin in presidential election history (only 10 votes) I have chosen not to put the country through another agonizing Supreme Court battle. It is time for this nation to heal.

"I want say to my supporters, this is not over. While I may accept the decision of the Council, the fight goes on! The dream endures! And I am going off the air until I can talk about this without weeping."

I'm sorry but if this isnt proof Obama hates America I don't know what is.

Obama Slams Sermons: Obama 'strongly' condemns 'inflammatory and appalling' anti-U.S. sermons from controversial Chicago pastor.

He was so "appalled" that he kept going to the same church for twenty years. Way to show the courage of hope there, Obama.

he already said he wasnt there those sundays, at the church he attended regularly.

He was probably at the Mosque those Sundays.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

How do Obama supporters feel about this? Is there a rationalization for this "condemnation" actually being authentic?

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

G-man posted this in the religion forum but since it's Obama spiritual advisor it deserves a post here as well...

Quote:

RAW
This isn't something you just quietly dissagree with & expect to win a general election.

Yeah, Obama disagrees with this Reverend's offensive anti-American remarks across two decades, right.

He just attended this pastor's church for 20 years, was married by this pastor, and had both his daughter's baptized by this pastor.

If I disagreed with a pastor's comments, I'd leave before the service ended, if I didn't loudly object in the middle of it, to material that offensive.
And I certainly wouldn't keep attending for 20 years after that.

I increasingly see Obama as a lying weasel, who props up a false image of being above investigation and political debate, who waffles on answering serious questions about his Illinois Senate voting record, who evades questions about his obvious 17-year relationship with the now-indicted Tony Rezko, who distances himself from anti-American remarks by his wife and his church pastor, and who egages various other political dodges to issues raised about his public record by Hillary Clinton.

Compared to Obama, Hillary is looking better and better.

If Obama were subject to real scrutiny by the media, he would have crashed and burned a long time ago.

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

the greatest part is whomod has had so many sources disproved, he had to start quoting a entertainment magazine!

name one.

Just cuz the doctor alleged that the Gretna AP article was fake isn't "many sources disproved" you retard. I myself posted several active links from newspapers that republished ap stories that don't show up at the AP site either.

So fuck you.

Originally Posted By: whomod

Just cuz the doctor alleged that the Gretna AP article was fake isn't "many sources disproved" you retard. I myself posted several active links from newspapers that republished ap stories that don't show up at the AP site either.

So fuck you.

Once again, you show that you can't remember how things really happened. I never said the article was fake. I said that since I couldn't find the article at the AP website in their archives, that I had to be suspect about the claims in the article you quoted. And your further articles only further disproved your allegations.

How so? They were the same story! the only fact I got wrong was that I initially said troops and not cops, troopers, state police deputies or whatever the hell they were. that was because at the time I wrote it, I was going on memory about something I read over 2 years ago. The point I was trying to make was that black residents were trapped in New Orleans and not there because they were too stupid or lazy to get out. My point wasn't about troops, it was about people being prevented from leaving by force. And that hasn't changed once in all of this.

The level of venom raised by all this though is astounding to me. The fact that cops stood at a bridge and stopped people from leaving doesn't offend you guys as much as me having gotten a detail about whether it was cops or troops? And could there have been white people among them? Probably a few. From everything I read on this though, it was mostly if not entirely a black crowd. And yeah, there are arguments that it was a public safety issue and not racism and all that. The 60 Minutes piece I posted addresses all those arguments nicely.

BTW. The AP sites archives are shit. I've checked several other AP stories from a few years ago even under advanced search with precise dates and info, they don't show up.

The only way they do appear to be valid and real is under a Nexis search.

How are the two stories different?

The implication of the story you fabricated was that members of the U.S. military, as part of a sanctioned government policy, were trying to prevent African Americans from evacuating New Orleans.

The story you posted as "proof" of that, however, was about a small town police force, acting seemingly on its own with no official federal sanction whatsoever, against people of varying races.

Basically, other than the tie to Katrina, the only thing the two stories have in common is a bridge. In which case, you might as well post the lyrics to Simon and Garfunkel's "Feelin' Groovy" and call THAT proof.

In fact, let me save you the trouble and go one better. Here's a YOUTUBE video of that song, in which people trying to cross a bridge are told "Slow down..."

My god. An actual piece of video footage. Can there BE higher proof than that?

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Wow! You read all that into it? That's your tough cookies because you there are using very precise language where I didn't, since as I said above, that wasn't my point. My point was addressing an asinine assertion that blacks were too stupid or lazy to save themselves.

an assertion that I don't see anyone here challenging much.

Originally Posted By: whomod

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

the greatest part is whomod has had so many sources disproved, he had to start quoting a entertainment magazine!

Originally Posted By: whomod

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win."

-- Gandhi

BSAMS wins. Again.

Originally Posted By: whomod

an assertion that I don't see anyone here challenging much.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

My god. An actual piece of video footage. Can there BE higher proof than that?

Originally Posted By: whomod

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win."

-- Gandhi

G-man wins. Again.

Originally Posted By: whomod

All your cries of evil racism aren't supported by your own articles. All those articles show is further incompetence by Ray Nagin and the other New Orleans officials by sending unescorted civilians across dangerous, post-Katrina New Orleans with false promises of buses that WEREN'T THERE just to get them out of their jurisdiction. I've already said that those towns' reactions were drastic, but you probably had your head too far up your ass to read that. My position is that nothing that you've posted is proof of racism. You, and many who liked to play the race card during and after Katrina, seem to forget that it was terrible event that made life hard on everyone. But, if I remember correctly, you're the asshole who first tried to politicize Katrina on this board to begin with.

Originally Posted By: thedoctor

So you think people trying to leave the death and water of New Orleans was a matter of jurisdictional buck passing??

Incredible.

And I'm not the "asshole" who politicized Katrina. The American people did that. And they pretty much finished finding who to blame, thank you very much. The fact that you don't get that is apparent and it probably explains why people like you scratch their heads and wonder why America left you guys.

Of course it's political. When faced with overwhelming catastrophe, people expect and competent and speedy response. From the Government. Government Helping them, not being an impediment to reaching safe ground on some bullshit half assed assertion that your resources are stretched thin as well. Stretched thin BUT on safer ground. And if you're mad at me for the racial overtones. again, it's not just me. That's pretty much the opinion out there except in right wing land where racism is something to be scoffed at and attacked.

Originally Posted By: whomod

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

the greatest part is whomod has had so many sources disproved, he had to start quoting a entertainment magazine!

you pointed to a different story, about cops. you said that the government ordered troops. and please, no cursing, it's very liberal of you.

Originally Posted By: whomod

BTW. The AP sites archives are shit. I've checked several other AP stories from a few years ago even under advanced search with precise dates and info, they don't show up.

it's a conspiracy!

Quote:

Wal-Mart Endorses Obama

Faten Saad knew she wasn't in a typical Wal-Mart when she saw an end-of-the-aisle display featuring Mamool.

Boxes of the date-filled, whole wheat cookie from the Middle East welcomed the 21-year-old Lebanon native into the international aisle of the new Wal-Mart store in this Detroit suburb known as the capital of Arab America. Aisle 3, which also features Eastern European and Hispanic food, represents many of the 550 items geared toward Arab-American shoppers in the store that opened last week.

It might be statistically tiny in a store with more than 150,000 items, but it's symbolically huge for the world's largest retailer as it seeks to change from a cost-is-everything monolith to one that customizes its stores to meet neighborhood needs.

Managers say they seek peace with the neighborhood's merchants — and vow not to undercut them on Middle Eastern specialties. But some experts and observers say Wal-Mart's well-planned launch in Dearborn is bound to shake up the buying and selling in a community that has long supported its own. Southeastern Michigan is home to an estimated 300,000 people who trace their roots to the Middle East.

"I have not heard of anything this tailored. It's inspiring to me as a shareholder," said Patricia Edwards, portfolio manager and retail analyst in the Seattle office of San Francisco-based investment manager Wentworth, Hauser & Violich, which has 537,000 shares of Wal-Mart Stores Inc. stock.

The Dearborn store also sells Arabic music and plans to offer Muslim greeting cards. But the modifications go beyond merchandise: It has 35 employees who speak Arabic — noted in Arabic script on their badges. The store also has hired a local Arab-American educator to teach the staff cultural sensitivity.

It's clear as soon as shoppers walk in that this isn't a typical Wal-Mart. Inside the grocery entrance are 22 produce tables filled with squash, beans and cucumbers common in Middle Eastern dishes. The section also features grains and vegetables popular among blacks and Hispanics, two other demographics with sizable populations living nearby.

"It's like a farmers' market," said Bill Bartell, the store manager who developed the international aisle with Tut's International Export & Import Co., the Dearborn-based distributor that handles the sourcing for many of the store's Middle-Eastern items.

"Because we did all this due diligence prior to moving into this area, we came to realize our clients really kind of liked this atmosphere, and they liked the variety that we can give them."

More than a year of studying the market and meeting with community groups was put to the test last fall, when Bartell and a Tut's executive began to work on what would become aisle 3. They set up an 80-foot-long counter in an empty warehouse and hauled out products — date-filled cookies, grape leaves, vacuum-packed olives, chick peas and a 97-ounce jar of olive oil imported from the Middle East. The men spent two weeks working on a way to present a new line of products.

As he recalled their effort, a few women in hijabs — traditional Muslim head scarves — inspected produce. One spoke in Arabic to Mohamad Atwi, the developmental store manager.

Bartell said the store aims to offer convenience — not a comprehensive selection of specialty products.

"It's very important that we have the variety of the Muslim, Hispanic items, local items, at a comparable price," he said. "If you go over to Warren (Avenue) where there's other ... small retailers, they have a variety that goes on and on and on."

At the Super Greenland Market, which Wal-Mart studied to come up with its new store, customers can find one whole side of an aisle with more than 20 different varieties of chick peas and fava beans.

"We have vendors that extend from here to the end of the planet," said Jamal Koussan, owner of Super Greenland. "We import directly. That puts us at a big advantage."

He said Wal-Mart doesn't concern him, but he is watching it. He tracked his store's sales on Wal-Mart's opening day and saw no dip.

"I'm not saying they will have no effect on our business but nothing that will threaten us, that will threaten our existence or threaten our bottom line," he said.

Still, the lure of everything under one roof could prove stronger than product depth for some who frequent Middle Eastern shops.

Saad, the college student who emigrated from Lebanon in 1990, marveled while shopping at Wal-Mart and plans to return.

"I don't think I would come all the way here just to get those things, but I'd pick them up on the way if I was already here doing my shopping," she said.

Warren David, a public relations and marketing specialist focusing on Arab-American and Islamic markets, called Wal-Mart's arrival bittersweet. He's happy for the steps it's taken, but "at the same time I can't help but think it's going to have some kind of impact on the local business community."

The Dearborn Wal-Mart is part of a two-year-old corporate effort to help sales by tailoring stores to local demographics, said spokeswoman Amy Wyatt-Moore at Wal-Mart's Bentonville, Ark., headquarters. It targeted six groups: Hispanics, blacks, empty-nesters/boomers, affluent, suburban and rural shoppers.

Dearborn's store is designed to reflect its neighborhood, not serve as a national template for Arab-American shoppers, she said.

"We realize there are more than those six broad demographic groups around the country. In some places the result will be a unique store," Wyatt-Moore said.

Edwards, the analyst, says the Dearborn store is a good move for a company that historically has been better at the science, rather than the art, of retail.

"Wal-Mart is a little kinder and gentler than they were 10 years ago. They are fierce competitors ... but I don't think they're trying to do a scorched earth policy," she said.

"The trick for these local merchants is ... they're going to have to change how they operate in the face of this changing competition."

Quote:

Faten Saad knew she wasn't in a typical Wal-Mart when she saw an end-of-the-aisle display featuring Mamool.

Faten Saad (Fat and Sad)

Originally Posted By: whomod

So you think people trying to leave the death and water of New Orleans was a matter of jurisdictional buck passing??

Incredible.

Jesus, you are retarded. What was supposed to happen when they got to Greta and there were no buses, food, or water for them? Do you know what's beyond those suburbs? Swamps. That's right. Gators, poisonous snakes, and death. Even if they had crossed the bridge, they wouldn't have been able to leave. They wouldn't have been in a better situation. You seem incapable of understanding that fact.

Originally Posted By: whomod

They weren't the American people. They were assholes. And you're the asshole who was on this board. Also, your group of fellow assholes are too ready to dump all the blame on Bush and the federal government while ignoring the incompetence of Nagin, Blanco, the rest of southern LA politicians, and even, to some extent, the people of NO themselves. For the record, I don't 'wonder why America left' us since I was way too busy helping all my neighbors try and clean up and restore our old way of life as soon as the storm was over to hold my hand out and wait for someone to fill it with a debit card.

Since you and your asshole friends seem to all up Obama's ass (see? I brought it back on topic), I pray to God (or Allah to be more PC to Muslims and closet Muslims) that this son of a bitch doesn't get elected. I would hate to see what kind of bloated, overbearing, self-responsibility destroying government and society he'd help build.

Praise allah!

Excelsior!

Quote:

US Government Troops Fire Mortars At Tibetan Protestors In Iowa

Swiss police say they fired tear gas at pro-Tibet demonstrators who tried to storm the Chinese consulate in Zurich.

Hundreds of people took part in the protest Saturday against a Chinese crackdown on riots protesting its rule of Tibet.

Swiss Police say tear gas was used when several protesters attempted to break into the consulate.

Tibetan groups want the Swiss government to press China on its human rights record.

Switzerland has condemned the violence in Tibet and urged China to safeguard people's right to free expression.

Chinese media are reporting that 10 people were killed on Friday when demonstrators clashed with security forces in Tibet's capital Lhasa. Exile group say the toll could be as high as 100.

Quote:

Just What Did Obama Know About Wright's Past Sermons?
March 15, 2008 6:15 PM
In his Friday night cable mea culpas on the incendiary comments made by his spiritual adviser Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., repeatedly said, "I wasn't in church during the time that these statement were made. I did not hear such incendiary language myself, personally. Either in conversations with him or when I was in the pew, he always preached the social gospel. ... If I had heard them repeated, I would have quit. ... If I thought that was the repeated tenor of the church, then I wouldn’t feel comfortable there."
Obama told CNN that he "didn't know about all these statements. I knew about one or two of these statements that had been made. One or two statements would not lead me to distance myself from either my church or my pastor. ... If I had thought that was the tenor or tone on an ongoing basis, then yes, I don't think it would have been reflective of my values."
But according to a New York Times story from a year ago, the Obama campaign dis-invited Wright from delivering a public invocation at Obama's candidacy announcement.
“Fifteen minutes before Shabbos I get a call from Barack,” Wright told the Times. “One of his members had talked him into uninviting me."
In a phone call with Wright, Obama cited a Rolling Stone story, “The Radical Roots of Barack Obama," (the name of which has curiously been changed on the RS website) and told him, according to Wright, “You can get kind of rough in the sermons, so what we’ve decided is that it’s best for you not to be out there in public.”
...

ABCnews
More double talk just like with NAFTA.

Obama Expands Lead: Obama increases lead over Clinton as seven former John Edwards Iowa delegates switch to his camp.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20080316/pl_bloomberg/aktqhpfjxzsm

Quote:

Obama ``ain't rich and he ain't privileged,'' Wright said. ``Hillary fits the mold.''

After reading this I feel bad for whomod, and Wendsday, knowing how incensed they were about Geraldine Ferraro's remarks about Obama's race playing a role in the candidacy, I know it will pain them to see that Obama's spiritual leader said this. But knowing they are honest, and unbiased, I look forward to the same rhetoric they spilled at Hilary for her campaign staff member.

But, BSAMS, O'Bama has already disavowed and rejected Wright's remarks after only twenty years of standing by him.

So it's all good. whomod and Wednesday can sleep easily tonight, knowing their candidate has once again kept hope alive.

this is exactly how the democratic party is gunna screw this up again, Hilary's dirt is out, the neocons have dug up every inch of dirt they could on the Clintons when Bill was president, I have a feeling this is the tip of the iceburg on Obama....

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20080316/pl_bloomberg/aktqhpfjxzsm

Quote:

Obama ``ain't rich and he ain't privileged,'' Wright said. ``Hillary fits the mold.''

Well who can really claim (and be believed) to be unbiased? I do think it's funny that Obama's campaign & supporters milked Ferraro's comments for all they were worth, being about divisive as you can be because it benefitted their guy. Now I hear the Obama campaign wants to get back to the issues! This guy is no different than any other politician. He went to Chicago's biggest black church when it benefitted him & now dissavows stuff once it's a liabillity.

Not sure what the fall out is going to be for Obama on this one. He can still definitley win the nomination but I think it makes him unelectable for the general election.

i'm not biased.

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Not sure what the fall out is going to be for Obama on this one. He can still definitley win the nomination but I think it makes him unelectable for the general election.

Nah. It's eight months until the general election and this will be old news by then since Obama has disavowed and rejected the Reverend. It is only a problem if he keeps being seen with the guy.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Not sure what the fall out is going to be for Obama on this one. He can still definitley win the nomination but I think it makes him unelectable for the general election.

Nah. It's eight months until the general election and this will be old news by then since Obama has disavowed and rejected the Reverend. It is only a problem if he keeps being seen with the guy.

The story might not be over though. Obama has set up his "disavow & rejection" on the condition that he wasn't present for any of the pastor's awful sermons. That can be checked. We already know he was aware of them a year ago & he doesn't really have an answer for that.

And beyond all that, you have conservative talk radio that certainly has & would be capable of keeping a story like this story going.

...and as much as I might like to think that conservative talk radio controls the outcomes of elections, it isn't going to affect the opinions of independents who don't listen to it, any more than it affected the outcome of the 2006 congressional elections.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20080316/pl_bloomberg/adf5jjbbppxw

Quote:

Pelosi's remarks about the superdelegates echo similar comments she made last month during an appearance on Bloomberg's ``Political Capital with Al Hunt'' when she said it is important the leaders have ``respect for what has been said by the people.''

Oh wait she is just talking about Super Delegates, and not the commoners....

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20080316/pl_bloomberg/adf5jjbbppxw

Quote:

Oh wait she is just talking about Super Delegates, and not the commoners....

Pelosi has a very strange way of looking at the role of superdelegates. Essentially their supposed to only look at who has the most pledged delegates & vote the same way. If say Hillary regains the popular vote while Obama starts sinking in popularity, that shouldn't be considered. It doesn't make sense to me other than she's afraid Hillary might win.

Nancy Pelosi is the worst of Washington. She wants the peoples voices heard, just not in Michigan and Florida, I'm telling you any ground they gained in Florida after the 2000 election is about to get lost....

Originally Posted By: the G-man

I wouldn't go so far to say they control outcomes but they can keep a story & interest in a story going. I just see this different from earlier stories like the Farenkan one where Obama put an end to it by disavowing & rejecting. I could be wrong but this clashes so much with Obama's image I just don't see it fading away. Rasmussen shows he dropped 7 points in one day. This may even be a nomination killer.

let's hope so.

a lot of blue collar people that work for me changed their votes the night before election when they found out Obama was double talking with Canada, i'm sure Monday there will be even more suspicious of how he attended that Church all those years and didn't hear the hatred being preached.

the more you find out about him, the more you see he's just another politician, of course i figured it out from the beggining but it's taking others a little longer to come around...

I just don't want a black president.

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

So how do you feel about McCain being endorsed by John Hagee? Or do only Democrats need to answer for the inflammatory remarks of pastors?

One thing is certain though, this tactic pretty much shows that the 'Obama is secretly a Muslim' whisper campaign was a bust.

McCain Courted Hagee for at Least a Year

So does John McCain think Catholics are part of the great whore of Babylon? If Obama needs to answer for Trinity UCC’s Rev. Jeremiah Wright, then this clip — immediately following video of McCain’s praise for Hagee and pictures of their joint appearances — ought to be broadcast on an endless loop on television stations in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and other heavily Catholic states from now until November.

As this piece makes clear, ALL THREE CANDIDATES HAVE the same problem. If we want to run a dirty campaign of this sort, there is enough crap to sling around equally.

Quote:

Tim Rutten:
Open mouth, insert cohorts' feet

Don't presidential candidates get tired of apologizing for remarks they didn't make?

March 15, 2008

It's in the nature of campaigns to careen from the totally unexpected to the utterly unthinkable, but recent events in the presidential contest probably ought to be filed under the heading: "With friends like these."

By Friday, all three candidates had been forced to apologize for the offensive views of a prominent supporter. John McCain was first, when one of the evangelical ministers whose approval he has so assiduously courted turns out to have some inconvenient views. John Hagee, a prominent Texas televangelist, also happens to teach that the Catholic Church is "the whore of Babylon" and a "cult."

McCain, who appeared with Hagee on television to accept his endorsement, at first tried to brush off the matter. Better judgment -- and perhaps, consideration of the Catholic vote's importance -- ultimately prevailed, and the Arizona senator told the Associated Press: "I repudiate any comments that are made, including Pastor Hagee's, if they are anti-Catholic or offensive to Catholics."

Hillary Rodham Clinton was next up, when former congresswoman and vice presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro told an interviewer: "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position." Clinton tried several apologies and, Wednesday -- after Ferraro had resigned from the campaign's finance committee -- finally got it right: "I certainly do repudiate it."

It was Obama's turn Thursday, when, after a network television report, video clips began circulating of sermons by the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., the recently retired pastor of the senator's Chicago church, Trinity United Church of Christ. In one, Wright raves: " 'God bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America. ..." In another, he fumes that the 9/11 attacks were a consequence of using atomic weapons against Japan and for U.S. support of "state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans."

Obama, who in other contexts has tried to compare Wright to a loutishly eccentric old uncle, told an interviewer that the quotes were the result of "cherry picking" the pastor's many sermons. By Friday, though, the senator and his campaign had begun to understand that his association with Wright is problematic in ways neither Hagee nor Ferraro were for McCain and Clinton. For one thing, the video clips of Wright's inflammatory homilies are caught up in the new media loop. They're all over the Internet, the cable news shows and right-wing talk radio. They have "gone viral."

Moreover, because America is never more segregated than it is on Sundays, Wright's ranting is going to hit white Americans with particular force. Every big city has one or more black pastors like Wright who mix left-wing conspiracy theories, phony Afro-centricism, remnant black power rhetoric and a rag bag of vulgar Third World sympathies in an angry, frequently race-baiting social gospel. Preached in a style that leaves little room for understatement, it's alarming stuff when you hear it for the first time. And because the U.S. news media don't take anybody's religion very seriously or report on it in much depth, this will be many white Americans' first exposure to this inflammatory -- albeit tiny -- tendency within black churches.

Then there's the fact that, while Hagee and Ferraro were bit players in their campaigns, Wright hasn't been a tangential figure in Obama's life. The Illinois senator sought the church out and made a personal profession of faith in response to Wright's preaching. Obama has said he consults Wright before making important political decisions.

The Illinois senator is nothing if not an adroit campaigner, and he clearly understood that an Internet firestorm required an Internet backfire. So late Friday he published a blog on the Huffingtonpost that called Wright's remarks "inflammatory" and "appalling." He went on to write: "I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the statements that have been the subject of this controversy. I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies. I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it's on the campaign stump or in the pulpit." Obama also said he had decided to remain a member of Trinity because Wright has retired.

Once again, Obama has demonstrated how well he understands that much of his campaign's appeal is built on an ability to speak about race and social solidarity in a new way, to make change and hope again coincidental in the American political psyche. He knows that nobody will follow you into a new era if they suspect you're carrying the reeking baggage of the old.

Originally Posted By: whomod

So how do you feel about McCain being endorsed by John Hagee? Or do only Democrats need to answer for the inflammatory remarks of pastors?

Did McCain go to Hagee's church for twenty years?

apparently so according to whomod...

or get married by him and have him baptize his kids.

Or borrow a line from one of his sermons for the title of a book.

Praise Allah!

Excelsior!

Originally Posted By: whomod

As this piece makes clear, ALL THREE CANDIDATES HAVE the same problem. If we want to run a dirty campaign of this sort, there is enough crap to sling around equally.

Quote:

Tim Rutten:
Open mouth, insert cohorts' feet

Don't presidential candidates get tired of apologizing for remarks they didn't make?

March 15, 2008
...
The Illinois senator is nothing if not an adroit campaigner, and he clearly understood that an Internet firestorm required an Internet backfire. So late Friday he published a blog on the Huffingtonpost that called Wright's remarks "inflammatory" and "appalling." He went on to write: "I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the statements that have been the subject of this controversy. I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies. I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it's on the campaign stump or in the pulpit." Obama also said he had decided to remain a member of Trinity because Wright has retired.
...[/b]

Nice bit of theater on Obama's part. It doesn't mean anything though when you consider all his words are only being said for damage control. He knew this pastor & knew about his angry rhetoric. Fortunatley for Obama this is something Hillary's campaign probably can't touch or quicker than you can say "Ferraro" he's got another race card to play.

Wow, you can really see where Obama got his double talk skills!

this is the guy who Obama said had inspired him!

isn't it illegal for a tax exempt Church to politic from the pulpit?

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

isn't it illegal for a tax exempt Church to politic from the pulpit?

In fact, the IRS is investigating the church for breaking the rules on political activity.

whoopsy!

Quote:

Generation Obama? Perhaps Not.
By WILLIAM KRISTOL
Published: March 17, 2008

Sunday evening, Ben Affleck and Jennifer Garner held a “Generation Obama” fund-raiser at Boston’s Rumor Nightclub. In case you’re not up on the Boston club scene, I should tell you that Rumor “brings together the sexiest and hippest people from around the globe” and “has raised the bar in Boston’s night life” (if Rumor may say so itself). Presumably, Ben and Jennifer raised the bar a notch further on Sunday.

Which is fine. Obama supporters are allowed to have fun. And celebrities are entitled to headline fund-raisers. But one has the sense that elsewhere in this great land the bloom is coming off the Obama rose.

For one thing, it’s becoming clear that Obama has been less than candid in addressing his relationship to his pastor, Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., of Chicago’s Trinity United Church of Christ. For example, Obama claimed Friday that “the statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity.”

It certainly could be the case that Obama personally didn’t hear Wright’s 2003 sermon when he proclaimed: “The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing ‘God Bless America.’ No, no, no, not God bless America, God damn America, that’s in the Bible for killing innocent people. ... God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human.”

But Ronald Kessler, a journalist who has written about Wright’s ministry, claims that Obama was in fact in the pews at Trinity last July 22. That’s when Wright blamed the “arrogance” of the “United States of White America” for much of the world’s suffering, especially the oppression of blacks. In any case, given the apparent frequency of such statements in Wright’s preaching and their centrality to his worldview, the pretense that over all these years Obama had no idea that Wright was saying such things is hard to sustain.

This doesn’t mean that Obama agrees with Wright’s thoroughgoing and conspiracy-heavy anti-Americanism. Rather, Obama seems to have seen, early in his career, the utility of joining a prominent church that would help him establish political roots in the community in which he lives. Now he sees the utility of distancing himself from that church. Obama’s behavior in dealing with Wright is consistent with that of a politician who often voted “present” in the Illinois State Legislature for the sake of his future political viability.

The more you learn about him, the more Obama seems to be a conventionally opportunistic politician, impressively smart and disciplined, who has put together a good political career and a terrific presidential campaign. But there’s not much audacity of hope there. There’s the calculation of ambition, and the construction of artifice, mixed in with a dash of deceit — all covered over with the great conceit that this campaign, and this candidate, are different.

Which brings us back to the “Generation Obama” event. If you go to the Obama campaign Web site and click on “people,” you’ll see 14 categories of people you can choose to hook up with — women, labor, people of faith ... and “Generation Obama.”

What is Generation Obama? It’s a “grass-roots movement led by young activists with a simple goal: electing Barack Obama the next president of the United States of America,” the Web site says, adding that “you and other members can utilize the many talents of our country’s next great generation in support of the campaign in a variety of meaningful ways.”

So in fact, “Generation Obama” is just a fancy name for young activists for Obama. But the (remarkable) conceit is this: The “next great generation” of Americans can appropriately be called “Generation Obama.”

Now I’m actually a believer in the next generation, which one might call the 9/11 generation. Many of its members seem more serious and impressive than we baby boomers were when our elders were foolishly praising us, 40 years ago, as the best-educated, most idealistic generation ever. Many of the best of this young generation are serving their country — either in the military or otherwise. Some are in politics, working for various causes, liberal and conservative, and for various candidates, Democrats and Republicans. But surely there’s something creepy about a campaign claiming them as “Generation Obama.”

With no particular dog in the Democratic fight, many conservatives have tended to think it would be good for the country if Obama were to win the Democratic nomination, freeing us from the dreary prospect of the return of the House of Clinton. Now I wonder. Might the country be better off with the cynicism of the Clintons than the conceit of Obama?

NYTimes

Obama Speech: 'A More Perfect Union'

Barack Obama gave a major speech today that directly responds to the controversial comments made by his church’s longtime pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright Jr, but also highlighted the incredible challenge of race relations in our country today. Obama’s speech was very impressive.

Quote:

This time we want to talk about the men and women of every color and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud flag. We want to talk about how to bring them home from a war that never should’ve been authorized and never should’ve been waged, and we want to talk about how we’ll show our patriotism by caring for them, and their families, and giving them the benefits they have earned.

I would not be running for President if I didn’t believe with all my heart that this is what the vast majority of Americans want for this country. This union may never be perfect, but generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected. And today, whenever I find myself feeling doubtful or cynical about this possibility, what gives me the most hope is the next generation - the young people whose attitudes and beliefs and openness to change have already made history in this election.

—-

Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism.

Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze - a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns - this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding.

This is where we are right now. It’s a racial stalemate we’ve been stuck in for years. Contrary to the claims of some of my critics, black and white, I have never been so naïve as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle, or with a single candidacy - particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own.

But I have asserted a firm conviction - a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people - that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice is we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union.

Impressive to say the least. It's a speech only Obama could have made with his unique perspective as a black man raised by white people. Hillary tries to dismiss his powerful speeches but IMO all it is is a mere politician dismissing the strengths of a true statesman.

He only made the speach because he's been playing the race card both ways. In church it's the angry black man he nods his head to & for the wider audience we get this show. Obama's unelectable Whomod, you might get him nominated but his connection to Wright & his lies about not knowing about Wright will keep him from getting elected.

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Well, at least you got past the Hillary can win the nomination phase asit clearly is next to impossible unless they rewrite the rules in her favor as she keeps pushing for. As for Obama, he expanded his lead in delegates over rival Hillary on Saturday, picking up nine delegates as Iowa activists took the next step in picking delegates to the national convention.

More than half the 14 delegates allocated to John Edwards on the basis of caucus night projections switched Saturday to Obama. This despite the whole Wright controversy. As for that, Obama addressed that over the weekend and he re-adressed it today. How long do you and the beltway pundits plan on beating that old horse?

If that speech doesn't help Obama, I don't know what will. Intelligently written, movingly delivered. He engaged in a little bit of mixed messaging on affirmative action, welfare and crime, but that's typical for democrats, including Hillary.

A strong speech, better than Mitt Romney's Mormonism address, for example.

Originally Posted By: whomod

How long do you and the beltway pundits plan on beating that old horse?

Well he lied about it if you want to count that as addressing.
Hillary has widened her lead in PA & Obama is dropping in the polls so it's probably a good thing he got those delegates now.

But even if she wins PA, she's still behind, right?

Originally Posted By: the G-man

But even if she wins PA, she's still behind, right?

She can still wind up with the popular vote.

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Originally Posted By: the G-man

But even if she wins PA, she's still behind, right?

She can still wind up with the popular vote.

So is that how they pick nominees now or do they still go by delegates?

I'd pay attention if I were you, whomod. MEM is effectively laying out Hillary's strategy for stealing the nomination. You Obama supporters should be ready to deal with this.

There is no rule that the winner is the one with the most pledged delegates. It's always been who has recieved the popular vote that swing the superdelegates to them.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

I'd pay attention if I were you, whomod. MEM is effectively laying out Hillary's strategy for stealing the nomination. You Obama supporters should be ready to deal with this.

Oh, it's pretty much common knowledge that she's trying to rewrite the rules to ones that favor her. Bill Clinton said as much yesterday or the day before.

Yes, but MEM is actually telling how she plans to rewrite them, complete with the draft talking points.

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

There is no rule that the winner is the one with the most pledged delegates. It's always been who has recieved the popular vote that swing the superdelegates to them.

That's pretty much grasping at straws though.

Chuck Todd's got an interesting article up on MSNBC this morning. Titled "Can Clinton Win Over Superdelegates?" Todd's write points out some primary-related issues being primarily overlooked. For example, here he is on why the Clinton legacy may dredge up bad memories for the Democrats:

Quote:

Simply take a look at Bill Clinton's record from '92 to '00 and you’ll understand why they're having a harder time corralling party activists and elected officials to their side.

Remember, when his name was on the ballot ('92 and '96) the Democratic party lost Senate seats both times. Never mind the beating the party took in '94; a walloping often blamed on both Bill and Hillary.
Even in '98, which was, perhaps, the most successful Congressional election of the Clinton era, the party netted zero Senate seats and gained less than a handful of House seats.

Here's Todd on why the media's got Clinton still in the game:

Quote:

A Clinton always finds a way to survive, so goes the myth.

Bill Clinton has escaped political death more times than any politician in history. And profiles of Hillary Clinton are rarely written without the word "resilient" being featured prominently.

Todd also spends some time explaining both the media bias towards keeping the campaign going and towards going with what history's taught:

Quote:

Many a reporter believes that someone with the last name of "Clinton" should never be counted out.

As expected, commentators are weighing on the powerful speech delivered by Barack Obama. He seems to have exceeded expectations. Taegan Godddard has a compilation of what some pundits are saying about Obama's speech today. I think what Taegan himself wrote is right on point:

Quote:

Sen. Barack Obama's speech on race this morning showed off exactly why he's become the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination. He's absolutely willing to challenge the conventional way of how politicians approach controversy. In my opinion, it was the best speech so far in this campaign.

It was a great speech. As I wrote right after watching Obama deliver the remarks one thing is true, no other candidate could give a speech like this.Mark Halperin, who for whatever reasons seems to set the tone for the punditry, made these points in a post titled, "Obama Rises to the Occasion on Race and the Race":

Quote:

Andrew Sullivan: "I have never felt more convinced that this man's candidacy - not this man, his candidacy - and what he can bring us to achieve - is an historic opportunity. This was a testing; and he did not merely pass it by uttering safe bromides. He addressed the intimate, painful love he has for an imperfect and sometimes embittered man. And how that love enables him to see that man's faults and pain as well as his promise. This is what my faith is about. It is what the Gospels are about. This is a candidate who does not merely speak as a Christian. He acts like a Christian."

Quote:

Charles Murray: "Has any other major American politician ever made a speech on race that comes even close to this one? As far as I'm concerned, it is just plain flat out brilliant -- rhetorically, but also in capturing a lot of nuance about race in America. It is so far above the standard we're used to from our pols."

Quote:

Ben Smith: "A smart colleague notes that this speech is the polar opposite of this year's other big speech on faith, in which Mitt Romney went to Texas to talk about Mormonism, but made just one reference to his Mormon faith. Obama mentions Wright by name 14 times."

Quote:

First Read: "His tone throughout was quiet and thoughtful. The same speech could have been delivered in a fiery tone. But Obama chose one that was quiet and thoughtful. It did little to lessen the impact and may have added to the weight of his words."

Quote:

Marc Ambinder: "How it plays will determine how it plays. If the media focuses more on the Wright defense-by-renouncements and then juxtaposes them with clips of Wright's comments, then I think the trouble remains. The seeds of doubt about who this guy really is may be nourished. I know that Obama believes that a discussion about race plays to his benefit, no matter what people think about white working class voters and their latent feelings. Perhaps this is the beginning of his opportunity to lift the veil and get everyone -- not just himself and the media -- to talk openly."

Widespread praise from anchors/pundits/reporters for sweeping remarks drawing on American history and his own biracial upbringing.

Here's the link to the video on YouTube.

Now, can we move on? It's time to wrap up this nomination battle so we can start running against McCain.

excerpt:

Quote:

In the end, then, what is called for is nothing more, and nothing less, than what all the world’s great religions demand – that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Let us be our brother’s keeper, Scripture tells us. Let us be our sister’s keeper. Let us find that common stake we all have in one another, and let our politics reflect that spirit as well.

For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle – as we did in the OJ trial – or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright’s sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she’s playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.

We can do that.

But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we’ll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change.

That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, “Not this time.” This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can’t learn; that those kids who don’t look like us are somebody else’s problem. The children of America are not those kids, they are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century economy. Not this time.

This time we want to talk about how the lines in the Emergency Room are filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do not have health care; who don’t have the power on their own to overcome the special interests in Washington, but who can take them on if we do it together.

This time we want to talk about the shuttered mills that once provided a decent life for men and women of every race, and the homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from every religion, every region, every walk of life. This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn’t look like you might take your job; it’s that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit.

This time we want to talk about the men and women of every color and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud flag. We want to talk about how to bring them home from a war that never should’ve been authorized and never should’ve been waged, and we want to talk about how we’ll show our patriotism by caring for them, and their families, and giving them the benefits they have earned.

I would not be running for President if I didn’t believe with all my heart that this is what the vast majority of Americans want for this country. This union may never be perfect, but generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected. And today, whenever I find myself feeling doubtful or cynical about this possibility, what gives me the most hope is the next generation – the young people whose attitudes and beliefs and openness to change have already made history in this election.

this guy is good, with a straight face he said blacks have a right to be racist...

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

this guy is good, with a straight face he said blacks have a right to be racist...

If that's all you took out of it then you'd probably think that he said whites have a right to be racist as well.

Which would miss the entire point altogether.

Quote:

Obama rejected Wright's divisive statements but still embraced the man who brought him to Christianity, officiated at his wedding, baptized his two daughters and inspired the title of his book "The Audacity of Hope."

"I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community," Obama said.

How can you not disown such a racist. McCain, Bush, or Hilary's pastor had said the same racist things except about black people, and she said he/she couldn't disown him anymore than she could disown the white community, youd be up in arms about it.

you'll never admit it here, but inside you know it. even if you didnt realize how biased you are, you have to now. but as i said you won't admit it, but you know, and all of us know....

He said the same thing about his white grandmother and her anti black views too. He said you accept people while not agreeing with heir negative views. And this pastor has been like family to Obama.

You'd have him throw Wright under the bus for mere political expediency and to sate some racial score. Obama chose to place Wrights comments in their proper social context while soundly rejecting them.

Quote:

Chris Matthews a few moments ago " one of the great speeches in American history"

Originally Posted By: whomod

"Accepting people despite their views", and listening to them spew those poisonous views virtually every Sunday for 20 years, are two very separate things.

Originally Posted By: whomod

He said the same thing about his white grandmother and her anti black views too. He said you accept people while not agreeing with heir negative views. And this pastor has been like family to Obama.

I already said it was a well done speech. However, the crazy Reverend isn't family. You can't choose your relatives. You can choose your minister.

Furthermore, Obama was trying to accomplish something very specific by dragging his "white grandmother" into this political mess. He was trying to diminish Wright's hateful theology by implying that it too is a private matter. That's not really the case. His grandmother's comments were made in private, not in a sermon delivered to a congregation of thousands and recorded on DVD.

So here we have, on the one hand, an old prejudiced white woman who would be completely anonymous but for her grandson's political ambition. And, on the other, a leader in the black community who uses his pulpit to preach hate.

They really aren't comparable and, if there was one truly regretable aspect of his speech it was the way he threw his grandmother under a bus in order to excuse his association with a racist.

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

[Obama] only made the speech because he's been playing the race card both ways. In church it's the angry black man he nods his head to & for the wider audience we get this show.
Obama's unelectable Whomod, you might get him nominated but his connection to Wright & his lies about not knowing about Wright will keep him from getting elected.

Exactly.

And that's not even getting into the other issues Obama has waffled on, such as his 17-year association with Tony Rezko (who brokered Obama a sweetheart below-market deal in his house $300,000 below market value, no less, in joint purchase with Rezko, in addition to thousands more in donations over 17 years), wife Michell Obama's anti-american remarks, waffling on making over 100 "present votes" (not yes or no) to avoid having a record later that would haunt him, and still voting the Democrat base on abortion and other hot-button liberal-Democrat-base issues. Plus evasiveness about the level of muslim belief in his family, to the point that he was named Barach Hussein Obama.

Obama doesn't have to bemoan "racism". It's simple enough to let his subordinate followers do that for him, and give him plausible deniability, as he exploits it.

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Exactly.

I gotta admit. It's sort of fun watching the democrat party close to imploding due to what is coming close to an "affirmative action" nomination process: the sexism card vs the racism card.

As I said before: it would be nice if they just figured out who was the best candidate and nominated that person.

i myself attend a very conservative white majority church where some views i consider anti- democratic (small d) and anti- women (and even oddly enough, anti-rhythm) are espoused. It doesn't make me reject the Pastor completely. I just chalk up some of his views as cultural things.

But I don't think you'd ask him to be your official "spiritual advisor" if you ran for office...would you?

Originally Posted By: the G-man

It's all the more entertaining, because both Hillary and Obama's oh-so-enlightened liberal campaigns have exploited sexist and race-baiting tactics, even as Democrats as a whole consistently label Republicans as the racist party.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

But I don't think you'd ask him to be your official "spiritual advisor" if you ran for office...would you?

In NBC's morning news program today, they mentioned that Obama took the title of his book The Audacity of Hope from Wright's sermons and ideological influence.

Exactly. This isn't just a case of "he's a guy who happens to be in my church."

Mark Finkelstein notices that Barack Hussein Obama's anecdote about his white grandmother sounds suspiciously like a story that Jesse Jackson told in 1996.

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

Quote:

Originally Posted By: whomod

so you wouldnt be upset if the situation was reversed with hilary, bush or mccain? you would find it acceptable for them to say they couldnt disown their pastor anymore than they could disown the white community? you would find that political dodging?

strange i remeber you wanting a stronger rebuke of Geraldine Ferrara, oh yes she is a white republican woman....

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

strange i remeber you wanting a stronger rebuke of Geraldine Ferrara, oh yes she is a white republican woman....

Actually, Ferrarro is a democrat, BSAMS. Though these days, whomod seems to think everyone who disagrees with Obama is a republican.

i just figured since hilary is considered a republican by rev wright, obama and whomod, might as well poor her in. she was after all born into wealth as a white woman...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20080318/pl_bloomberg/aomovfb7iaz8

Quote:

March 18 (Bloomberg) -- Barack Obama's quest to become the first African-American president is being run without the financial support of much of the black corporate elite.

Less than one-third of the 191 black members of the boards of the largest 250 U.S. companies have contributed to the Illinois senator's campaign, according to Federal Election Commission records. The list of board members was compiled by Black Enterprise magazine.

Former Dallas Mayor Ron Kirk, who is backing Obama, said the relative lack of support reflects a systemic problem: black corporate leaders haven't yet developed the habit of opening their wallets for candidates. Kirk said he encountered a similar reticence in his failed bid as the Democratic nominee for a Texas U.S. Senate seat in 2002.

``Political giving in the African-American and Hispanic communities is very much in its infancy,'' said Kirk, 53, a partner in the law firm of Vinson & Elkins LLP and board member of Dallas-based Brinker International Inc., Phoenix-based Petsmart Inc. and Dallas-based Dean Foods Co.

Maximum Givers

Kirk contributed the maximum $2,300 to Obama in March 2007. Other $2,300 givers include Cleve Killingsworth, chairman of Boston-based Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Massachusetts; and Linda Johnson Rice, president of Chicago-based Johnson Publishing Co., the publisher of Ebony and Jet magazines.

Many others, though, are sitting out the race. Of the corporate board members on the list, 62 contributed to Obama and 30 to his rival, Senator Hillary Clinton of New York. Some gave to both candidates.

Ronald Walters, a professor of government and politics and director of the African American Leadership Center at the University of Maryland in College Park, said many corporate board members aren't willing to give to a ``change'' candidate such as Obama, 46.

``To the extent they're not Republican, they have been part of the establishment wing of the Democratic Party, not so much a part of the change wing,'' said Walters, a deputy campaign manager for Jesse Jackson's 1984 presidential run.

Clinton Ties

Some prominent black corporate directors have long ties to Clinton, 60. These include Vernon Jordan, senior managing director at New York-based Lazard Capital Markets Ltd., and Rodney Slater, a former transportation secretary who is now a partner in the Washington law-lobbying firm Patton Boggs LLP.

Some have supported Republican presidential candidates. Herman Cain, president of T.H.E. New Voice Inc. in Stockbridge, Georgia, gave $2,300 to former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee in January. Giving to Arizona Senator John McCain was former Federal Communications Commission Chairman Michael Powell, the son of former Secretary of State Colin Powell. Michael Powell is senior adviser to Providence-based Providence Equity Partners and member of board of San Jose, California-based Cisco Systems Inc.

Many others haven't made any donations at all.

Some black executives gave to Clinton's and Obama's congressional races, though not their presidential campaigns, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington- based research group.

Michele Hooper, managing partner of the Chicago-based Directors Council, which helps find minorities to serve on corporate boards, gave to Obama's 2004 Senate race. Kenneth Chenault, chief executive officer of New York-based American Express Co., gave $2,000 to Obama's Senate campaign and $4,000 to Clinton's 2006 re-election bid.

Not Giving

Other chief executives, including Samuel Scott III, chairman of Westchester, Illinois-based Corn Products International Inc., and W. Roy Dunbar, president of Herndon, Virginia-based Network Solutions Inc., have stayed on the sidelines.

Chenault and Dunbar declined comment. Scott, along with most other executives, didn't respond to requests for comment.

In response to the lack of black corporate support, Jen Psaki, a campaign spokeswoman, said Obama has ``a group of donors'' that ``will continue to grow.''

Harvey Gantt, who ran against ran against Jesse Helms for a U.S. Senate seat in North Carolina in a contest that aroused racial animosities, said he planned to give to Obama.

``It's time to pass the torch,'' said Gantt, 65, now on the board of directors of Charlotte, North Carolina-based Nucor Corp.

Younger Donors

Walters said there may be generational differences, with the younger executives more likely to give to Obama.

The more senior corporate leaders ``have to look out for the interests of their firms and their associations,'' Walters said.

Obama's business support may be coming from owners of small companies, said Robert Smith, a political science professor at San Francisco State University and author of the Encyclopedia of African American Politics.

``An independent businessman might feel a bit freer to contribute than one connected to a major corporation,'' Smith said. There is now way to estimate such giving as the FEC doesn't disclose the race of donors.

The support of the black corporate elite would be more symbolic than financial for Obama, who has built an unprecedented fundraising machine that has brought in close to $200 million from more than 1 million donors. More than a third of that has been raised in contributions of $200 or less.

Obama ``hasn't been doing the traditional dinners and events because he has such a powerful on-line fundraising base,'' said Anthony Corrado, a campaign-finance expert at Colby College in Waterville, Maine.

To contact the reporter on this story: Jonathan D. Salant in Washington at jsalant@bloomberg.net .

this kinda proves that Obama is all style and no substance. these black men have become successful, much more successful than many white people i know. they realize hard work and education got them where they are, not relying on a crutch or the need to blame others for their station in life, but by going out and doing.

people like that dont arent easily swayed by the obamas and rev wrights of the world

Perhaps Obama would make more of a difference in an Al Gore type of capacity? I mean just think how more effective that speach would have been if you didn't know it was just Obama being self serving & trying to get away from yet another friend he chose to associate with.

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Perhaps Obama would make more of a difference in an Al Gore type of capacity?

Fabricating science?

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

um.. bsams.. $\:-\[$

Originally Posted By: Barak Obama's A More Perfect Union Speech

For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life. But it also means binding our particular grievances - for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs - to the larger aspirations of all Americans -- the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man whose been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family. And it means taking full responsibility for our own lives - by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny.

Ironically, this quintessentially American - and yes, conservative - notion of self-help found frequent expression in Reverend Wright's sermons. But what my former pastor too often failed to understand is that embarking on a program of self-help also requires a belief that society can change.

The profound mistake of Reverend Wright's sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It's that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country - a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black; Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old -- is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past. But what we know -- what we have seen - is that America can change. That is true genius of this nation. What we have already achieved gives us hope - the audacity to hope - for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.

I know your reaction is the usual knee jerk putting your back up to the black Democratic man who you think is demanding something from you. All this half black man would want I imagine would be for you to pay attention.

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

Geraldine Ferraro said very direct things about Obama personally in order to sway support towards Clinton (as did Bill Clinton). This Wright fellow would fall more along the lines of say Falwell saying 9/11 was on account of the gays.

McCain actually did call Falwell an agent of intolerance once and then proceeded to flip-flop and speak at Liberty university when it became politically advantageous to him later on. So I have to admire Obama's honesty on this one and not just making the expected disingenuous calculated political move. It would have been easier to just throw him under the bus publicly for everyones benefit. Instead he chose a gutsier move and made a historic move in the process.

thank you for proving my point.

you know, and we all know.

Ferraro's comments were not made to help Hillary. Even I knew Obama was going to jump on them & use & exploit them to help is campaign.

While I find Obama's speech to be well written and delivered as well as agreeing with a good deal of it, I still feel it's a bit hollow considering his campaign's own use of race in the past to further his own candidacy. It seems that Obama's race, beliefs, and upbringing are off limits to everyone but Obama himself. It's as though he is the only one who can address those things when it helps to further his own goals; and when anyone else does it, it's racism. He can stand before a black church in Alabama and claim that he was conceived because of the 'Bloody Sunday March' during the Civil Rights movement; but to point out that he was three when it happened, you're either a racist or too ignorant to realize that he was speaking metaphorically.

At the end of the day, this speech just proves to me that Obama is another politician. He's just really damn good at it. The PT Barnum of Washington. He understands how to tap into people's emotions and has the charisma to captivate an audience.

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Ferraro's comments were not made to help Hillary...

Come on, now. Why else would she have made them? She was member of the Clinton advisory team, wasn't she?

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Ferraro's comments were not made to help Hillary...

Come on, now. Why else would she have made them? She was member of the Clinton advisory team, wasn't she?

No, you come on now. How could her comments have beneffitted anyone other than Obama? He's proven he's good at playing the race card to his advantage. (at least till the Wright thing made him unelectable) There was no benefit to Hillary out of it.

Obama's national lead has literally evaporated according to Reuters & he's losing to McCain by a larger percentage than Hillary according to Rasmussen. For the good of the party he may want to start considering dropping out.

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Ferraro's comments were not made to help Hillary...

Come on, now. Why else would she have made them? She was member of the Clinton advisory team, wasn't she?

Hindsight's 20/20, MEM. In order to accept your interepretation of events one must assume that Geradline Ferraro, a vocal Clinton supporter, was trying to sabotage her campaign. Highly unlikely.

It's much more likely that Ferrarro, a long time feminist and former VP candidate, simply believed that she was making a legitimate criticism that would help Hillary and, unfortunately for them, it backfired.

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Wow!

So you're pleased that Hillary has bloodied Obama significantly for the Republicans?

You're just as deluded as Hillary is. all that matters is Hillary coming out on top. Whether they survive to win the Presidential race doesn't seem to factor into your equations. All that matters is Hilary Hillary Hillary and screw the Democratic Party's chances. Obama still has more delegates so the only one that needs to drop out and needed to drop out weeks ago is Hillary Clinton.

Originally Posted By: whomod

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Originally Posted By: Jan Brady

All that matters is Hilary Hillary Hillary

The results of the "Take Back America" conference straw poll are in, and Obama trounced Clinton among the progressive attendees by a 72-16 percent margin.

Perhaps even more interesting than the headline number is the fact that 41 percent said they would be "disappointed" if Clinton were the nominee, compared to only 8 percent who would be disappointed by an Obama nomination.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Ferraro's comments were not made to help Hillary...

Come on, now. Why else would she have made them? She was member of the Clinton advisory team, wasn't she?

I'm sure her intention wasn't to hurt Hillary's campaign with her comments but I read them & knew Ferraro had just helped Obama by grumbling about how she saw things. The interview wasn't her trying to talk up Hillary but came across as a sick old lady being bitter about her candidate having a hard time.

I don't disagree with that but it does tend to indicate that her comments were made with the intention (however mistaken) that they would help Hillary if, in no other way, by pointing out flaws in Obama.

Originally Posted By: whomod

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

I attribute most of Obama's recent big drop because alot of voters were probably turned off because of his spiritual advisor/mentor's whole "god damn America" crap. That's not Hillary's fault nor has she tried using it against Obama. The blame for Obama's current problems fall directly on his own shoulders. Perhaps I'm wrong but I find it highly unlikely he can win the general election at this point.

You must admit, however, that it is possible that the publicity over Reverend Racist came when it did due to leaks from Clinton. After all, candidates do engage in opposition research and attempts to smear opponents.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Would this constitute a smear?

Anyways, anything is possible but I doubt this was a case of them leaking it out. Reguardless of how you might feel about Hillary, don't you think this would have been out alot sooner if they had the scoop?

Actually, MEM, you make a good point. If Hillary did leak this I think it would be unfair to call it a smear since it appears to be true. My point was simply that it would be unsurprising for her to have leaked it.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

I'm rather surprised that you didn't just blame her automatically for leaking it. Your getting soft G-man.

Just saw Obama's speech in Philadelphia. "Perfecting the union."

I disagreed with his comments about the wrong of sending jobs overseas. But otherwise it was inspiring, unifying and ever-hopeful. You people will be extremely fortunate if you get him for President.

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Originally Posted By: whomod

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Starting out with making a speech about Rev. Wright and coming out being almost universally praised and compared to Lincoln, Kennedy and FDR if not simply 'historic' ain't small change.

Quote:

Tim Rutten:

Obama's Lincoln moment

Never before has a candidate for national office spoken so frankly about race in America.
March 19, 2008

One hundred and fifty years ago this June, a lanky Illinois lawyer turned politician gave a speech that changed the way Americans talked about the great racial issues of their day.

The lawyer was Abraham Lincoln, and the speech was the famous "House Divided" address with which he accepted the Republican Party's nomination as a candidate for the U.S. Senate. Lincoln lost to Stephen Douglas, but the address changed the national conversation on slavery and, two years later, Lincoln was on his way from Springfield to the White House.

America's political story is studded with such addresses -- historical signposts that divide that which went before from all that followed on an issue of crucial national importance. Franklin Roosevelt's "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself" speech fundamentally changed Americans' expectations of their government in times of social and economic crisis. John F. Kennedy's address on Catholicism and politics to the Greater Houston Ministerial Assn. in 1960 forever altered the way we think about religion and public office.

Sen. Barack Obama, another lanky lawyer from Illinois, planted one of those rhetorical markers in the political landscape Tuesday, when he delivered his "More Perfect Union" speech in Philadelphia, near Independence Hall. The address was meant to dampen the firestorm of criticism that has attached itself to the senator's campaign since video clips of race-baiting remarks by his Chicago church's former pastor began circulating last week.

But instead of offering a simple exercise in damage control, Obama chose to place his discussion of the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright's incendiary comments in a wider consideration of race in America -- and the results were, like those Kennedy achieved in Houston, historic.

Just as every seasoned political hand in 1960 knew that, sooner or later, Kennedy would have to tackle the question of his Catholicism head-on, it's been clear for some time that Obama would have to speak explicitly to the question of race in this campaign. Still, polished orator that he may be, no one could have predicted an address of quite this depth and scope.

"That was the most sophisticated speech on race and politics I've ever heard," said CNN's Bill Schneider, the only network pundit who actually has taught American political history at elite universities.

It was all the more remarkable because, while Kennedy presided over what may have been the greatest speech-writing team in electoral history, Obama -- like Lincoln -- wrote his address himself, completing the final draft Monday night.

Obama did what he had to do, unequivocally repudiating Wright's extreme rhetoric. But what was truly radical about his analysis was his implicit demand that black and white Americans accept the imperfection of each other's views on race. Embedded in such acceptance is the seed of that "more perfect union" toward which this country -- unquestionably great but itself imperfect -- must strive.

It was a concept that Obama subtly invoked near the beginning of the speech by pointing to the fact that although the Constitution "was stained by the original sin of slavery," the "answer to the slavery question was already embedded within our Constitution -- a Constitution that had at its very core the ideal of equal citizenship under the law; a Constitution that promised its people liberty and justice, and a union that could be and should be perfected over time."

Theologically, original sin is the source of man's fallen nature and the root of his imperfection. Obama went on to build on that concept, invoking the authority of his own mixed heritage -- son of a black immigrant father and white mother, raised by a loving white grandmother -- and refusing to reject either Wright, a man of good works as well as extreme rhetoric, or his loving grandmother, who was prone to racial stereotypes. Obama demanded that black anger make an allowance for white anxiety and that white resentment make a place for black grievance.

No candidate for national office has ever spoken so candidly or realistically about race as it is lived as a fact of life in America. As he put it Tuesday, "The profound mistake of Rev. Wright's sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It's that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country ... is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past."

Originally Posted By: First Amongst Daves

Originally Posted By: Pariah

Originally Posted By: First Amongst Daves

Quote:

"That was the most sophisticated speech on race and politics I've ever heard," said CNN's Bill Schneider, the only network pundit who actually has taught American political history at elite universities.

It was all the more remarkable because, while Kennedy presided over what may have been the greatest speech-writing team in electoral history, Obama -- like Lincoln -- wrote his address himself, completing the final draft Monday night.

The speech is being compared to speeches by your greatest presidents. And so, sorry, what's your point?

obviously youve never listened to bill schneider, he hypes everything as the greatest ever...

also dave, i suppose you missed the story a few weeks ago where another supposed "written by himself" speech was lifted from someone else, in most colleges that;; get you kicked out...

Originally Posted By: First Amongst Daves

The speech is being compared to speeches by your greatest presidents. And so, sorry, what's your point?

Well for one thing, it shows that he's a lot more statesman than politician. And I like what one of his fiercest critics these past few days actually said about him yesterday.

Originally Posted By: JOE SCARBOROUGH

Really, I—actually, I may surprise some people. I think it‘s judgment. I think it‘s the type of person, how he or she makes decisions. The thing I‘ve been most impressed about—and I have not been throwing ticker tape parades for Barack Obama over the past couple days. The thing that I like so much about Barack Obama is when there is a problem, he doesn‘t parse the issue. He doesn‘t go away. He doesn‘t fight it for two or three years. He gets out in front of it. I like how this man operates in crisis situations. He‘s been very impressive how he does that.

And there it is. We pick presidents to LEAD, not to write legislation, not to divide us along political and ideological lines. We pick them to make tough decisions and to show leadership. And that's pretty much how he handles most controversies in this campaign. Head on and unafraid. The standard M.O. for politicians faced with a hard question or a crisis is to retreat with advisers an then come back with one mealy mouthed politically safe and somewhat ambiguous carefully worded answer. What Obama has consistently done is meet those questions head on and defuse them. Which with anyone else would seem fairly obvious but with American politicians of late, seems remarkable.

Plus of course the fact that his opponent's Senate Career has been all about making the safe political choices that would advance her career for higher office. Stating with the initial back to back Iraq votes.

Er Whomod, you are aware that Obama's senate vote concerning Iraq is virtually identical to Hillary's & his thin record doesn't contain much in the way of showing that he's any different from other politicians?

Originally Posted By: First Amongst Daves

The speech is being compared to speeches by your greatest presidents. And so, sorry, what's your point?

I saw the jfk mention but am not sure to which 'greatest' presidents you are referring.

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Yes, but Hillary's record shows that despite being against the Iraq war, she cast 2 votes authorizing Bush to do just that while abdicating Congress' role in making that decision. Yes, to you that is simply one (or two) votes, but that vote is pretty much the central issue of our time. And she showed remarkably poor judgement. As she claims about Obama, speeches are nice but speeches aern't decisions. In her case though, speeches are about the only thing she does. Taking decisive action against Bush's abuses of power or bad descisions are another matter entirely.

She's also against No Child Left Behind despite having also voted FOR it. etc. etc.

Being Anti-NAFTA despite having helped Bill campaign for it.

She's good at the rhetoric but when it comes down to actually challenging, she plays it politically safe. As do a lot of Congressional Democrats fairly enough, but that's the challenge for the Democratic Party. To rid ourselves of these timid calculated milquetoast DLC Democrats.

Obama hardly 'stood out in front' and tackled the issue head on. His first approach was to simply say that he wasn't there for those sermons. When the story wouldn't go away, that's when he stood out in front and gave this speech.

Originally Posted By: whomod

speeches are nice but speeches aern't decisions.

Exactly. Too bad Obama's Senate record is pretty sparse on showing actual decisions.

Quote:

...Republicans for Obama

Some Republicans are switching from hoping that Clinton, with her high negatives, will win the nomination to rooting for Obama with the possibility of even higher negatives if the Wright videos with their porn-flick graininess and hysterical tone continue to dominate the conversation.

Republican strategist Alex Castellanos says his party is, for the first time, ``rethinking Hillary as their favorite candidate.''

One Republican particularly unmoved by Obama's speech was Representative Peter King of New York who said his party had ``to make Reverend Wright a centerpiece of the campaign.''

This is the same King who pointedly overlooked the murderous tactics of the Irish Republican Army and its association with Hezbollah as he vigorously justified their cause in the 1980s and 90s.

`Eat This Up'

One consultant, Rick Wilson, who made the 2002 ad linking former Democratic Senator Max Cleland to Osama bin Laden, told politico.com the Republicans should ``eat this up like cake.''
...

bloomberg
This isn't going to go away.

Originally Posted By: Captain Sammitch

Originally Posted By: First Amongst Daves

The speech is being compared to speeches by your greatest presidents. And so, sorry, what's your point?

I saw the jfk mention but am not sure to which 'greatest' presidents you are referring.

And Anna Nicole Smith was compared to Marilyn Monroe (I mean, geez! Not even close!)

Just 'cause the media hypes it doesn't mean it's true.

He's gonna be in Eugene tomorrow. I think I'll go and piss off all the obamanauts.

Originally Posted By: First Amongst Daves

Originally Posted By: Pariah

Originally Posted By: First Amongst Daves

Quote:

The speech is being compared to speeches by your greatest presidents. And so, sorry, what's your point?

Not that I'm characterizing you as a full time speech critic, but I remember some comments being made by you about politicians and double-speak; I believe it was in the "It's not About Oil of Iraq" thread. The fact that you are not able to see through Obama's song and dance after being so critical of such things (or are able to and are simply giving him your nomination for prez as a wordsmith) is really sad.

Something else to note: The only reason that any speech from one of our greatest presidents is remembered is because of their actions as presidents. Do you really think their speeches would be so memorable if they were crappy Commander and Chiefs? Then there's the fact that more renowned speeches in US history are hailed as being philosophically and morally profound; Obama's speech is politically reflective in nature and is in regards to controversies that surround him.

What a night.

The Washington Post reports a major security breach involving Barack Obama's passport:

Quote:

The State Department said last night that it had fired two contract employees and disciplined a third for accessing Sen. Barack Obama's passport file.

Obama's presidential campaign immediately called for a "complete investigation."

State Department spokesman Tom Casey said the employees had individually looked into Obama's passport file on Jan. 9, Feb. 21 and March 14. To access such a file, the employees must first acknowledge a pledge to keep the information private.

This is not good. We know how much we can trust anyone who works for George Bush. NOT AT ALL.

The Post article included this statement from the Obama campaign:

Quote:

"This is an outrageous breach of security and privacy, even from an administration that has shown little regard for either over the last eight years," Obama spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement. "This is a serious matter that merits a complete investigation, and we demand to know who looked at Senator Obama's passport file, for what purpose, and why it took so long for them to reveal this security breach."

The first Bush administration did the same thing to Bill Clinton. The State Department is saying that Secretary of State, Condi Rice, is saying that she only learned of the breaches yesterday and as Joe diGenova,Joe diGenova, former U.S. Attorney who investigated a similar breach of President Clinton’s passport records during his first run for president in 1992 states, it is inexcusable that she wouldn’t know about something this important and that it shows an incredible lack of leadership and gross negligence. DiGenova also says that even if the Inspector General does do a formal investigation, the employees who were fired cannot be called to testify. In light of these facts, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi should call for an full investigation immediately, and these employees’ computers, bank and phone records should be gone over with a fine tooth comb. Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC noted that each intrusion happened within a day or so of an Obama victory - *Iowa, Wisconsin/Hawaii and Mississippi. Coincidence? We need to know who knew what, and when.

To put this into perspective, diGenova is outraged by the news of this compromise, and he’s known for being a partisan hack who believes he was a victim of the White House slander machine during the Clinton administration, just happens to be married to Victoria Toensing, counsel on the impeachment case against Clinton and who testified before Congress in the Valerie Plame case, repeatedly attacked Plame and saying that she was not a covert CIA operative.

…from Nov. 1992:

Quote:

A State Department official who carried out the two-day search of passport files for information about Gov. Bill Clinton said today that he had resigned, just 48 hours before Federal investigators are expected to issue a report criticizing the search.

The official, Steven M. Moheban, was a top aide to Elizabeth M. Tamposi, the Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs who was dismissed last week by President Bush for her role in the search of files on Mr. Clinton, his mother, Virginia Kelley, and Ross Perot, the independent Presidential candidate.

Quote:

This is not good. We know how much we can trust anyone who works for George Bush. NOT AT ALL.

Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson both worked for George W. Bush. Does this mean you don't trust them either?

I notice they were contract employees. I also recall Hillary's people had a history of getting into confidential FBI records.

Are you sure, given that Hillary has more to lose vis a vis Obama than a guy who isn't running, that HER people didn't reach out to these employees?

I hope that as a matter of clarity Obama will agree to release his entire passport records, so as to quell any questions as to why anyone would snoop.

Good point. I'm sure he has nothing to hide.

And, in all seriousness, shouldn't (with the exception of sanctioned, classified, diplomatic missions) any elected official's passport record be public? Doesn't the public have a right to know where our officials might be going, especially if it might involve the use of tax funds?

i'll answer for whomod. no.

i'd also for whomod like to reserve the right to change my mind if it involves anyone other than obama.

Richardson Backs Obama: New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson to endorse Obama today at campaign rally, calling him a 'once-in-a-lifetime leader'; superdelegate had been relentlessly wooed by Clinton camp.

It's funny how so many people who have worked with the Clintons are backing Obama.

i think theyre scared he will have al-quaida bomb them

Originally Posted By: the G-man

I also recall Hillary's people had a history of getting into confidential FBI records. Are you sure, given that Hillary has more to lose vis a vis Obama than a guy who isn't running, that HER people didn't reach out to these employees?

A little while back, the Hillary campaign asked a question:

As voters evaluate you as a potential Commander-in-Chief, do you think it's legitimate for people to be concerned that you have traveled to only one NATO country, on a brief stopover trip in 2005, and have never traveled to Latin America?

I remember hearing their charge that Obama had only visited one NATO country in his life and it seemed pretty hard to believe... out of countries like Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Turkey, etc., Obama had only been to one? The boy who grew up in Indonesia, and visited relatives in Africa, never made it to any of those European countries? The guy who lived in Chicago and went to Harvard never made it to Canada? (I presume Canada wasn't the site of the brief stopover trip.)

Now, I'm not saying that the Hillary camp did the snooping in the passport file. But in asking that question, they seemed awfully certain that Obama had never been to one of those countries earlier in his life, didn't they? Note they didn't say, "you have traveled to only one NATO country as a senator", (it wouldn't be all that surprising that Obama had only taken a few foreign trips since taking office in January 2005); they worded the question so that it encompasses his entire life.

The question came from the Hillary camp on March 12; two of the breaches were before that date. One breach occurred two days later.

Even Rev. Wright takes time to socialize with the man!

Originally Posted By: whomod

The Washington Post reports a major security breach involving Barack Obama's passport

It turns out that Hillary and McCain's passport files were also breached.

I suppose the temptation will be to claim that Karl Rove and Dick Cheney made sure to breach all three candidate's records to obsure their real plans. More likely, however, we're going to find out either (a) this was idle curiosity; (b) some newspaper reporter wanted the records.

I'm gonna guess that Richardson is going to be Obama's VP if he wins the nomination. He's kept out of taking sides up till now & Obama probably wants him because he's hispanic. Pelosi has mentioned that there would be a dream ticket but it wasn't going to be Hillary & Obama & I bet this is what she was talking about.

I'm not sure how a black man and a hispanic are a "dream ticket" unless you believe, and I doubt that Pelosi does, that the entire nation has finally transcended race.

I think Obama's run up till the Wright thing proves it's not a problem to have that type of ticket.

totally. that would be a tough ticket to beat. McCain would need to put Rudy on to counter him and sweep the northeast. They would lose California.....maybe Florida with the hispanic vote.

Well, it's nice to see that America is no longer a racist society, what with the fact that a black man and hispanic can win the presidency together.

If nothing else, that proves Rev. Wright and his supporters are wrong.

There are those chickens.....................

coming home to roost!

praise allah!

Originally Posted By: whomod

The Washington Post reports a major security breach involving Barack Obama's passport...This is not good. We know how much we can trust anyone who works for George Bush. NOT AT ALL.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Clinton friend may be involved in passport breach

A State Department official in charge of the department during two of the three breaches into the passport files of Sen. Barack Obama has a direct tie to Bill and Hillary Clinton and department officials are investigating whether she furnished information to Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign.

Maura Harty was in charge of the Bureau Of Consular Affairs during the first two breaches of Obama's passport. Former President Bill Clinton appointed her to an ambassadorship during his Presidency.

Harty retired last month from the State Department. She joined the State Department in 2002 after serving as ambassador to Paraguay for two years of Bill Clinton's Presidential term. Sources within the State Department told Capitol Hill Blue this morning that revelations of the first two passport breaches surfaced only after Harty left her State Department job.

Obama after not supporting a revote in MI is now talking about seating delegates from FL & MI at the convention but they would be split equally between Hillary & himself. I find that to be a very insulting & undemocratic solution. First off, its changing the rules midgame. Obama thought that was unfair when Hillary has requested that the delegates be seated. It's OK now however to seat them as long as it doesn't hurt his chances. Worst of all those states wouldn't have ended up being equal splits. This solution not only makes these state's votes not count but actually misrepresents the support Obama has in those states.

Praise Allah!

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

My dream ticket in the beginning was Richardson/Obama. This would be the next best thing.

Richardson is one of the few democrats I would have voted for.

Bill Richardson admitted on the "Today" show this morning that his call to Hillary about endorsing Obama got "a little bit heated."

I'll bet.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Bill Richardson admitted on the "Today" show this morning that his call to Hillary about endorsing Obama got "a little bit heated."

I'll bet.

Richardson was on Countdown Last Night as well. He had a few interesting tidbits to add including the fact that he almost endorsed Hillary.

No transcript is available but here's the embed code and a link:

<iframe height="339" width="425" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/#" frameborder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe>

I like Richardson a lot. Not too keen on Barack though.

The point I was making was not that my grandmother harbors any racial animosity. But she is a typical white person. If she sees somebody on the street that she doesn't know. . .there's a reaction in her that doesn't go away and it comes out in the wrong way.

Originally Posted By: The New Adventures of Old PJP

I like Richardson a lot. Not too keen on Barack though.

My pastor says it's alright to hang out with the Latinos, they know their role around us.

Originally Posted By: Barack Hussein Obama

we all look alike anyways.

I disagree, man, she was just an old timer, that's the way people talked back then! It didn't mean they were racist... but my grandmother did refer to a broken beer bottle once as a nigger knife... you know, come to think of it, my grandmother was kind of a racist.

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

Originally Posted By: Barack Hussein Obama

we all look alike anyways.

Kudos to Fox’s Chris Wallace for taking Fox And Friends ‘To Task’ For ‘Two Hours Of Obama Bashing’

On Fox and Friends this morning, hosts Steve Doocy, Brian Kilmeade, and Gretchen Carlson spent multiple segments sensationalizing a comment Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) made yesterday, in which he referred to his grandmother as “a typical white person” in some of her racial reactions. Obama made the comment while discussing his recent speech on race relations in America on a Philadelphia radio show.

When the trio welcomed Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace onto the show, instead of previewing his show this weekend, Wallace announced that he was going to take his fellow Fox hosts “to task” for their “excessive” and “somewhat distorting” coverage of what Obama said:

Quote:

Hey listen, I love you guys but I want to take you to task if I may, respectfully, for a moment. I have been watching the show since 6:00 this morning when I got up, and it seems to me that two hours of Obama bashing on this typical white person remark is somewhat excessive and frankly I think you’re somewhat distorting what Obama had to say.

Wallace — who said that the issue “was a little more complicated than we’ve been portraying” — went on to chastise his very uncomfortable-looking colleagues for the next five minutes. Watch it:

Trying to defend their coverage, Carlson said they played up Obama’s comment because she “felt that maybe the attention was being taken away from what people really wanted to hear Barack Obama speak about, which was his association and what he thought about the comments by his minister Jeremiah Wright.”

Noting Obama’s speeches this week on the economy and the war in Iraq, Wallace replied that “maybe it’s the media doing” the deflecting:

Quote:

Far be it for me to be a spokesman for the Obama campaign, and I will tell you that they would laugh at that characterization, but you know, the fact is that after giving a speech on race earlier this week, on Tuesday, he gave a major speech on Iraq on Wednesday and a major speech on the economy yesterday. And so, I think they would say that in terms of deflecting attention away from the issues people really want to hear about, maybe it’s the media doing it, not Barack Obama.

“I appreciate you respecting us enough to say it on camera as opposed to writing an email,” said Kilmeade after hearing Wallace’s criticism.

So again, kudos for Wallace doing the right thing there. I do take exception for that type of reporting that FOX does and i'm glad to see Wallace speaking against it. it does lend a bit of respectability to himself.

And on a day that saw not only the news cycle move over to the passport story as well s the Richardson endorsement for Obama, I'm wondering if Wallace also doesn't see the handwriting on the wall and realizes that an Obama presidency with a continued Obama boycotts of FOX news because of that type of reporting would only further hurt and marginalize their network.

That' just speculation on my part as to motive but regardless of what motivated him, whether professional maneuvering or genuine desire for fairness, I'm glad he did that.

Also in fairness, Kilmeade had earlier also tried to add some context to the quote wbut was quickly knocked down by his two chortling co-hosts who wanted nothing more than to further distort the comment and add another day of spectacle to Obama and the race issue. Brian Kilmeade “argued that the remark needed to be taken in context and eventually got so fed up with his co-hosts that he walked off set.”

It looks like civil war up there.

Originally Posted By: whomod

Kudos to Fox's Chris Wallace...

Yeah, we all read that before...when you put it up yesterday.

That's the most feminine kd lang has ever looked.

Originally Posted By: whomod

The Washington Post reports a major security breach involving Barack Obama's passport...This is not good. We know how much we can trust anyone who works for George Bush. NOT AT ALL.

Passport Probe Hits Obama: Obama advisor heads Virginia company at heart of the State Department candidate passport breach probe.

whoopsy!

i just want everyone to know, i wont gloat when whomod slams Obama tomorrow for being associated with this company.

Originally Posted By: Pariah

Originally Posted By: First Amongst Daves

Originally Posted By: Pariah

Originally Posted By: First Amongst Daves

Quote:

The speech is being compared to speeches by your greatest presidents. And so, sorry, what's your point?

I see no ulterior motive in this.

I'm not sure what you are referring to, but the invasion of Iraq was plainly controversial, full of half-truths and plain deception. If there was a political speech which hung off that which I criticised, I suspect it was justified.

Obama's speech wasn't out to justify the invasion of another country to secure America's control of a large percentage of middle Eastern petroleum at a time of peak oil.

Americans are obsessed by race issues. Obama's speech was potentially self-destructive. When I first heard of it, I thought he was insane. It was full of risk at a time when he could have coasted along at a time he was ahead to secure the Dem nomination. The element of risk burns of honesty to me.

Then I heard it. Courageous.

Originally Posted By: First Amongst Daves

I see no ulterior motive in this.

Dave you never struck me as being that naive. You don't see a politician running for the highest office in the US, who just had a video of the pastor of the church he attended for 20 years preaching hatred against whites, and the USA as having an ulterior motive for this speech?

Surely your joking?

Originally Posted By: First Amongst Daves

Obama's speech wasn't out to justify the invasion of another country to secure America's control of a large percentage of middle Eastern petroleum at a time of peak oil.

You're usually too smart to believe half baked conspiracy theories, Dave.

http://sports.yahoo.com/ten/news?slug=ap-wta-richardwilliamsremarks&prov=ap&type=lgns

Quote:

INDIAN WELLS, Calif. (AP)—WTA head Larry Scott said Thursday that he strongly disagrees with comments made by Richard Williams, father of Serena and Venus, regarding racism on the women’s tour.

Saying he was disappointed by Williams’ recent remarks during an interview in India, Scott said in a statement: “The Tour has a zero tolerance policy when it comes to racism, and I have previously let Mr. Williams know that he should let me know if he ever had evidence of racist comments or acts in women’s professional tennis.”

While his daughters were playing earlier this month in Bangladore, India, where Venus reached the quarterfinals and Serena won the title, Williams told the Deccan Herald, “Well, I’m black and I’m prejudiced, very prejudiced. People are prejudiced in tennis. I don’t think Venus or Serena was ever accepted by tennis. They never will be.”

He said the media treated his daughters unfairly, that it was “the worst media job that they have done on any human being in the world,” and that if he were Serena and Venus, he would have quit playing.

“But if you get some little white no-good trasher in America like Tracy Austin or Chris Evert, who cannot hit the ball, they (the media) will claim this is great,” he said.

Scott said, “Champions like Chris Evert and Tracy Austin have done so much to help build women’s tennis to where it is today, and it is regrettable that anyone would criticize them in this manner.”

The Williams sisters haven’t played at Indian Wells since 2001. They were booed after Venus pulled out of a semifinal match against her sister, citing knee tendinitis. Serena went on to win the title, but was booed during and after the championship match.

It seems like Obama and Rev. Wright's brand of racial harmony is spreading everywhere

Praise Allah!

Excelsior!

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

http://sports.yahoo.com/ten/news?slug=ap-wta-richardwilliamsremarks&prov=ap&type=lgns

Quote:

It seems like Obama and Rev. Wright's brand of racial harmony is spreading everywhere

With all due respect bsams, but what the hell does this have to do with Barack Obama other than it's about a black person you can wag an accusatory finger at?

Question: Are you even remotely interested in actually having a dialogue on race as Obama has suggested. An HONEST one or are you content with the races all sniping at each other and pointing fingers as has been the case for decades?

i've had a dialogue about race with several friends, and coworkers. but a dialogue about race involving a political candidate that attended a racist church? nope.

i detest racism, whether it is a white black or hispanic. because Obama's private beliefs are out in the open now, he cannot come along and say he wants to talk about race and heal the divide. you cannot support racism in private and heal it in public, especially after your cover is blown, if anyone has a chance of stopping it, it's not him.

also what does the story have to do with Obama? whatch some rev wright video when you have spare time your not watching Olberman.

in reality the Williams sisters were some of the most highly promoted, vuisible, and endorsed athletes in the history of female tennis. ask the average person who serena and venus williams are, then ask who chris everett is? i think you'll find the truth on who has been marketed more,

this williams guy is from the same mold as Obama and his "church"

Gallup: Obama back ahead of Clinton

Following his speech on race and the surprise endorsement of New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, Barack Obama got a bump in a nationwide Gallup Poll and has squeaked ahead of Hillary Clinton.

Rasmussen has Hillary ahead of Obama in it's presidential tracking poll today.

Either way, however, it would tend to indicate that Obama is already bouncing back from Wright, if he's back to being tied or slightly ahead of Hillary again.

If you want to judge it all by a couple of polls sure. I think it's a bit quick to leap on them unless it fits your agenda somehow.

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

If you want to judge it all by a couple of polls sure. I think it's a bit quick to leap on them unless it fits your agenda somehow.

Remember those words, my friend, the next time you make your arguments about Hillary, electability, the potential popular vote and Obama's supposed fall.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

If you want to judge it all by a couple of polls sure. I think it's a bit quick to leap on them unless it fits your agenda somehow.

Remember those words, my friend, the next time you make your arguments about Hillary, electability, the potential popular vote and Obama's supposed fall.

Listen , this is exactly what bugs me about this Wright thing. You MEM to me seem to be absolutely happy if this controversy continues t ohurt Obama because you're so committed to Hillary that even if she doesn't win the nomination, you want Obama hurt bad enough that he doesn't win the election.

it sort of reminds me of Hillary herself when she was trying to play on Obama's book title and said that he had audacity all right. Yeah, the audacity to challenge her coronation. And I think there lies all this hostility and spin. The fact that she was supposed to have been some foregone conclusion until a candidate that not only stepped up and filled the anti-Bush slot as Hillary was supposed to, but that he did so much more, he actually inspired people in a way not seen since JFK and Ronald Reagan.

You know Hillary can NEVER be that person. The right hates her. The progressives hate her. the "center" voted for her because they were familar with her and she wasn't a Republican. And then they saw and heard Obama. So of course what else is there to do but to try to destroy that which Hillary can never hope to compete against. Not with her old style politicking and flat tired oratory.

so if you want Obama to be so hurt that he goes down so she can challenge McCain in 4 years. That is 4 more years you're essentially giving the far right agenda. That's 4000 dead soldiers now on account of lies. That's an economy in ruins. That's the privatization of the Government. That's more tax breaks for the rich. It's not like if McCain is stepping up to challenge any of that anymore. I myself think this country has suffered enough and doesn't need any more of this just so Hillary can have a chance next time.

And that's pretty much what always bugged me about Republicans these past few years. Any abuse of the Constitution, of truth, of facts, and even morality, was excused and apologized and rationalized away because party was more important than country. With you, I see that a cult of personality is more important than party or country.

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

Obama sat in the church and knew what wright was preaching, people arent as stupid as you think

I'd like to think you're correct. However, polls suggest Obama is rebounding from the pastor flap:

About seven in 10 voters said Obama did a good job addressing race relations and explaining his relationship with Wright. On the downside for Obama, only half of voters told the pollsters he could unite the country as president

So, if this poll is to be believed, anywhere from half to seventy percent of people are "that stupid."

Quote:

Talking about race: Um, you first

Obama's speech called for a conversation that not everyone wants.

By Stephanie Simon and Richard Fausset
March 23, 2008

How do we start a national dialogue on race?

Charlotte Griffin was at a restaurant one evening when a white woman complimented her on her children's behavior. The stranger may have meant to be kind. But Griffin wondered if she heard a note of condescension -- an assumption, perhaps, that black kids aren't usually so polite.

How do we navigate that minefield?

As a teenager, Stan North went to work on the assembly line at Ford. He made good money. But he noticed that he -- like all the other white guys -- always got the dirty jobs. Seething, he concluded that the boss wouldn't dare give a black man heavy lifting, for fear of being tagged a racist.

How do we acknowledge that anger?

In his recent address on race relations in America -- prompted by his minister's explosive sermons on that topic -- Sen. Barack Obama declared that whites must understand the black experience in America and blacks must appreciate the white perspective. Otherwise, he said, we face a grinding "racial stalemate."

His remarks struck a nerve: More than 4 million people watched the Democratic presidential candidate on live TV, and the speech is now a top video on YouTube, viewed nearly 3 million times.

Preachers and teachers across the country have been trying to figure out how to leverage that interest to launch deep, authentic discussions about race. In some quarters, there's strong interest.

"This is a very good time to put everything on the table," said Abdullah Robinson, 64, a black man who lives in suburban Atlanta. "We don't know nothing about each other, and we've been living together for hundreds of years."

But others don't want any part of a dialogue that starts from the premise that there is a black America and a white America. They don't want to hear about victims and oppressors. It's past time, they say, to move on.

Blacks "bring up the enslavement card way too much," said JoAnna Cullinane-Halda, 64, who just opened a home decor boutique in rural Colorado. "I'm Irish. My people were enslaved as well. But it's far enough in our dark past. We've gone beyond that. Let it go."

The complexities of opening a dialogue on race were evident after a day of long conversations with African Americans in Lithonia, Ga., a suburban haven for black professionals outside Atlanta, and with whites in Franktown, Colo., a working-class town in the hills southeast of Denver.

Carmen Van Kerckhove, co-founder of a diversity consulting firm in New York, described the dynamic this way: "Human beings tend to be really focused on their own oppression, and tend to be less interested in hearing about the oppression of others."

Old resentments

North, 50, grew up in integrated Detroit. He went to school with black friends. He played ball with them, swam with them. Every now and then, fists would fly over a racial insult. Then they'd all go back to hanging out together.

As far as North was concerned, everyone was equal. If anything, he said, blacks were better off because affirmative action gave them a boost into college. His own grades weren't good enough for a scholarship; he ended up building engines at Ford.

A few years in, he tried to get shifted off the heavy jobs -- but his boss, he said, dismissed him with a curt: "You're a white boy. What're you crying about?" North looked around. He noticed that when minorities complained, "they got moved to a different job, because [the supervisors] were afraid of the race card."

Now North has a good job repairing tractors and trailers in Franktown. But when he reflects on his days at Ford, he feels the old resentment.

"I kept hearing: 'Minority this, minority that. Blacks aren't getting this, blacks aren't getting that.' I'm disgusted with it," he said. "OK, fine, they've gotten stepped on for 400 years. Let's give them something [to make up for it] and be done with it, the way we did with the Indians."

He's had enough, he said, of identity politics: "If you're born here, you're an American. Period. Act like an American." A fellow mechanic began listing racial and ethnic groups: African American, Hispanic American, Chinese American.

"It's tiring," North interrupted sharply. "These people had the same opportunities I did. . . . And they want everything handed to them."

Same opportunities? Same schools, same sports teams, yes.

But Wayne Sledge, who is 48 and black, went to an integrated school in Georgia -- and he doesn't remember everything being so equal. Sledge said it was clear that "the white people didn't want the black people in the school." There were bloody brawls. A pep rally was interrupted by a student in a Ku Klux Klan hood. "It was pretty rough," said Sledge.

Pam Miller also went to an integrated school in the mid-1970s, in suburban St. Louis. Her most vivid memories are of terror:

Two white men chasing her with crowbars.

A white boy trying to throw her over the banister at school.

A white girl -- someone she'd thought her friend -- standing by, laughing, as Miller ran down the street chasing a truck carrying two of her white tormentors. Miller slapped the girl.

Today, age 47 and settled in Georgia, Miller says she wouldn't be so quick to strike. Her grandfather carried a sharp anger against whites all his life -- an anger that came from years of minding his place, years of "yes suh, yes suh, yes suh," Miller said.

She doesn't want such resentment to cloud her own life, so she has worked deliberately, with the Lord's help, to shake free. She holds two jobs, at JCPenney and a coffee shop, and she serves up the same smile for all customers, black and white.

Still, her memories shadow her, shaping her perceptions.

The other day, a white woman shopping at Penney's commented on a stuffed monkey for sale. Miller heard something in that remark. The woman made "monkey" sound like a racist innuendo. Maybe she didn't mean a thing by it.

But Miller felt certain she did.

'In this day and age?'

Lithonia is anchored by big new houses, upscale shopping and a gleaming, prosperous mega-church so big it has its own gym. It also happens to be nearly 80% African American.

So one of Ora Hammond's white co-workers freely refers to the suburb as "the ghetto." Another of Hammond's colleagues in the operations department at Delta Air Lines complains that affirmative action amounts to racism against whites.

"We've said things to each other that hurt," said Hammond, 49, who is black. "But the bottom line is: They're still my friends."

Hammond says he and his white friends talk about race all the time. The conversations can get dicey. People get mad. But it's worth it, he says, because it brings them all closer.

In her small beauty salon in Franktown, Charlotte Britton, 65, serves white and black customers. But Britton, who is white, wouldn't dream of talking with them about race. Part of that is business: She likes to keep chatter in the salon light -- no politics, no religion.

But the deeper truth is this: She never dreamed that anyone would want to talk about race. Until she saw video clips of Obama's pastor sermonizing about black oppression, Britton said she had no clue that anyone other than a few hard-core white supremacists thought much about skin color.

"I thought we were past that," she said. "I didn't realize this was going on in the United States. In this day and age? I was shocked."

In renouncing his pastor's remarks, Obama urged blacks and whites to reach out to one another. He asked blacks to recognize that "most working- and middle-class white Americans don't feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. . . . No one's handed them anything. . . . They've worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped."

For whites, he explained that the roots of black anger trace a bitter path from slavery through segregation through legalized discrimination that kept generations of blacks from buying homes and working their way into the middle class.

Whites, he said, must acknowledge "that what ails the African American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination -- and current incidents of discrimination . . . are real and must be addressed."

Britton, in her Country HAIRitage salon, finds that argument unconvincing.

"They're bringing up slavery," she said, bewildered. "I had nothing to do with slavery."

'This is America'

Over lunch with two friends at the Grill on the Hill in Franktown, Pat Millsap expressed unease about her mother's views on race, especially Latino immigration. "I don't like the way she talks about it," she said.

Then Millsap, 52, looked down at her plate.

"You know," she said, "I've been looking for jobs in environmental education. A lot of them require that you speak Spanish. It sounds so awful to say this, but it's very frustrating. Shouldn't they learn English? This is America."

'Even I want to move'

As she put the finishing touches on a client's look in a Lithonia beauty salon, Griffin -- the woman with notably well-behaved children -- talked about her home in Conyers, a racially mixed suburb a few miles to the east.

She'd always thought of Conyers as a nice place to raise a family, with a slow-paced lifestyle and some pretty good schools. But lower-income blacks have begun to move in from central Atlanta, Griffin said, bringing crime and blight.

Whites have started moving out. Griffin, 36, blames that on racism.

Then she admits she's not comfortable, either, with what Conyers is becoming. The new black arrivals are dragging down the quality of life. Sometimes, she said, "even I want to move out."

The challenge of unity

"If we simply retreat into our respective corners," Obama said last week, "we will never be able to come together."

But coming together is hard.

It may require owning up to uncomfortable prejudices.

It may require seeing pain we don't want to know exists.

Lorry Schmitz, who is white, was married for seven years to a black man. She says he chose to be oblivious to racism, but she saw and felt every slight -- starting on their honeymoon cruise, when passengers kept assuming her husband was a ship worker, even when he wore a suit and tie. Schmitz saw racism in the black community, too; her in-laws made clear that they wished their son had married a black woman.

Such attitudes disturbed her deeply.

"We're stronger and smarter when we mix," said Schmitz, 52. "This is supposed to be a melting pot."

But Schmitz is an anthropologist by training, and she knows how tough it is to bring people together. "We are genetically set up to preserve our tribe," she said, "so anyone who looks different or sounds different is isolated."

She sighed, frustrated.

"It's so complex," she said.

A friend at her table interrupted, laughing: "It's not black and white."

Schmitz giggled. Then she repeated, more soberly: "No. It's not black and white."

This was funny to see Matthews besides himself in laughter over O'Reilley's comments about a black restaurant. That's what this article reminded me of. The complete divide and ignorance in this country over race.

Originally Posted By: whomod

A lot of black people do talk like that. Just like a lot of white people talk about neighborhoods not being nice anymore if a minority moves in.

Originally Posted By: thedoctor

And when a white man says it in public, he's demonized. The left attack and want him fired, humiliated, and ostracized. Don't be whiny when the other shoe finally drops.

Originally Posted By: whomod

Wel then that's fine. Take your pound of flesh with Pastor Wright. but you want to tar Obama by association. That's be like me calling YOU a racist because you like hanging out here and agreeing with Wonder Boy and Pariah a lot of them time. So naturally that must mean you agree with Pariah saying Mexicans are worthless and blacks were too stupid and lazy to save themselves during Katrina.

Or not. Which is my point. You can hang out with people who hold racist tendencies and not necessarily be a racist just because you do so.

The problem, whomod, is that you keep trying to minimize the Obama/Wright relationship into something much less than it is.

Even if we assume that WB and Pariah are racist, your analogy fails. Doc hasn't hung out with them for twenty years and he doesn't (as near as I can tell) treat them as long time advisors.

Obama did that with Wright. Their relationship is much closer than Docs and WB/Pariah's. And it's surely closer than yours to Axl Rose.

Furthermore, while I've said there was a lot of good in Obama's speech, the fact that he's still trying to have it both ways on the race issue is starting to make him dig a big hole for himself. Because he's afraid to flatly reject Wright (as if he could after twenty years of close contact), in order to justify Wright's rantings, Obama is coming dangerously close to Sharptonesque race baiting more and more, as he makes comments about whites and about injustices in our society that make him sound whinier and whinier.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

If you want to judge it all by a couple of polls sure. I think it's a bit quick to leap on them unless it fits your agenda somehow.

Remember those words, my friend, the next time you make your arguments about Hillary, electability, the potential popular vote and Obama's supposed fall.

Well G-man if it's a case that more polls come in over the weak reflecting the same thing for Obama I would give them more weight. I'm not sure you would be so accepting of a poll if the circumstances were different.

Originally Posted By: whomod

...

Listen , this is exactly what bugs me about this Wright thing. You MEM to me seem to be absolutely happy if this controversy continues t ohurt Obama because you're so committed to Hillary that even if she doesn't win the nomination, you want Obama hurt bad enough that he doesn't win the election.

I don't know if I would go so far to say I would be absolutley happy. I like & respect McCain so it's not like if Bush Jr was running again. I won't have any problem at all voting for him especially if my party changes the rules & gives Obama half the delegates from FL & MI.

[quote}it sort of reminds me of Hillary herself when she was trying to play on Obama's book title and said that he had audacity all right. Yeah, the audacity to challenge her coronation. And I think there lies all this hostility and spin. The fact that she was supposed to have been some foregone conclusion until a candidate that not only stepped up and filled the anti-Bush slot as Hillary was supposed to, but that he did so much more, he actually inspired people in a way not seen since JFK and Ronald Reagan. [/quote]

Didn't JFK & Ronald Reagan actually do things before they inspired? Obama supporters are very good at digging up the dead of anyone who earned their greatness & slapping it on Obama. I'm not impressed.

Hillary isn't entitled to be President but I think you need to remember that works both ways. She has every right to stay in the race & compete!

Quote:

You know Hillary can NEVER be that person. The right hates her. The progressives hate her. the "center" voted for her because they were familar with her and she wasn't a Republican. And then they saw and heard Obama. So of course what else is there to do but to try to destroy that which Hillary can never hope to compete against. Not with her old style politicking and flat tired oratory.

I think you can take a quick scan of headlines & see that both of them are quite busy saying negative things about each other. Hillary however also finds time roll out an economic crisis plan in the midst of it all.

[quoteso if you want Obama to be so hurt that he goes down so she can challenge McCain in 4 years. That is 4 more years you're essentially giving the far right agenda. That's 4000 dead soldiers now on account of lies. That's an economy in ruins. That's the privatization of the Government. That's more tax breaks for the rich. It's not like if McCain is stepping up to challenge any of that anymore. I myself think this country has suffered enough and doesn't need any more of this just so Hillary can have a chance next time.[/quote]

If he had more experience & McCain was more like Bush you wouldn't have to worry about my vote. I don't want Obama hurt btw. Your reading to much into a post I think.

Quote:

And that's pretty much what always bugged me about Republicans these past few years. Any abuse of the Constitution, of truth, of facts, and even morality, was excused and apologized and rationalized away because party was more important than country. With you, I see that a cult of personality is more important than party or country.

It's a bit of a stretch to say it's a cult of personality. I find that to be more of a case with Obama supporters. After all it was Obama who claimed he could get more of Hillary voters than she could get of his. Who's really for the issues? I see alot of people willing to throw not only Hillary under a bus for the new guy but also whole states.

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Didn't JFK & Ronald Reagan actually do things before they inspired? Obama supporters are very good at digging up the dead of anyone who earned their greatness & slapping it on Obama. I'm not impressed.

I don't know about Reagan but I do know about Jack Kennedy. In the words of Theodore Sorensen, who worked with John F Kennedy for 11 years, first as his senatorial assistant and then in the White House as his special counsel and adviser.

Quote:

Barack Obama: the new JFK

At first glance, the Democratic nominee for president in 1960, John Fitzgerald Kennedy - the millionaire Caucasian war hero for whom I worked for 11 golden years - seems notably different from the most interesting candidate for next year's nomination, Senator Barack Obama. But when does a difference make a difference? Different times, issues, and electors make any meaningful comparison unlikely. But the parallels in their candidacies are striking.

Fifty years ago, Kennedy and I embarked on a period in which we travelled to all 50 states in his long, uphill quest for the 1960 Democratic presidential nomination. He was, like Obama, a first-term US senator. But he was not yet 40 years old, making Obama, already 45, a geezer by comparison.

At the time, Washington pundits assumed Kennedy had at least two insurmountable obstacles. The first was his lack of experience, especially compared with the senior statesmen also seeking that nomination - Lyndon Johnson, Hubert Humphrey, Adlai Stevenson and Stuart Symington. Kennedy acknowledged that his age and inexperience would turn away some voters. Obama, though older than Kennedy, is similarly dismissed by some today. But Kennedy noted in one speech that "experience is like tail-lights on a boat which illuminate where we have been when we should be focusing on where we should be going".

Kennedy's second major obstacle was his heritage. Some said he had lost his chance to be president of the United States the day he was born - or, at least, the day he was baptised as a Roman Catholic. No Catholic had ever been elected president of the United States, and the overwhelming defeat suffered by the only Catholic nominated for that position, Governor Al Smith of New York in 1928, had persuaded subsequent Democratic leaders that it would be hopeless ever to risk that route again. The conviction that no Catholic could win was greater, in that less enlightened era 50 years ago, than the widespread assumption today that a black presidential candidate cannot win. The subtly bigoted phrase most often repeated in that election year - by former president Harry Truman, among others - was that 1960 was "too early" for a Catholic president, that the country was "not ready," and that Kennedy should be a "good sport" by settling for the vice-presidency. No doubt Obama will hear - or has already heard - similar sentiments about the colour of his skin.

Even some Catholic religious leaders - who thought Kennedy was not Catholic enough, having attended secular schools and expressed disagreement with the Catholic hierarchy on church-state separation - opposed his candidacy. So did some Catholic political leaders, who thought his candidacy might raise unwanted controversies or produce an unwanted rival to their own positions (much as Al Sharpton and Vernon Jordan may not initially welcome an Obama candidacy). But, in time, Kennedy's speeches and interviews strongly favoring traditional church-state separation reassured all but the most bigoted anti-Catholics. In the end, despite his ethnic handicap, Kennedy proved to be less divisive than his major opponent, fellow senator Hubert Humphrey. Obama may prove the same.

In addition to their similar handicaps, Kennedy and Obama share an extraordinary number of parallels. Both men were Harvard-educated. Both rose to national attention almost overnight as the result of starring roles at the nationally televised Democratic convention preceding their respective candidacies: Kennedy in 1956, when he delivered the speech nominating Stevenson and subsequently came close to winning an open-floor struggle for the vice-presidential nomination with Estes Kefauver; Obama in 2004, by virtue of his brilliant speech to the convention that year in Boston.

Both also gained national acclaim through their best-selling inspirational books - Kennedy's Profiles in Courage, published in 1956, and Obama's The Audacity of Hope, published in 2006. Both men immediately stood out as young, handsome, and eloquent new faces who attracted and excited ever larger and younger crowds at the grassroots level, a phenomenon that initially went almost unnoticed by Washington leaders and experts too busy interviewing themselves.

Kennedy's speeches in early 1960 and even earlier, like Obama's in early 2007, were not notable for their five-point legislative plans. Rather, they focused on several common themes: hope, a determination to succeed despite the odds, dissatisfaction with the status quo, and confidence in the judgment of the American people. In sprinkling their remarks with allusions to history and poetry, neither talked down to the American people. JFK was so frank about his disagreements with the leadership of his Catholic "base" that one Catholic journal editorialised against him. Obama was equally frank and courageous with the Democrats' organized labor base in assessing the competitive prospects of the American auto industry in Detroit. Both were unsparing in their references to the "revolving door" culture in Washington.

On foreign policy, both emphasised the importance of multilateral democracy, national strength as a guardian of peace, and the need to restore America's global standing, moral authority, and leadership. Both warned of the dangers of war: Kennedy motivated by his own harsh experience in world war two, Obama by his familiarity with suffering in all parts of the world. Both were cerebral rather than emotional speakers, relying on the communication of values and hope rather than cheap applause lines.

Perhaps most tellingly, both preached (and personified) the politics of hope in contrast to the politics of fear, which characterised Republican speeches during their respective eras. In 1960 and earlier, cynics and pessimists accepted the ultimate inevitability of nuclear war between the United States and the Soviet Union, much as today they assume a fruitless and unending war against terrorism. Hope trumped fear in 1960, and I have no doubt that it will again in 2008.... and it goes on

um.. you were saying?

we all know how that ended....

Quote:

When John F. Kennedy won the 1960 U.S. presidential election, one major issue Kennedy raised was whether the Soviet space and missile programs had surpassed those of the U.S. As Kennedy took over, despite warnings from Eisenhower about Laos and Vietnam, Europe and Latin America "loomed larger than Asia on his sights."[38] In his inaugural address, Kennedy made the ambitious pledge to "pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and success of liberty."

Kennedy's policy towards South Vietnam rested on the assumption that Diem and his forces must ultimately defeat the guerrillas on their own. He was against the deployment of American combat troops and observed that "to introduce U.S. forces in large numbers there today, while it might have an initially favorable military impact, would almost certainly lead to adverse political and, in the long run, adverse military consequences."

Kennedy increased the number of U.S. military advisers from 800 to 16,300 to cope with rising guerrilla activity.

In a conversation with Nobel Peace Prize winner and Canadian Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson, Kennedy sought his advice. "Get out," Pearson replied. "That's a stupid answer," shot back Kennedy. "Everyone knows that. The question is: How do we get out?"

Wow we can only hope that if elected Obama will be the next Kennedy

Originally Posted By: whomod

...

um.. you were saying?

So who did Kennedy supporters liken Kennedy too before he was elected?

Originally Posted By: whomod

The new JFK? He looks more like the new Harvey Dent to me.

I'm sorry, but how exactly was Kennedy one of our great presidents? Vietnam. Bay of Pigs. Much like James Dean and Marilyn Monroe, Kennedy's legend outweighs his actual deeds simply because he died 'young', so to speak.

Originally Posted By: thedoctor

Well Eisenhower actually started our involvement in Vietnam and Johnson was the one who escalated into what it became. The blame for the Bay of Pigs depends on whether you think we should've used military action in Cuba to overthrow the government, if not then the CIA is to blame. Ultimately it was their mess, Kennedy just refused to send in air support.
He did manage to pull us away from WWIII during the missile crisis, fighting the hardline rightwingers in the military who wanted a war.
He desegregated the Federal Government after Woodrow Wilson (a Democrat) re-segregated it.
He was the first to start the ball on the Civil Rights legislation, at least on the level of the President.
For those acts he deserves credit as a great president.
I do agree that dying young, especially being murdered, does add to the legend.

Which is why John Lennon is more of a legend on his own than the other Beatles, even though his solo career never was commercially successful.

Kennedy also built up the military, took a hard line against communism and cut taxes. In fact, his record in those areas was closer to Reagan's than the records of Johnson, Carter of Clinton.

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Quote:

Barack Obama: the new JFK

Originally Posted By: whomod

...

um.. you were saying?

So who did Kennedy supporters liken Kennedy to before he was elected?

MEM. You dismissed outright Obama's credentials as compared to Kennedy [when he ran for President] and I showed you that they almost mirror each other, comparison-wise.

You almost sound mad that it isn't Hillary that can tout that comparison.

I really don't know anyone in the history of our country that took up one position publicly to score points with her parties constituents and then routinely voted in the exact opposite way though, for comparison's sake.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Kennedy also built up the military, took a hard line against communism and cut taxes. In fact, his record in those areas was closer to Reagan's than the records of Johnson, Carter of Clinton.

Yup and honestly the missile crisis alone is enough to make the Presidency a great one......would I consider him one of the greatest I don't know if I'd go that far. But there were far worse presidents than him. He was at the very least above average you could give him a B+.

Originally Posted By: whomod

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Originally Posted By: whomod

...

um.. you were saying?

So who did Kennedy supporters liken Kennedy to before he was elected?

[/quote]
My point was that I think Kennedy ran as himself while Obama is using other people's greatness to run on. You give him credit that he hasn't earned.

That is fucking awesome!

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Originally Posted By: whomod

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Originally Posted By: whomod

...

um.. you were saying?

So who did Kennedy supporters liken Kennedy to before he was elected?

My point was that I think Kennedy ran as himself while Obama is using other people's greatness to run on. You give him credit that he hasn't earned. [/quote][/quote]

Kennedy's own advisor was giving him credit in that one piece I posted. But I suppose giving unearned credit is a bit different than giving oneself a heroic record that never happened and opposition to NAFTA that never was..

Originally Posted By: M E M

My point was that I think Kennedy ran as himself while Obama is using other people's greatness to run on. You give him credit that he hasn't earned.

You ignored M E M's point, Whomod.

Even though other people like Ted Kennedy and Caroline Kennedy, and now Ted Sorenson, are calling Barack Obama the Second Coming of JFK, it's still making a false comparison to JFK, casting Obama falsely as the ghost of JFK, rather than as himself.

Hillary at least has some actual policy she asserts in detail, rather than vague plattitudes and misleading comparisons to JFK.

Like I said a few days ago:

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

And Anna Nicole Smith was compared to Marilyn Monroe (I mean, geez! Not even close!)

Just 'cause the media hypes it doesn't mean it's true.

How is Obama's policy rhetoric less specific than Hillary's?

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

LBJ was the bastard that threw us head long into Vietnam, but Kennedy helped escalate our presence and involvement there.

As for the Bay of Pigs, Kennedy not only canceled the airstrike; but he also changed a lot of the CIA's plan, including the landing site, which cut off the rebels from other anti-communist groups that would have assisted, resupplies of food and guns, as well as the mountains that they could have retreated and hid in had shit gone wrong, as it did.

I agree that Kennedy was great in the Cuban Missile Crisis, but it must also be noted that the Crisis came about due to Castro's reaching out to the USSR after the failure of the Bay of Pigs Invasion.

His participation in the Civil Rights Movement and creation of the Space Program are other big boosts to his legacy; but I still feel that we look more admirably on him than we would have had be not been assassinated.

Originally Posted By: whomod

MEM. You dismissed outright Obama's credentials as compared to Kennedy [when he ran for President] and I showed you that they almost mirror each other, comparison-wise.

While Kennedy was a first term Senator during the 1960 election, he'd been in that seat for almost the whole duration of his term. Not only that, but he'd also held a full term in the US House of Representatives. Obama's mere three years he's racked up doesn't quite compare to the decade plus that JFK had under his belt at the time.

A Senate term is six years. A house term is only two.

If (and I don't know this, I'm just guessing based on what you wrote, doc) Kennedy held a house seat for only a "full term" and his senate for "almost" his full term then we're talking only eight years experience (tops), not ten.

Of course, that's still more federal experience than Obama.

Originally Posted By: thedoctor

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

yeah but if Castro had had a better pitching arm, the whole thing would've gone down differently.
and ifs and buts were candies and nuts, then we'd all have a merry christmas.

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

Originally Posted By: M E M

My point was that I think Kennedy ran as himself while Obama is using other people's greatness to run on. You give him credit that he hasn't earned.

But you make a great point. Obama himself isn't running on comparing himself to kennedy. Kennedy's own family and political advisor, among others, are doing that. That's pretty much 1st person comparisons rather than say, the times when people compare Bush to Truman when trying to vindicate him and excuse his and the war's deep unpopularity.

It'd be stupid of me to criticize Bush for that as he's not running around comparing himself to Truman (that I know of). And that's just GOP pundits that generally make that comparison. it's not Truman's own family and confidants. Get my point?

"Kennedy's policy towards South Vietnam rested on the assumption that Diem and his forces must ultimately defeat the guerrillas on their own. He was against the deployment of American combat troops and observed that "to introduce U.S. forces in large numbers there today, while it might have an initially favorable military impact, would almost certainly lead to adverse political and, in the long run, adverse military consequences."

"
Kennedy increased the number of U.S. military advisers from 800 to 16,300 to cope with rising guerrilla activity. "

Sounds like Obama talking out of both sides....

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Actually, I'd forgotten that the House had only two year terms. That means that JFK served three full terms (six years) as a US Rep. for the state of Mass.

Originally Posted By: whomod

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

Originally Posted By: M E M

My point was that I think Kennedy ran as himself while Obama is using other people's greatness to run on. You give him credit that he hasn't earned.

Remember that ceremony where Ted Kennedy (the brother to the good ones) endorsed Obama? That was set up & paid for by Obama's campaign. It look liked he was promoting the idea that the Kennedy torch was being passed to Obama.

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

What are you insinuating?

That Kennedy was paid off?

That Kennedy was dragged there by force to 'pass the torch' against his will in a manufactured ceremony?

What?

Now on a lighter note.... $\:\)$

Obama Girl Tells Hillary to Quit

Sure beats the Clinton endorsing Chilean Hillary cross dressing midget.

Obama Pastor’s Tampa Appearance Canceled for Security Reasons

An anticipated appearance in a Tampa, Fla., church by Barack Obama’s former pastor and spiritual adviser — his first since his inflammatory sermons drew national scrutiny — has been canceled due to security concerns, according to the senior pastor at the church.

The Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. had been expected to speak at the Bible-Based Fellowship Church of Temple Terrace for three nights starting Tuesday evening.

Rev. Earl Mason, senior pastor at the church, said he canceled Wright’s appearance because the local sheriff’s office would not agree to provide the necessary security without charging the church extra, and that he had concerns about escorting Wright and maintaining crowd control.

Mason said the church was under no pressure from the Obama campaign to cancel the appearance.

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

Sounds like Obama talking out of both sides....

because he's black he must be a ventriloquist?
wow, bsams. I expected more from the winner of the RKMBs Diversity Awareness and Action Day 2007.

Has there ever BEEN a black ventriloquist?

Originally Posted By: whomod

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

What are you insinuating?

That Kennedy was paid off?

That Kennedy was dragged there by force to 'pass the torch' against his will in a manufactured ceremony?

What?
...

No, just that he put out basically a whole show on the Kennedy mantle being passed to himself. I don't blame him for working anything he can but lets not pretend that the Kennedy thing just happened to Obama.

Originally Posted By: The New Adventures of Old PJP

That is fucking awesome!

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Has there ever BEEN a black ventriloquist?

Heh. The way that set is designed and painted, it looks like Willie and Lester are sitting in front of a confederate flag.

Oh, shit. I thought the same thing G-Man did. I think I need to spend less time here.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

How is Obama's policy rhetoric less specific than Hillary's?

In the last few weeks, I've mostly been going by broadcast news, rather than printed news stories about Obama and Hillary. And McCain's largely been off the radar.

I guess when you get down to it, in between sniping at each other, Obama and Hillary have both been making proposals about how to deal with the Subprime and housing crisis, Iraq strategy, moving toward energy independence, and how to deal with Iraq, Syria, North Korea and Russia.

So I guess it comes down to, for me, what Obama proposes is calm, rational, and vaguely assuring, but I just don't have confidence in the few details I've heard from him. Beginning withdrawal from Iraq while things are just beginning to stabilize doesn't sound as rational to me as McCain's commitment to stay as long as we are needed.
Obama's view of openly negotiating with the Iranians, who have lied at every turn, also sounds naive to me. I picture the Iranians chuckling privately about what a "useful idiot" Obama is, to have such a trusting approach.

But...

I've read a few things online that detail Obama's policies, that move me toward being more receptive to his ideas.

First this one, a blog where a Republican-leaning independent explains his reasoning that Obama, in his view, is the best of the three candidates offered:
a moderate explains why he favors Obama over policies of Hillary and McCain
Like this guy, while I'm a Republican, I'm increasingly independent in the post-Reagan era, and don't fully agree ideologically with any of the three candidates. But Obama, like Clinton in 1992, offers change and a move toward the future, whereas Hillary and McCain are formed and entrenched in the past.
Although with the "change" that Clinton offered, I'm still not convinced that Obama offers the best solutions in going forward.

And astonishingly, Media Matters (a site that is more often than not a Hillary advocacy site) offers this lengthy defense and detailing of Obama's policies, saying that it's a myth that he's deficient on subastantive policy:
Obama's specific policies

And this Factcheck.com piece challenges many of Hillary's account of events:
deconstructing the half-truths in Hillary's stated policies and experience

I don't have enough agreement with any of the 3 offered candidates to enthusiastically support any one of them.

I have to say, Obama has the smoothest line, the whole "hope" and "the future" thing.
But so did Clinton in 1992.
And I didn't see that Bill Clinton accomplished anything he campaigned on. And Bill Clinton was considerably more moderate than Obama. Either Hillary or Obama will vastly expand social spending programs, and slash defense spending to do it. Their stated policies vary, but they both come down to expanded social programs and bailouts. And abandoning Iraq.

Whereas McCain, while soft on immigration, presses for budget cuts and sensible continuation of our presence in Iraq.

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

So I guess it comes down to, for me, what Obama proposes is calm, rational, and vaguely assuring, but I just don't have confidence in the few details I've heard from him. Beginning withdrawal from Iraq while things are just beginning to stabilize doesn't sound as rational to me as McCain's commitment to stay as long as we are needed.

Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) launched a major combat operation in the southern city of Basra today against the Mahdi Army — which is led by anti-American cleric Moktada al-Sadr – and other Shiite militias.

Violence also erupted in three other Iraqi cities, including Baghdad where “arrages of mortars and rockets pounded the fortified Green Zone area for the second time in three days” and rival Shiite militias exchanged gunfire in Sadr City, a Mahdi Army stronghold.

Quote:

[b]Iraqi forces clashed with Shiite militiamen Tuesday in the southern oil port of Basra and gunmen patrolled several Baghdad neighborhoods as followers of Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr ordered a nationwide civil disobedience campaign to demand an end to the crackdown on their movement.

Explosions rang out across central Baghdad as rockets or mortars fired from Shiite areas targeted the U.S.-protected Green Zone for the second time this week.

The violence was part of an escalation in the confrontation between the Shiite-run government and al-Sadr’s followers — a move that threatens the security gains achieved by U.S. and Iraqi forces. At least 22 people were killed in the Basra fighting

according to reports, the current wave of violence is endangering a recently renewed ceasefire al-Sadr declared last August – which has been widely credited with helping to reduce violence throughout Iraq. Yesterday, al-Sadr called for a nationwide civil disobedience campaign “in response to what his followers say is an unwarranted crackdown” by the Iraqi government. Yet one Iraqi Member of Parliament and al-Sadr supporter said if the ISF “keep targeting us like this, we’ll know how to respond.”

There is no silver lining in the increased violence. Last week, Gen. David Petraeus said the military “progress in Iraq is fragile” and “tenuous. As it's been ever since "Mission Accomplished" and frankly, American's are against this war precisely because we've had 5 years of rosy pictures painted and promises not delivered and wait 6 more months and see. Year after year after year. Enough!

New York Post:

Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, gave less than 1 percent of their total $1.2 million income from 2000 through 2004 to charity, according to tax returns his campaign released yesterday.

Their total charitable donations for those four years totaled $10,770 - a small chunk of the couple's total income while Obama was an Illinois state senator, and a lowball figure compared to other politicians.

Their giving increased in 2005 and 2006, to more than $137,000 combined, after the couple's income skyrocketed to a total of $2.6 million thanks in part to royalties for Obama's two memoirs, the documents show.

In 2005, they gave a little over 4 percent to charity, and in 2006 just over 6 percent, the tax returns show. And Obama aides said that while they haven't yet released his 2007 returns, he donated $240,000 to charity last year.

BTW, I heard on the radio this morning that almost all of those donations went to Rev. Wright's "hate Amerikkka" church.

Originally Posted By: whomod

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

There is no silver lining in the increased violence. Last week, Gen. David Petraeus said the military “progress in Iraq is fragile” and “tenuous. As it's been ever since "Mission Accomplished" and frankly, American's are against this war precisely because we've had 5 years of rosy pictures painted and promises not delivered and wait 6 more months and see. Year after year after year. Enough!

And Obama's proposal to withdraw, and leave potential chaos in Iraq to grow, and spread to neighboring Arab nations, is a rational alternative?

I think not.

As Powell said, "you break it, you own it". We took on that responsibility, and we can't just abandon those who supported us among the Iraqis to be slaughtered.

It's contemptible to me how you want the U.S. to give up at every turn, at the slightest sign of adversity. If you had your way, Iraq would be a hub for Al Qaeda now, spreading terrorism throughout the Middle East and Europe. Now that Al Qaeda had fled Iraq, it will be easier to fight the disruptive element led by Muqtada Al Sadr, or to negotiate terms for them to lay down their arms.

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

It's contemptible to me how you want the U.S. to give up at every turn, at the slightest sign of adversity. If you had your way, Iraq would be a hub for Al Qaeda now, spreading terrorism throughout the Middle East and Europe. Now that Al Qaeda had fled Iraq, it will be easier to fight the disruptive element led by Muqtada Al Sadr, or to negotiate terms for them to lay down their arms.

Well that's been the problem all along. This tendency to conflate anything going on in the middle east as being related to "al Queda" and 9/11. Al queda/foreign fighters is only a presence, although arguably a small one compared to the real problem which is civil war, because we invaded Iraq in the 1st place.

Yes yes, the damage is done. BUUUUT. As McCan has shown last week, the conflating of enemies you wish to attack with the "al Queda" bogeyman is still very much alive and well in the Republican party. That alone should disqualify them from further getting us into unneccesary wars while ignoring Osama Bin laden for another decade.

I'm sure privately, if you could find the rock Obama has been hiding under for the past 8 years, he would be the first to tell you the Bush administration has hardly ignored him.

Obama may be alive still but he is nothing more than a joke quite honestly. It's just a matter of time as long as the pressure is kept on him and al qaeda.

Uh, OSama, not OBama, P.

heh.....that was an accident......I swear.

funny nevertheless.

An accident....surrree, Mr. Kennedy, surrrerrrrreee.....

another way you can tell Obama is an idiot, he says he would have went into Pakistan after Al-Qaida and Obama

he thinks Iraq was a shitfest? try invading a country with nuclear bombs...

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

another way you can tell Obama is an idiot, he says he would have went into Pakistan after Al-Qaida and Obama

he thinks Iraq was a shitfest? try invading a country with nuclear bombs...

um... bsams. $\:-\[$

President Bush took the same position as Obama in a 2006 interview with Wolf Blitzer. “Absolutely,” said Bush when asked if he “would give the order” to “kill or capture” al Qaeda leaders in Pakistan, even if the Pakistani government objected.

And then this happeed.......

Quote:

The Washington Post:

In the predawn hours of Jan. 29, a CIA Predator aircraft flew in a slow arc above the Pakistani town of Mir Ali. The drone's operator, relying on information secretly passed to the CIA by local informants, clicked a computer mouse and sent the first of two Hellfire missiles hurtling toward a cluster of mud-brick buildings a few miles from the town center.

The missiles killed Abu Laith al-Libi, a senior al-Qaeda commander and a man who had repeatedly eluded the CIA's dragnet. It was the first successful strike against al-Qaeda's core leadership in two years, and it involved, U.S. officials say, an unusual degree of autonomy by the CIA inside Pakistan.

It is an approach that some U.S. officials say could be used more frequently this year, particularly if a power vacuum results from yesterday's election and associated political tumult. The administration also feels an increased sense of urgency about undermining al-Qaeda before President Bush leaves office, making it less hesitant, said one official familiar with the incident.

Having requested the Pakistani government's official permission for such strikes on previous occasions, only to be put off or turned down, this time the U.S. spy agency did not seek approval. The government of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf was notified only as the operation was underway, according to the officials, who insisted on anonymity because of diplomatic sensitivities.

In late January U.S. forces, acting with autonomy inside Pakistan, were able to target and kill Abu Laith al-Libi, a senior al-Qaeda commander.

The strike, which came without the Pakistani government's knowledge and helped eliminate an individual who had long eluded the spy-agency's capture, was an obvious boon in the War on Terror. But the political implications of the operation were just as fascinating.

In August of last year, Sen. Barack Obama had made the argument that, as president, he would target Al Qaeda officials in Pakistan even without the country's acquiescence -- the type of attack that, six months later, proved to be successful.

At the time, Obama was roundly criticized for his remarks, both by his Democratic competitors for the White House and by the Bush administration.

"We think that our approach to Pakistan is not only one that respects the sovereignty of Pakistan, but also is designed so that we are working in cooperation," said then-Press Secretary Tony Snow.

Originally Posted By: Barak Obama

"I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges... But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. ... If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act, we will."

President Bush himself lambasted Obama's approach to foreign affairs.

"I certainly don't know what he believes in," Bush said on February 10, about Obama. "The only foreign policy thing I remember he said was he's going to attack Pakistan and embrace Ahmadinejad."

To be sure, not everything is known about the extent and execution of the CIA's operation. But, on the surface, it carries similarities to Obama's stated approach towards Pakistan's terrorism problem, the same approach Bush trivialized.

At the time Obama made those remarks it was interepreted as a statement that he wouldn't just deploy forced in Pakistan for a limited strike against Al Quaeda (which is what Bush did), but that he would invade the country.

But, either way, you hardly score any points for your candidate by comparing him to a president you hate beyond all reason.

I don't see how that's inconsistent with anything the left or Democrats have been saying in regards to the Iraq war. THAT IT'S A DISTRACTION FROM THE WAR ON TERROR AND THAT WE NEED TO GO AFTER AL QUEDA WHO did ATTACK US.

That Bush actually did just that rather than placating the Pakistani Govt. is consistent with Obama's position. Were that we had more of that instead of wasting 5 years trying to hold Iraq together after we stupidly took it apart, gaining nothing in the process.

Obama is an idiot.

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

Obama is an idiot.

You called him out on something he said that Bush actually did, quite successfully a while later.

So um...

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts is an idiot

are you typing in english?

The Wall street Journal:

Quote:

Pastor Flap Hasn't Hurt Obama

By JACKIE CALMES
March 26, 2008 7:19 p.m.

WASHINGTON -- The racially charged debate over Barack Obama's relationship with his longtime pastor hasn't much changed his close (no, not so close - whomod) contest against Hillary Clinton, or hurt him against Republican nominee-in-waiting John McCain, according to a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll.

Democratic pollster Peter Hart, who conducts the Journal/NBC polls with Republican pollster Bill McInturff, called the latest poll a "myth-buster" that showed the pastor controversy is "not the beginning of the end for the Obama campaign."

But both Democrats, and especially New York's Sen. Clinton, are showing wounds from their prolonged and increasingly bitter nomination contest, which could weaken the ultimate nominee for the general-election showdown against Sen. McCain of Arizona. Even among women, who are the base of Sen. Clinton's support, she now is viewed negatively by more voters than positively for the first time in a Journal/NBC poll.

Quote:

[Go to poll results.]
• See the poll results

The latest survey has the Democratic rivals in a dead heat, each with 45% support from registered Democratic voters. That is a slight improvement for Sen. Obama, though a statistically insignificant one, from the last Journal/NBC poll two weeks ago, which had Sen. Clinton leading among Democratic voters, 47% to 43%.

While Sen. Clinton still leads among white Democrats, her edge shrank to eight points (49% to 41%) from 12 points in early March (51% to 39%). That seems to refute widespread speculation -- and fears among Sen. Obama's backers -- that he would lose white support for his bid to be the nation's first African-American president over the controversy surrounding his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. of Chicago.

Had that erosion happened, party leaders' reassessment of Sen. Obama's electability could have tipped the race to Sen. Clinton's favor. Weathering the episode could strengthen his standing among the party leaders nationwide -- the superdelegates -- whose votes are likely to break the impasse.

Beyond the nomination race, in hypothetical matchups for November's election Sen. Obama still edges Sen. McCain 44% to 42%. That is nearly the same result as in the early March poll, before videos of Mr. Wright's most fiery sermons spread over the Internet. But Sen. Clinton, who likewise had a narrow advantage over Sen. McCain in the earlier survey, trails in this one by two points, 44% to his 46%.

The poll was conducted Monday and Tuesday, a week after Sen. Obama delivered a generally well-received address on race. The poll's margin for error is 3.7 percentage points for questions put to a cross-section of 700 registered voters, and slightly higher for those questions put only to subgroups of Democratic, Republican or black voters.

As reassuring as the poll is for Sen. Obama, Mr. Hart and Mr. McInturff agreed that it did indicate that a substantial number of voters question whether the first-term senator would be a safe choice, or whether more needs to be known about him. Mr. McInturff said some voters are wondering, "Do we know enough about this guy?"

While the senator's support among Democrats is little changed, he did slip among conservatives and Republican voters, groups that had shown some attraction to Sen. Obama's message of changing partisan politics in Washington.

"I think the survey does indicate that this has taken a little of the patina off Sen. Obama," Mr. McInturff said.

But the pollster also saw "some evidence here that Sen. Obama's speech did him well." The candidate's support for his handling of the Wright matter was stronger among those voters who said they saw his 37-minute speech.

In the Philadelphia address, which Sen. Obama wrote and titled "A More Perfect Union," he criticized his former pastor for his condemnations of the U.S. for its injustices to blacks, but refused to renounce him.

He also sought to explain to both blacks and whites the grievances that each holds against the other, while urging both to recognize their real enemies are shared ones -- chiefly economic and educational inequality, and the job losses from globalization.

The Clinton campaign had steered clear of the Wright controversy, until Sen. Clinton this week told interviewers she would have found a new minister had hers made the remarks Mr. Wright did. Sen. Obama for two decades has attended the 8,000-member Chicago church where Mr. Wright, who retired recently, was pastor.

The negativity of the Obama-Clinton contest seems to be hurting Sen. Clinton more, the poll shows. A 52% majority of all voters says she doesn't have the background or values they identify with. But 50% say Sen. Obama does share their values, and 57% agree that Sen. McCain does.

Also, fewer voters hold positive views of Sen. Clinton than did so just two weeks ago in the Journal/NBC poll. Among all voters, 48% have negative feelings toward her and 37% positive, a decline from a net positive 45% to 43% rating in early March. While 51% of African-American voters have positive views, that is down 12 points from earlier this month, before the Wright controversy.

More ominous for Sen. Clinton is the net-negative rating she drew for the first time from women, one of the groups where she has drawn most support. In this latest poll, voters with negative views narrowly outstrip those with positive ones, 44% to 42%. That compares with her positive rating from 51% of women in the earlier March poll.

Both she and Sen. Obama showed five-point declines in positive ratings from white voters. But where she is viewed mostly negatively, by 51% to 34% of whites, Sen. Obama's gets a net positive rating, by 42% to 37%. Among all voters, he maintained a significant positive-to-negative score of 49% to 32%—similar to Sen. McCain's 45% to 25%.

The toll on both Democrats from their rhetorical brawling is evident in these poll findings: About a fifth of Clinton voters say they would support Sen. McCain if she isn't the Democratic nominee, and likewise a fifth of Obama voters say they would do the same if he isn't the party standard-bearer.

It's good to see that the negative Clinton tactics have backfired and hurt Clinton a lot more than they did Obama.

Frankly I like poll results in easy to read charts, but so far this is all that's been released.

your a moron, the story says they both have been hurt, clinton bt her tactics, and Obama's membership to a racist church. can you read english?

by the way the headline is "Democrats Are Tied in New Poll" in your story, this shows that Obama is not a frontrunner as he tries to spin, but actually they are tied. im sure as more of Obama's racist past surfaces, he should be in good shape at the general election

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

You really are stupid, aren't you? Can you not differentiate between being "tied" as far as this opinion poll is concerned among registered Democrats and being the Democratic front runner because you are way ahead of delegates won, given by people who already voted? On that note, and pretty much the only one that really counts and determines the current front runner, Obama is way ahead of Hillary.

As far as the title is concerned, I completely copied and pasted the WSJ story from 5 hours ago. Since then they've apparently changed the title of the story. But since you'll probably claim I made the Obama title up or something, here's a snapshot of the Google search:

Wow!

Others also copied it with the old title and re-posted it, including Drudge.

and a direct link to the picture I posted:

Pastor Flap Hasn't Hurt Obama

But knowing you, you'll just say I made it up anyways out of spite or something. Or just anger that Obama is cleaning Clinton's clock and he's getting closer and closer to the Presidency.

And forgive me for saying so but you seem unnaturally obsessed with reverse racism. Did a black man take a job you were supposedly more qualified for with your keener intellect?

Like say that keen intellect that allows you to know the difference between being tied in an opinion poll and being way ahead in pledged delegate votes?

Or not.

But the point of the original WSJ title still stands. The Pastor flap hasn't hurt Obama in any significant way and in fact, his historic speech actually helped him. On the other hand, Hillary's incessant attacks are hurting her and she's dropping to where her unfavorable rating is down and she no longer has the slight edge over Obama that she got when the Wright thing was being circulated last week. That was the worst week of his campaign and he did quite well, remarkably so all things considered. Too bad for you. $\:\($

He is doing badly with older white southerners though. Big surprise there.

The good news is that it doesn't matter.

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

Hillary is portrayed as evil and selfish (and yeah, she's a hardened infighter, but Saint Obama, for all his above-the-fray-ness, has launched or at best passively endorsed some nasty attacks on Hillary), but she expressed openness to an Obama/Hillary ticket, which Obama rejected flatout. And she was willing to change the rules to allow admission of FL and MI primary results in some capacity, not necessarily in a way that favored her.

Again I ask, why should the clear Democratic front runner agree to throw in the towel and agree to being the Vice President of the candidate that's trailing in 2nd place? How does that make any sort of sense?

Shouldn't it be Hillary Clinton hoping that Obama gives her the Veep nod?

Nope. Osama would be better off shielding himself behind Hillary's glower seeing as how his black Beaver Cleaver image is slowly crumbling.

It doesn't matter how much Hillary is seen as a ghoul. She'll still have her femme loyalists and black-mailees.

Originally Posted By: Pariah

Nope. Osama would be better off shielding himself behind Hillary's glower seeing as how his black Beaver Cleaver image is slowly crumbling.

wow.

Too soon?

perfect timing.

Originally Posted By: whomod

As far as the title is concerned, I completely copied and pasted the WSJ story from 5 hours ago. Since then they've apparently changed the title of the story. But since you'll probably claim I made the Obama title up or something, here's a snapshot of the Google search:

whomod, i have debated you (and won handily), i have argued with you(and dominated), but this goes beyind disgusting. you've disgraced the memory of kristogar velo. you googled, and when i make this accusation, i admit, i too have googled. but what disgusts me, is the fact that you would photoshop a google search. this goes against everything kristogar velo stood for.

ladies and gentlemen of the rkmbs, the real search results:

go to hell whomod. somewhere an eternal 11 year old is crying.

bastard.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/20/AR2008032003017_pf.html

Quote:

The beauty of a speech is that you don't just give the answers, you provide your own questions. "Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes." So said Barack Obama, in his Philadelphia speech about his pastor, friend, mentor and spiritual adviser of 20 years, Jeremiah Wright.

An interesting, if belated, admission. But the more important question is: which"controversial" remarks?

Wright's assertion from the pulpit that the U.S. government invented HIV "as a means of genocide against people of color"? Wright's claim that America was morally responsible for Sept. 11 -- "chickens coming home to roost" -- because of, among other crimes, Hiroshima and Nagasaki? (Obama says he missed church that day. Had he never heard about it?) What about the charge that the U.S. government (of Franklin Roosevelt, mind you) knew about Pearl Harbor, but lied about it? Or that the government gives drugs to black people, presumably to enslave and imprison them?

Obama condemns such statements as wrong and divisive, then frames the next question: "There will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church?"

But that is not the question. The question is why didn't he leave that church? Why didn't he leave -- why doesn't he leave even today -- a pastor who thundered not once but three times from the pulpit (on a DVD the church proudly sells) "God damn America"? Obama's 5,000-word speech, fawned over as a great meditation on race, is little more than an elegantly crafted, brilliantly sophistic justification of that scandalous dereliction.

His defense rests on two central propositions: (a) moral equivalence and (b) white guilt.

(a) Moral equivalence. Sure, says Obama, there's Wright, but at the other "end of the spectrum" there's Geraldine Ferraro, opponents of affirmative action and his own white grandmother, "who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe." But did she shout them in a crowded theater to incite, enrage and poison others?

"I can no more disown [Wright] than I can my white grandmother." What exactly was Grandma's offense? Jesse Jackson himself once admitted to the fear he feels from the footsteps of black men on the street. And Harry Truman was known to use epithets for blacks and Jews in private, yet is revered for desegregating the armed forces and recognizing the first Jewish state since Jesus's time. He never spread racial hatred. Nor did Grandma.

Yet Obama compares her to Wright. Does he not see the moral difference between the occasional private expression of the prejudices of one's time and the use of a public stage to spread racial lies and race hatred?

(b) White guilt. Obama's purpose in the speech was to put Wright's outrages in context. By context, Obama means history. And by history, he means the history of white racism. Obama says, "We do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice in this country," and then he proceeds to do precisely that. What lies at the end of his recital of the long train of white racial assaults from slavery to employment discrimination? Jeremiah Wright, of course.

This contextual analysis of Wright's venom, this extenuation of black hate speech as a product of white racism, is not new. It's the Jesse Jackson politics of racial grievance, expressed in Ivy League diction and Harvard Law nuance. That's why the speech made so many liberal commentators swoon: It bathed them in racial guilt while flattering their intellectual pretensions. An unbeatable combination.

But Obama was supposed to be new. He flatters himself as a man of the future transcending the anger of the past as represented by his beloved pastor. Obama then waxes rhapsodic about the hope brought by the new consciousness of the young people in his campaign. Then answer this, Senator: If Wright is a man of the past, why would you expose your children to his vitriolic divisiveness? This is a man who curses America and who proclaimed moral satisfaction in the deaths of 3,000 innocents at a time when their bodies were still being sought at Ground Zero. It is not just the older congregants who stand and cheer and roar in wild approval of Wright's rants, but young people as well. Why did you give $22,500 just two years ago to a church run by a man of the past who infects the younger generation with precisely the racial attitudes and animus you say you have come unto us to transcend?

Kristogar Velo is God.

http://www.whereskilroy.com/?p=151

Obama Girl vs. Rev. Wright

I think what a presidential candidate considers good and bad gives you a good look into what kind of a leader they will be. So I decided to look around and see what Barack Hussein Obama considers good and bad. Here's an excerpt from a AP story about the Obama Girl:

"Sasha asked Mommy about it," Obama said Monday in an interview with The Associated Press. "She said, 'Daddy already has a wife' or something like that."

"I Got A Crush On Obama" stars an aspiring model and actress named Amber Lee Ettinger, aka Obama Girl. Her song, which has lines like "Universal health care reform, it makes me warm," has gotten more than 3 million hits and nearly 10,000 comments since being posted two months ago on YouTube, the online video-sharing site.

Sen. Obama, D-Ill., said he knows the video was meant to be lighthearted, but he wasn't smiling when asked about it in the interview.

"I guess it's too much to ask, but you do wish people would think about what impact their actions have on kids and families," Obama said during the interview, held in the den of a supporter who just had hosted a campaign stop on her front lawn attended by about 120 people.

"This is part of the process of politics that can be difficult, (that) is making sure that your kids and your wife and your family are insulated from both things like this," Obama said.

Strong words. People should think about what impact their words and actions have on their kids and families. They should try to insulate their families from bad things. I wonder why Obama doesn't have a problem taking his kids and family to a church where the pastor says this:

“The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. The government lied.”

“We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because of stuff we have done overseas is now brought back into our own backyard. America is chickens coming home to roost.”

“The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes three-strike laws and wants them to sing God Bless America. No! No No! God Damn America … for killing innocent people. God Damn America for threatening citizens as less than humans. God Damn America as long as she tries to act like she is God and supreme.”

“Barack knows what it means living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich, white people. Hillary would never know that.”

“Hillary is married to Bill, and Bill has been good to us. No he ain’t! Bill did us, just like he did Monica Lewinsky. He was riding dirty.”

“Fact number one: We’ve got more black men in prison than there are in college. … Fact number two: Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run.”

It's easy to see what Obama finds offensive, and what he doesn't find offensive. To simplify it for the Obama Fanatics, light hearted YouTube videos are bad for the family. Racial hatred, and intolerance being preached from the pulpit is good enough to take the kids to hear every Sunday and join the church as a member. It doesn't get any clearer than that!

When Obama was campaigning in the South, he invoked the name of MArtin Luther King daily, MLK would not have stood for such talk in a church.

If it wasn't obvious before it should be pretty clear now, Obama isn't the next JFK, if anything he's the next David Duke.

Israel Insider:Israel's daily newsmagazine

the legacy of dissimulation about his long-concealed identity is about to come crashing down around the ears of Barack Hussein Obama, courtesy of the assembled testimony of his family, friends, classmates and teachers.

The accumulated research indicates that Obama was in his childhood a devout Muslim, the son of a devout Muslim, the step-son of a devout Muslim and the grandson and namesake ("Hussein") of a devout Muslim. He was registered in school as a Muslim and demonstrated his ability to chant praise to Allah in impressive Arab-accented tones even as an adult. Just as he has not disavowed his "uncle" Jeremiah, neither has he disavowed his Muslim faith that he was born into, raised with, celebrated and never abandoned. He just covered it over with a thin veneer of his own self-styled "Christianity."

Although as an adult he would register as a Christian, and occasionally attend a Christian Church (but apparently not often enough to listen to the preaching of his pastor, or so he would claim) this was a necessary step for a man who from earliest boyhood has nurtured the precocious ambition to be President of the United States.

He was entered into the Roman Catholic, Franciscus Assisi Primary School, in Jakarta, Indonesia, on January 1, 1968, registered under the name Barry Soetoro, an Indonesian citizen whose religion was listed as Islam. Catholic schools accept non-Catholics worldwide. Non-Catholic students are typically excused from religious instruction and ceremony.
in 1971, Obama enrolled in the Besuki Primary School, a government school, as Barry Soetoro, Muslim...In his autobiography, "Dreams From My Father," Obama mentions studying the Koran and describes the public school as "a Muslim school."
According to Tine Hahiyary, one of Obama's teachers and the principal from 1971 through 1989, Barry actively took part in the Islamic religious lessons during his time at the school. "I remembered that he had studied "mengaji" (recitation of the Quran)" Tine said.
The Obama Campaign told the LA Times he wasn't a "practicing Muslim." (3/14/2007). But his official website says: "Obama Has Never Been A Muslim, And Is a Committed Christian" (11/12/2007)That's not what his friends and classmates have said. Classmate Rony Amiris describes young Barry as enjoying playing football and marbles and of being a very devout Muslim. Amiris, now the manager of Bank Mandiri, Jakarta, recently said, "Barry was previously quite religious in Islam. His birth father, Barack Hussein Obama was a Muslim economist from Kenya. Before marrying Ann Dunham, Hussein Obama was married to a woman from Kenya who had seven children. All the relatives of Barry's father were very devout Muslims". Emirsyah Satar, CEO of Garuda Indonesia, was quoted as saying, "He (Obama) was often in the prayer room wearing a 'sarong', at that time."
"He was quite religious in Islam but only after marrying Michelle, he changed his religion." So Obama, according to his classmates and friends was a Muslim until the confluence of love and ambitious, caused him to adopt the cloak of Christianity: to marry Michelle and to run for President of the United States.
In "Dreams," Obama sheds light on his formative years and the political views of his mother, an anthropologist and Islamophile who hated America and subsequently "went native."
Obama Senior also had three sons by another woman who are all Muslim. Although Obama claims his father was an atheist, he was buried as a Muslim.
Barack Obama's brother Roy opted for Islam over Christianity, as the Senator recounted in his book when describing his 1992 wedding. "The person who made me proudest of all," Obama wrote, "was Roy. Actually, now we call him Abongo, his Luo name, for two years ago he decided to reassert his African heritage. He converted to Islam, and has sworn off pork and tobacco and alcohol."Abongo "argues that the black man must "liberate himself from the poisoning influences of European culture." He urged his younger brother to embrace his African heritage.
In Kenya while he was a Senator, Obama stumped for his cousin, opposition leader Raila Odinga, the son of Senior's sister, a direct first cousin and nephew of Obama's father. On August 29, 2007, Raila Odinga and Shiekh Abdullah Abdi, chairman of the National Muslim Leaders Forum of Kenya signed a Memorandum of Understanding in which it pledges the support of Kenyan Moslems for Raila's election. In return, as President of Kenya, Raila agrees ... within 6 months re-write the Constitution of Kenya to recognize Shariah as the only true law sanctioned by the Holy Quran for Muslim declared regions [and] within one year to facilitate the establishment of a Shariah court in every Kenyan divisional headquarters -- everywhere in Kenya, not just in "Muslim declared regions" -- and to popularize Islam, the only true religion ... by ordering every primary school in Kenya in the regions to conduct daily Madrassa classes.
In an interview with the New York Times, published on April 30th, Maya Soetoro-Ng, Obama's younger half sister, told the Times, "My whole family was Muslim, and most of the people I knew were Muslim."
On February 27th, speaking to Kristof of The New York Times, Barack Hussein Obama said the Muslim call to prayer is "one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset." In an interview with Nicholas Kristof, published in The New York Times, Obama recited the Muslim call to prayer, the Adhan, "with a first-class [Arabic] accent." The opening lines of the Adhan (Azaan) is the Shahada:"Allah is Supreme! Allah is Supreme! Allah is Supreme! Allah is Supreme! I witness that there is no god but Allah I witness that there is no god but Allah I witness that Muhammad is his prophet? " According to Islamic scholars, reciting the Shahada, the Muslim declaration of faith, makes one a Muslim. This simple yet profound statement expresses a Muslim's complete acceptance of, and total commitment to, the message of Islam. Obama chanted it with pride and finesse.
An American Expat in Southeast Asia blog, written by an American who has lived in Indonesia for 20 years and has met with both the Taliban and al-Qaeda, contains the following:[i]"Barack Hussein Obama might have convinced some Americans that he is no longer a Muslim, but so far he has not convinced many in the world's most populous Muslim country who still see him as a Muslim and a crusader for Islam and world peace."

Obama wants it both ways, has always wanted it both ways. Black and white, Indonesian and American, Muslim and Christian. He loves playing one off the other, using one to hide the other even as the traces of the truth may be assembled to reveal the whole cloth of deception and self-promotion he has been weaving so skillfully since his childhood. No wonder he is a man of change. He IS a changeling, a veritable chameleon, adapting and amending his life story to fit the circumstances.

The charm may have worked once. It still works on some. It won't work forever in the age of the Internet. The fog of ambiguity and dissimulation is dissipated by the harsh, unforgiving and scrutiny of the blogosphere and its unlimited access to historical facts and time-stamped testimony.

Many have been puzzled why Obama could claim not to be familiar with Wright's rants. It turns out the Trinity Church, like many African-American churches, happily accepts believing Muslims within its congregation. And evidently many Muslims have no problems surrounding themselves with an anti-American, anti-Israel preacher who week in and week out wins the amens of his adoring congregation.

On Feb 15/08, Usama K. Dakdok, President of The Straight Way of Grace Ministry called Obama's Church and reported the following conversation: " I then asked the person who answered what I needed to do to join. She told me that I needed to attend two Sunday School classes in a row and then I would walk the aisle. I replied, "That sounds easy. One last question please. If I am Muslim and I believe in the Prophet Mohammed, peace be unto him and I also believe in Jesus, peace be unto him, do I have to give up my Islamic faith to be a member in your church? She answered: "No, we have many Muslim members in our church."

Indeed.

Wow. If even half that's true....

Praise Allah.

whoopsy whomod!

MEM should email that article to Hillary.

If he doesn't I will.

i just sent it out to them twice!

Originally Posted By: whomod

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

Obama is an idiot.

You called him out on something he said that Bush actually did, quite successfully a while later.

So um...

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts is an idiot

He's not an idiot. He's a fool. To be pitied.

What's the difference between an idiot and a fool in your mind?

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

http://www.whereskilroy.com/?p=151

Obama Girl vs. Rev. Wright

"Sasha asked Mommy about it," Obama said Monday in an interview with The Associated Press. "She said, 'Daddy already has a wife' or something like that."

"I Got A Crush On Obama" stars an aspiring model and actress named Amber Lee Ettinger, aka Obama Girl. Her song, which has lines like "Universal health care reform, it makes me warm," has gotten more than 3 million hits and nearly 10,000 comments since being posted two months ago on YouTube, the online video-sharing site.

Sen. Obama, D-Ill., said he knows the video was meant to be lighthearted, but he wasn't smiling when asked about it in the interview.

"I guess it's too much to ask, but you do wish people would think about what impact their actions have on kids and families," Obama said during the interview, held in the den of a supporter who just had hosted a campaign stop on her front lawn attended by about 120 people.

"This is part of the process of politics that can be difficult, (that) is making sure that your kids and your wife and your family are insulated from both things like this," Obama said.

“The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. The government lied.”

“We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because of stuff we have done overseas is now brought back into our own backyard. America is chickens coming home to roost.”

“The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes three-strike laws and wants them to sing God Bless America. No! No No! God Damn America … for killing innocent people. God Damn America for threatening citizens as less than humans. God Damn America as long as she tries to act like she is God and supreme.”

“Barack knows what it means living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich, white people. Hillary would never know that.”

“Hillary is married to Bill, and Bill has been good to us. No he ain’t! Bill did us, just like he did Monica Lewinsky. He was riding dirty.”

“Fact number one: We’ve got more black men in prison than there are in college. … Fact number two: Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run.”

Another point I heard brought up on the radio today is the fact that Obama criticized Don Imus for his one little phrase "nappy headed hos" and said that Imus had a track record of such comments (

) and shouldn't be on the air (once again invoking his innocent daughters). He said, "He (Imus) would not be working for me." So I guess Obama only looks for the good in black racists.

Basically. This sin't going away. If he had a set he would say ...."I fucked up....I don't ever want to see that racist man again(wright). I admonish him and reject any affiliation with him. I'm also a muslim and partner with al-qaeda."

Praise Allah!

UBB Error
There was a problem looking up this post in our database.

Please use your back button to return to the previous page.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

What's the difference between an idiot and a fool in your mind?

an idiot is captain sweeden and a fool is whomod.

I'm waiting for someone to put Obama's The View segment on YouTube. They played it on the radio and Hasselbeck actually went after him on the Wright thing while Barbara Walters and crew were telling Barack how sexy he was.

I want to violate Hasselbeck.

in the ass!

Originally Posted By: thedoctor

Elizabeth Hasselbeck: You transcended party lines in your 2004 Democratic convention speech. You speak of One America, but the man you chose as your spiritual advisor made awful comments, and yet you still affiliated with him.

Obama: Imagine someone compiled the 5 stupidest things you ever said, and then played them over and over again for weeks. (That is an excellent idea. I'm guessing Hasselbeck wouldn't stand up to that kind of scrutiny herself.) People are mixes of good and bad. I saw mostly the good.

I have all kinds of friends across the political spectrum. Part of my role in politics is trying to get people who don't agree to help understand each other.

I spoke to Rev Wright after this episode, and I told him I felt badly he's been characterized in this one way. But he was my pastor. I think people overstate his role as my mentor or spiritual advisor.

I realize I am running for President and the threshold is higher. I expect a high level of scrutiny. Hopefully people will see this in context.

Hillary has always been expected to win Pennsylvania by 20 points (I'm sure the media will call it an "upset" when she finally wins what she's always been expected to win). But still, getting a Senator's endorsement (he's a SuperDelegate), especially when the Senator in question said he was going to stay neutral, is not small news.

Quote:

"The endorsement comes as something of a surprise," Dan Pfeiffer, Obama deputy communications director, said in a statement. "Casey ... had been adamant about remaining neutral until after the April 22 primary. He said he wanted to help unify the party."

Very interesting that Casey felt the need to come forwards and "unify the party" - i.e., put an end to the ongoing nomination fight. Looks like Hillary has really damaged herself with the superdelegates by threatening the DCCC and by extension the superdelegates themselves. Hopefully this nomination fight will now be over sooner rather than later.

Originally Posted By: whomod

Originally Posted By: thedoctor

That doesn't look like a YouTube video.

Also, you left out the part where she asked him if him having Wright as the man who married him, baptize his children, and his spiritual advisor showed a flaw in his judgment.

And apparently, someone did upload a segment to YouTube; but it's not available anymore.

Aern't you the mod here?

I put up embed codes all the time that are then ignored by you and never embedded. As i've been saying, now that the media outlets realize there is money to be made by streaming video and thus keeping their content off youTube, having this [youtube] crap is going to be more and more useless as time goes by.

EDIT:

Here's the link to The View BTW. It's non embed though so you have to acually go there to see it. I's on the top of the front page right now. Too bad he didn't come out on the Today Show as NBC does allow embedding of their news content.

http://abc.go.com/daytime/theview/index

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Israel Insider:Israel's daily newsmagazine

the legacy of dissimulation about his long-concealed identity is about to come crashing down around the ears of Barack Hussein Obama, courtesy of the assembled testimony of his family, friends, classmates and teachers.

The accumulated research indicates that Obama was in his childhood a devout Muslim, the son of a devout Muslim, the step-son of a devout Muslim and the grandson and namesake ("Hussein") of a devout Muslim. He was registered in school as a Muslim and demonstrated his ability to chant praise to Allah in impressive Arab-accented tones even as an adult. Just as he has not disavowed his "uncle" Jeremiah, neither has he disavowed his Muslim faith that he was born into, raised with, celebrated and never abandoned. He just covered it over with a thin veneer of his own self-styled "Christianity."

Although as an adult he would register as a Christian, and occasionally attend a Christian Church (but apparently not often enough to listen to the preaching of his pastor, or so he would claim) this was a necessary step for a man who from earliest boyhood has nurtured the precocious ambition to be President of the United States.

He was entered into the Roman Catholic, Franciscus Assisi Primary School, in Jakarta, Indonesia, on January 1, 1968, registered under the name Barry Soetoro, an Indonesian citizen whose religion was listed as Islam. Catholic schools accept non-Catholics worldwide. Non-Catholic students are typically excused from religious instruction and ceremony.
in 1971, Obama enrolled in the Besuki Primary School, a government school, as Barry Soetoro, Muslim...In his autobiography, "Dreams From My Father," Obama mentions studying the Koran and describes the public school as "a Muslim school."
According to Tine Hahiyary, one of Obama's teachers and the principal from 1971 through 1989, Barry actively took part in the Islamic religious lessons during his time at the school. "I remembered that he had studied "mengaji" (recitation of the Quran)" Tine said.
The Obama Campaign told the LA Times he wasn't a "practicing Muslim." (3/14/2007). But his official website says: "Obama Has Never Been A Muslim, And Is a Committed Christian" (11/12/2007)That's not what his friends and classmates have said. Classmate Rony Amiris describes young Barry as enjoying playing football and marbles and of being a very devout Muslim. Amiris, now the manager of Bank Mandiri, Jakarta, recently said, "Barry was previously quite religious in Islam. His birth father, Barack Hussein Obama was a Muslim economist from Kenya. Before marrying Ann Dunham, Hussein Obama was married to a woman from Kenya who had seven children. All the relatives of Barry's father were very devout Muslims". Emirsyah Satar, CEO of Garuda Indonesia, was quoted as saying, "He (Obama) was often in the prayer room wearing a 'sarong', at that time."
"He was quite religious in Islam but only after marrying Michelle, he changed his religion." So Obama, according to his classmates and friends was a Muslim until the confluence of love and ambitious, caused him to adopt the cloak of Christianity: to marry Michelle and to run for President of the United States.
In "Dreams," Obama sheds light on his formative years and the political views of his mother, an anthropologist and Islamophile who hated America and subsequently "went native."
Obama Senior also had three sons by another woman who are all Muslim. Although Obama claims his father was an atheist, he was buried as a Muslim.
Barack Obama's brother Roy opted for Islam over Christianity, as the Senator recounted in his book when describing his 1992 wedding. "The person who made me proudest of all," Obama wrote, "was Roy. Actually, now we call him Abongo, his Luo name, for two years ago he decided to reassert his African heritage. He converted to Islam, and has sworn off pork and tobacco and alcohol."Abongo "argues that the black man must "liberate himself from the poisoning influences of European culture." He urged his younger brother to embrace his African heritage.
In Kenya while he was a Senator, Obama stumped for his cousin, opposition leader Raila Odinga, the son of Senior's sister, a direct first cousin and nephew of Obama's father. On August 29, 2007, Raila Odinga and Shiekh Abdullah Abdi, chairman of the National Muslim Leaders Forum of Kenya signed a Memorandum of Understanding in which it pledges the support of Kenyan Moslems for Raila's election. In return, as President of Kenya, Raila agrees ... within 6 months re-write the Constitution of Kenya to recognize Shariah as the only true law sanctioned by the Holy Quran for Muslim declared regions [and] within one year to facilitate the establishment of a Shariah court in every Kenyan divisional headquarters -- everywhere in Kenya, not just in "Muslim declared regions" -- and to popularize Islam, the only true religion ... by ordering every primary school in Kenya in the regions to conduct daily Madrassa classes.
In an interview with the New York Times, published on April 30th, Maya Soetoro-Ng, Obama's younger half sister, told the Times, "My whole family was Muslim, and most of the people I knew were Muslim."
On February 27th, speaking to Kristof of The New York Times, Barack Hussein Obama said the Muslim call to prayer is "one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset." In an interview with Nicholas Kristof, published in The New York Times, Obama recited the Muslim call to prayer, the Adhan, "with a first-class [Arabic] accent." The opening lines of the Adhan (Azaan) is the Shahada:"Allah is Supreme! Allah is Supreme! Allah is Supreme! Allah is Supreme! I witness that there is no god but Allah I witness that there is no god but Allah I witness that Muhammad is his prophet? " According to Islamic scholars, reciting the Shahada, the Muslim declaration of faith, makes one a Muslim. This simple yet profound statement expresses a Muslim's complete acceptance of, and total commitment to, the message of Islam. Obama chanted it with pride and finesse.
An American Expat in Southeast Asia blog, written by an American who has lived in Indonesia for 20 years and has met with both the Taliban and al-Qaeda, contains the following:[i]"Barack Hussein Obama might have convinced some Americans that he is no longer a Muslim, but so far he has not convinced many in the world's most populous Muslim country who still see him as a Muslim and a crusader for Islam and world peace."

Obama wants it both ways, has always wanted it both ways. Black and white, Indonesian and American, Muslim and Christian. He loves playing one off the other, using one to hide the other even as the traces of the truth may be assembled to reveal the whole cloth of deception and self-promotion he has been weaving so skillfully since his childhood. No wonder he is a man of change. He IS a changeling, a veritable chameleon, adapting and amending his life story to fit the circumstances.

The charm may have worked once. It still works on some. It won't work forever in the age of the Internet. The fog of ambiguity and dissimulation is dissipated by the harsh, unforgiving and scrutiny of the blogosphere and its unlimited access to historical facts and time-stamped testimony.

Many have been puzzled why Obama could claim not to be familiar with Wright's rants. It turns out the Trinity Church, like many African-American churches, happily accepts believing Muslims within its congregation. And evidently many Muslims have no problems surrounding themselves with an anti-American, anti-Israel preacher who week in and week out wins the amens of his adoring congregation.

On Feb 15/08, Usama K. Dakdok, President of The Straight Way of Grace Ministry called Obama's Church and reported the following conversation: " I then asked the person who answered what I needed to do to join. She told me that I needed to attend two Sunday School classes in a row and then I would walk the aisle. I replied, "That sounds easy. One last question please. If I am Muslim and I believe in the Prophet Mohammed, peace be unto him and I also believe in Jesus, peace be unto him, do I have to give up my Islamic faith to be a member in your church? She answered: "No, we have many Muslim members in our church."

Indeed.

Wow. If even half that's true....

Praise Allah.

In addition to Rev. Wright ("God damn America..."), and his wife Michelle ("I can finally be proud of America..."), there seems to be a consistent thread of islamic first loyalties Obama surrounds himself with, and consistent anti-American/anti-European advocacy and action.

Where Obama doesn't simply have some vague hard feeling toward the U.S. and European culture, but has consistently advocated and assisted those who are working to tear down western culture and Christianity, and replace them with islamic institutions.

It's funny that now that the Wright story fizzled, the right is back to Obama is a Muslim.

Good luck selling it now that you spent 2 weeks repeatedly reminding everyone in the country that he's a 'radical' Baptist.

It's like schizophrenic circus!

Originally Posted By: The bottom of that OpEd

One can be sure that more, much more, is on the way, before the first black muslim president enters the White House. Or not.

um... if the problem is that he's supposedly a Muslim, why bring up his race as well?

wow.
wondy says a liberal is trying to bring down western society.
obama isn't even mexican, it makes no sense.

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

Despite Obama's apparent lead, Hillary's still got a ticket to the show. By convention time, I hope she's the last one standing.

Originally Posted By: thedoctor

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

http://www.whereskilroy.com/?p=151

Obama Girl vs. Rev. Wright

"Sasha asked Mommy about it," Obama said Monday in an interview with The Associated Press. "She said, 'Daddy already has a wife' or something like that."

"I Got A Crush On Obama" stars an aspiring model and actress named Amber Lee Ettinger, aka Obama Girl. Her song, which has lines like "Universal health care reform, it makes me warm," has gotten more than 3 million hits and nearly 10,000 comments since being posted two months ago on YouTube, the online video-sharing site.

Sen. Obama, D-Ill., said he knows the video was meant to be lighthearted, but he wasn't smiling when asked about it in the interview.

"I guess it's too much to ask, but you do wish people would think about what impact their actions have on kids and families," Obama said during the interview, held in the den of a supporter who just had hosted a campaign stop on her front lawn attended by about 120 people.

"This is part of the process of politics that can be difficult, (that) is making sure that your kids and your wife and your family are insulated from both things like this," Obama said.

“The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. The government lied.”

“We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because of stuff we have done overseas is now brought back into our own backyard. America is chickens coming home to roost.”

“The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes three-strike laws and wants them to sing God Bless America. No! No No! God Damn America … for killing innocent people. God Damn America for threatening citizens as less than humans. God Damn America as long as she tries to act like she is God and supreme.”

“Barack knows what it means living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich, white people. Hillary would never know that.”

“Hillary is married to Bill, and Bill has been good to us. No he ain’t! Bill did us, just like he did Monica Lewinsky. He was riding dirty.”

“Fact number one: We’ve got more black men in prison than there are in college. … Fact number two: Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run.”

Another point I heard brought up on the radio today is the fact that Obama criticized Don Imus for his one little phrase "nappy headed hos" and said that Imus had a track record of such comments (

) and shouldn't be on the air (once again invoking his innocent daughters). He said, "He (Imus) would not be working for me." So I guess Obama only looks for the good in black racists.

so let's see Obama finds it harmful for his daughters to to hear someone say they have a crush on him, harmful to hear nappy headed hos, but not harmful to hear god damn america, the goverment created AIDS, and our support for israel justified 9-11.

wow i can see why whomod likes this guy, he's as big a nutjob as him!

Originally Posted By: whomod

I can't edit a post to embed HTML code after you've posted it. Just use the [ youtube ] tags.

Originally Posted By: whomod

EDIT:

Here's the link to The View BTW. It's non embed though so you have to acually go there to see it. I's on the top of the front page right now. Too bad he didn't come out on the Today Show as NBC does allow embedding of their news content.

http://abc.go.com/daytime/theview/index

Hehe. Obama 'came out'.

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

But Obama wasn't at church those days, bsams. He said so himself.

Obama's running around claiming that, if Wright hadn't retired, he would have quite the church.

However, it appears as if Wright's successor is cut from the same "hate AmeriKKKa" cloth:

"No one should start a ministry with lynching, no one should end their ministry with lynching," Moss said.

"The lynching was national news. The RNN, the Roman News Network, was reporting it and NPR, National Publican Radio had it on the radio. The Jerusalem Post and the Palestine Times all wanted exclusives, they searched out the young ministers, showed up unannounced at their houses, tried to talk with their families, called up their friends, wanted to get a quote on how do you feel about the lynching?" he continued.

The criticism surrounding Wright has not softened the services at Trinity United Church of Christ, where Obama has been a congregant for 20 years. Instead, Moss defiantly defended their method of worship, referencing rap lyrics to make his point.

"If I was Ice Cube I'd say it a little differently--'You picked the wrong folk to mess with,' " Moss said to an enthusiastic congregation, standing up during much of the sermon, titled "How to Handle a Public Lynching."

Strangely enough, I still haven't heard about Obama quitting. Maybe he plans to give the church another twenty years, under Moss, to see if it cleans up its act.

Quote:

When Obama was campaigning in the South, he invoked the name of MArtin Luther King daily, MLK would not have stood for such talk in a church.

This moron has obviously never heard Martin Luther King's speeches then. specifically his speeches in regards to the Vietnam war.

Listen to what King said about the Vietnam War at his own Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta on Feb. 4, 1968:

Quote:

"God didn't call America to engage in a senseless, unjust war. . . . And we are criminals in that war. We've committed more war crimes almost than any nation in the world, and I'm going to continue to say it. And we won't stop it because of our pride and our arrogance as a nation. But God has a way of even putting nations in their place." King then predicted this response from the Almighty: "And if you don't stop your reckless course, I'll rise up and break the backbone of your power."

If today's technology had existed then, I would imagine the media playing quotations of that sort over and over. Right-wing commentators would use the material to argue that King was anti-American and to discredit his call for racial and class justice. King certainly angered a lot of people at the time.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Obama's running around claiming that, if Wright hadn't retired, he would have quite the church.

However, it appears as if Wright's successor is cut from the same "hate AmeriKKKa" cloth:

"No one should start a ministry with lynching, no one should end their ministry with lynching," Moss said.

"The lynching was national news. The RNN, the Roman News Network, was reporting it and NPR, National Publican Radio had it on the radio. The Jerusalem Post and the Palestine Times all wanted exclusives, they searched out the young ministers, showed up unannounced at their houses, tried to talk with their families, called up their friends, wanted to get a quote on how do you feel about the lynching?" he continued.

The criticism surrounding Wright has not softened the services at Trinity United Church of Christ, where Obama has been a congregant for 20 years. Instead, Moss defiantly defended their method of worship, referencing rap lyrics to make his point.

"If I was Ice Cube I'd say it a little differently--'You picked the wrong folk to mess with,' " Moss said to an enthusiastic congregation, standing up during much of the sermon, titled "How to Handle a Public Lynching."

Strangely enough, I still haven't heard about Obama quitting. Maybe he plans to give the church another twenty years, under Moss, to see if it cleans up its act.

uh huh.. So what's the outrage exactly? that the yused the word "lynching" to describe the way the Obama opponents have tried to caricature their church?

One of the least remarked upon passages in Obama's speech is also one of the most important -- and the part most relevant to the Wright controversy. There is, Obama said, a powerful anger in the black community rooted in "memories of humiliation and doubt" that "may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends" but "does find voice in the barbershop or the beauty shop or around the kitchen table. . . . And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews."

Yes, black people say things about our country and its injustices to each other that they don't say to those who are white. Whites also say things about blacks privately that they don't say in front of their black friends and associates.

The Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., once said "it is appalling that the most segregated hour of Christian America is eleven o'clock on Sunday morning." How much have things changed?

Originally Posted By: whomod

I just went through their Obama clips. They have the one calling him sexy, but not the one where Hasselbeck questions him. I think that it's pretty telling when Hasselbeck, who is hardly suited for the role she's been given on The View (which I'm sure is deliberate), has the balls to step up to Obama, especially in that environment.

Originally Posted By: whomod

Quote:

When Obama was campaigning in the South, he invoked the name of MArtin Luther King daily, MLK would not have stood for such talk in a church.

Quote:

hmmm Martin Luther King opposed a war he found unjust. at the time there was severe racial injustice, and king called for change.

wright said "God Damn America" in a church, he blamed israel and our support for 9-11, he preached hatred towards white people...

...i can see where you and Obama think that's the same thing!

idiot.

Originally Posted By: thedoctor

Interesting, point, doc. One might think that, if the producers were really interested in a "fair fight" they'd replace Hasselbeck with, I dunno, Ann Coulter or Michelle Malkin.

Originally Posted By: whomod

Originally Posted By: thedoctor

This is as far as I got.

Do you actually think anyone here is going to rely on your memory again? You're as bad as hillary is. Remember the last time you pulled this kind of shit? Next thing you know you will be telling us that rich white people were shooting at hillary and her horse daughter.

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

Originally Posted By: whomod

Quote:

When Obama was campaigning in the South, he invoked the name of MArtin Luther King daily, MLK would not have stood for such talk in a church.

Quote:

hmmm Martin Luther King opposed a war he found unjust. at the time there was severe racial injustice, and King called for change.

Quote:

U.N. Committee to Review Racial Injustice in U.S.

Dear Friends:

Beginning today, the United Nations' Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination will hold hearings in Geneva, Switzerland, to review racial inequities in the United States, including disparities in criminal sentencing.

The Sentencing Project submitted a report to the Committee in December in preparation for this week's hearings. The national criminal justice reform organization called upon the Committee to hold the U.S. government accountable for failing to ensure equality before the law. Notably, its report argues that the racially disparate impact of federal cocaine sentencing laws violate requirements of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), to which the U.S. is a signatory......

Racial Disparities in Criminal Court Processing in the United States

Yeah, persistent black anger and Reverend Wright must come out of some vacuum to you since after all, Bill O'Rielley probably told you racial inequality is a thing of the past. Not to say that white anger is completely unjustified either. That is the point. There does need to be some more accountability and personal responsibility in the black community. The problem comes in the fact the the people usually proposing this, are the same people who are amazed when they find out black people actually use silverware in restaurants. There is where you reach this racial impasse. One that Obama addressed quite forcefully and honestly.

wow the UN!

Is this becoming whomods space thread?

Yeah, the UN, the same "August body" that puts Libya, China, Cuba, Sudan, Syria and Zimbabwe on it's "human rights" commission. They MUST know what they're talking about when it comes to human rights and discrimination.

no wonder whomod is so screwed up!

that UN is the same organization that says 500,000 dead in Darfur isn't genocide isn't it?

oh wait, the US goverment has called it genocide, so i see why whomod would give the UN credibility on human rights.

if its counter to the US it must be right!

Quote:

On his radio show yesterday, Hugh Hewitt played excerpts of Barack Obama reading from his autobiography, Dreams of My Father. In one, Obama remembers a sermon by Rev. Jeremiah Wright:

[T]he pastor described going to a museum and being confronted by a painting title Hope.

"The painting depicts a harpist," Revernd Wright explained, "a woman who at first glance appears to be sitting atop a great mountaintop. Untill you take a closer look and see that the woman is bruised and bloodied, dressed in tattered rags, the harp reduced to a single frayed string. Your eye is then drawn down to the scene below, down to the valley below, where everywhere are the ravages of famine, the drumbeat of war, a world groaning under strife and deprivation.

It is this world, a world where cruise ships throw away more food in a day than most residents of Port-au-Prince see in a year, where white folks' greed runs a world in need, aprtheid in one hemisphere, apathy in another hemisphere ... That's the world! On which hope sits."

And so it went, a meditation on a fallen world. While the boys next to me doodled on their church bulletin, Reverend Wright spoke of Sharpesville and Hiroshima, the callousness of policy makers in the White House and in the State House. ... [E.A.]

Sounds ... controversial! Keep in mind: a) Obama isn't disapproving of this sermon. In the book he weeps at the end of it; b) Demonstrating that at least some blaming of "white greed" for the world's sins--which Obama now criticizes-- isn't an exceptional topic for Rev. Wright in a few wacky sermons ("the five dumbest things") that Obama may or may not have missed. It's at the quotidian core of the Afrocentric philosophy that Obama says drew him to the church; c) Indeed, in his big March 18th race speech Obama reads the passage from his book that describes his emotional reaction to this very sermon (his "first service at Trinity")--how it made "the story of a people" seem "black and more than black." d) This is also the sermon that gave Obama the title of his next book, The Audacity of Hope. e) The "profound mistake" of this sermon is not that Wright "spoke as if our society was static"--Obama's analysis on Feb. 18th. The problem is that "white folks' greed" is not the main cause of a "world in need."

Originally Posted By: whomod

(That is an excellent idea. I'm guessing Hasselbeck wouldn't stand up to that kind of scrutiny herself.)

Whomod's jealous of a "lily white" smoking hot conservative.

she's part of the exclusive white club!

Bye Bye Hillary.

Originally Posted By: Matter Eater Man

Originally Posted By: britneyspearatemyshorts

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

Quote:

Poison Drummer Collared on Rape Warrant

Look what the cops dragged in.

Rikki Rockett, the 46-year-old drummer of '80s hair-metal purveyor Poison, was taken into custody on a rape warrant as he arrived Monday at Los Angeles International Airport on a flight back from New Zealand.

The musician, whose real name is Richard Ream, was nabbed while going through customs and taken to Los Angeles County Jail, where he was booked on a felony fugitive sexual assault warrant issued from Neshoba County, Miss.

He was released the next afternoon, according to the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department website.

No further details were available. Calls to authorities in Mississippi were not immediately returned.

But, according to TMZ, the alleged incident occurred Sept. 23, 2007 at the Silver Star Hotel & Casino. Rockett reportedly was staying at the Delta resort and alleged forced himself on a female guest, whose identity is not being disclosed for privacy reasons. She apparently filed a police report days later, and Neshoba authorities issued the warrant for his arrest after determining there was probable cause.

There was no comment from the band and there's no word on the musician's current whereabouts. He was in New Zealand for a Poison performance at Rock 2 Wellington, a huge metalhead concert in that country's capital.

A former hairdresser from Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, Rockett cofounded Poison in the mid-'80s with his high school pal, vocalist Bret Michaels.

The band's debut album, Look What the Cat Dragged In, sold more than 2 million copies.

Posion became a superstar act with the release of 1988's blockbuster follow-up, Open Up and Say...Ahh!, which spawned the megahit "Every Rose Has Its Thorn," along with "Nothin' But a Good Time" and "Your Mamma Don't Dance."

The band's third disc, Flesh and Blood, was almost as successful, scoring several top 10 hits, but eventually rising tensions over drug and alcohol abuse led the group to fire guitarist C.C. Deville and signaled the decline of the group.

(Originally published March 28, 2008 at 9:37 a.m. PT.)

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

...where white folks' greed runs a world in need...

So, to recap, the very Wright sermon that inspired the title of Obama's book contained a racist passage.

But Obama never knew Wright was a racist.

OOOOOOOh.....kay......

So you disagree that white males primarily run things, political and financial?

I fail to see where pointing that out is "racist".

the reverse is like on comedy sketches where a racially uncomfortable white male is describing a black person and describes every characteristic but his race.

the larger point still stands though. The main 'legitimate' attack on Obama is based on what someone else, not Obama has said as they pore over his sermons and writings with a fine tooth comb hoping to find outrage to hurt Obama.

This is a far cry from Hillary where all you need is to juxtapose footage of her campaign speeches, which she herself said with file footage of what actually transpired.

Originally Posted By: whomod

...

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

I can understand why you did the crying icon for me since I want Hillary to win but WB I don't get. While he's done some posts about Hillary staying in & I detect he might admire the fighter in her, he's not a Hillary fan.

This is the Barack Hussein Obama thread, MEM, not the Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton one.

Originally Posted By: whomod

So you disagree that white males primarily run things, political and financial? I fail to see where pointing that out is "racist".

The point was not that white people "primarily run things."

Nor was the point that greed in general is bad.

No, the point was that only the greed of one particular race, the "white" one, is bad.

Differentiating-- attacking-- on the basis of race...I think that counts as racism.

Furthermore, this is relevant because Obama has CLAIMED not to be aware of Wright's racial sermons. This proves he WAS aware, to the point of actually quoting one in his book.

Or is Obama going to claim he was asleep when his ghost writer put that passage in his book?

Quote:

the larger point still stands though. The main 'legitimate' attack on Obama is based on what someone else, not Obama has said as they pore over his sermons and writings with a fine tooth comb hoping to find outrage to hurt Obama.

This is a far cry from Hillary where all you need is to juxtapose footage of her campaign speeches, which she herself said with file footage of what actually transpired.

Actually, it's very similar to what Hillary did.

Obama claimed to be unaware of what Wright said. Obama claimed that he was uncomfortable with that sort of rhetoric.

Now, all you need to do is juxtapose Obama's denials with the text of his book to show he wasn't being truthful.

Originally Posted By: whomod

the larger point still stands though. The main 'legitimate' attack on Obama is based on what someone else, not Obama has said as the pore over his sermons and writings with a fine tooth comb hoping to find outrage to hurt Obama.

if a man attends a racist church for 20 years, it stands to reason he himself is a racist.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Differentiating-- attacking-- on the basis of race...I think that counts as racism.

I think I've said it here at least one before that I think the spiel that we are all the same is rather bullshit. There are obviously differences between the races. I don't think it's "racist' to think otherwise.

It's when you play on those differences to say that one group is somehow superior and the other, inferior to another based on those differences that you start veering into racism.

"...where white folks' greed runs a world in need..." actually is quite catchy and indicative of the type of rhyming oratory that I don't particularly like myself, but is popular in some black churches. To be quite honest, it reminded me of Midnight Oil's "The Dead Heart"...

Quote:

We don't serve your country
Don't serve your king
Know your custom don't speak your tongue
White man came took everyone

We don't serve your country
Don't serve your king
White man listen to the songs we sing
White man came took everything

We carry in our hearts the true country
And that cannot be stolen
We follow in the steps of our ancestry
And that cannot be broken

We don't need protection
Don't need your land
Keep your promise on where we stand
We will listen we'll understand

Mining companies, pastoral companies
Uranium companies
Collected companies
Got more right than people
Got more say than people

Forty thousand years can make a difference to the state of things
The dead heart lives here

Now is it OK for this guy to sing that because he's a 7 foot tall white singer/politician and not a black Reverend?

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

Originally Posted By: whomod

if a man attends a racist church for 20 years, it stands to reason he himself is a racist.

That's YOUR interpretation of his church though based on what little you know based on outrageous sound bites that Obama has already conemned.

midnight oil is running for president? i dont think that's allowed, theyre australian. whomod you really need to fact check.

Originally Posted By: whomod

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

Originally Posted By: whomod

if a man attends a racist church for 20 years, it stands to reason he himself is a racist.

That's YOUR interpretation of his church though based on what little you know based on outrageous sound bites that Obama has already conemned.

sound bites, his church released it as a DVD. you cant attend a racist church for 20 years and condemn it when the jig is up, and be considered sincere. only a mindless idiot like you would believe that.

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

midnight oil is running for president? i dont think that's allowed, theyre australian. whomod you really need to fact check.

As I mentioned the other day, when whomod knows he's losing an argument, he falls back on the defense that "someone else did it too."

I guess whomod thinks two wrongs DO make a right.

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

Originally Posted By: whomod

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

Originally Posted By: whomod

if a man attends a racist church for 20 years, it stands to reason he himself is a racist.

That's YOUR interpretation of his church though based on what little you know based on outrageous sound bites that Obama has already conemned.

Actually, i would argue that YOU are an idiot for making such a strong judgement based on the sound bytes that you've seen out of context.

Here's Jeremiah Wright’s now infamous sermon regarding 9/11 in its full context. Dr. Wright makes it clear he is quoting a white ambassador and that the words are not his own. He is merely commenting on something said by another.

Dr. Wright clearly came out against the acts of terror committed against this country, and contrasted them against acts of terror by this country. He is saying that both are wrong and that America may be able to look within for healing. It's not exactly artfully worded, but it's not that different from what Falwell and the like on the right have also said and were also condemned for.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

midnight oil is running for president? i dont think that's allowed, theyre australian. whomod you really need to fact check.

As I mentioned the other day, when whomod knows he's losing an argument, he falls back on the defense that "someone else did it too."

I guess whomod thinks two wrongs DO make a right.

No. I asked a question. Is that considered a racist song? It goes back to the point that you seem to think Wrights similarly worded phrase is racist.

BTW, is it too obvious to point out that the media and the public, save for you guys and the right wing media you follow, have moved on from this story and were sufficiently swayed by Obama's speech. The only people still not satisfied I don't think wil EVER be satisfied nor would they EVER have voted for Obama regardless of Wright anyways.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

As I mentioned the other day, when whomod knows he's losing an argument, he falls back on the defense that "someone else did it too."

I guess whomod thinks two wrongs DO make a right.

Originally Posted By: whomod

...it's not that different from what Falwell and the like on the right have also said ....

Originally Posted By: whomod

....the sound bytes that you've seen out of context...

"God Damn America" still means "God Damn America." There's no part in the speech where he "damned" our nation in which he says, suggests or even hints that he didn't really mean it, or that he thought America was in danger of damnation, and he wanted to save it.

No, if anything, it's clearer that he meant what he said.

im sorry g-man, im gunna have to disagree with you. osama bin laden has in different words said "god damn america", why is it alright for bin laden to say it and not Obama's spiritual leader rev. wright?

But I think Bin Laden was taken out of context.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Originally Posted By: whomod

....the sound bytes that you've seen out of context...

Actually i've listened to a number of sermons on KWAVE, my denominations radio station, where they look into Revelation and conclude that the United States is in for a huge decline and irrelevance in the face of prophetic events. So God will indeed damn America, whether we like it or not seeing as how a European superpower and not the US is not a factor in Apololyptic prophecy, in fact the US is pretty much a non-entity in apocalyptic prophecy.

To point it out as being on account of sin and arrogance is just an extension o that. I don't think ANY pastor, at least not any biblically honest ones, tailors their speeches to fit a pro-U.S. supremeacy standpoint.

Quote:

in fact the US is pretty much a non-entity in apocalyptic prophecy

Not surprising, considering that apocalyptic prophecy is a big fairy tale that dates back to a time before the US even existed.

In any event, you're back to "someone else did it." Please see my earlier observations as to what that means.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Quote:

in fact the US is pretty much a non-entity in apocalyptic prophecy

You keep on bringing things up and expect them to somehow live in some vacuum.
I'll keep your thoughts on Christianity saved though for future reference.

Originally Posted By: whomod

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Originally Posted By: whomod

....the sound bytes that you've seen out of context...

do you go to obamas church?

Originally Posted By: whomod

I'll keep your thoughts on Christianity saved ... for future reference.

It's no secret on this board I'm an atheist, whomod.

WHOMOD HAS UNCOVERED THE TRUTH ABOUT G-MAN!

WHOOOOMODDDDD......

Originally Posted By: whomod

Is Obama claiming that he was conceived because of the Selma, AL march but finding out later that he was born three years before not the same as Hillary? How about the fact that he denied telling Canada that his NAFTA talk was just political bullshit to get Ohio votes, but later the memo of the meeting with his campaign to the Canadian diplomat in Chicago said just that not the same either?

doctor please, whomod does not need facts to tell him the truth...

Originally Posted By: thedoctor

Originally Posted By: whomod

The Selma story though was not him using it to show that it qualifies him and makes him ready to be commander in chief or even President. It was just some clumsy and frankly stupid anecdote he made up. The Ireland story and the Bosnia story however, were intended precisely to somehow show that she's qualified and has the experience to lead "on day 1".

Obama said later that he meant to credit the entire civil rights movement with his parents' union, not just the Bloody Sunday marchers. So while he clearly wasn't conceived because of Selma, the larger point of an interracial union being made possible by the civil rights movement and all the advancements towards interracial unions being less "taboo", certainly still stands.

This again however has absolutely ZERO to do with why he's qualified to be ready on day 1. It's just an attempt to tie his story to Selma and try to connect with voters there.

And I think the media understood that. Basically it was a case of pandering to a particular group of people in Selma and trying to tie himself with them. Just like the media understand that Hillary's lies directly relate to her claims of having commander in chief credentials, which she does not.

The Canada thing you said yourself that BOTH camps deny and BOTH camps have been accused of. And regardless, it's not as if Obama didn't already pay a price for that rumour. A price that Hillary didn't pay BTW.

Originally Posted By: whomod

So, to recap:

whomod says that lying is wrong....unless it's just to pander to the voters...cuz everyone does that...except when it's pandering to voters about your experience...in which case it's wrong....unless someone else lied too...then lying's okay again.

Oh well, you can stew then. Nobody else but you, thedoctor and the Freepers seems to give a fuck about Selma.

Originally Posted By: whomod

Nobody else but you, thedoctor and the Freepers seems to give a fuck about Selma.

Dr. King would be spinning in his grave to hear you say that no one cares about Selma, whomod.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Originally Posted By: whomod

Nobody else but you, thedoctor and the Freepers seems to give a fuck about Selma.

Dr. King would be spinning in his grave to hear you say that no one cares about Selma, whomod.

Context G-Man....

Context.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Originally Posted By: whomod

I don't like pandering either. And it did make Obama look stupid. And then that was that. The media and everyone else moved on. Done deal. My point wasn't that it wasn't wrong to say that. My point is that his statements didn't imply qualifications for the job of President or frankly didn't imply anything but to try to credit the town he was speaking at and the historical events there with his birth. To give the people hearing his speech there that day the warm fuzzies or something I guess.

The media isn't dwelling on it because they already gave it the airtime it deserved given the ....um... severity and relevance of the dishonesty?

No one is saying Obama never lied or pandered or is some saint. The point is that he's not lying on why he's qualified to be President with tall tales about battle action and treaty negotiations.

This video isinspiring. It's 13 minutes long but worth a watch.

It's a video of students at the Bronx High School of Performance and Stagecraft reacting to Obama's historic speech on race. The best part is when several of the students give their own versions of the "Yes We Can" speech. After the past couple weeks, inspiration is a good thing.

I especially liked how Obama called his grandmother a "typical white person."

Originally Posted By: whomod

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

Originally Posted By: Barack Hussein Obama

we all look alike anyways.

Quote:

It looks like civil war up there.

Originally Posted By: Pariah

I especially liked how Obama called his grandmother a "typical white person."

Originally Posted By: Pariah

I especially liked how Obama called his grandmother a "typical white person."

Originally Posted By: whomod

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

Originally Posted By: Barack Hussein Obama

we all look alike anyways.

Quote:

It looks like civil war up there.

wow. racism and religious intolerance from you guys.
so what if he is a muslim. islam is ultimately just as crazy as any other religion. no more, no less. it's only that the people in the middle east live in a shitty desert with lots of violence that the religion gets the bad reputation but it's just another abrahamic religion.
it doesn't matter if he is a muslim, what matters is where he has lived and was raised. i doubt he lost family to the Israelis or to American intervention in the middle east. I doubt that any of the motives for terrorism exist. it just means he's boring at a party and is probably a bit too serious to have any real fun.
bush started wars which killed hundreds of thousands using very religious speeches to justify it (democracy is god's gift to the world isn't too far from a bin laden speech), yet none of you are railing against having a christian president.

I was going to post that Pariah and at least 2 other people here seem to thrive and enjoy having racial animosity and misunderstanding between the races.

They wouldn't change it if they could.

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

i seriously doubt bush is a christian president, he vetoed a bill giving healthcare to millions of poor american children.

Originally Posted By: whomod

I was going to post that Pariah and at least 2 other people here seem to thrive and enjoy having racial animosity and misunderstanding between the races.

They wouldn't change it if they could.

typical white people i guess....

Quote:

Bush The New JFK

On Sunday night, President Bush is set to throw out the first ball at Nationals Park and help inaugurate the Washington Nationals' new stadium.

President John F. Kennedy did the same on April 9, 1962, when D.C. Stadium debuted as the home field for the fledgling Washington Senators, in their second season as the American League's second Senators franchise.

The park — known today as RFK Stadium, after the late president's slain brother — was the out-of-date home for the Nationals over the past three years.

Forty-six years ago, more than 44,000 fans showed up for the Senators' opener, a then-record for a Washington sporting event. News stories called the ballpark "beautiful," "first class," "magnificent" and "graceful." The previous fall, the park's other tenants, the NFL's Washington Redskins, had christened the stadium.

Before the 1961 season began, Calvin Griffith, the owner of the original Senators franchise, moved that team to Minnesota and changed its name to the Twins. The American League, fearing congressional vengeance, immediately filled the vacancy by awarding Washington a new team. The 1961 Senators played as tenants of the old owner at Griffith Stadium.

Charlie Brotman, the longtime public address announcer for the Senators, handled the logistics of Kennedy's opening-day toss. Brotman recalled looking for the president in the dugout before the 1962 opener, but not finding him anywhere.

"And so now I'm panicking a little bit," Brotman said. "I went down the passageway from the dugout to the locker room to see if he's there. Midway down the passageway, there is President Kennedy, smoking a big cigar, all by himself, no security, no friends, just relaxing and having the time of his life. And I said, `Mr. President, it's time to go to work.' He said, `OK,' snuffed out the cigar, and I escorted him to the box seats. And he had a wonderful time."

Bush is to make his delivery from the pitcher's mound to Nationals manager Manny Acta. Kennedy, in keeping with the tradition of the times, made his toss from the presidential box in the stands, throwing the ball up for grabs into a scrum of players from both teams. Nobody could haul in a Kennedy pitch that one reporter described as a "half-speed curve."

Finally, Senators pitcher Marty Kutyna picked up the ball on the first base line and brought it over to the young president for an autograph.

Kennedy looked confident as he made the toss from behind the Senators dugout, surrounded by Vice President Lyndon Johnson, Cabinet secretaries and members of Congress. But he was not as self-assured when a foul ball came screeching into his box.

According to The New York Times, as the towering foul headed toward Kennedy in the fourth inning, his special assistant and longtime friend David Powers blocked the president and the ball bounced off the top of the dugout. The Times' front-page headline the next day said Kennedy was "Good Pitch, No Field."

Two Senators players had a bit of an adventure making their way to the game that day. Rookie Senators pitcher Jim Hannan recalled getting a ride from outfielder Jimmy Piersall, whose book about his battle with mental illness, "Fear Strikes Out," had been turned into a movie and created quite a stir.

"He showed up in what looked like a '37 Chevy," said Hannan, now a stockbroker in Washington. "It broke down right in front of the White House. So we had to take a cab to the stadium."

Later, the White House placed a call to Piersall, Hannan said. A secretary told him to hold for the president.

"And Kennedy gets on and says, `What are you doing leaving that piece of junk in front of my house?'" Hannan relates with a laugh. Piersall and Kennedy knew each other personally, Hannan said. In the 1950s, Kennedy was a real senator, from Massachusetts, while Piersall played for the Boston Red Sox for much of the decade.

Piersall did not shy away from the president at the ballpark. On his way out to center field, the colorful ballplayer playfully slapped Kennedy on the shoulder.

When rain showers briefly interrupted the game, the president and his party stayed dry by passing time in the umpires' room, signing autographs and chatting with the men in blue. Only days before, Kennedy had nominated former NFL star Byron White to the Supreme Court. The president asked umpire Hank Soar, another ex-NFL player, for a scouting report.

"I never saw any better," Soar told Kennedy, according to The Washington Post.

Kennedy had such a good time at the game that he blew off a 4:30 p.m. appointment at the White House with the Laotian ambassador to stay until the last out. It was 5:30 by the time the president returned.

"The Laotian ambassador, Tiao Klapman, of the patient, understanding East, was waiting for him," the Times reported.

The Senators got off to a good start in their new stadium, defeating the Detroit Tigers, 4-1. "I'm leaving you in first place," JFK told the team's top brass after the game, and indeed the Senators owned the best record in the league; no other American League teams played that day.

But the effect didn't last. Washington lost 101 games that season and finished last in the 10-team league.

The Senators were last again in 1963, leading to a modest rallying cry for the next year: "Off the floor in '64." They met that goal, barely, finishing in 9th place. The new Senators would manage just one winning season, in 1969, before moving on to Texas following the 1971 season, where the Senators became Rangers.

A politically connected investor named George W. Bush eventually became the managing partner of the Rangers.

Well Obama's ride as the new JFK is over. sorry whomod.

Originally Posted By: Pariah

I especially liked how Obama called his grandmother a "typical white person."

I think we all know just how well it would have gone over with the press and the left if he had called his other grandmother "a typical black person."

Originally Posted By: the G-man

What's the difference between an idiot and a fool in your mind?

An idiot is at least able to notice when the emperor is naked.

A fool would pick fights with Bruce Lee, Sly Stallone and Mr T, lose against all, and still claim each time that he "won" again.

Originally Posted By: The New Adventures of Old PJP

Originally Posted By: the G-man

What's the difference between an idiot and a fool in your mind?

an idiot is captain sweeden and a fool is whomod.

You are dead to me now. $\:\($

You didn't even spell my poster name correctly.

Originally Posted By: Pariah

I especially liked how Obama called his grandmother a "typical white person."

Originally Posted By: The Butcher

I don't see no Americans. I see trespassers, Irish harps. Do a job for a nickel what a nigger does for a dime and a white man used to get a quarter for. What have they done? Name one thing they've contributed.

Bill the Butcher: fictional movie character, "lived" in 1800s.

Barack Hussein Obama: real life presidential candidate, lives in the 21st century.

it doesnt matter, if it's okay for a fictional character it's okay for Obama!

That would explain his dressing up like Hadji. He figured if it was okay for a Jonny Quest character...

Philly Mayor: Obama Pastor Talk Beyond Pale

"I think there's no room for hate, and I could not sit and tolerate that kind of language, and especially over a very long period of time," said Philadelphia's newly elected mayor, Michael Nutter.

"If I were in my own church and heard my pastor saying some of those kinds of things," he added, "we'd have a conversation about what's going on here, what is this all about, and then I would have to make my own personal decision about whether or not to be associated or affiliated."

Asked by Muir if he would he have quit Obama's church, Nutter said, "Absolutely."

But because the liberal media loves Obama, they don't report that Obama has aligned himself with an inner circle of racist and anti-American/anti-European individuals and causes.

Probably no coverage will be given to the Philadelphia mayor, or anyone else who criticizes Obama's judgement.

Within the liberal media, there is a clear distinction between the scorn with which they treat Hillary, at this point doing everything they can to destroy her candidacy and label her as evil for simply playing the cards she has. Despite that she has a very close second place at this point to Obama, and neither has the delegates necessary to win without the superdelegates.

And typically, anyone who criticizes a minority candidate is slanderously labelled as a "racist".

Originally Posted By: Captain Sweden

Originally Posted By: Pariah

I especially liked how Obama called his grandmother a "typical white person."

Originally Posted By: The Butcher

What do those two quotes have to do with eachother? The Butcher didn't play the race card like Obama did.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Philly Mayor: Obama Pastor Talk Beyond Pale

"I think there's no room for hate, and I could not sit and tolerate that kind of language, and especially over a very long period of time," said Philadelphia's newly elected mayor, Michael Nutter.

"If I were in my own church and heard my pastor saying some of those kinds of things," he added, "we'd have a conversation about what's going on here, what is this all about, and then I would have to make my own personal decision about whether or not to be associated or affiliated."

Asked by Muir if he would he have quit Obama's church, Nutter said, "Absolutely."

i guess this kinda disproves Obama's "every black and white person is racist in private" theory....

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

Probably no coverage will be given to the Philadelphia mayor, or anyone else who criticizes Obama's judgement.

I blast the media for biased coverage as much as the next guy. But that article I linked to was from ABC News. That's pretty coverage right there, I'd say.

Though it would be nice if they hadn't buried it on a Saturday.

Pariah nerdy Moderator Don't mind him. He used to be an Irishman.
15000+ posts Sat Mar 29 2008 08:44 PM Reading a post
Forum: Politics and Current Events
Thread: Barack Hussein Obama in '08?

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

Probably no coverage will be given to the Philadelphia mayor, or anyone else who criticizes Obama's judgement.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Yeah...

But compare that to Hillary's anecdote about "arriving under fire" in Bosnia. Which has led every news report for at least a week.

Granted, it's mainstream coverage of mayor Nutter's remarks. But not nearly the same level of prevalence and saturation as the Hillary-bashfest, on what was really a pretty minor gaff on her part, and far from unique exaggeration on the part of a national political figure.

thedoctor argumentative Moderator Timelord. Drunkard.
10000+ posts Sat Mar 29 2008 09:08 PM Reading a post
Forum: Politics and Current Events
Thread: Barack Hussein Obama in '08?

Obama Says His Foreign Policy Resembles That of Elder Bush, Reagan, JFK

If that's true, I feel bad for whomod. He'll have to write in Kucinich in November.

For those smarter folks out there, does anyone think Obama's comparison is valid or not?

It would be interesting to see if Bush Sr. has anything to say about this. Usually Obama safely sticks to using dead people to compare himself to.

Originally Posted By: Pariah

Originally Posted By: Captain Sweden

Originally Posted By: Pariah

I especially liked how Obama called his grandmother a "typical white person."

Originally Posted By: The Butcher

What do those two quotes have to do with eachother? The Butcher didn't play the race card like Obama did.

The Butcher's speech, when quoted by you, reflects self-hatred pretty much the same way Obama's Freudian slip of the tongue.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Bill the Butcher: fictional movie character, "lived" in 1800s.

Barack Hussein Obama: real life presidential candidate, lives in the 21st century.

You missed the point.

i get it, the words of Obama and Butcher are fictional!

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Obama Says His Foreign Policy Resembles That of Elder Bush, Reagan, JFK

If that's true, I feel bad for whomod. He'll have to write in Kucinich in November.

Those three ex-presidents made terrible mistakes that could have been avoided: Pig Bay debacle, nuclear missiles in Turkey that provoked USSR to ship missiles to Cuba, supporting Saddam Hussein, Iran-Contras, and not invading Iraq and therefor letting Saddam Hussein to kill resistance fighters.

I wonder if Obama took that in consideration.

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

i get it, the words of Obama and Butcher are fictional!

But will his white concentration camps be a work of fiction?

Originally Posted By: Captain Sweden

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Obama Says His Foreign Policy Resembles That of Elder Bush, Reagan, JFK

If that's true, I feel bad for whomod. He'll have to write in Kucinich in November.

oh shit, here comes a whomod meltdown....

Originally Posted By: Captain Sweden

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

i get it, the words of Obama and Butcher are fictional!

But will his white concentration camps be a work of fiction?

only his spiritual leader Rev. Wright knows for sure....

http://www.obamafact.com/?p=6

whomod have you been leaving comments as VincenSea?

Quote:

Obama Fact: Dystopia Winfrey

Barack Obama is a very complex man. Though it has been well documented he was disgusted upon learning Soylent Green is people, he apparently has no problem with the fact that Oprah has been known to eat drifters.

Originally Posted By: Captain Sweden

The Butcher's speech, when quoted by you, reflects self-hatred pretty much the same way Obama's Freudian slip of the tongue.

First of all: I'm not ashamed of being white. I hate the Irish.

Second of all: Obama's not white. He's bred from a white mother. There's a difference.

Thirdly: Obama has, himself, made it clear that he is, more significantly, a black person. Notice how he waited till the last minute to try and empathize with voters through describing Caucasian family members.

Lastly: Just because I resent my heritage, that doesn't mean I all of a sudden identify with other self-loathers. This isn't some kinda fellowship where someone's able to claim hypocrisy.

The overall point here is that Obama's trying to run for president and he's typifying about 60% of America's population. This is moreso about racism than it is about "self-hatred."

not to mention the dude's a closet muslim....

Has someone been saying otherwise?

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

not to mention the dude's a closet muslim....

Yeah, it kind of rubs me the wrong way, not so much that he is a muslim, but that he's so evasive about his islamic beliefs and history. And that says loudly that there's some sinister reason that makes him dishonest about his past, that he has something he needs to hide.

Originally Posted By: Pariah

First of all: I'm not ashamed of being white. I hate the Irish.

Can you elaborate on that?

Maybe what you mean is you hate aspects of Irish culture ?

I can relate to that. I hate the way the Irish talk. If you read any Claremont-scripted stories with Irish characters, that captures perfectly what I don't like about Irish speech mannerisms and phrases. Annoying and trite. It's a bit too informal and folksy for me, and often difficult to understand. I met a beautiful girl from Ireland once, and made a great effort to meet her. But after talking to her for 5 minutes... no way in hell!

I think the Irish are hardworking and very family-oriented, and have many other positive aspects (in the U.S., I like that they endured and achieved so much, and despite that when they arrived in the 1850's they were arguably just as hated as blacks, after several decades became quintessentially American). And I have an Irish branch of my family, but I've always identified more with the English, Scottish and German parts of my heritage, because I like their culture and customs more.

Maybe you feel similarly.

the irish are the blacks of europe.

...and woman is the nigger of the world

Sincerely,
John Lennon

(Heh. Maybe Hillary can use that as her new campaign song)

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

Maybe what you mean is you hate aspects of Irish culture ?

Yes.

Aside from disliking their culture aesthetically, they proved themselves useless as immigrants. When they first got here, their contributions consisted of little more than gang-violence and thievery. Instead of them actually bringing anything of value into the country, the government actually had to educate them--Which totally defeats the purpose of the Boiling Pot.

They were just as bad as the Mexicans are now except they weren't as so hell bent on separatism.

Guess what my Irish great great grandparents contributed to American culture after they showed up here....That's right: A brewery. That's really useful.

They may have assimilated, but that doesn't mean that actually added anything to America's overall strength.

Quote:

I think the Irish are hardworking and very family-oriented, and have many other positive aspects

That's what people keep trying to tell me about the Mexican illegals who're destroying California's economy!

Quote:

Guess what my Irish great great grandparents contributed to American culture after they showed up here....That's right: A brewery. That's really useful.

Actually, I'd say it is.

Alcohol isn't the only way to inebriate women you know.

It's not just that, my friend. As Homer Simpson once observed: "...alcohol, the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems."

Quote:

Al Qaeda recruiting "western" fighters: CIA boss

Al Qaeda is training fighters that "look western" and could easily cross U.S. borders without attracting attention, CIA Director Michael Hayden said on Sunday.

The militant Islamist group has turned Pakistan's remote tribal areas along the border with Afghanistan into a safe haven, and is using it to plot further attacks against the United States, Hayden said.

"They are bringing operatives into that region for training -- operatives that wouldn't attract your attention if they were going through the customs line at Dulles (airport outside Washington) with you when you were coming back from overseas," Hayden said during an interview on NBC's television show Meet the Press.

"(They) look western (and) would be able to come into this country without attracting the kinds of attention that others might," Hayden said, without offering further details.

The United States went to war in Afghanistan after the September 11 attacks on U.S. cities in order to crush al Qaeda and hunt down its chief, Osama bin Laden, who Hayden confirmed was still believed by the United States to be hiding in the rugged Afghan border area.

The Washington Post reported on Thursday that the United States had stepped up unilateral attacks on al Qaeda targets in Pakistan because it fears the country's newly elected leaders will soon curb U.S. actions on their soil. Pakistan's pro-U.S. president, Pervez Musharraf, has been weakened by the defeat of his allies in the country's recent elections.

Hayden declined to comment directly on the Post article, but he stressed that the tribal regions were very sensitive.

"The situation along that Afghanistan/Pakistan border presents a clear and present danger to Afghanistan, to Pakistan, to the West in general and the United States in particular," Hayden said.

"It is very clear to us that al Qaeda has been able over the last 18 months or so to establish a safe haven along the Afghan/Pakistan border that they have not enjoyed before."

Asked directly whether he feared Musharraf might not be around as president for much longer to support the United States, Hayden said he did not know, but praised what the country had already delivered.

"We have not had a better partner in the war against terrorism than the Pakistani government," he said.

(Reporting by Alister Bull; Editing by Patricia Zengerle)

Can we get back to Hillary fucking the hot Muslim chick?

different thread, this is the closet muslim fucking america thread....

It's so hard to keep track of who's fucking Muslims in which way.

rob needs a sitemap.

Quote:

Obama's Penn State rally draws 20,000

By DEVLIN BARRETT, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 32 minutes ago

UNIVERSITY PARK, Pa. - Shivering in blankets of Penn State's colors, some 20,000 people filled a campus lawn Sunday to hear Barack Obama say he can win the Democratic nomination even if rival Hillary Rodham Clinton stays in the race.

Supporters stood in long lines for hours to hear Obama ahead of the April 22 Pennsylvania primary.

On a sunny day with temperatures in the low 40's, most bundled up for the type of large-scale rally that has become the candidate's trademark.

"It's been a while, and it's a little cold, but we really like Barack. He's inspiring," said 19-year-old Caitlin McDonnell, wrapped in a blue Nittany Lions blanket.

Pennsylvania's primary is the next contest in the Obama-Clinton fight for the Democratic presidential nomination. The Keystone State, which will allocate 158 delegates, is the biggest single delegate prize remaining in the Democratic primaries.

Democratic presidential hopeful, Sen. Barack Obama D-Ill., right, holds a Penn State jersey given to him by cornerback Lydell Sargeant, left, as Sen. Bob Casey D-Pa., applauds at Penn State University in University Park , Pa., Sunday, March 30, 2008

Some Democrats, particularly Obama's supporters, have voiced concern that the hard-fought, drawn-out race is already hurting the party's chances to win in November.

The Illinois senator told the crowd not to worry.

"As this primary has gone on a little bit long, there have been people who've been voicing some frustration," Obama said.

"I want everybody to understand that this has been a great contest, great for America. It's engaged and involved people like never before. I think it's terrific that Senator Clinton's supporters have been as passionate as my supporters have been because that makes the people invested and engaged in this process, and I am absolutely confident that when this primary season is over Democrats will be united."

Clinton's husband, the former president, said Sunday that those voicing concern about the duration of the nomination fight should just "chill out" and let the race run its course.

Obama's rally drew an estimated 20,000 to 22,000 people, according to university official Richard DiEugenio — by far the biggest in a weekend of smaller, face-to-face campaign stops since Obama launched a six-day bus tour through the state on Friday.

From Penn State, he traveled to the state capital of Harrisburg, where he delivered the same call for party unity. He also took aim at Republican nominee-to-be John McCain, saying the Arizona senator undercut his own credibility by supporting the lengthening of Bush administration tax cuts he previously opposed.

"The wheels on the Straight Talk Express came off," Obama said, referring to the nickname for McCain's campaign vehicle. "He wants to extend those same tax cuts that he said were irresponsible."

Thanks, whomod. We all had no idea whatsoever that Obama was popular with college students.

Where should conversation on race start?

Any suggestions on e-race-ing decades of bad blood between people?

Originally Posted By: Pariah

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

Maybe what you mean is you hate aspects of Irish culture ?

Quote:

I think the Irish are hardworking and very family-oriented, and have many other positive aspects

That's what people keep trying to tell me about the Mexican illegals who're destroying California's economy!

The difference between Irish immigrants and the Mexican immigrants, is that back then there was pressure for the Irish to assimilate, to the point that they became productive Americans in the generations that followed.

Whereas pressure for Mexicans to assimilate is branded as "racism".

Plus there are far more Mexican immigrants (both legal and illegal) than there ever were of the Irish. Or for that matter, of Irish, Italian, German, Polish, Russians and Jewish immigrants combined.

I have nothing against Mexicans who fully embrace our culture, assimilate, and become productive Americans. Only with those who advocate or are sympathetic to breaking our laws, and have a first loyalty to Mexico or hispanic subculture rather than the United States. In which case, they belong in Mexico.

Quote:

Gallup Daily: Obama Now at 52% to Clinton’s 42%

PRINCETON, NJ -- Barack Obama has extended his lead over Hillary Clinton among Democrats nationally to 52% to 42%, the third consecutive Gallup Poll Daily tracking report in which he has held a statistically significant lead, and Obama's largest lead of the year so far.

The latest results are based on Gallup Poll Daily tracking conducted March 27-29. Obama did particularly well in interviewing conducted on March 29.

This marks the first time either candidate has held a double-digit lead over the other since Feb. 4-6, at which point Clinton led Obama by 11 percentage points. (To view the complete trend since Jan. 2, 2008, click here.)

According to tracking interviews from March 25-29, John McCain continues to hold a small 4-point lead over Clinton among national registered voters. McCain leads Obama by three points, 47% to 44%. -- Frank Newport

Sayonara Hillary!

Originally Posted By: Whomod

It's touching the way you can love your man, despite his deceitful ultraliberal voting record, despite his more than 100 "present" votes (not yes or no) to try and hide his hardcore liberalism on abortion and other issues, despite his 17 years of taking contributions and trading favors with Tony Rezko, despite his closet anti-Americanism and islamic loyalties.

One might even get the impression you're, I don't know, partisan or something.

With all due respect, since whomod's an unabashed liberal, why shouldn't he love Obama for an ultraliberal voting record and anti-Americanism?

I've never seen whomod try to hide what he is or what Obama is (at least in terms of their leftist views).

Originally Posted By: The Pun-isher

Where should conversation on race start?

The article you linked to states the following:

We live by a Constitution that began, "We the People," but declared black slaves worth only three-fifths as much as whites. From the Lincoln-Douglas faceoffs of 1858, which focused largely on what to do about slavery, to the most recent debate over renewing the Voting Rights Act, the rift over race and what to do about it has defined us.

Not only is this editorializing, it is historically obtuse. The Constitution's three-fifths provision, which applied to the decennial census, was not an evaluation of the "worth" of enslaved blacks. It was a compromise between representatives of slave states, who wanted to count slaves as full persons, and those from free states, who didn't want to count slaves at all.

This obviously was not because slavers had a greater appreciation for the humanity of slaves. It was because they wanted to increase their representation in Congress by using slaves to inflate their states' official populations. Had they prevailed, it would have been even harder than it was to abolish slavery.

So, perhaps, the conversation on race should start with some historical accuracy, and not biased editorializing.

Honey, I shrunk your momentum.

Quote:

Sen. Barack Obama has won the overall delegate race in Texas thanks to a strong showing in Democratic county conventions this past weekend.

Obama picked up seven of nine outstanding delegates, giving him a total of 99 Texas delegates to the party's national convention this summer. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton won the other two, giving her a total of 94 Texas delegates, according to an analysis of returns by The Associated Press.

ouch... MEM, tha's gotta hurt...

Quote:

Obama wins most Texas delegates

39 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Sen. Barack Obama has won the overall delegate race in Texas thanks to a strong showing in Democratic county conventions this past weekend.

Obama picked up seven of nine outstanding delegates, giving him a total of 99 Texas delegates to the party's national convention this summer. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton won the other two, giving her a total of 94 Texas delegates, according to an analysis of returns by The Associated Press.

Texas Democrats held both a presidential primary and caucus. Clinton narrowly won the popular vote in the state's primary March 4, earning her 65 national convention delegates to Obama's 61.

Precinct caucuses began immediately after polls closed primary night and quickly devolved into chaos in many parts of the state because of an unprecedented turnout of more than 1 million Democrats. The state party was never able to provide complete results from the caucuses, which is why the AP withheld nine delegates.

The precinct caucuses elected delegates to about 280 county and state senate district conventions on Saturday. The AP awarded the remaining delegates based on results from Saturday's conventions, showing Obama with about 58 percent of vote, compared to 42 percent for Clinton.

Obama won 38 delegates through the caucus/convention system, and Clinton won 29.

The final delegate allocation will be decided at the party's state convention June 6-7, and the numbers could change if either campaign is unable to maintain the level of support they had over the weekend.

Obama leads the overall race for the Democratic nomination with 1,631 delegates, including separately chosen party and elected officials known as superdelegates. Clinton has 1,501, according to the latest AP tally.

Supporters display signs during the Travis County Democratic convention Saturday, March 29, 2008, in Austin, Texas. Texas Democrats convened to divide caucus delegates between hopefulsl candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton. It's the next stage of Texas' delegate system that culminates at the state Democratic convention in June.
(AP]

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Well, obviously Whomod is a liberal and doesn't have a problem with these things.

But it doesn't seem to bother Whomod that Obama is trying to hide his quantifiable liberalism behind deceitful moderate-sounding rhetoric.

It doesn't bother Whomod that Obama received donations and, by the sweetheart deal on his home alone, in a joint real-estate purchase with Tony Rezko's wife for $300,000 below market value, that he clearly was very friendly with the indicted slumlord, and collaboratively traded a few favors.

It doesn't bother Whomod that Obama lies about his islamic loyalties, and could be an islamic Manchurian Candidate.

It doesn't bother Whomod that Obama evades questions about his voting record, in order to appear more moderate to American voters, and thus pull the wool over their eyes and get Obama elected as a moderate, something he clearly isn't.

Any deceit is tolerable to Whomod, if it gets Obama elected.

Allowing Whomod to gloat endlessly about a minor shift of delegates in Texas, that far from decides the election.

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

It doesn't bother Whomod that Obama lies about his islamic loyalties, and could be an islamic Manchurian Candidate.

THAT WILY DEVIL!!!!

So you admit it then?

That you partisanly lie to support a liar?

I admit that your freaky conspiracy theories are amusing.

FactCheck.org:

In a new ad, Obama says, "I don’t take money from oil companies."

Technically, that's true, since a law that has been on the books for more than a century prohibits corporations from giving money directly to any federal candidate. But that doesn’t distinguish Obama from his rivals in the race.

We find the statement misleading:

Obama has accepted more than $213,000 from individuals who work for companies in the oil and gas industry and their spouses.
Two of Obama's bundlers are top executives at oil companies and are listed on his Web site as raising between $50,000 and $100,000 for the presidential hopeful.

In other words, Obama says he does not receive money from Oil companies, but neither do McCain or Clinton, because it's not permitted under campaign law anyway. So his ad claim is silly and pointless.

He does receive money from oil company executives and employees, totaling $213,000 so far, but he won't tell you that.

Whoopsie.

BTW: I'm sure that whomod will, in a moment, dig up a donation that McCain or Hillary got from someone in the oil industry and, you know what, I don't care. Neither of them is putting out ads claiming otherwise.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

FactCheck.org:

In a new ad, Obama says, "I don’t take money from oil companies."

Technically, that's true, since a law that has been on the books for more than a century prohibits corporations from giving money directly to any federal candidate. But that doesn’t distinguish Obama from his rivals in the race.

We find the statement misleading:

Obama has accepted more than $213,000 from individuals who work for companies in the oil and gas industry and their spouses.
Two of Obama's bundlers are top executives at oil companies and are listed on his Web site as raising between $50,000 and $100,000 for the presidential hopeful.

Campaign ads that exagerate records are a given. This however would normally be damaging for a candidate who's running the type of campaign Obama is running. He's all about not being that typical Washington insider, that he's something better. Yet I doubt this bit of reallity will register even in the slightest to Obama supporters. He's something like Santa to them & their not listning to anything that messes with that.

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

When did you become so cynical and bitter?

Oh, that's right when Obama finally got his campaign revved up and Hillary began her long downward spiral.

People like hope. It's why the Kennedy's are American royalty, it's why the GOP thinks Reagan was akin to the 2nd coming of Jesus, and it's why Obama is trouncing Clinton right now. And to dismiss it so snidely I guess is why you're still in Hilary's camp watching history pass her by.

of course he's backed by big oil, Iran is full of that stuff!

There is the hope people face with the unknown & then there is the type people have for Obama. He just did the type of ad I've come to expect from any politician & the fact checker also exposed that he actually rakes in more from the people he says are influencing the other candidates. Ignoring that type of stuff isn't being hopeful but something else.

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

I wonder if Obama's tapped this ass yet?

You again take my words out of context, Whomod.

Originally Posted By: WB, Hillary in 2008 topic,04/01/08 04:41 PM

To use your vulgar slang definition of "tap"...

I wonder if Obama's tapped this ass yet.

It was you who brought up the "tap that ass" slang phrase, I just responded to it.

Associated Press:

Barack Obama’s campaign is angrily denying a bombshell report that his name and private cell phone number are in the little black book of Washington madam Kristin Davis.

Obama, the current Democratic party frontrunner, is listed as a $1000.00 client of brothel Maison de L'Amour.

His name is one of more than 2,000 on a computer spreadsheet, detailing Davis' X-rated operations, obtained by The Associated Press.

In a written statement, Obama denied using Davis' services, but admitted that the two were “acquaintances.”

"This assertion is false and defamatory," Obama said. "I was never a client of Ms. Davis, nor of any prostitute."

“It is true that Ms. Davis and I know each other,” the Senator noted. “However, our relationship is strictly professional.”

“She was, like many other Americans, deeply concerned about the direction of our nation and contacted my campaign to offer assistance.”

Maison de L'Amour was the madam's high-end prostitution service, farming hookers out to D.C. hotels for $1000.00 dates.

Some of the johns on the client list had notes next to their names with their credit card numbers, preferences or cancellations.
There was nothing next to Obama's name and number - just a note that the price was $1000.00 cash.

Obama's name was one of the most prominent on Davis' client list, which listed $1.1 million in business.

Some in the Obama campaign say that the timing of this latest report is the work of the Clinton camp.

“It can’t be a coincidence that this latest smear comes out at the same time more and more prominent Democrats are calling on Mrs. Clinton to end the race,” noted Obama spokesperson Josh Earnest. “First we had the leaked photographs to Drudge of the Senator in his traditional Kenyan garb, now we have this.”

Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson denied that charge.

“To our knowledge, Senator Obama has never paid for sex,” Wolfson said. “Obviously, we can’t know who the source for this information is at this point. However, you have my assurances that neither I nor Senator Clinton took it upon us to send this information to the press.”

Davis, 32, was arrested this week and charged with running a high-end prostitution ring that raked in millions with hookers in Washington, California and Pennsylvania. She's being held on $2 million bail.

Oh my ~~god~~ Allah, this is great. First Spitzer, now Barack Hussein Obama.

Heh. I wonder if this is Bill’s doing? After all, if there’s a guy who’d know how to enlist the services of a hooker in a set up…

Poor whomod will probably have a stroke.

Originally Posted By: from the article

“It is true that Ms. Davis and I know each other,” the Senator noted. “However, our relationship is strictly professional.”

A "strictly professional relationship" with a prostitute madam ?

Brilliant!

Why would he consider it "defamatory?" It's just sex right?

No need for denials Osama.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Associated Press:

Barack Obama’s campaign is angrily denying a bombshell report that his name and private cell phone number are in the little black book of Washington madam Kristin Davis.

Obama, the current Democratic party frontrunner, is listed as a $1000.00 client of brothel Maison de L'Amour.

His name is one of more than 2,000 on a computer spreadsheet, detailing Davis' X-rated operations, obtained by The Associated Press.

In a written statement, Obama denied using Davis' services, but admitted that the two were “acquaintances.”

"This assertion is false and defamatory," Obama said. "I was never a client of Ms. Davis, nor of any prostitute."

“It is true that Ms. Davis and I know each other,” the Senator noted. “However, our relationship is strictly professional.”

“She was, like many other Americans, deeply concerned about the direction of our nation and offered contacted my campaign to offer assistance.”

Maison de L'Amour was the madam's high-end prostitution service, farming hookers out to D.C. hotels for $1000.00 dates.

Some of the johns on the client list had notes next to their names with their credit card numbers, preferences or cancellations.
There was nothing next to Obama's name and number - just a note that the price was $1000.00 cash.

Obama's name was one of the most prominent on Davis' client list, which listed $1.1 million in business.

Some in the Obama campaign say that the timing of this latest report is the work of the Clinton camp.

“It can’t be a coincidence that this latest smear comes out at the same time more and more prominent Democrats are calling on Mrs. Clinton to end the race,” noted Obama spokesperson Josh Earnest. “First we had the leaked photographs to Drudge of the Senator in his traditional Kenyan garb, now we have this.”

Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson denied that charge.

“To our knowledge, Senator Obama has never paid for sex,” Wolfson said. “Obviously, we can’t know who the source for this information is at this point. However, you have my assurances that neither I nor Senator Clinton took it upon us to send this information to the press.”

Davis, 32, was arrested this week and charged with running a high-end prostitution ring that raked in millions with hookers in Washington, California and Pennsylvania. She's being held on $2 million bail.

in Obama's defense Bill has never been accused of having sex with anyone that looked good enough to charge!

Charge to keep her mouth shut afterwards, maybe.

And, yeah, that chick in the pic is way above Bill's usual suspects.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson denied that charge.

“To our knowledge, Senator Obama has never paid for sex,” Wolfson said. “Obviously, we can’t know who the source for this information is at this point. However, you have my assurances that neither I nor Senator Clinton took it upon us to send this information to the press.”

It's funny how this was phrased almost exactly like Hillary's “I-have-no-reason-to-believe-he-is-a-Muslim” (wink wink) response on 60 Minutes. Plus Wolfson only exonerates himself and Hilary Clinton from circulating this rumour. As if only the two of them are the entirety of the Clinton campaign. Well, see how far back this comes to Hillary's doorstep. Much like a lot of the rest of this 'destroy at all costs' garbage that's been percolating these past months in the media.

It must kill Hillary to try so hard to smear someone and only to meet a teflon candidate.

oh this is rich....

Appropo of nothing, didn't the 9/11 hijackers hang out in strip clubs? Could there be some hypocrisy in the psyche of pious Muslims (appropo of nothing, of course)?

Originally Posted By: Pariah

Originally Posted By: Captain Sweden

The Butcher's speech, when quoted by you, reflects self-hatred pretty much the same way Obama's Freudian slip of the tongue.

Originally Posted By: whomod

Originally Posted By: the G-man

From Bloomberg:

Quote:

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has won the endorsement of one of his party's top foreign policy figures, Lee Hamilton, who hails from Indiana, home to one of the next crucial primary votes.

Hamilton, a former U.S. House member who co-chaired the commission that investigated the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and headed the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, said he was impressed by Obama's approach to national security and foreign policy.

``I read his national security and foreign policy speeches, and he comes across to me as pragmatic, visionary and tough,'' Hamilton said in an interview. ``He impresses me as a person who wants to use all the tools of presidential power.''

Funny. You'd think the co-chair of the 9/11 Commission would be warning America about the Manchurian Muslim candidate....

Oh wait, only Rush Limbaugh listeners and FOX news viewers believe that crap.

Nice attempt at deflection, whomod, but we're all still laughing at the fact you didn't realize that article about Obama's hooker was an April Fool's joke.

ah... I guess that's what I get for not checking up on it or even clicking the link..

Color me beet red.

And no commie quips...

Quote:

Obama's Dimestore 'Mein Kampf'

If characters from "The Hills" were to emote about race, I imagine it would sound like B. Hussein Obama's autobiography, "Dreams From My Father."

Has anybody read this book? Inasmuch as the book reveals Obama to be a flabbergasting lunatic, I gather the answer is no. Obama is about to be our next president: You might want to take a peek. If only people had read "Mein Kampf" ...

Nearly every page -- save the ones dedicated to cataloguing the mundane details of his life -- is bristling with anger at some imputed racist incident. The last time I heard this much race-baiting invective I was ... in my usual front-row pew, as I am every Sunday morning, at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago.

Obama tells a story about taking two white friends from the high school basketball team to a "black party." Despite their deep-seated, unconscious hatred of blacks, the friends readily accepted. At the party, they managed not to scream the N-word, but instead "made some small talk, took a couple of the girls out on the dance floor."

But with his racial hair-trigger, Obama sensed the whites were not comfortable because "they kept smiling a lot." And then, in an incident reminiscent of the darkest days of the Jim Crow South ... they asked to leave after spending only about an hour at the party! It was practically an etiquette lynching!

So either they hated black people with the hot, hot hate of a thousand suns, or they were athletes who had come to a party late, after a Saturday night basketball game.

In the car on the way home, one of the friends empathizes with Obama, saying: "You know, man, that really taught me something. I mean, I can see how it must be tough for you and Ray sometimes, at school parties ... being the only black guys and all."

And thus Obama felt the cruel lash of racism! He actually writes that his response to his friend's perfectly lovely remark was: "A part of me wanted to punch him right there."

Listen, I don't want anybody telling Obama about Bill Clinton's "I feel your pain" line.

Wanting to punch his white friend in the stomach was the introductory anecdote to a full-page psychotic rant about living by "the white man's rules." (One rule he missed was: "Never punch out your empathetic white friend after dragging him to a crappy all-black party.")

Obama's gaseous disquisition on the "white man's rules" leads to this charming crescendo: "Should you refuse this defeat and lash out at your captors, they would have a name for that, too, a name that could cage you just as good. Paranoid. Militant. Violent. Nigger."

For those of you in the "When is Obama gonna play the 'N-word' card?" pool, the winner is ... Page 85! Congratulations!

When his mother expresses concern about Obama's high school friend being busted for drugs, Obama says he patted his mother's hand and told her not to worry.

This, too, prompted Obama to share with his readers a life lesson on how to handle white people: "It was usually an effective tactic, another one of those tricks I had learned: People were satisfied so long as you were courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves. They were more than satisfied, they were relieved -- such a pleasant surprise to find a well-mannered young black man who didn't seem angry all the time."

First of all, I note that this technique seems to be the basis of Obama's entire presidential campaign. But moreover -- he was talking about his own mother! As Obama says: "Any distinction between good and bad whites held negligible meaning." Say, do you think a white person who said that about blacks would be a leading presidential candidate?

The man is stark bonkersville.

He says the reason black people keep to themselves is that it's "easier than spending all your time mad or trying to guess whatever it was that white folks were thinking about you."

Here's a little inside scoop about white people: We're not thinking about you. Especially WASPs. We think everybody is inferior, and we are perfectly charming about it.

In college, Obama explains to a girl why he was reading Joseph Conrad's 1902 classic, "Heart of Darkness": "I read the book to help me understand just what it is that makes white people so afraid. Their demons. The way ideas get twisted around. I helps me understand how people learn to hate."

By contrast, Malcolm X's autobiography "spoke" to Obama. One line in particular "stayed with me," he says. "He spoke of a wish he'd once had, the wish that the white blood that ran through him, there by an act of violence, might somehow be expunged."

Forget Rev. Jeremiah Wright -- Wright is Booker T. Washington compared to this guy

Quote:

Obama: I'd hire Gore

By DEVLIN BARRETT, Associated Press Writer Posted Wed Apr 2, 2008 1:22pm PDT

Former Vice President Al Gore discusses the First Amendment and the Internet during an event called 'Accuracy, Privacy and the World Wide Web: The First Amendment and the Internet' held at Middle Tennessee State University, Thursday, March 27, 2008, in Murfreesboro, Tenn. (AP Photo/Bill Waugh)

WALLINGFORD, Pa. - Sen. Barack Obama said Wednesday he would give Al Gore, a Nobel prize winner, a major role in an Obama administration to address the problem of global warming.

At a town-hall meeting, Obama was asked if he would tap the former vice president for his Cabinet to handle global warming.

"I would," Obama said. "Not only will I, but I will make a commitment that Al Gore will be at the table and play a central part in us figuring out how we solve this problem. He's somebody I talk to on a regular basis. I'm already consulting with him in terms of these issues, but climate change is real. It is something we have to deal with now, not 10 years from now, not 20 years from now."

Since leaving the White House, Gore has gone on to become one of the world's leading voices for combating the greenhouse gases blamed for global warming. His work earned him a share of the Nobel last year.

Popular among Democrats, Gore is perhaps the single most coveted endorsement up for grabs in the long-running competition between Obama and rival Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The relationship between Gore and the Clintons became strained after Gore limited Bill Clinton's campaigning on his behalf in the 2000 presidential race which elected George W. Bush.

It'll be interesting to see what sort of meltdown Bill has when Gore endorses Obama. Seeing as how he's regularly talking with Obama already, I don't see how an endorsement is too far a stretch. Especially as how I've not heard of him providing the same services to the Clinton campaign.

Gore will probably continue to not endorse either candidate IMHO. By not doing so it keeps him above all the negative stuff from both campaigns & doesn't mess with his work.

by work, he means bilking the working poor out of jobs....

Quote:

Obama’s Support Softens in Poll, Suggesting a Peak Has Passed

By ADAM NAGOURNEY and MEGAN THEE
Published: April 4, 2008

WASHINGTON — Senator Barack Obama’s support among Democrats nationally has softened over the last month, particularly among men and upper-income voters, as voters have taken a slightly less positive view of him than they did after his burst of victories in February, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

The survey suggests that Mr. Obama, Democrat of Illinois, may have been at something of a peak in February, propelled by a string of primary and caucus victories over Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, and that perceptions of him are settling down.

Mr. Obama’s favorability rating among Democratic primary voters has dropped seven percentage points, to 62 percent, since the last Times/CBS News survey, in late February. While that figure is by any measure high, the decline came in a month during which he endured withering attacks from Mrs. Clinton and responded to reports that his former pastor had made politically inflammatory statements from his church’s pulpit in Chicago.
...

NYTIMES

Quote:

CAMPAIGN '08
Obama cuts into Clinton's superdelegate lead

She trails him in fundraising and in pledged delegates. Now her superdelegate edge has shrunk to 30, from 87 in February. Even some who back her say they might reconsider

By Peter Nicholas, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
April 4, 2008
WASHINGTON -- Nearly three weeks remain before the next Democratic primary, but the results are rolling in from another part of the presidential contest -- and they signify trouble for Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Democratic Party officials and insiders known as superdelegates are jumping to Barack Obama's camp or signaling that's where they are headed, including such prominent figures as former President Jimmy Carter. Some superdelegates who back Clinton have begun laying out scenarios under which they would abandon her for Obama.

"My children and their spouses are pro-Obama. My grandchildren are also pro-Obama," Carter told a Nigerian newspaper during a visit to Africa. "As a superdelegate, I would not disclose who I am rooting for, but I leave you to make that guess."

Clinton trails Obama in fundraising and in the total number of delegates awarded in state primaries and caucuses. One bright spot for her campaign had been the quest for superdelegates -- the nearly 800 elected officials and Democratic activists who are not bound by election results and are free to vote at the party's nominating convention for the candidate of their choice.

Because neither Clinton nor Obama may emerge from the primary season with enough elected delegates to lock down the nomination, the endorsements by superdelegates could be the key to victory.

And recently, more superdelegate support has been going Obama's way.

In December, according to an Associated Press tally, Clinton led Obama by 106 superdelegates. In February, her lead had been cut to 87. As of Thursday, it was 30.

On Wednesday, when Carter hinted strongly of his intentions, Obama won support from Wyoming Gov. Dave Freudenthal, who had been appointed the state's U.S. attorney by Clinton's husband.

Sens. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Bob Casey of Pennsylvania in recent days abandoned plans to stay neutral in the competition between their Senate colleagues. Both are opting for Obama.

And in an embarrassment for Clinton, one of the superdelegates supporting her, Rep. Emanuel Cleaver II (D-Mo.), predicted in an interview with a Canadian radio station over the weekend that Obama would win both the nomination and the presidency.

"I will be stunned if he's not the next president of the United States," Cleaver said.

Obama's gains among superdelegates have come even though he trails Clinton in public opinion surveys in the next state to vote -- Pennsylvania, on April 22 -- and has faced an uproar over incendiary remarks by his former pastor.

A new New York Times/CBS News poll also shows that Obama's support among Democratic voters nationally has softened over the last month, though he was supported by 46% of those surveyed, versus 43% for Clinton.

Obama is winning over superdelegates because "his arguments are more persuasive," said Mark Mellman, a Democratic pollster who is unaffiliated in the presidential race. "She obviously hopes that's going to change with Pennsylvania and races down the road. But for now, his arguments are being more persuasive with those superdelegates."

A major objective of Clinton's superdelegate operation is keeping supporters from defecting. Working from her campaign headquarters, a team of aides stays in seemingly constant touch with superdelegates committed to Clinton, sending them poll numbers and news articles meant to keep them from bolting.

"It's a slow drip, drip, drip -- but it's dripping the wrong way," said Joe Trippi, who was an advisor to former Democratic candidate John Edwards. "Psychologically, they're playing defense with superdelegates, not offense."

Some superdelegates in Clinton's camp are suggesting they might reconsider if she cannot meet certain goals, such as overcoming Obama's lead in the popular vote total. With 10 contests remaining, Obama has won about 700,000 more votes than Clinton. That tally excludes the votes in Florida and Michigan, which are not being recognized by the national Democratic Party.

Clinton aides would prefer that superdelegates consider a broader set of criteria, such as which candidate is likely to be more electable, or who ran more strongly in pivotal states such as Florida and Ohio.

Hoping that message will sink in, top aides hold regular conference calls with reporters in which a recurring theme is that superdelegates should see Clinton as the most formidable general-election candidate.

"The states she has taken have considerably more electoral votes," said Mark Penn, the campaign's chief strategist.

It is not clear that argument is resonating.

Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Petaluma), a leader of the influential House Out of Iraq Caucus, endorsed Clinton after hearing the New York senator explain her commitment to withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq.

But last month, Woolsey began to adjust her position, committing herself to back the candidate with the bigger share of the popular vote.

"No one wants our party's nominee to be chosen by the votes of a handful of superdelegates," Woolsey said in a statement. "That's why, while I remain a strong Hillary Clinton supporter, I will cast my vote at the convention for the candidate that is chosen not through back-room deals, but by the votes of the American public."

New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine, a superdelegate backing Clinton, gave a television interview Thursday in which he too said his support might hinge on the popular vote total.

Corzine was asked if a candidate could capture the nomination despite trailing in the popular vote. "I think it would be a very hard argument to make," the governor said.

Take a look at a couple more findings from the latest CBS/NY Times poll:

69% of Democrats think Obama will be the nominee. He rates higher than McCain and Clinton on "shares values of Americans"

Originally Posted By: whomod

The percentages add up to 196%.

Obama Aide's Iraq Shocker: Adviser reports up to 80,000 U.S. troops may have to stay in Iraq, counter to what Obama has said during campaign.

Whoopsie.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Originally Posted By: whomod

The percentages add up to 196%.

Cue Norm MacDonald joke.

Obama's Dime-store 'Mein Kampf'

by Ann Coulter

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

Obama's Dime-store 'Mein Kampf'

by Ann Coulter

Godwin's Law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies)[1] is an adage formulated by Mike Godwin in 1990. The law states:[2][3]

"As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

Godwin's Law is often cited in online discussions as a caution against the use of inflammatory rhetoric or exaggerated comparisons, and is often conflated with fallacious arguments of the reductio ad Hitlerum form.

The rule does not make any statement whether any particular reference or comparison to Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that one arising is increasingly probable. It is precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued[4] that overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their impact. Although in one of its early forms Godwin's Law referred specifically to Usenet newsgroup discussions,[5] the law is now applied to any threaded online discussion: electronic mailing lists, message boards, chat rooms, and more recently blog comment threads and wiki talk pages.

Originally Posted By: whomod

The rule does not make any statement whether any particular reference or comparison to Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that one arising is increasingly probable.

Then perhaps you should explain why you may or may not find Ann Coulter's comments appropriate instead of lay out an urban definition of Goodwhine's law as a vague snappy comeback.

and also quit fucking your dog.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Originally Posted By: whomod

The percentages add up to 196%.

I don't think that's an "or" question.

I figured as much.

But that only serves to illustrate that, as an indicator of how someone might vote in an election (which is, of course, an "or" question), the poll in essentially worthless.

Furthermore, given that the poll has a three percent margin of error, Obama and McCain are essentially tied and Clinton isn't far behind. So, again, it demonstrates the poll is useless as an indicator of the November vote.

Oops - Obama video breaks Ed. rule: Barack Obama's campaign violated city Education Department regulations by making a video in a Bronx classroom starring high school kids.

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

Obama's Dime-store 'Mein Kampf'

by Ann Coulter

Originally Posted By: whomod

Read the linked column, Whomod.

It discusses (and quotes) Obama's racist burning for vengeance on the white race. Where even acts of kindness by whites who were ostensibly his friends left Obama suppressing a daily urge to lash out with violence against whites.

The exact kind of perceived betrayal and burning for vengeance that Hitler expressed in Mein Kampf.

It's not an idle comparison, Whomod.

As compared to your own relentless idle comparisons of Republicans to Nazis, for years on these boards, and no doubt elsewhere.

You lying hypocritical sack of shit.

You, of all people, have no moral high ground to get uppity about Nazi comparisons.

Hey wondy. ann coulter is a hateful man bitch. Stop taking her seriously you fucking dipshit.

Originally Posted By: rex

Hey wondy. ann coulter is a hateful man bitch. Stop taking her seriously you fucking dipshit.

Yep, always amazing how you discuss an issue based on the facts.

Not resorting to factless slander or personal insults, no sir...

So I guess love really is blind.

especially as concerns natural fibers.

fiber is crucial to the health of the colon. a diet high in fiber can prevent types of cancer, also good for keeping a trim figger.

rassist

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

No, I already read it in one of the current tabloids. Which is abuout as accurate as your Coulter article.

I think Rex is spot on. It's not like if Ann Coulter is ever going to have anything nice to say about anyone save extreme right wing Republicans. Even 9/11 widows are fair game to this shrew.

You, in your hatred and fear of obama, are just willing to swallow any fanciful tale of race hatred and Muslim loyalties. Does anyone besides you deluded far right types,really think Obama doesn't love America?

And if they do, why are we stooping to cater to them?

Seriously.

This is the most ridiculous "theme" I've seen perpetuated yet - and that's saying a lot considering some of the madness that keeps coming up in this primary race. Yes, a man who hates America (he doesn't wear a pin! where's his right hand?) is putting it all on the line to lead this country in what may be one of the most difficult times in modern history. He would inherit all shades of mess, and yet he wants to front the nation even though/because he hates it! Really?

Stop pandering to the insanity! It's a stupid stupid thing to say. Don't give it credence and maybe it will finally go away. Good rule of thumb. If you think it's absurd...it probably is. The end of the article actually makes the right point:

Quote:

"There may be some people who question his patriotism," said Ed Treacy, "but he's never going to get their vote anyway."

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

Obama is a dark wizard from the 8th century who came forward in time to destroy whites in order to create an Afro-Mexican Supersoldier. A short cloning cycle later and his army of Supersoldiers will destroy american white folks who built this country after the horrible indians failed to be awesome. then god blessed us until a muslim man takes the white house.
it's all in pat buchanan's latest blog.

that doesn't make any sense, wondy.

Originally Posted By: Whomod

You, in your hatred and fear of obama, are just willing to swallow any fanciful tale of race hatred and Muslim loyalties. Does anyone besides you deluded far right types,really think Obama doesn't love America?

Coulter is partisan, granted. If it were just her opinion, it could be dismissed, as you attempt to.

But she quotes Obama himself, from his own book.

It's not a "right wing delusion" that Obama sat in the gallery and listened to Rev. Wright's paranoid hate for 20 years.

As well as the many friends up through college who describe him as a "devout muslim" until he married his wife Michelle.

As well as Michelle's own anti-Americanism, that only when Obama ran for president could she be "proud to be American".

And all that's in addition to Obama's other scandals involving Tony Rezko, NAFTA/Canada/"don't worry it's just campaign rhetoric", etc.

Well, then don't vote or him.

Perchance since you seem to think there is a great muslim conspiracy going on, do you think Keith Ellison is trying to subvert America?

Just asking since you seem deathly afraid of anything not WASP.

Originally Posted By: whomod

Well, then don't vote or him.

Perchance since you seem to think there is a great muslim conspiracy going on, do you think Keith Ellison is trying to subvert America?

I actually have muslim friends. As I said, one friend from Bangladesh told me that about 100 muslims who worked mostly in mailrooms and delivery, along with a smaller ratio of professionals, were killed on 9-11.

Not all muslims are terrorists.

But all arab/islamic terrorists are fanatical islamic fundamentalists, and islam breeds a far higher ratio of murderous fanatics than any other religion.

Quote:

Just asking since you seem deathly afraid of anything not WASP.

You're deathly afraid of the truth, that you feel a need to constantly post these kind of slanders, because you can't argue your case on the facts.

If I was "afraid of anyone who wasn't a WASP" I wouldn't be friends with half the people I associate with. As I've said repeatedly, I've dated women of virtually every culture. I'm currently dating a Brazilian girl. And I've almost married two girls, one Phillipine, one hispanic.

I've condemned blacks and other minorities only where I feel they've undermined true freedom and equality with quotas, and been guilty of their own racism.
I've critically cited crime problems within minority demographic groups, their attempts to extort reparations and guilt for past racism (every racial group has exploited every other racial group it could, and blame should not be disproportionately heaped on Europeans), and other races' hatred toward the white majority. And illegal immigration.

But in reading my literally hundreds of posts on the issue, I'm clearly not a racist. Much as you like to paint me that way.

But ironically, in making these accusations, you've many times made clear your OWN racist hostility toward whites.

Well, you're the one who keeps suggesting he's a "devout Muslim" as if that's a sign of pure evil or him trying to sneak in and convert us all to Allah.

Lets say that friends say he was a "devout catholic" before he became a Baptist, would you give a shit?

and let's not forget that it is YOU who repeatedly brings up 'Manchurian candidate' fear mongering, so it's clear you think Muslim=terrorist.

Quote:

Published Saturday | April 5, 2008
Superdelegate pendulum appears to be swinging swiftly toward Obama

WASHINGTON — Nearly three weeks remain before the next Democratic primary, but the results are rolling in from another part of the presidential contest — and they signify trouble for Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Democratic Party officials and insiders known as superdelegates are jumping to Barack Obama's camp or signaling that that is where they are headed.

Clinton trails Obama in fundraising and in total number of delegates awarded so far in state primaries and caucuses. One bright spot for her campaign had been the quest for superdelegates — the nearly 800 elected officials and Democratic activists who are not bound by election results and are free to vote at the party's nominating convention for the candidate of their choice.

Because neither Clinton nor Obama is likely to emerge from the primary season with enough elected delegates to lock down the nomination, endorsements by superdelegates could be the key to victory.

In December, according to the Associated Press, Clinton led Obama by 106 superdelegates. In February, her lead had been cut to 87. Thursday, it was 30.

Obama has won more pledged delegates in primaries and caucuses, giving him the overall delegate lead, 1,635 to 1,501. Needed to win the nomination: 2,024.

In recent days, Wyoming Gov. David Freudenthal and Sens. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Robert Casey Jr. of Pennsylvania have announced their support for Obama.

In an embarrassment for Clinton, one of the superdelegates supporting her, Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, D-Mo., predicted in an interview with a Canadian radio station over the weekend that Obama would win the nomination and the presidency.

"I will be stunned if he's not the next president of the United States," Cleaver said.

Obama's gains among superdelegates have come even though he trails Clinton in public opinion surveys in the next state to vote — Pennsylvania, on April 22.

Obama is winning over superdelegates because "his arguments are more persuasive," said Mark Mellman, a Democratic pollster who is unaffiliated in the race. "She obviously hopes that's going to change with Pennsylvania and races down the road. But for now, his arguments are being more persuasive with those superdelegates."

A major objective of Clinton's superdelegate operation is keeping supporters from defecting. Working from her campaign headquarters, a team of aides stays in seemingly constant contact with superdelegates committed to Clinton, sending them poll numbers and news articles meant to keep them from bolting.

Some superdelegates in Clinton's camp have suggested they might reconsider if she cannot meet certain goals, such as overcoming Obama's lead in the popular vote total. With 10 contests remaining, Obama has won about 700,000 more votes than Clinton. That tally excludes the votes in Florida and Michigan, which are not being recognized by the national Democratic Party.

Clinton aides would prefer that superdelegates consider a broader set of criteria, such as which candidate is likely to be more electable in the fall, or who ran the strongest in pivotal states such as Florida and Ohio.

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

fair enough, i've actually made that point myself. it's not the religion itself, it's where the religious people live and grow up (same as how you'll find most catholic terrorists are from Ireland). And since Obama is American raised doesn't that imply that if he is muslim he probably isn't a radical terrorist?

Quote:

You're deathly afraid of the truth, that you feel a need to constantly post these kind of slanders, because you can't argue your case on the facts.

as for slander, you do realize that you're implying obama is some evil monster out to destroy America. and, knowing you, you base most of this belief on the word of anne coulter and rush limbaugh.

Quote:

If I was "afraid of anyone who wasn't a WASP" I wouldn't be friends with half the people I associate with. As I've said repeatedly, I've dated women of virtually every culture. I'm currently dating a Brazilian girl.

oh, that's right. wondy isn't racist because he has token friends. so even though he says racist stuff it's ok because a black guy gave him permission.

Quote:

And I've almost married two girls, one Phillipine, one hispanic.

so do you think that having both relationships fall apart caused you to hate non-whites? or was this the cause of your hatred of women who dn't get married and do their duty by having children?

Quote:

I've condemned blacks and other minorities only where I feel they've undermined true freedom and equality with quotas, and been guilty of their own racism.

i seem to remember Obama talking about how there was very real anger from whites about unfair quotas just as there was real anger from blacks about inequality and that these were issues that needed to be addressed. i then seem to recall you trashing that speech.

Quote:

I've critically cited crime problems within minority demographic groups, their attempts to extort reparations and guilt for past racism (every racial group has exploited every other racial group it could, and blame should not be disproportionately heaped on Europeans), and other races' hatred toward the white majority. And illegal immigration.

no, you've used a few numbers to justify condemning entire races of people as criminals. you twist your statistics to justify racism.

Quote:

But in reading my literally hundreds of posts on the issue, I'm clearly not a racist. Much as you like to paint me that way.

except when i quote you word for word saying something racist. then you were taken out of context. so i post the entire post where you say something racist, then you say i'm full of shit and stop responding to the thread.

Quote:

But ironically, in making these accusations, you've many times made clear your OWN racist hostility toward whites.

i know you're talking to whomod, but you are the racist. you have many times, as you are now, tried to say that white euro-americans are perfect and any history that brings up problems is evil lies, because the indians were savages and the africans were beneath us and that both cultures deserved to be "absorbed" into our "superior" culture.
you're a vile, little, pathetic old man stamping his foot at the damn teenagers on the lawn. if it weren't for the internet the world would've forgotten you by now, as it is i bet we're the only ones who have to hear your BS since you seem like the type who is too cowardly to discuss these beliefs in real life.
but i still love you.

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

And since Obama is American raised doesn't that imply that if he is muslim he probably isn't a radical terrorist?

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

And since Obama is American raised doesn't that imply that if he is muslim he probably isn't a radical terrorist?

I didn't click the links, I'll take you at your word they're american-born. but that's what 13 people out of how many million? and John Walker Lindh is the only one I immediately recognize. He wasn't a terrorist. He felt more of a connection to the people and beliefs in afghanistan and went to that country. he went at a time when we were on good terms with them and I remember reading that the month he flew over so did Bush sr. to try and negotiate some oil rights (oil rights they refused until we invaded). then once in his new home for awhile the country was invaded and he basically did his patriotic duty to his country by fighting in the army. he did not stay here and work on covert schemes or terrorism.

Quote:

Obama foreign policy claim stirs controversy

Barack Obama has long argued that he has shown better foreign policy judgment than his remaining presidential rivals, specifically in opposing the Iraq war.

But at a fund-raiser in San Francisco over the weekend, he reportedly made the case that he has more foreign policy knowledge and understanding as well -- a claim getting a lot of blowback from presumptive Republican nominee John McCain and Democratic contender Hillary Clinton.

According to an account posted online on The Huffington Post, Obama was answering a question about what he would look for in a running mate if he wins the nomination. "I would like somebody who knows about a bunch of stuff that I'm not as expert on," he replied. "I think a lot of people assume that might be some kind of military thing to make me look more commander-in-chief-like. Ironically, this is an area -- foreign policy is the area where I am probably most confident that I know more and understand the world better than Senator Clinton or Senator McCain."

Clinton took exception when asked about the comment while making the rounds of the morning TV shows in advance of the long-awaited testimony today by General David Petraeus, the top US commander in Iraq, and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, the top US diplomat.

She laughed, actually, before responding on Fox News. "Well I’m somewhat shocked by that since I don’t see any evidence of it," she said. "This is kind of hard to square with his failure to ever have a single policy hearing on the only responsibility he was given, chairing the European and NATO subcommittee the foreign relations committee.
...

Boston.com

I'm sure McCain will have something to say about this too.

Before you read this latest poll, remember, Pennsylvania is supposed to be a blowout for Hillary Clinton. Given the state's demographics, she should win by a wide margin. She should. Okay, now read Quinnipiac's latest Pennsylvania poll:

Quote:

Illinois Sen. Barack Obama is catching up with New York Sen. Hillary Clinton in the Pennsylvania Democratic primary and now trails 50 - 44 percent among likely primary voters, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.

This compares to a 50 - 41 percent Sen. Clinton lead in an April 2 poll by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN uh-pe-ack) University.

In this latest survey, one of the biggest shifts is among women who went from 54 - 37 percent for Clinton April 2 to 54 - 41 percent for her today. A look at other groups shows:

* White voters for Clinton 56 - 38 percent, down from 59 - 34 percent last week.
* Black voters back Obama 75 - 17 percent, compared to 73 - 11 percent.
* Men are for Obama 48 - 44 percent, compared to a 46 - 46 percent tie last week.
* Voters under 45 go with Obama 55 - 40, while older voters back Clinton 55 - 38 percent.

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

i forget sometimes you like to fish people in to arguments, your too smart to actually believe that....

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

i forget sometimes you like to fish people in to arguments, your too smart to actually believe that....

If only that were true, but sadly, Ray does believe it.

Originally Posted By: whomod

It's only clear that I think Obama has hidden loyalties, and hidden anti-American/anti-white/anti-European hatreds and hidden agendas of vengeance and revolution against said groups.

It's not that Obama is a muslim. The problem is that Obama is a CLOSET muslim, with hidden loyalties and a hidden agenda.

People who practice a peaceful form of islam that isn't attempting to overthrow western culture and establish Sharia law, are not of concern to me. A man who was raised a "devout muslim" who lies about ever being muslim, and has demonstrated the levels of hatred he has in his quoted book, toward white classmates and his own white mother, who were nice to him (!!) is of great concern to me.

That's not "fear" or "fearmongering", that's objectively looking at the facts.

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

No.
See BSAMS' wikipedia links to American-born Al Qaida terrorists.

Originally Posted By: Ray

Originally Posted By: WB

You're deathly afraid of the truth, that you feel a need to constantly post these kind of slanders, because you can't argue your case on the facts.

as for slander, you do realize that you're implying obama is some evil monster out to destroy America. and, knowing you, you base most of this belief on the word of anne coulter and rush limbaugh.

Where did I, or anyone here, mention Rush Limbaugh? More manufactured blanket-slander on your part.

I'm posting friends of Obama, and quotes of Barack Obama's stated muslim beliefs, by people who know him, and as quoted by him in his own book. Beliefs that he denies, which manifest a hidden agenda.

Originally Posted By: Ray

Originally Posted By: WB

oh, that's right. wondy isn't racist because he has token friends. so even though he says racist stuff it's ok because a black guy gave him permission.

That doesn't even make sense.

I don't have "token" friends. Maybe you do.
My friends are my friends.

Originally Posted By: Ray

Originally Posted By: WB

And I've almost married two girls, one Phillipine, one hispanic.

so do you think that having both relationships fall apart caused you to hate non-whites? or was this the cause of your hatred of women who dn't get married and do their duty by having children?

You're obviously trolling, but...

That's assuming one hell of a lot about me and my relationships that's not in evidence.
My relationships didn't fall apart becaust I "hate non-whites". We simply weren't compatible, or they moved away. Most of them I still have some contact with, so again your "hate" theory falls apart.
All of these things about "do their duty by having children", "hatred of women", and "hate non-whites" are YOUR ideas, NOT mine. Things you have paraphrased to make me conform to the racist/hater image you want to portray.

Once again, it is YOUR intolerant hatred that makes you assume that anyone who doesn't believe your radical liberal ideas must be a hate-filled racist. When in truth, myself and other conservatives simply have other ideas of how to eliminate racism, and truly create a society of equal opportunity, instead of bean-counting racial quotas that reward skin color instead of achievement, and avoid the liberal pitfalls of forever resurecting and apologizing for the past, that only succeeds in perpetuating minority hostility toward whites, and a sense of entitlement, of unending compensation that is owed. But liberal ideas along these lines ignore the complicity of black nations in the slave trade, and that Europeans were only about 100 years out of indentured servitude, serfdom and slavery themselves.

Your trolling on my personal life with insulting factless assumptions just manifests your inherent maliciousness.
And then you have the audacity to talk about evil.

Originally Posted By: Ray

Originally Posted By: WB

I've condemned blacks and other minorities only where I feel they've undermined true freedom and equality with quotas, and been guilty of their own racism.

Yes, because he circumnavigated that he listened to Rev. Wrights anti-white, anti-American paranoid rants for 20 years. For him to listen to that excrement and not walk out of the church with his family in two minutes, Obama has to be a black racist who shares Wright's hostility toward America.

Obama's televised "I can no more disown.." speech simply excused his hatred. And for all the praise heaped on it by liberals, it is simply a perpetuation of the status quo, where black America will not take responsibility for itself, and will continue to blame white America for all its problems, with Barack Obama's blessing.

Originally Posted By: Ray

Originally Posted By: WB

no, you've used a few numbers to justify condemning entire races of people as criminals. you twist your statistics to justify racism.

I haven't "condemned entire races". I've cited many black Americans whose achievements I admire.

I've condemned a few specific problems, particularly in black and hispanic demographic groups, of high crime rates, disproportionate (relative to whites and asians) high-school dropout rates, disproportionately high gang membership, and disproportionately high imprisonment rates. That these are problems that need to be addressed, not swept under a rug and dismissed as evidence of "white racism".

If I "condemned entire races" I would be saying that blacks and hispanics were incapable of the same achievement as whites. Instead I'm saying that these are problems within the black and hispanic communities that need to be resolved, and blaming whites is scapegoatism that absolves these demographic groups of taking responsibility for themselves and achieving real equality. And rationalize exacerbating racial quotas that perpetuate the problem, reward under-achievement, and dumb down our society.

Originally Posted By: Ray

Originally Posted By: WB

But in reading my literally hundreds of posts on the issue, I'm clearly not a racist. Much as you like to paint me that way.

You quoted words of mine that didn't prove your case, then added comments that equated to tea-leaf-reading where you ad-libbed what you alleged I really was saying.

Once again: your racist words of hatred, not mine.
Deceitfully put in my mouth.

Originally Posted By: Ray

Originally Posted By: WB

But ironically, in making these accusations, you've many times made clear your OWN racist hostility toward whites.

i know you're talking to whomod, but you are the racist. you have many times, as you are now, tried to say that white euro-americans are perfect

Please show me where I said white europeans are perfect. In never said that.

I said that at the time Europeans colonized the world, they brought a technologically superior culture, but **NOT** that they were racially superior. And that this, despite clear abuses of Europeans during colonialism, worked out as a net benefit in advancement for India, China, the arab world, and the Americas.

African-american scholars have said that African-americans enjoy incomes, healthcare, and protection from ethnic violence that is 50 times better than the blacks who remained in Africa. I guess these black scholars are racists too, right Ray?

Originally Posted By: Ray

and any history that brings up problems is evil lies,

Again, this is your intolerant liberal hatred, that needs to demonize conservatives who disagree with you, in this case me.

It is the one-sidedness of liberal history revisionism that always portrays Europeans in a negative light, without mentioning the gains of people everywhere who lived under European colonialism. Liberals are somehow prone to demonize their own history, rather than look at European abuses within the context of the greater good and achievement, and simultaneously play down the abuses of non-Europeans.

Originally Posted By: Ray

because the indians were savages and the africans were beneath us and that both cultures deserved to be "absorbed" into our "superior" culture.

Technologically superior, yes. But not racially superior. People of all races who have moved into the European economic model all enjoy a far better life than their ancestors did.

Just as all Europeans enjoy the benefits of the ballast rudder, the compass, and gunpowder, that Europeans gained from interaction with Chinese culture. All cultures exchange ideas of art, medicine, healthcare, technology, and military tactics. Japan first came into contact with the U.S. in the 1860's, and rapidly transformed from a backward feudal system into a global military and industrial power.
As are India and China now.

I don't believe races are inferior, only cultures are. Much as you try to paint my beliefs otherwise.

Originally Posted By: Ray

you're a vile, little, pathetic old man stamping his foot at the damn teenagers on the lawn. if it weren't for the internet the world would've forgotten you by now, as it is i bet we're the only ones who have to hear your BS since you seem like the type who is too cowardly to discuss these beliefs in real life.
but i still love you.

Another vicious, factless personal attack of yours.

Originally Posted By: WB
Sometimes I wish had enough meanness in me to give you a full taste of the mocking antagonism you live your miserable life to dish out every day. But I stood at the edge of the abyss, and I stepped back. Better to let you roast in your own bile, than to leap off there with you.

___________________________________________

Battle not with whomods, lest ye become a whomod.
And if you gaze into the whomod, the whomod gazes also into you.
--Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzche (abridged)

Actually, I listen to Limbaugh fairly regularly and I've never heard him claim Obama is a Muslim. I don't listen to the entire show every day, but when I do, he's much more likely to be criticizing Obama for being in Rev. Wright's "hate Whitey" church.

Obama, in his own words, reversing himself repeatedly on staying the course vs. leaving Iraq :

more quotes (FOX report) :

Barack Obama, in his own words, contradicting himself about Rev. Wright and his anti-White/anti-American rhetoric over the last 20 years:

Finally, someone Barack Obama can disown:

White House hopeful Barack Obama's campaign persuaded a delegate to step down after she was ticketed for calling her neighbor's African-American children "monkeys."

Linda Ramirez-Sliwinski, a Carpentersville village trustee, was elected as an Obama delegate to the Democratic National Convention. She sports an Obama sign in her front yard.

Ramirez-Sliwinski "came outside and told the children to quit playing in the tree like monkeys. The tree was not on Ramirez-Sliwinski's property," Carpentersville Police Commander Michael Kilbourne said.

Ramirez-Sliwinski admitted she used the word "monkeys," but said she did not intend racism. She said she was only trying to protect them from falling out of the tree.

"Linda Ramirez-Sliwinski said she saw the kids playing in the tree and didn't want them falling out of the tree and getting hurt. She said she calls her own grandchildren 'monkeys,' " Kilbourne said. The mother of one of the children did not see it that way, noting she and Ramirez-Sliwinski have clashed before.

"She felt it was racist because of the fact the children were African-American," Kilbourne said.

Told of the incident Monday by the Sun-Times, Obama's campaign called Ramirez-Sliwinski and persuaded her to step aside as a delegate because the campaign felt her remarks were "divisive and unacceptable."

Let this be a lesson for other Obama delegates: If someone is bothering you, don't call them "monkeys." That would be "divisive." Instead, shout at the top of your lungs, "God damn America!"

That's just how folks talk in church. You know Obama will stand by you then.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/usiraqiranobama

Quote:

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on Tuesday called for a "diplomatic surge" including talks with US foe Iran, to help stabilize the situation in Iraq.
ADVERTISEMENT

The Illinois Senator battling Hillary Clinton for his party's nomination called for more pressure on the Iraqi government to embrace political reconciliation and a regional "diplomatic surge that includes Iran."

Quote:

"I continue to believe that the original decision to go into Iraq was a massive strategic blunder, that the two problems you pointed out, Al-Qaeda in Iraq and increased Iranian influence in the region are a direct result of that original decision.

wow a flip flop in the same statement!

Iran is a country that we can engage in diplomatic talks with and the war increased Iranian influence in Iraq.

by influence does he mean they have a positive influence? if that's the case then it was a good thing to go to war right?

or by increased influence is he talking about the American GI's that are murdered by training and roadside devices supplied by them.

that sounds like people i want a seat at the table with!

i also think it was shitty of him to put ADVERTISEMENT in the middle of his speech....

"Deadheads for Obama"

Indeed.

Kind of a resemblance, isn't there?

Yes.

It's true.

The deadheads were really Nazi's.

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

Kind of a resemblance, isn't there?

you're now saying skulls represent nazis? what about pirates? poison? hamlet?
maybe those Hindu temples with swastikas on them are actually nazi clubhouses.
another page from your skewed history book.

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

Hindu temples with swastikas on them are actually nazi clubhouses.

i've had my suspicions....

Originally Posted By: whomod

The deadheads were really Nazi's.

What do you mean "were"?

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

Hindu temples with swastikas on them are actually nazi clubhouses.

i've had my suspicions....

this deserves a whole thread

Obama's Other Spiritual Mentors:

[H]e also has James Meeks... an Obama delegate from Chicago in a church pulpit saying, "We don't have slave masters, we got mayors! But they are still the same white people who are presiding over systems where black people are not able to be educated. You got some preachers that are house n———! You got some elected officials that are house n———! Rather than them try and break this up, they're gonna fight you to protect that white man!"

[H]e has a third spiritual mentor, Rev. Michael Pfleger [who has] stated: "I stick up for Louis Farrakhan because he is another person that the media has chosen to define how they want to do it. And they demonize how they want to demonize somebody. I know the man, Louis Farrakhan. He is a great man. I have great respect for him, ho has done an awful lot for people and this country, black, white, and brown. He's a friend of mine."

Rev. Pfleger "is known for climbing ladders to deface liquor billboards." In another demonstration at Chuck's Gun Shop, owned by John Riggio, Rev. Pfleger told the crowd: "We're going to find you and snuff you out....Like a rat you're going to hide. But like a rat, we're going to catch you and pull you out....We're going to snuff out John Riggio." Rev. Pfleger also promised: "We're going to snuff out legislators that are voting against our gun laws. We're coming for you because we're not going to sit idly."

So, of all the priests, ministers, preachers, rabbis, imams, clerics, gurus, monks and medicine men in Chicago, Obama just happens to pick these three.

If three strikes means you're out; what does three spiritual mentors who sound hateful and unhinged mean?

i just read that Obama is urging Bush to boycott the Olympic opening ceremonies becasue of religious oppression of the Tibetans.

wow. boycott the Olympics because of oppression, but sit down and negotiate with Iranians that have killed US soldiers, the man has his priorities straight...

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

He's just copying Hillary on the Olympics thing. It does make for an awkward foreign policy though with his stance on diplomacy.

Quote:

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton has been pushing in recent days for President Bush to boycott the Olympics, and now Senator Barack Obama is suggesting a more cautious approach.

Mr. Obama said Wednesday that President Bush should leave open the option of boycotting the opening ceremonies of the Olympic Games if the Chinese government did not take steps to help stop genocide in Darfur as well as improving human rights for the people of Tibet. Still, he said, a decision to boycott should be made closer to the Games.

Quote:
“As I have communicated in public and to the President, it is past time for China to respect the human rights of the Tibetan people, to allow foreign journalists and diplomats access to the region, and to engage the Dalai Lama in meaningful talks about the future of Tibet,” Mr. Obama said in a statement. “I am also deeply concerned about China’s failure to support efforts to halt the genocide in Darfur.”

Now MEM, you see, he's not "copying" Clinton, he suggested something more measured and diplomatic and less knee jerk reactionary and pandering to her fast fading constituency. You in your rush to attack Obama and praise Hillary in her bold move failed to see this. BTW Pelosi made the boycott issue first before her, so I guess Hillary is copying Pelosi by your logic...

Explain to me how wise and Presidential it is to piss off the country who basically owns the United States and can inflict a world of hurt on us if they decide to call in their loans to us?

Hillary tries ad tries but for all her experience, she really makes the stupidest of moves, thinking it's going to work to her advantage.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

In the interests of full disclosure, Limbaugh is now talking about an article in the (liberal) New Republic, describing how "Reverend Jeremiah Wright, ladies and gentlemen, used to be a Muslim...This would explain why Obama is so frightened of the use of his middle name, and it might explain Jeremiah Wright's cozying up to ...Farrakhan and traveling overseas to meet Moammar Khadafy in Libya."

Praise Allah.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

In the interests of full disclosure, Limbaugh is now talking about an article in the (liberal) New Republic, describing how "Reverend Jeremiah Wright, ladies and gentlemen, used to be a Muslim...

Well, I'm happy Rev. Wright isn't running for President then. but in the interest of common sense, what does that have to do with anything? Are we back to Muslims are evil again? And you act as if this comes out in some vacuum, as if there wasn't a black Muslim movement in the 1960's that featured people such as Malcom X.

I honestly hope Obama doesn't know Muhammad Ali or else you'll really devastate him!

Both Wright and Obama seem to gravitate more towards the "Louis Farrakahn" strain of Islam and not the Muhammd Ali brand, however.

Artist interpretation of the spirit of America fighting back the Muslim Horde

I see Jimmy Carter in the lower right corner. He's probably there to cheer on the Muslim horde.

And especially against an American hero created by two Jews. We all know how Jimmah hates them hebrews.

http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5iuhrKf1SNgjU_XyvcCoCkC3I0fJQ

Is thre a reason I keep getting an error message when I try to post this particular story here?

what the -- ?!

... aw man, thats f'd up.

404? blank white page?

this is .... this is like the apex of the universe!!

go back, i tell ya.

back!!!

save yourself!!!!

Originally Posted By: the G-man

In the interests of full disclosure, Limbaugh is now talking about an article in the (liberal) New Republic, describing how "Reverend Jeremiah Wright, ladies and gentlemen, used to be a Muslim...

Originally Posted By: whomod

There's a huge difference between knowing someone, and having the hate-shrieking Rev Wright as one of his closest spiritual advisers, as Obama does.

In addition to having written an anti-white diatribe autobiography that is the equivalent of Mein Kampf.

Obama's Dime-store 'Mein Kampf'

Originally Posted By: whomod

Is thre a reason I keep getting an error message when I try to post this particular story here?

Probably Hillary and Karl Rove's doing. I'm sure they're spooning over a keyboard someone, preventing you from posting truth to power, even as we speak.

Funny, I thought perhaps there was some filter here or something that prevents M.P. material....

well....seeing as how I got that error message again when I tried writing the name of that British show that is initialed M.P., I think that's it.

Comedian John Cleese has revealed plans for a late career change - writing speeches for "brilliant" presidential hopeful Barack Obama.

The star, who lives in California, believes his comic touches could be a crucial factor in getting Senator Obama to the White House.

Cleese let slip his political plans during an interview with the Western Daily Press newspaper about his beloved Bristol City Football Club.

The 68-year-old, who co-wrote Fawlty Towers with Connie Booth, said: "I am due to come to Europe in November but I may be tied up until then because if Barack Obama gets the nomination I'm going to offer my services to him as a speechwriter because I think he is a brilliant man."

Cleese, who also hopes to return to England in the summer to help raise funds for Bristol Zoo, said: "I live in California now and only come back to England in May or June when my personal assistant tells me it is safe to do so.

"I moved here for health reasons because I get terrible chest infections during the English winter, sometimes two a winter, and I have suffered from diverticulitis."

Monty Python

thats weird I can post MP separately but not in a sentence?

Well if John Cleese, of

Monty Python

fame, thinks Obama is brilliant, then I guess I should too.

This sentence says Monty Python.

There's always a jerk.

Originally Posted By: Pariah

There's always a jerk.

Irony.

you know it's funny, I got the same 404 error when I tried posting it in the quick reply and in the full reply. try clearing your cache, whomod.

Originally Posted By: thedoctor

This sentence says Monty Python.

apparently a period has to follow monty python. or nothing else can follow after, weird

you can post before monty python. just not after without a period....

monty python? i barely knew her!

question marks work as well...

it's just rob's board http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&topic=123450&gonew=1

theres a ubb with no glitch

after further review it's not the monty that causes the glitch, just the python.

Quote:

Powell downplays Obama 'inexperience'

4 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AFP) — Former US secretary of state Colin Powell Thursday downplayed Democratic White House hopeful Barack Obama's inexperience in foreign affairs, a key line of attack used by the Illinois senator's rivals.

"He didn't have a lot of experience in running a presidential campaign, did he? But he seems to know how to organize the task," Powell said in an interview with ABC News.

"He doesn't have experience at the senior levels of national government. But I've seen other individuals who have come along that didn't have that breadth of experience," Powell said.

The extent of Powell's remaining influence among US voters is not clear, as he is one of the figures most associated with the decision to wage war in Iraq, despite his well known qualms about military action abroad.

But his foreign policy experience, as a former chairman of the joint chiefs of staffs and secretary of state, outweighs that of any candidate in the 2008 White House race.

He was also one of the highest ranking African American public officials ever in US history.

Powell, a Republican, said he knew all of Obama, Hillary Clinton and John McCain, and had not yet decided who to vote for, comments which will further fan speculation he may back Obama.

The former secretary of state also said he though Obama had handled the furore over incendiary comments by his former preacher Jeremiah Wright well.

"I thought gave a very, very thoughtful, direct speech. I agree with much of what he said."

Quote:

Colin Powell echoes a Barack Obama talking point

Colin Powell on "Good Morning America" today sounded like he was giving Barack Obama's talking points when it comes to the experience question.

ABC News' Dianne Sawyer asked Powell what he made of the presidential candidate's "relative lack" of Colin Powell former secretary on state and Army general reflects on Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama of Illinois seasoning as a national and international figure.

"He doesn't have experience at the senior levels of national government. But I've seen other individuals come along who didn't have that breadth of experience and what they do is surround themselves with people who do bring that experience.

"With Sen. Obama, he didn't have a lot of experience running a presidential campaign, did he? But he seems to know how to organize a task and he seems to know how to apply resources to a problem at hand. So that gives me some indication that (with) his inexperience in foreign affairs or domestic affairs, he may be someone who can learn quickly."

This is a point Obama has made repeatedly -- that he should be judged by voters in large part on the presidential campaign he has put together, whose success can't be denied.

In references to Iraq, he has argued that experience does not trump judgment -- a bid to spotlight his early opposition, while an Illinois state senator, to the war there.

And, as the New York Times reported in this story, at a fundraiser Sunday in San Francisco he mocked what government officials really learn when going abroad on "fact-finding" trips while touting his own travels, such as a stop in Pakistan he made as a college student.

Powell, ever the diplomat and shrewd inside-the-Beltway navigator, this morning maintained the political stance that first drew attention almost a year ago, saying he liked all three presidential candidates and considered them good friends.

But he really sounded like an Obama man.

Originally Posted By: whomod

Quote:

Monty Python

monty python

apparently you can say it, you just have to be surrounded by whomod posts

in which case nobody will ever read it anyway.

A Powell-Obama endorsement only makes sense. After all, I think they both had racist white grandmothers.

this, btw and fyi and lol, is what i have read on the python-hating issue:

Originally Posted By: Gizmo

It's your webhost, mod_security issue. "Python" is a coding language, they're "sensing" someone doing something malitous and giving an error.

Python

Columnist Andy McCarthy takes a long, hard look at the people closest to Obama:(a) his wife Michelle, (b) his mentor and pastor Jeremiah Wright, (c) terrorist Bill Ayers, and (d) Obama and Ayers' work together for three years on the board of the Woods Fund, a Chicago charitable organization, to steer $75,000 to the Arab American Action Network, co-founded by PLO operative Rashid Khalidi.

Basically, Obama has longtime ties, friendships, and relationships with people who regularly expressed contempt for America in public (Michelle Obama, ‘Ayatollah’ Wright), or worked as Yassir Arafat's right hand man (Khalidi) and tried to blow up American landmarks (Bill Ayers).

At some point, it stops being "guilt by association" and more "judge someone by the company they keep."

Yeah, Rev. Wright, Michelle Obama's "I can finally be proud to be American" remark, Obama's impossible-to-hide unveiling muslim past, combined with his anti-Americanism, his 17-year relationship with Tony Rezko, and that article back on March 27th, and other events, seem to be cumulatively revealing Obama's unelectability.

The only question is:
Will he unravel in time for Hillary to get the nomination?

Or will he unravel later, when he's going mano a mano against McCain?

Hopefully Obama will make you guys take down your traitor flag that you like to fly proudly from your statehouses.

Originally Posted By: whomod

Hopefully Obama will make you guys take down your traitor flag that you like to fly proudly from your statehouses.

Florida has no Confederate flag, dumbass.

And even if it did, where have I ever advocated it?

oh, i'm just wishing out loud...

Yeah, wishing I was as racist as you.

Your hostility toward whites has flashed brightly on a number of occasions.

Being against the traitorous racist Confeerate flag is now racist??

Wow. We're thru the looking glass!

Where did I ever say I supported the Confederate flag?

I was talking about your racist remarks, Whomod. About whites that you worked with, where you called them names for your being rude and excluding them by talking to others in spanish in front of them.

And your posting statistics gloating about how hispanics are, through both immigration (legal and illegal) and through birth-rates, how hispanics are taking over.

Time and again, for all your allegations of racism in those here you don't like, it's YOU who contantly gloats with ethnocentric remarks, and YOU who voice hostility toward the white mainstream.

Time and again, you and your fellow liberals reveal yourselves to be the true hate-filled racists:

http://www.rkmbs.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Board=9&Number=891521#Post891521

http://www.rkmbs.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Board=9&Number=901309#Post901309

http://www.rkmbs.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Board=9&Number=358204#Post358204

http://www.rkmbs.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Board=9&Number=229449#Post229449

And this was just a fun topic, related to the confederate flag:

http://www.rkmbs.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Board=9&Number=402560

yeah wonder boy, you should totally take down that racist flag you don't have.

Originally Posted By: whomod

Being against the traitorous racist Confeerate flag is now racist?

I beg your pardon? How exactly is the confederate flag racist?

Sounds more like your usual reactionary nonsense.

Obama's 'Elitism' Issue: McCain camp slams Obama after Dem reportedly tells wealthy California donors that many small-town people turn to religion and guns over bitterness from unemployment.

Yeah, that's right Obama: "typical white folks" in small towns are gun toting hillbillies who only turn to religion to escape their bitterness from unemployment.

will you leave the guy alone, his white grandma was a racist!

really when i think about why else would someone want to exercise their constitutional right to own a gun, and worship and believe how they wish unless they were economically bitter.

of course you notice it's the guy who goes to the church that says "God Damn", and has his own private security guard with a gun who makes the speech....

Yesterday, Hillary Clinton and her friend, John McCain, teamed up to attack Obama. It was another frivolous -- and disingenuous -- attack over remarks Obama made describing the lives and frustrations of real Americans. As if Clinton and McCain have any concept of the real lives of real people. Both of them are extremely wealthy. Both of them have been living in bubbles for years. Both of them have been surrounded by people who pay to be near them or are paid to be near them for years and years. Neither has any concept of reality.

Al Giordano deconstructs Clinton's baseless screed in a post titled, "Clinton to Rural Pennsylvanians: 'You Can Be Victims, Too!'” while Cliff Schecter does a number on McCain's hypocrisy in a post titled, "John 'Married into Beer Wealth' McCain calls Obama 'elitist.'"

A CNN panel comprised of Jeffrey Toobin, Gloria Borger and Jack Cafferty also obliterated the Clinton/McCain attack. Obliterated. Seriously. Watch this:

GO CAFFERTY!!

And, then, watch Obama. Because that's what you'll want to hear from a President.

Never underestimate the power of Hillary Clinton to say anything -- anything -- even if it abets the Republican party. Today, she launched an attack on Obama that could have come right from the RNC. Ben Smith at the Politico has Clinton's quote and notes:

Quote:

Now, this is more a general election wedge than a Democratic primary one, and Hillary Clinton may not be the world's best messenger on the Second Amendment. But it's a preview of things to come.

"General election wedge" from Hillary Clinton. Thanks, Hill. And, there will be more to come. Her mission is to destroy Obama.

Also unbelievable:

Quote:

In Indianapolis, Clinton says that she doesn’t think most Americans are “bitter,” says “what I hear are real concerns about unfair trade practices that cost people jobs.”

Would those "unfair trade practices" include NAFTA, which was supported by Bill and Hillary Clinton? And, how about the Colombia trade agreement supported by Bill Clinton and Mark Penn? Will anyone in the punditry note the hypocrisy in that attack?

And, if Hillary doesn't think people are bitter, she might talk to some of the creditors owed large sums by her campaign. I imagine some of them are bitter since they're now talking about taking Hillary's campaign to collections. But for Hillary to talk to real people means she would have to step out of the overly-scripted, focus group tested, elitist, out-of-touch bubble that she's lived in for 16 years. Instead, she's just delivering GOP talking points in order to hurt our chances of beating McCain in the fall.

Wow. So desperate for something negative on Obama. Which again shows how the Wright and Muslim crap is so ineffective.

both campaigns pounced on it like starved lions despite the fact that this easily blowbacks on them when they try to paint Obama, who has a lower net worth than BOTH candidates as the elitist.

Originally Posted By: whomod

he said this:

Quote:

And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations

he's claiming that people have faith in god because they are frustrated?

people want their constitutional right to bear arms because they are frustrated?

so he thinks if the economy was great we would want our constitutional freedoms upheld?

he also slipped in his continuing them of "everybody is a racist", he claims there is an antipathy for those who are different. i live in a small town and i never see or hear this antipathy towards people who are different. do you suppose they are having secret meetings without me? you say he is talking about real americans.

um... faith in God and religion are two different things altogether.

You might want to pore over the sermons of my radical preacher to find this distinction.

Quote:

he also slipped in his continuing them of "everybody is a racist"

Not that I ever heard him say that but lets play devil's advocate and assume he did. Would you disagree with that? A large generalization as it is. Just in your daily life, would you find that people generally hold prejudices against certain groups either overtly or subconciouslly?

Shit, just here amongst ourselves, we're rife with it! Myself not excluded. I think to a certain degree everyone holds some prejudice inside them. It's a learned behaviour from a society traditionally seeped in it. Whether it's against shiftless lazy blacks, welfare consuming illegals, bad Asian drivers, drunk Irishmen, etc. etc. I think most people hold certain beliefs and prejudices, either founded or unfounded. And that is part of the discussion on race that Obama advocates. Just holding it inside in private and the proudly pronouncing that no racism exists save in those that voice it loudly doesn't solve anything.

You just like to dismiss it as unneeded and as some proof of Obama's racism because he dares to hold up a mirror and challenge everyone to look inside it and surmount it.

semantics. but it gave you a way to dodge the question.

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

semantics. but it gave you a way to dodge the question.

How do you figure it's semantics?

Religion is a form of godliness where you follow rites, dogma, rules, and ceremony and think this brings about salvation.

Faith and a personal relationship with God is what Christianity, the kind that Jesus actually preached, is.

that is one of the more irksome things when faith is discussed. how easily people conflate religion and faith, which are two differen things entirely. It is possible and quite easy to be 'religious' and not be saved.

yes that is one definition, also religion can refer to what faith you are. example Muslim, Christian, Mormon. I use the definition of religion/faith that you used for the most part. But for you to feign ignorance that there are other definition, conveniently gave you the dodge from the actual point.

because i was correct and you didnt have an out.

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

because i was correct and you didnt have an out.

I know that doesn't satisfy you because frankly nothing about Obama would satisfy you.

It was impressive and substantive as hell and a hell of a retort but you'll never acknowledge it.

YAAAY!!!GO OBAMA!!!!!

TALK ABOUT THE "STRIGHT TALK EXPRESS!". This undoubtedly will now cause Hillary to retreat back to her pollsters and ad visors on how to counter this impressive bit of directness. Based on her Bosnia lie apology, I'm guessing it will take a while....

I honestly think we need to reassess that McCain supporter who referred to Obama as "Tiger Woods". He may be right but not for the cynical reasons that little turd wanted to convey. Just like Tiger Woods, Obama makes it look effortless. Here 2 candidates came at him, like starved lions, trying to paint him as "elitist"and Obama effortlessly swats it down and back at them. Honestly, we have never seen the like in modern politics. He turns negative attacks into net positives. If anyone still thinks Hillary is the better candidate, all you have to do is look at the Bosnia debacle and compare it to Wright or this "elitist" attack and see how each candidate handled it.

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

Originally Posted By: whomod

he said this:

Quote:

It will be interesting to see the fallout on Obama's comments. If I was from a competing campaign I would see about cleaning that clip up for better sound quality & get an ad out.

whoa! retro cool! you could totally hang those up alongside your che and mao posters! $;\)$

Originally Posted By: whomod

Mayor Goldie Wilson.Progress is his middle name!!

I saw a couple interesting news clips on YouTube today. I'm not sure why these aren't getting more mainstream press. I guess everyone is too concerned with who Obama went to Church with than the fact that Karl Rove and GW have been making backdoor trade deals:

Quote:

Cover Blown On Backdoor Trade Deal

By the way if you look close in that last clip, you see Karl Rove giving a speech.

Quote:

Bush Adminastration At Loss In BubbleGum Shortage

Originally Posted By: whomod

How...Orwellian....

Originally Posted By: wh0m0d

Quote:

Cover Blown On Backdoor Trade Deal

By the way if you look close in that last clip, you see Karl Rove giving a speech.

Quote:

Bush Adminastration At Loss In BubbleGum Shortage

I was actually about to comment on how stupid Whomod was over this.

It's really telling about Whomod's personality when I have to look at the 1337 in the poster's name to realize it isn't him.

She got her looks from her father. He's a plastic surgeon.

Originally Posted By: whomod

I like mine better.

A Newsmax article that exposes Obama's rationalization and excusing of racial hatred, that would help to perpetuate racism if he were elected president:

http://www.newsmax.com/kessler/obama_wright/2008/03/26/83129.html

Especially interesting is the contrasting example of Condoleeza Rice, and what she endured, without rationalizing and perpetuating hatred she grew up surrounded with.

Originally Posted By: Captain Sammitch

Originally Posted By: whomod

I like mine better.

MINE IS THE BEST

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

A Newsmax article that exposes Obama's rationalization and excusing of racial hatred, that would help to perpetuate racism if he were elected president:

http://www.newsmax.com/kessler/obama_wright/2008/03/26/83129.html

Especially interesting is the contrasing example of Condoleeza Rice, and what she endured, without rationalizing and perpetuating hatred she grew up surrounded with.

Wow.

Based on that and other right wing articles here, I don't think too many far right wingers will vote for Obama.

not to mention being all out of bubblegum.

I've been impressed by Barack Obama's style (if not substance) in this campaign. His domestic agenda is far too liberal for me and the company he keeps is troubling, but I've not felt put off by most of his rhetoric.

But then he makes these comments about small town voters in Pennsylvania. They're a reminder that he buys into the Marxist divisive strain of thought shared by people like Rev. Wright.

Prior to this, Obama seemed to understand plausible arguments offered by people who disagree with him. Whereas Hillary Clinton says she's a fighter -- she'll go to Washington and fight off those nasty Republicans--Obama casts himself as someone who understands that Republicans aren't nasty people.

That's why these remarks may be particularly damaging to Obama -- they call into question whether he really grasps the mindset of those whose beliefs differ from his own.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

On Hillary fighting nasty Republicans, it's really a case of there being issues that there isn't common ground on that she'll fight for. It's not a case of her thinking Republicans are nasty & the fighting is just for the hell of it.

The Allentown Morning Call and the Scranton Times Tribune both Endorsed Obama on Sunday.

Both newspapers were complimentary of Clinton, but said Obama’s ability to inspire is more likely to lead the country in a new direction.

Quote:

“There is little doubt that a second Clinton presidency would further the deep divisiveness that characterizes American politics - a divisiveness that dug itself deep during the Clinton presidency, and even deeper during the Bush-Cheney years,”

the Scranton endorsement reads.

Quote:

“The first task for the next president is to get past that. And it might not be possible if the presidential cycle goes Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton.”

There are so many great lines in Obama's speech...it's worth watching all nine minutes and 21 seconds. This is a candidate who knows how to fight back.

I have to imagine this speech is causing some serious heartburn over at Clinton HQ in Arlington, VA.

Originally Posted By: whomod

There are so many great lines in Obama's speech...it's worth watching all nine minutes and 21 seconds. This is a candidate who knows how to fight back.

yeah, if your a socialist douche.

Quote:

I have to imagine this speech is causing some serious heartburn over at Clinton HQ in Arlington, VA.

probably

Needless to say, I've got a bone or two to pick with Barack Hussein Obama. But I'll give him credit where it's due — when an AP reporter made a mental error by asking him about "Obama bin Laden" still being at large, the candidate handled it with good humor.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Whomod? Your just going to plow on throwing as much mud at Hillary while ignoring Obama's flaws. You stopped being critical of him not long after Edwards dropped out. Whatever, I don't hate Obama but he isn't perfect nor is Hillary the evil machine talking points you go with.

BET founder takes on Obama, race

Quote:

The billionaire founder of Black Entertainment Television says Barack Obama would not be a leading presidential candidate if he were white and that the Illinois senator's campaign has "a hair-trigger on anything racial."

The Charlotte Observer reported on its Web site Monday that Bob Johnson, one of Hillary Rodham Clinton's top black supporters, was commenting on remarks previously made by Geraldine Ferraro, another Clinton supporter.

"What I believe Geraldine Ferraro meant is that if you take a freshman senator from Illinois called 'Jerry Smith' and he says I'm going to run for president, would he start off with 90 percent of the black vote?" Johnson said. "And the answer is, probably not."

"Geraldine Ferraro said it right," Johnson added. "The problem is, Geraldine Ferraro is white. This campaign has such a hair-trigger on anything racial it is almost impossible for anybody to say anything."

Ferraro, a Democratic candidate for vice president in 1984, stepped down last month as an adviser to Clinton amid controversy over comments she made to the Daily Breeze newspaper in Torrance, Calif. "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position," Ferraro said. "And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."

Obama campaign spokesman Dan Leistikow called Johnson's remarks "just one in a long line of absurd comments by Bob Johnson and other Clinton supporters who will say or do anything to get the nomination. The American people are tired of this and are ready to turn the page on these kind of attack politics."

Johnson, who owns the NBA's Charlotte Bobcats, is a longtime friend of both Hillary Clinton and former President Clinton.

In January, Johnson seemed to refer to Obama's acknowledged teenage drug use while introducing Clinton at a South Carolina event. He said the Clintons "have been deeply and emotionally involved in black issues — when Barack Obama was doing something in the neighborhood; I won't say what he was doing, but he said it in his book — when they have been involved."

Obama wrote about his youthful drug use — marijuana, alcohol and sometimes cocaine — in his memoir, "Dreams From My Father." Johnson later denied that he was talking about Obama using drugs.

Does this surprise anyone?

In a letter posted on his web site today, the musician known by his fans as "Brrruuuuuucce" endorsed Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) for president, siding with the first-term senator as "head and shoulders above the rest" -- an indirect put-down of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.). Obama "has the depth, the reflectiveness, and the resilience to be our next President. He speaks to the America I've envisioned in my music for the past 35 years, a generous nation with a citizenry willing to tackle nuanced and complex problems, a country that's interested in its collective destiny and in the potential of its gathered spirit,"

I'm a big fan of [most of] Bruce's music, but has his endorsement every meant anything?

Springsteen's help -- including an Election Eve performance in Cleveland -- failed to boost Kerry in the decisive battleground of Ohio.

bragging rights I suppose.

In obama's case, bragging rights from a big name in the rock & Roll pantheon which is in itself a category overwhelmingly white and male..

So it makes a slight impact, if only symbolically.

Just as I said Richardson's endorsement doesn't translate into suddenly getting some mythic Hispanic bloc vote. It merely shows people that a big name in the establishment thinks you've got a better shot than the other guy/gal. It's more a reassurance to undecideds, when coupled with other factors, can help to sway someone.

In and of itself, it means little to nothing.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

It'd be less disturbing if it didn't look as if Homer was in the 1970's era pussycat theatre chain. I'm still not sure if the popcorn was photoshopped in what with that expression and his hands strategically placed...

Originally Posted By: whomod

bragging rights I suppose.

In obama's case, bragging rights from a big name in the rock & Roll pantheon which is in itself a category overwhelmingly white and male.

Which meant shit for John Kerry, as noted above.

Originally Posted By: whomod

That's right, whomod. There are actual, unretouched, pictures around the internet of Homer Simpson in a porn theater stroking a giant schlong and we've all seen them.

Oh, wait, no...those are pictures of YOU.

That was levity, G-man....

I KNOW Home risn't a real person. But thanks for spoiling the moment.

The record will henceforth reflect that telling whomod there are no pictures of Homer Simpson with a giant schlong is, to him, "spoiling the moment."

Originally Posted By: the G-man

The record will henceforth reflect that telling whomod there are no pictures of Homer Simpson with a giant schlong is, to him, "spoiling the moment."

..of levity, G-Man.

Sure, whomod....surrreeee......

"Balack Obama", G-man?

the "Hussein", and "Obama Bin laden stuff" ain't working out?

Originally Posted By: whomod

"Balack Obama", G-man?

Hey, you're the one who seems to think we should all be focused on his race and give him a pass for being half-black. I was just trying to help you out by reminding that "evil racist doctor" of Obama's proud half-Nubian heritage.

$;\)$

Quote:

the "Hussein", and "Obama Bin laden stuff" ain't working out?

"Hussein" is his middle name and, you might recall, I expressed a certain admiration for Obama's handling of the incident in which a reporter accidentally referred to "Osama" as "Obama".

Is whomod's real name "David K. Shipler"?

In a LA Times op-ed piece, Shipler sounds a lot like whomod as he explains how racism supposedly lurks in the minds of any one who dares criticize Barack Hussein Obama:

In a country so changed that a biracial man who is considered black has a shot at the presidency, the subterranean biases are much less discernible now than when the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated. They are subtle, unacknowledged and unacceptable in polite company. But they lurk below, lending resonance to the criticisms of Obama. Black professionals know the double standard. They are often labeled negatively for traits deemed positive in whites: A white is assertive, a black is aggressive; a white is resolute, a black is pushy; a white is candid, a black is abrasive; a white is independent, a black is not a team player. Prejudice is a shape shifter, adapting to acceptable forms.

For example, it also turns out that calling Obama elitist is actually a racial slur:

"Elitist" is another word for "arrogant," which is another word for "uppity," that old calumny applied to blacks who stood up for themselves.

Here's another example:

Casting Obama as "out of touch" plays harmoniously with the traditional notion of blacks as "others" at the edge of the mainstream, separate from the whole. Despite his ability to articulate the frustration and yearning of broad segments of Americans, his "otherness" has been highlighted effectively by right-wingers who harp on his Kenyan father and spread false rumors that he's a clandestine Muslim.

You can see how the Shipler/whomod method works: every criticism of Obama is "racist". If you say Obama is inexperienced, that's another word for "young," and a young male is a boy. You just called Obama "boy" ....you...you... bigot.

I've mentioned before that I think Obama has been largely admirable for not making his race a factor in the election. However, the more of his surrogates who do make me think that this is only so that his surrogates can do so for him.

Obama exploits the race card extremely well.

And as you say, G-man, it's a card that can be spun to label ANY criticism of Obama as "racist".

And Obama can, for the most part, let his subordinates play that card to the hilt, while he continues to project his false image of being "above the fray".

The only thing is, as I've said many times, Colin Powell was selected by a majority of Americans as the candidate they would have chosen over anyone else in 1992, 1996, and 2000. And there are any number of other highly successful black politicians. The notion that the American public would allow these other black office-holders to rise as far as they have, and then deny the presidency to a guy based on skin-color, is just wild conspiracy.

It's a clever spin by Obama to appeal to black racists, who want to perpetuate race politics, perpetual victimhood, and racial quotas forever. And these liberal policies are, in truth, the most condescending racism of all, despite cloaking this mindset in handouts given under the name of "social justice".

Vindictive prejudicial stereotyping of whites for objectively criticizing Obama.
Slapping false racist labels on non-supporters, to hide the Obama campaign's own racism and blaxploitation. It is truly Whomodian.

All I know is that Obama is Black; and he is, therefore, someone who's political and social message I can't question for any reason whatsoever. As a Black man running for president, everything he says needs to be taken as the absolute truth until he says something that contradicts it, in which case that becomes the absolute truth. As a white man, it would be nothing but racism for me to saying anything that was outside the realm of high praise and loyalty to that great Ebony Prince Barack Obama.

careful, doc. whomod's got plenty more colbert and stewart clips to throw at you, among the rest of his youtube arsenal.

We only hope he stops with Colbert and Stewart. If he brings out the big gun-Keith Olbermann, we're all doomed.

Originally Posted By: whomod

this is the first time the mainstream media has delved into the William Ayers issue, one of the many below-the-belt zingers that Hillary has been trying to throw at Obama...
Barack Obama took his first public grilling on his relationship with Bill Ayers last night, and between the moderators' pressing and Clinton's follow-up, it had exactly the effect the Clinton campaign hoped: finally injecting the issue into the public discussion. At the moment, "Ayers" is the fifth most searched term on Google, according to Google Trends; "Ayers Obama" is 15th. "William Ayers" is 26th.

Yes. How DARE the media ask a presidential candidate about his friendship with an admitted terrorist?

Who do those reporters think they are? Didn't they get the memo?

Dammit, people. Let's remember: Obama is Black.

It's racist to ask him about any issue he doesn't wish to discuss.

Let's try and be more sensitive to him prior to the coronation, m'okay?

Originally Posted By: the G-man

We only hope he stops with Colbert and Stewart. If he brings out the big gun-Keith Olbermann, we're all doomed.

In all fairness, this post-debate analysis includes both Air America's Rachel Maddow as well as conservative Pat Buchanan.

to everyones credit, they devoted more substantive talk in 3 segments than Charlie Gibson was able to achieve in 2 hours, 1 devoted exclusively to furthering every innuendo he could squeeze in about Obama. Buchanan's take on Clinton's Imperial presidency statement, in clip # 3 was especially good and something almost all the media ignored while sifting thru the slime.

and a funny...

Tom Shales of The Washington Post summed up the debate the best:

Quote:

When Barack Obama met Hillary Clinton for another televised Democratic candidates' debate last night, it was more than a step forward in the 2008 presidential election. It was another step downward for network news -- in particular ABC News, which hosted the debate from Philadelphia and whose usually dependable anchors, Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos, turned in shoddy, despicable performances.

For the first 52 minutes of the two-hour, commercial-crammed show, Gibson and Stephanopoulos dwelled entirely on specious and gossipy trivia that already has been hashed and rehashed, in the hope of getting the candidates to claw at one another over disputes that are no longer news. Some were barely news to begin with.

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

Funny you mention Powell since he too recently praised Obama and repeated his points for him.

So unless Colin Powell is really a racist black, this caricature sort of falls flat.

AP-Yahoo Poll: Obama overtaking Clinton despite bruises.

If those numbers hold or grow for Obama there goes two of Hillary's talking points: (1) that she has a better chance of beating McCain; (2) that she's going to win the primary popular vote.

Quote:

Clinton To Obama: Stop Whining About Debate

by Aaron Bruns

Hillary Clinton says Obama should stop complaining about taking hard questions at Wednesday’s ABC News debate — since he’ll have to face a lot tougher issues if he becomes president.

In an interview with Fox 29 in Philadelphia, Clinton said of her Democratic opponent, “I know he spent all day yesterday complaining about the hard questions he was asked. Being asked tough questions in a debate is nothing like the pressures you face inside the White House.”

“I’ve been through, what, 23 of these debates?” she said. “As I recall, I was asked some pretty tough questions in nearly every one of them.”

In North Carolina, Obama echoed critics who said ABC’s moderators were focused on trivial matters — and that they seemed tougher on the Illinois Senator than his New York counterpart. “Last night I think we set a new record because it took us 45 minutes before we even started talking about a single issue that matters to the American people,” he said. “Senator Clinton looked in her element. She was taking every opportunity to get a dig in there. Ya know? That’s alright. That’s her right. That’s her right to kind of twist the knife a little bit.”

Clinton’s response: if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. “The special interests are going to be a lot tougher than 90 minutes of questions from two journalists and we need a president who is going to be up there fighting everyday for the American people and not complain about how much pressure there is, and how hard the questions are,” she said.
...

FOX
Now to be fair Clinton has also complained about tough questions. On the other hand I don't remember much if any sympathy for her when the campaign did it. Obama complains & we see a whole bunch of columns criticizing ABC for asking him tough questions.

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Now to be fair Clinton has also complained about tough questions.

Quote:

On the other hand I don't remember much if any sympathy for her when the campaign did it. Obama complains & we see a whole bunch of columns criticizing ABC for asking him tough questions.

Still, after that tantrum she had about being asked the first question in every debate and her crying about how mean the press was to a female candidate, she really has zero credibility with which to attack Obama on this issue.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

she really has zero credibility.

There.

Fixed it for you.

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

Originally Posted By: whomod

Funny you mention Powell since he too recently praised Obama and repeated his points for him.

So unless Colin Powell is really a racist black, this caricature sort of falls flat.

My point was that Powell (a black man) was selected by a majority of Americans as their Presidential candidate of choice over ANYONE ELSE running, consistently, in 1992, 1996 and 2000.
And Powell wasn't even running.
Far from being "a society that won't let a black man rise to the level of president", as a columnist who shares your hatred and stereotypes of Americans alleges. These are consistent polls that disprove that slanderous notion.

That alone renders allegations that the Americans wouldn't accept a black man as president to be so much excrement, so clearly not the reality.

If the American voters don't pick Obama, it's not "racism", they clearly are ready for a black candidate, and as Powells polls make evident, have been for more than a decade, if a decent black candidate is offered.

If Obama is rejected, it is clearly a rejection of his record and approach to the issues, NOT his skin color.

Regarding Powell "praising" Obama, he praised Obama's tactics in a particular instance, not Obama's overall candidacy. Pat Buchanan (in your Olbermann Youtube clips, and pretty much weekly on other programs) has praised aspects of Obama as well, I wouldn't call that an endorsement either. It's just political commentary on aspects of the candidates.

Powell in the same above clip also praised Hillary and McCain, and the wide range of diametrically opposed political beliefs expressed in this election, in what Powell praised as the astonishingly peaceful election process we have, when opinions are so divergent, as compared to the volatile process in other nations.
Most of all, Powell praised our uniquely open election process in which all three candidates were a part of, rather than praising or "endorsing" Obama or anyone else.

Like virtually everything else you link here, you spun that clip as something it was not.

That is as blanket a statement as if I actually had said people wouldn't vote for him because he's black.

Of course some will look past that just as I'm sure there are people who won't.

As far as the clip, I didn't "spin" anything. The media were the ones who did. I just happened to agree with their analysis while you disagree.

i think why most americans would have voted for Powell is he apparently isnt a racist, but Obama is obviously one, and that will come back to haunt them in the fall...

so wondy your whole point is that we shouldn't elect this black man because doing so would support the idea that he had to fight against a system that didn't want to elect a black man?
and we're sticking with calling him a "racist" because he said his grandmother was a "typical white woman" in between comments about how much he loved her and how she raised him?
meanwhile we have a retarded guy in the white house surrounded by the legion of doom outcasts and you have no problem with that because you have had a few harsh words for a few of his actions that you saw as playing in to the liberal conspiracy?

and Colin Powell never was a serious contender for the presidency. Just because polls said people liked him is not the same as him running a campaign and winning. Hell Rudy and Thompson were doing great in the polls until they actually ran campaigns and I remember Powell saying since the early 90's that he wouldn't run for president because his wife didn't want him to.

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

and we're sticking with calling him a "racist" because he said his grandmother was a "typical white woman" in between comments about how much he loved her and how she raised him?

he also called all middle class small town people racists in his "bitter" speech. if he has that view of small town people how can he govern them?

plus you conveniently forgot he attended a church that spewed racism for 20 years, if a white guy attended klan rallies for 20 years and was running for presidency you wouldnt have an issue with this? of course you would, but you think this guy is different because he's promises it was a misunderstanding. gullible you are.

I wondered how long it would be before Ray drank the Obama Kool Aid.

I figured it was only a matter of time and I was right.

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

he also called all middle class small town people racists in his "bitter" speech. if he has that view of small town people how can he govern them?

no, he talked about people in hard times turning to fear and xenophobia. and he expressed frustration at that, not contempt for those people.

Quote:

plus you conveniently forgot he attended a church that spewed racism for 20 years, if a white guy attended klan rallies for 20 years and was running for presidency you wouldnt have an issue with this? of course you would, but you think this guy is different because he's promises it was a misunderstanding. gullible you are.

attending a "black" church where the guy gives speeches against the problems in the country is not the same as attending a klan rally, unless there is some quote where rev. wright encouraged lynching and harrassment of whites. expressing rage over feeling like you're a second class citizen is not racism.
i'm also sure there is more to rev. wright than that anger. and there is nothing i have seen from him that sounds even a tenth as bad as pat robertson or jerry fallwell.

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

he also called all middle class small town people racists in his "bitter" speech. if he has that view of small town people how can he govern them?

no, he talked about people in hard times turning to fear and xenophobia. and he expressed frustration at that, not contempt for those people.

Quote:

"And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations," Obama said.

get a dictionary look up "antipathy" ray, then get back to me when you understand what Barack said in his speech versus his coverup speech later.

but you already know what it means, and you know he went to a racist church. but your naive enough to believe his promises that he didnt really mean it, that he wasnt in church those days so it wont sway you anyways...

stick your head back in the sand where youre more comfortable...

i thought he was a muslim, bsams. at least that was what you were saying last week.

Quote:

what exactly is wrong with this quote? can you honestly say that small communities don't develop antipathy towards outsiders? do you honestly think that there is no aspect of xenophobia in the recent anti-immigrant sentiment? the same type of anti-outsidersentiment that pops up during every hard time in the history of humanity? what exactly is the problem with what obama said? to me it sounds honest, more honest than anything i have heard from a politician in a long time. it's not a soundbyte trying to blow smoke up someone's ass, and it's not like the candid moments from bush where he sounds like a hick. obama expressed a very real and valid opinion, and it sounds more like frustration that this type of bitterness exists. quite frankly it sounds like he actually cares.

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

So saying that it's the white government that put drugs in the black communities to keep them down isn't encouraging racial division? Entire sermons were devoted to increasing the social black/white divide. It's bullshit to say otherwise.

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

That's bullshit. It was just Obama trying to give some excuse why the little people that the Democrats say they're out to help won't vote for them without taking into consideration that the Democrat platform may not mesh with those people's lifestyles or beliefs. It's Obama and the Democrats who are bitter. People who 'hold on to their guns and religion' do so in the good times and bad. It's also a way to demonize those people as bigots when it concerns the immigration debate rather than looking at any other concerns that those people may have. In other words, Obama was marginalizing middle America because they won't vote for him.

Oh no! Pennsylvanians are increasingly drinking the "Obama Kool-Aid" . $;\)$

Wow. There's a lot of buzz about a huge rally in Philadelphia for Obama last night. HUGE:

Quote:

WITH JUST days to go before the Pennsylvania primary, Sen. Barack Obama last night appeared before thousands of roaring supporters in Independence Mall, and pledged to "declare independence" from Washington politics.

"In four days, you get the chance to help bring about the change that we need right now, Philadelphia," Obama said. "Here in the city and the state that gave birth to our democracy, we can declare our independence from the politics that has shut us out, let us down, and told us to settle."

In his first public Philadelphia appearance, Obama stood on stage before the Independence Visitor Center, addressing a rapturous crowd of roughly 35,000 that stretched all the way to Independence Hall. His warm up acts included will.i.am, lead singer of the Black Eyed Peas.

That has to be one of the biggest political events ever during a primary. Imagine what the general election will be like.

Rooting around this morning, there is excellent first-hand coverage at a recommended post on DailyKos by Sphexus, with lots of pictures and video -- including video of a spontaneous march by thousands of Obama supporters through downtown Philadelphia after the event.

You can probably add these 35,000 people to the list that Hillary doesn't like and doesn't agree with.

The local CBS affiliate has a video of the speech.

Hillary and by extension, the Republicans are swimming against the tide of chnge and yes "bitterness" with the status quo. You can't stop the change. Don't fear it, embrace it! $\:\)$

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

i thought he was a muslim, bsams. at least that was what you were saying last week.

Quote:

it's not a real or valid opinion. he cant keep accusing the world of racism like Rev. Wright has taught him. i live in a town of about 1200, there are many towns in the county i live in that are as small if not smaller, most if not all are very welcoming. in fact i cant think of any small towns here in Ohio and Pennsylvania that are anything but welcoming to outsiders.

the small town that Obama is painting is very different than reality. but what would he know? he spent 20 years listening to a man rant that white people hate the black man. Obama has no practical experience just the garbage his Black KKK church spews.

look at you, youve only seen sound bites and now you believe it too...

i hope the sand doesnt get into your lungs....

Originally Posted By: thedoctor

increasing the social divide? no. i don't think he had that kind of power. i think he did what any other preacher working on a sermon would do. he looked around the world, saw something that upset him, and wrote a speech about it which he delivered to his gathering at church. it's just yet another social commentary. do i care that he said god damn america when talking about racial issues? no. because blacks have been seriously fucked over in this country and i get the anger. unlike pat robertson or jerry fallwell he didn't (to my knowledge) advocate murder or blame a terrorist attack on abortions.

Quote:

so? he gave an excuse for something that disapointed him based on his own views of the situation. and he gave those views in private. what the fuck is the problem? he's human, he feels a certain way and expressed that to someone. just because he was tape recorded does not a scandal make. in fact, unlike hardline rightwingers, he at least put human feeling to the people that opposed him. he seemed to care and be frustrated that people weren't "getting it." but ultimately everyone who runs for office thinks they're onto something. are you really going to condemn obama for that?

he didnt just put a human spin, he lied.

Quote:

Obama Fact: Children Of The Scorn
Barack Obama did not always believe small town folk cling to guns and religion because they were bitter. His original theory? Small town folk were following the orders of a hidden monster in the corn field.

whomod content User I broke bsams sphincter
4000+ posts 04/19/08 06:07 PM Reading a post
Forum: Politics and Current Events
Thread: Barack Hussein Obama in '08?

almost 45 minutes? i think i broke him good this time....

Quote:

A Living Lie

An e-mail from a reader said that, while Hillary Clinton tells lies, Barack Obama is himself a lie. That is becoming painfully apparent with each new revelation of how drastically his carefully crafted image this election year contrasts with what he has actually been saying and doing for many years.

Senator Obama's election year image is that of a man who can bring the country together, overcoming differences of party or race, as well as solving our international problems by talking with Iran and other countries with which we are at odds, and performing other miscellaneous miracles as needed.

There is, of course, not a speck of evidence that Obama has ever transcended party differences in the United States Senate. Voting records analyzed by the National Journal show him to be the farthest left of anyone in the Senate. Nor has he sponsored any significant bipartisan legislation — nor any other significant legislation, for that matter.

Senator Obama is all talk — glib talk, exciting talk, confident talk, but still just talk.

Some of his recent talk in San Francisco has stirred up controversy because it revealed yet another blatant contradiction between Barack Obama's public image and his reality.

Speaking privately to supporters in heavily left-liberal San Francisco, Obama let down his hair and described working class people in Pennsylvania as so "bitter" that they "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them."

Like so much that Obama has said and done over the years, this is standard stuff on the far left, where guns and religion are regarded as signs of psychological dysfunction — and where opinions different from those of the left are ascribed to emotions ("bitter" in this case), rather than to arguments that need to be answered.

Like so many others on the left, Obama rejects "stereotypes" when they are stereotypes he doesn't like but blithely throws around his own stereotypes about "a typical white person" or "bitter" gun-toting, religious and racist working class people.

In politics, the clearer a statement is, the more certain it is to be followed by a "clarification," when people react adversely to what was plainly said.

Obama and his supporters were still busy "clarifying" Jeremiah Wright's very plain statements when it suddenly became necessary to "clarify" Senator Obama's own statements in San Francisco.

People who have been cheering whistle-blowers for years have suddenly denounced the person who blew the whistle on what Obama said in private that is so contradictory to what he has been saying in public.

However inconsistent Obama's words, his behavior has been remarkably consistent over the years.
He has sought out and joined with the radical, anti-Western left, whether Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers of the terrorist Weatherman underground or pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli Rashid Khalidi.

Obama is also part of a long tradition on the left of being for the working class in the abstract, or as people potentially useful for the purposes of the left, but having disdain or contempt for them as human beings.

Karl Marx said, "The working class is revolutionary or it is nothing." In other words, they mattered only in so far as they were willing to carry out the Marxist agenda.

Fabian socialist George Bernard Shaw included the working class among the "detestable" people who "have no right to live." He added: "I should despair if I did not know that they will all die presently, and that there is no need on earth why they should be replaced by people like themselves."

Similar statements on the left go back as far as Rousseau in the 18th century and come forward into our own times.

It is understandable that young people are so strongly attracted to Obama. Youth is another name for inexperience — and experience is what is most needed when dealing with skillful and charismatic demagogues.

Those of us old enough to have seen the type again and again over the years can no longer find them exciting. Instead, they are as tedious as they are dangerous.

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

Originally Posted By: thedoctor

I don't know. Maybe it's because I'm still a little drunk, or maybe it's because you're full of shit; but I find that to be a total cop out.

How can Rev. Wright saying that the white government is responsible for drugs and AIDS in the black community anything but dividing his mostly black congregation from the white community? All he did was point his finger and call names. You're full of shit if you just let that pass.

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

Would you condemn David Duke for saying that the Jews were corrupting the voting process because they weren't supporting the 'white rule' of America? Obama said utter bullshit to support the fact that he couldn't get a certain group's votes. Should I condemn him for that? Fuck yes. He was condemning the group that I'm a part of. Why should I vote for a guy who talks bad about the people I can most associate myself with? He doesn't understand me or my needs. Why should I give him my loyalty? He's not going to do jack shit for me. In the end, isn't that why we vote for politicians?

Originally Posted By: the G-man

I wondered how long it would be before Ray drank the Obama Kool Aid.

I figured it was only a matter of time and I was right.

Wow, that's real dismissive and elitist of you considering he's the Democratic front runner.

Serious question whomod

Have you ever touched yourself while thinking of obama?

No.

I'm not a homosexual.

But are you an obamasexual?

Ouch. I couldn't let the weekend pass without mentioning this...

MEM, that's got to hurt. That makes 5 former Clinton cabinet members to back Obama.

'Judas' as quintuplets!

Quote:

CAMPAIGN '08
Ex-Labor Secretary Reich backs Obama

By Mark Z. Barabak, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
April 19, 2008

Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich on Friday became the fifth former Clinton Cabinet member to endorse Barack Obama, saying that loyalty to his old friends the Clintons had been overwhelmed by unhappiness with the tone of Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign.

"I did not plan to endorse. I wanted to stay out of the whole endorsement racket. But my conscience wouldn't let me stay silent after this latest round of mudslinging," Reich, a UC Berkeley professor of public policy, said in a telephone interview from his campus office.

INDEPENDENCE HALL: Sen. Barack Obama addresses a crowd of 35,000, the largest of his campaign, in Philadelphia.

"When millions of Americans are losing their homes and jobs, when the economy is facing its worst crisis in 60 years, when the Iraq war is still causing chaos in the Middle East, to focus on whether Obama should have used the word 'bitter' when he talked about the plight of many in Pennsylvania, and to resurrect the old Republican themes of guns and religion, and to call Obama 'elitist' . . . just put me over the edge."

A spokesman for Bill Clinton, who first met Reich when the two were sailing to England in 1968 as Rhodes scholars, said the former president had no comment. A spokesman for Hillary Clinton, who attended Yale Law School with her husband-to-be and Reich in the early 1970s, dismissed the endorsement.

"He made clear his choice some time ago, so this isn't any surprise," said Mo Elleithee.

Reich had previously laced into the Clintons on his blog, including postings titled "Will HRC Spoil the Party?" (yes, he suggested, by staying in the race too long); "Why Is HRC Stooping So Low" (which criticized her "stridency and inaccuracy" in discussing Social Security); and "Bill Clinton's Old Politics" (which criticized his "ill-tempered and ill-founded attacks" on Obama).

Still, Reich's written endorsement -- which offered only positive reasons for his decision -- drew wide coverage after being posted on his blog ( http://www.robertreich.blogspot.com ). It also underscored one of the difficulties that Clinton faces as she struggles to overtake Sen. Obama of Illinois, who leads the Democratic contest in pledged delegates and the popular vote with just a few major primaries remaining. The more aggressive her tack, polls suggest, the higher she drives her own negative standing with voters.

"She's in a box," said Democratic strategist Joe Trippi, who has stayed neutral since his candidate, former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, quit the race. "The more she does the thing she has to do, the more people don't like her."

Others suggested that Reich's endorsement was significant for the signal it would send to the 300 or so unpledged superdelegates, the party leaders who are likely to decide the Democratic nomination. Reich is not a superdelegate.

Even so, "what it says to superdelegates is loyalty only goes so far. You have to make your decision based on what you think is best for the party," said Bruce Cain, a UC Berkeley political scientist. "If people like Richardson and now Reich can step out of the Clinton orbit, then it gets easier for fellow superdelegates who are bound by reasons of loyalty to also do so."

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, who dropped out of the Democratic race, served as Energy secretary and as ambassador to the United Nations in the Clinton administration.

Along with Reich and Richardson -- who is a superdelegate, by virtue of his office -- the others who served in the Clinton Cabinet and now support Obama are former Commerce Secretary William M. Daley; former Commerce Secretary Norman Y. Mineta; and Federico Pena, who held two posts under Clinton, Transportation secretary and Energy secretary.

Reich left the administration at the end of Clinton's first term and wrote a book that expressed both affection for the president and disappointment with some of his policies, which Reich considered too accommodating of Republicans.

On Friday he carefully weighed his words. Like Richardson, who discussed his Obama endorsement in an interview last week, Reich said he had felt "very torn, frankly," because of residual loyalty to the Clintons. Initially, he considered it "unnecessary and inappropriate to endorse Obama."

After changing his mind over the last few days -- "I just had enough" -- Reich tried calling the couple Thursday but was unsuccessful. It has been about a year since he last spoke with Hillary Clinton, Reich said, and even longer since he last talked to her husband.

He gave no advance notice of his endorsement to the Obama campaign and professed no interest in a Cabinet position should Obama win in November. "Been there, done that," Reich said. "Nobody will ever get me to leave the Bay Area, regardless of what is offered."

Obama picked up two other endorsements Friday, from former Sens. David Boren of Oklahoma and Sam Nunn of Georgia. Clinton won the backing of a superdelegate, Rep. Betty Sutton of Ohio.

Clinton leads among superdelegates, 257 to 231, but Obama leads in the overall delegate count, 1,645 to 1,507, according to the Associated Press. It takes 2,025 delegates to win the nomination.

They campaigned across Pennsylvania on Friday, ahead of their next big test in Tuesday's primary.

Clinton appeared at a midday rally at Radnor High School, in a wealthy suburb in eastern Pennsylvania, where she scoffed at suggestions that the questioning in Wednesday night's debate was too tough.

"I'm with Harry Truman on this: If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen," Clinton said. "Just speaking for myself, I am very comfortable in the kitchen."

Obama appeared at a town-hall meeting in Erie and at Philadelphia's Independence Hall.

So much for the kitchen sink. Apparently, throwing them at Obama only adds fuel to his momentum.

And bsams, that wily obama sure can fool a lit of influential people. And wow, 35,000 Pennsylvanians both black and white must really be seething enough to take to the streets after Obama called them "bitter" and the words of his racist pastor were revealed. The races are now at each others throats in those Pennsylvanian streets all on account of Obama's hidden racism!! AAAIIEEE!!!!!

Or you're just full of shit and you'll wear Reverend Wright around your neck from now till the election like a baby clinging to his security blanket.

Originally Posted By: rex

But are you an obamasexual?

Sorry, that just sounds like a HULK villain now.,..

So you admit to being a hulk villian?

I'm his hipster sidekick.

Why does Barack Obama refuse to discuss his "friendly" relationship with Bill Ayers?

Bill Ayers, the former member of the anti-Vietnam War group the Weathermen, was unknown to most Americans until week when ABC moderator George Stephanopoulos pressed Barack Obama about his association with the retired revolutionary.

his infamous remarks that appeared in the New York Times on September 11, 2001, in which he said about the 25 bombings that his group carried out against the Vietnam War: "I don't regret setting bombs; I feel we didn't do enough."

Mr. Ayers, now a professor of education at the University of Illinois, says that when it comes to "anything I did to oppose the war in Viet Nam... I say 'No, I don't regret anything I did to try to stop the slaughter of millions of human beings by my own government.'"

All of this raises continued questions about why Mr. Obama refuses to discuss his relationship with Mr. Ayers, even though his campaign recently described them as "friendly." Bloomberg News reports the two men have crossed paths repeatedly starting in 1995, when Mr. Ayers held an organizing meeting for Mr. Obama's candidacy for the state legislature in his home and personally introduced him to friends.

In 1997, Mr. Obama cited Mr. Ayers' work on criminal justice in a Chicago Tribune article on what prominent Chicagoans were reading. For a year after the infamous comments in the New York Times, Mr. Obama served with Mr. Ayers on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago.

No one suggests that Mr. Obama has ever endorsed any of the actions of the Weathermen, which occurred when he was still a child. But to this day he won't discuss how he came to know him, why he chose to associate with Mr. Ayers and what he thinks of his current opinions about the U.S. government. All that will continue to fuel questions about Mr. Obama's associations – just as his continued relationship with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright has.

more and more it looks as if Obama is a closet anti-American, this should play well if he makes it to the general election ....

But, BSAMS, he's still doing well with the Democratic elite in the primaries and polls. And that always translates into general election success.

Just ask Mike Dukakis, Walter Mondale and John Kerry.

Quote:

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) stoked debate over a ’60s radical’s ties to Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) on ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday, saying Obama’s defense “borders on the outrageous.”
ADVERTISEMENT

William Ayers — a former member of the Weather Underground, which embraced bombing in its effort to end the Vietnam War — became an issue in the Democratic nominating race at last week’s debate. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) said Obama’s past meetings with Ayers are part of a “larger set of concerns about how we are going to run against John McCain.”

Asked by host George Stephanopoulos whether he has any doubt that Obama shares his sense of patriotism, McCain brought the subject up.

“I'm sure he's very patriotic. But his relationship with Mr. Ayers is open to question,” McCain said.

“He became friends with him and spent time with him while the guy was unrepentant over his activities as a member of a terrorist organization, the Weathermen,” McCain said. “Does he condemn them? Would he condemn someone who says they're unrepentant and wished that they had bombed more?”

Counting down the minutes until whomod dredges up some obscure figure who once said something nice about McCain, even though they (unlike Obama and Ayers and/or Wright) aren't close friends and then tries to claim it's the same thing starting...now....

how about Mccain was against Jerry Fallwell and his hateful rhetoric for years until he wanted an endorsement. that's the best i got off the top of my head.

I'm sorry, is your name 'whomod'?

Originally Posted By: the G-man

I'm sorry, is your name 'whomod'?

well like anyone else who ever disagrees with you here i have been accused of being whomod's alt.

And now you're claiming to be whomod?

Sad, Ray, sad. This kind of behavior lends credence to that whole "WB broke Adler" rumor that's been circulating on the internet for a few weeks now.

the only thing wondy broke was the bank.
the bank of crazy.

Ray Adler=the bank of crazy.

Makes sense to me.

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

more and more it looks as if Obama is a closet anti-American, this should play well if he makes it to the general election ....

Yep, most "anti-Americans" display just that when they decide to devote their life to politics.

Poor bsams, still being swayed by sloganeering and caricatures.

when you're filling up your tank next time or your job gets outsourced, remember that Obama doesn't wear a flag lapel.

i will, he has been against drilling in Alaska for years, and forced us to rely on Iran and Saudi Arabia....

Originally Posted By: whomod

Yep, most "anti-Americans" display just that when they decide to devote their life to politics.

I think the record adequately reflects that people (in both parties) have been known to sometimes enter politics for reasons other than patriotism or selflessness.

As such, the mere fact that Obama is a politician is hardly evidence that he doesn't harbor closet antipathy toward our nation.

i'd say his kickbacks from the chicago real estate guy show his motives arent pure...

at least he didnt take any money from lobbyists...

Frickin AWESOME!!!!

I think they managed to get at least one clip where Clinton launches some attack with those strategists and handlers that are always hovering and nodding the lines THEY wrote, right behind her. Sort of like puppet masters who just feel a need to constantly be there as she's parroting their lines.

Originally Posted By: whomod

when you're filling up your tank next time or your job gets outsourced, remember that Obama doesn't wear a flag lapel.

Quote:

Hailed until only months ago as a silver bullet in the fight against global warming, biofuels are now accused of snatching food out of the mouths of the poor.

Billions have been poured into developing sugar- and grain-based ethanol and biodiesel to help wean rich economies from their addiction to carbon-belching fossil fuels, the overwhelming source of man-made global warming.

Heading the rush are the United States, Brazil and Canada, which are eagerly transforming corn, wheat, soy beans and sugar cane into cleaner-burning fuel, and the European Union (EU) is to launch its own ambitious programme.

But as soaring prices for staples bring more of the planet's most vulnerable people face-to-face with starvation, the image of biofuels has suddenly changed from climate saviour to a horribly misguided experiment.

On Friday, the head of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) said biofuels "posed a real moral problem" and called for a moratorium on using food crops to power cars, trucks and buses.

The vital problem of global warming "has to be balanced with the fact that there are people who are going to starve to death," said Dominique Strauss-Kahn.

"Producing biofuels is a crime against humanity," the UN's special rapporteur for the right to food, Jean Ziegler of Switzerland, said earlier.

Biofuels may still be in their infancy but they are growing rapidly, with annual production leaping by double-digit percentages.

In a speech on Wednesday that set down a target for reducing US carbon emissions, George W. Bush pointed to legislation requiring US producers to supply at least 36 billion gallons (136 billion litres) of renewable fuel by 2020.

In 2007, 20 percent of grain -- 81 million tonnes -- produced in the United States was used to make ethanol, according to US think tank the Earth Policy Institute, which predicts that the percentage will jump to nearly a quarter this year.

"We are looking at a five-fold increase in renewable fuel," Bush's top climate change advisor, Jim Connaughton, said in Paris on Thursday at a meeting of the world's major greenhouse-gas polluters.

But more than half of that legislatively-mandated production would come from "second-generation" biofuels made from non-food sources such as switchgrass and wood byproducts, he said.

The EU's and the Brazilian delegates in Paris contested the link between biofuels and the world food crisis.

"This is highly exaggerated," Sergio Serra, Brazil's ambassador for climate change, told AFP.

"There is no real relation of cause and effect between the expansion of the production of biofuels and the raising of food prices. At least it is not happening in Brazil."

EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas said experts would report back by the end of May on how to guarantee that Europe's planned biofuel boost would not impinge on the environment or the poor.

"There are a lot of concerns about social impacts, rising food prices and environment issues, and for all those reasons we want to insist on sustainability criteria in our legislation," he said.

Defenders of biofuels say food shortfalls have multiple causes, including a growing appetite for meat among the burgeoning middle class in China and India.

On average, it takes more than four kilos (eight pounds) of grain to produce one kilo (two pounds) of pork, and two kilos (four pounds) of grain to yield a kilo (two pounds) of beef.

Climate change may well be a contributing factor.

Some scientists fear rising temperatures and shifting rainfall patterns may be worsening water scarcity in key agriculture areas such Australia's wheat belt, and rice-growing deltas may be hit by saline intrusion from rising seas.

In addition, the surging cost of oil has had an indirect impact on many poor people, adding to the pinch caused by rising food prices.

i'll also remember when i see people starving that he is backed by the eco-nazi's as well...

Quote:

SCRANTON, Pa. - As Sen. Hillary Clinton was preparing to campaign here today, Sen. Barack Obama was meeting with voters at a diner and apparently pretty hungry.
"Why can't I just eat my waffle?" he said, when asked a foreign policy question by a reporter at the Glider Diner.
...

Baltimoresun.com

Eating waffles are much better than answering those tricky foriegn policy questions.

How dare those reporters ask him about foreign policy, or tax policy, or his friend the terrorist. When he's eating no less.

Leave the man in peace. It's not like he's running for office or anything.

While I'm whipping out Pat Buchanan columns, here's one about Obama, that cuts to the core of my problem with the guy.

IN DARKEST PENNSYLVANIA

Though he sees himself as a progressive who has risen above prejudice, Barack was reflecting and pandering to the prejudice of the class to which he himself belongs, and which he was then addressing.

A few months back, Michelle Obama revealed her mindset about America with the remark that, "for the first time in my adult lifetime, I'm really proud of my country." Barack has now revealed how he, too, sees the country. The Great Unifier divides the nation into us and them.

The "us" are the privileged cosmopolitan elite of San Francisco and his Ivy League upbringing.
The "them" are the folks in the small towns and rural areas of that other America. Toward these folks, Obama's attitude is not one of hostility, but of paternalism. Because time has passed them by, Barack believes, they cannot, in their frustration and bitterness, be held fully accountable for their atavistic beliefs and behavior.

...In Barack's mind, black anger and resentment at "racial injustice and inequality" are "legitimate."

But the anger and resentment of white folks, about affirmative action, crime and forced busing are born of misperceptions -- and of "bogus claims of racism" manipulated and exploited by conservative columnists and commentators to keep the racial pot boiling and retain power, so the right can continue to do the bidding of the corporations that are the real enemy.

That while Obama hides his true ideology well, his core beliefs are inherently divisive, and that Obama has a condescending contempt for the white Americans he would presume to lead.

You know, Pat would gain a lot of credibility for himself if he wouldn't entitle a column about an African-American "In Darkest Pennsylvania."

I though of that. But he's talking about a large population of whites in Pennsylvania, not blacks.

But yeah, the light-and-dark reference can be spun that way.

i love how you guys are playing the angle that whites are victims of obama's racism. everything he says is somehow racist, but if a black person mentions slavery or segregation then wondy says they should get over it.

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

While I'm whipping out Pat Buchanan columns,

I bet you whip out another thing when pat buchanan comes up.

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

Who the fuck is siding with WB? Besides, I think most of us are condemning Obama for his duplicitous nature when it comes to race. He uses it as both a sword and a shield depending upon the situation.

Originally Posted By: thedoctor

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

"you guys" pretty much means G-man and wondy. the two posters above that one.

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

While I'm whipping out Pat Buchanan columns,

Originally Posted By: rex

I bet you whip out another thing when pat buchanan comes up.

That was actually a funny one, Rex.

Sorry, but while I like Buchanan's opinion, he doesn't excite me that way.

Originally Posted By: Adler

"you guys" pretty much means G-man and wondy.

Well, for my part, the only comment I had was that I thought Buchanan's pun was vaguely racist and, therefore, damaging to his credibility on the issue. Beyond that, I've pretty much said the same sort of thing as Doc (and, for that matter, BSAMS and a few others including, I think, WB on this issue), namely, that Obama has been duplicitous about race in this campaign.

At the same time, I've also praised Obama when I thought he rose above that sort of thing.

So, I'm not sure how you can lump me into some sort of "racist against Obama" catagory, other than the fact that you've always tended to display the same knee jerk response as people like Rev. Wright, namely, that anyone who disagrees with a race baiter must be racist.

Obama site hacked, redirects clicks to Clinton's site

A cross-site scripting vulnerability in the social networking section of Sen. Barack Obama's campaign site was exploited over the weekend to redirect users to the URL of rival Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), researchers claimed today.

According to the U.K.-based antifraud company Netcraft Ltd., someone identified only as "Mox" confessed to the hack in an entry on the Community Blogs section on the Obama site Sunday. Obama, an Illinois Democrat, leads Clinton in the race for the party's presidential nomination. The site exploit occurred just before this week's big Pennsylvania primary.

Not a fan of these sort of dirty tricks.

Quote:

Students suspended for skipping class to meet Obama

Two high school seniors in Scranton, Pa., are paying a high price for their interest in politics.

Colin Saltry and Joey Daniel say they skipped gym class on Monday to rush over to a diner where Sen. Barack Obama's motorcade had just pulled in for an impromptu breakfast stop.

The two met Obama, and they say he even signed excuse slips for them to show their teachers. That didn't work. Saltry and Daniel got one-day suspensions for leaving school grounds, and Saltry has been ordered to resign as senior class president.

Saltry says it was worth being suspended to meet Obama, but he didn't expect to be bounced from his class presidency.

Assistant Superintendent William King says the rules are clear, and adds that if the students had approached a teacher about wanting to leave campus, they probably would have been given permission.

i want a president that cares about education, not that supports skipping school.

despicable.

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

Quote:

i want a president that cares about education, not that supports skipping school.

despicable.

FDR was once caught running through the halls.

Catholic High School Girls In Trouble - The most amazing bloopers are here

The Democrats Have a Nominee

Other than ensuring the Greatest Show on Earth will continue, does it matter that Hillary Clinton defeated Barack Obama Tuesday in Pennsylvania by nine-plus points? Barack Obama is the nominee.

No matter how many kicks the rest of us find in such famously fun primary states as Indiana and South Dakota, it's going to be McCain versus Obama in 2008.

the cement set around the Clinton coffin last Friday. The Obama campaign announced it had received the support of former Sens. Sam Nunn of North Carolina and David Boren of Oklahoma.

Both are what some of us nostalgically call Serious Democrats. They represent what the party was, but is no more: sensible on national security, spending and middle-class values. Obama receiving their imprimatur is like hands reaching out from the graves of FDR, JFK and LBJ to announce: "Enough is enough. This man is your nominee. Go forth and fight with the Republicans." Make no mistake: Superdelegates with sway took notice.

In a campaign of surprises, none has been more breathtaking than the falling away of Clinton supporters, loyalists . . . and friends. Why?

Money. Barack Obama's mystical pull on people is nice, but nice in modern politics comes after money. Once Barack proved conclusively that he could raise big-time cash, the Clintons' strongest tie to their machine began to unravel. Today he's got $42 million banked. She's got a few million north of nothing.

But it's more than that. Barack Obama's Web-based fund-raising apparatus is, if one may say so, respectable. The Clintons' "donor base" has been something else.

It is hard to overstate how fatigued Democratic donors in Manhattan and L.A. got during the Clinton presidency to have Bill and Hillary fly in, repeatedly, to sweep checking accounts. The Lincoln Bedroom rental was cheesy. Bill's 60th birthday gala (tickets $60,000 to 500K) was a Clinton fund-raiser. The 1996 John Huang-Lippo-China fund-raising scandal pushed Clinton contributors toward a milieu most didn't need in their lives. Hillary's 2007 Norman Hsu fund-raising scandal was an unsettling rerun of what the donor base could expect from another Clinton presidency.

It was all kind of gross, but the Clintons never seemed to see that. When Obama proved he could perform this most basic function in politics, it was a get-out-of-jail-free card for many Democrats. For some, this may be personal. For others, it is likely a belief that the party's interests lie with finding an alternative to the Clinton saga. One guesses this is what Sam Nunn and David Boren concluded.

Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania prove it won't be easy. Barack Obama himself said Tuesday night, "I'm not perfect." He heads to the nomination freighted with all the familiar Democratic tensions that keep a Sam Nunn off the ballot: race and gender obsessions, semipacifism and you bet, bitter white voters. So be it. For modern Democrats, winning the White House always requires some sort of magic to get near 50%. For the Clintons, that bag is empty. The Democrats have a new magician. It's Obama.

Rev. Wright says that Obama only condemned his remarks because he had to act like a politician

Quote:

Barack Obama's former pastor condemned the furor set off by his fiery sermons, which became a political crisis for the Democratic White House hopeful, as "devious" and "unfair," in an interview released Thursday.

Pastor Jeremiah Wright said in the interview that excerpts of his sermons now posted on YouTube were ripped out of context by critics who had no idea of the good works done by the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, where Obama worships and where Wright was a pastor until recently.

"I felt it was unfair. I felt it was unjust. I felt it was untrue, I felt for those who were doing that, were doing it for some very devious reasons," Wright told PBS television in an interview to be broadcast on Friday.

Video clips of Wright's sermons at the mostly African-American church played repeatedly on news shows prompted Obama to deliver a landmark speech on racial reconciliation last month.

Wright was shown in the clips assailing US and Israeli "terrorism," calling on blacks to sing "God damn America," and alleging that AIDS was spread by the US government.

But he said in the interview with the Bill Moyers show that the use of soundbites from sermons he gave six years ago and more, made him the target of hatred and were "something very new and something very, very unsettling."

Conservatives have focused on Obama's refusal to disown Wright, despite his rejection of the remarks, suggesting the racially sensitive issue could feature in the general election campaign if he becomes Democratic nominee.

But Wright said he and Obama never discussed politics, and was not surprised when the Illinois senator criticized his comments during his Philadelphia race speech.

"He's a politician. I'm a pastor. We speak to two different audiences ... so what happened in Philadelphia where he had to respond to the sound bytes, he responded as a politician."

we already figured that out. well all of us but ray and whomod...

harrison ford is one hell of an actor.

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

Rev. Wright says that Obama only condemned his remarks because he had to act like a politician...

Wright sounds like he's saying that Obama largely agrees with his worldview but hides his true feelings for political reasons, which might be true.

But let's interpret this more charitably: Obama disagrees with Wright but never discusses it with him. If someone who was "like an uncle" to you preached that the US government invented AIDS to kill black people, would you take him aside and tell him he's off-base?

You might...if you were remotely qualified as a leader.

Quote:

Losing Ground
After losing Pennsylvania and a difficult month of scandals, Barack Obama's double-digit lead over Hillary Clinton has dropped to seven points in the latest NEWSWEEK poll.

By Brian Braiker | Newsweek Web Exclusive
Apr 26, 2008 | Updated: 2:40 p.m. ET Apr 26, 2008

After an important primary win in Pennsylvania, Hillary Clinton has reduced Democratic rival Barack Obama's double-digit lead among registered Democrats and voters leaning Democratic by more than half, according to the latest NEWSWEEK poll. Plagued by controversies over Rev. Jeremiah Wright's comments and the candidate's own "bitter" remarks, Obama has seen his favorability rating slip significantly in the last week, the poll found.

The survey found that Clinton now trails Obama by seven points, down from 19 just one week ago. The previous NEWSWEEK poll, conducted on the eve of the Pennsylvania primary, found that more than half (55 percent) of registered voters believed Obama was more electable, while 33 percent gave the edge to Clinton. The current poll finds Obama leading 46 percent to 38 percent. (For complete poll data, click here.)
...

Newsweek
There is also the matter of Obama going negative. When a candidate sets himself as being above that sort of thing & then resorts to it, there just may be some eventual blowback. And what is going to be his line in a general election? Can he go back to the persona that he had back in Iowa & the early primaries?

Quote:

Hillary Rodham Clinton now leads John McCain by 9 points in a head-to-head presidential matchup, according to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll that bolsters her argument that she is more electable than Democratic rival Barack Obama.

Obama and Republican McCain are running about even.

The survey released Monday gives the New York senator and former first lady a fresh talking point as she works to raise much-needed campaign cash and persuade pivotal undecided superdelegates to side with her in the drawn-out Democratic primary fight.

Helped by independents, young people and seniors, Clinton gained ground this month in a hypothetical match with Sen. McCain, the GOP nominee-in-waiting. She now leads McCain, 50 percent to 41 percent, while Obama remains virtually tied with McCain, 46 percent to 44 percent.

Both Democrats were roughly even with McCain in the previous poll about three weeks ago.

Since then, Clinton won the Pennsylvania primary, raising questions anew about whether Obama can attract broad swaths of voters needed to triumph in such big states come the fall when the Democratic nominee will go up against McCain. At the same time, Obama was thrown on the defensive by his comment that residents of small-town America were bitter. The Illinois senator also continued to deal with the controversial remarks of his longtime Chicago pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

"I don't think there's any question that over the last three weeks her stature has improved," said Harrison Hickman, a Democratic pollster unaligned in the primary. He attributed Clinton's gains to people moving from the "infatuation stage" of choosing the candidate they like the most to a "decision-making stage" where they determine who would make the best president.

Added Steve Lombardo, a GOP pollster: "This just reinforces the sentiment that a lot of Republican strategists are having right now — that Clinton might actually be the more formidable fall candidate for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is that Obama can't seem to get his footing back."

The AP-Ipsos poll found Clinton and Obama about even in the race for the Democratic nomination. Underscoring deep divisions within the Democratic Party — and a potentially negative longer-term impact — 30 percent of Clinton supporters and 21 percent of Obama supporters said they would vote for McCain in November if their preferred candidate didn't win the nomination.

Obama leads Clinton in pledged delegates, but she has the advantage among superdelegates with about a third yet to make up their minds.

Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean said Monday that one of the two must drop out of the race after the primary season wraps up in June so Democrats can unite before the late-summer convention and the fall campaign.

He also urged undecided superdelegates — members of the Democratic National Committee as well as Democratic governors and members of Congress — to side with either Clinton or Obama before the August convention so the party can come together to take on McCain. The Arizona senator clinched the GOP nomination last month and has been campaigning freely since.

Also on Monday, the head of the Republicans' House campaign committee said the party would rather face Obama in November because the GOP believes Clinton would be more of a threat to McCain among moderate voters.

Said Tom Cole, a congressman from Oklahoma: Obama "is by any definition very liberal, to the left of Hillary Clinton, in a center-right country. That is very, very helpful to us."

Nearly half the people in the AP-Ipsos poll said the protracted Democratic primary will hurt their party's chances in November; more Obama supporters than Clinton backers said they had that fear.

Overall, people said they trusted Clinton and Obama about the same to handle Iraq and the economy; McCain got similar ratings on Iraq but trailed both Democrats on the economy. And while roughly the same percentage of people said they trusted both Democrats to understand their problems, fewer trusted McCain.

When pitted against McCain, Clinton now wins among independents, 50 percent to 34 percent, when just a few weeks ago she ran about even with him with this crucial group of voters. Clinton also now does better among independents than Obama does in a matchup with McCain.

Clinton has a newfound edge among seniors, too, 51 percent to 39 percent; McCain had previously had the advantage. And, Clinton has improved her margin over McCain among people under age 30; two-thirds of them now side with her. McCain leads Obama among seniors, while Obama leads McCain among those under 30 but by a smaller margin than Clinton does.

She also now leads among Catholics, always an important swing voting group in a general election, and improved her standing in the South as well as in cities and among families making under $25,000 a year. But she lost ground among families making between $50,000 and $100,000; they narrowly support McCain.

The poll, taken April 23-27, questioned 1,001 adults nationally, with a margin of error of 3.1 percentage points. Included were interviews with 457 Democratic voters and people leaning Democratic, with a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4.6 points, and 346 Republicans or GOP-leaning voters, with a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 5.3 points.

i hope this news doesnt cause whomod to beat his wife again....

National Review:

After performing Dark Side of the Moon in its entirety, Roger Waters did the usual Pink Floydian thing with the giant inflatable pig. But Mr. Rogers, who apparently has never read Shut Up and Sing, made sure that the pig was festooned with the word "Obama" on its porcine belly. Not entirely sure that's the endorsement I'd want if I were running for president of a real country, as opposed to unicorn-emperor of the mythical kingdom in Roger Waters's head.

Unfortunately for Mr. Rogers, the giant inflatable pig broke its moorings and went floating off into the night. A $10,000 reward and lifetime passes to the Coachella music festival have been offered for the pig's return.

But one wonders if, under our byzantine campaign-finance laws, a floating. pig-shaped billboard for Barack Obama constitutes an illegal campaign donation.

Dear americans! Please, please, PLEASE continue with your current state of political elections!

Seriously, you can't manufacture this kind of entertainment

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Unfortunately for Mr. Rogers, the giant inflatable pig broke its moorings and went floating off into the night. A $10,000 reward and lifetime passes to the Coachella music festival have been offered for the pig's return.

2 things when i first read the headline on Yahoo i thought they were referring to Oprah.

why do they call Roger Waters, "Mr. Rogers: wouldnt he be Mr. Waters?

I assumed the author was being sarcastic, calling him Mr. Rogers, given the general snark of the article.

i assumed the author was a dumbass....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080429/ap_on_el_pr/obama_pastor

Quote:

Barack Obama angrily denounced his former pastor for "divisive and destructive" remarks on race, seeking to divorce himself from the incendiary speaker and a fury that threatens to engulf his front-running Democratic presidential campaign.

Obama is trying to tamp down the uproar over the Rev. Jeremiah Wright at a tough time in his campaign. The Illinois senator is coming off a loss in Pennsylvania to rival Hillary Rodham Clinton and trying to win over white working-class voters in Indiana and North Carolina in next Tuesday's primaries.

"I am outraged by the comments that were made and saddened over the spectacle that we saw yesterday," Obama told reporters at a news conference Tuesday.

His strong words come just six weeks after Obama delivered a sweeping speech on race in which he sharply condemned Wright's remarks but did not leave the church or repudiate the minister himself, who he said was like a family member. After weeks of staying out of the public eye while critics lambasted his sermons, the former pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago made three public appearances in four days to defend himself.

On Monday, Wright criticized the U.S. government as imperialist and stood by his suggestion that the United States invented the HIV virus as a means of genocide against minorities. "Based on this Tuskegee experiment and based on what has happened to Africans in this country, I believe our government is capable of doing anything," he said.

And perhaps even worse for Obama, Wright suggested that the church congregant secretly concurs.

"If Senator Obama did not say what he said, he would never get elected," Wright said. "Politicians say what they say and do what they do based on electability, based on sound bites, based on polls."

Obama stated flatly that he doesn't share the views of the man who officiated at his wedding, baptized his two daughters and been his pastor for 20 years. The title of Obama's second book, "The Audacity of Hope," came from a Wright sermon.

"What became clear to me is that he was presenting a world view that contradicts who I am and what I stand for," Obama said. "And what I think particularly angered me was his suggestion somehow that my previous denunciation of his remarks were somehow political posturing. Anybody who knows me and anybody who knows what I'm about knows that I am about trying to bridge gaps and I see the commonality in all people."

Although Obama leads in pledged delegates, no Democrat can win the nomination without the support of the superdelegates, the elected officials and party leaders who can vote their preference. The Wright furor forces those Democrats to wonder about Obama's electability in November.

Facing that reality, Obama sought to distance himself further from Wright.

"I have been a member of Trinity United Church of Christ since 1992, and have known Reverend Wright for 20 years," Obama said. "The person I saw yesterday was not the person that I met 20 years ago."

The Illinois senator said of Wright's statements Monday: "All it was was a bunch of rants that aren't grounded in truth."

"Obviously, whatever relationship I had with Reverend Wright has changed," Obama said. "I don't think he showed much concern for me, more importantly I don't think he showed much concern for what we're trying to do in this campaign."

Obama said he heard that Wright had given "a performance" and when he watched news accounts, he realized that it more than just a case of the former pastor defending himself.

"His comments were not only divisive and destructive, I believe they end up giving comfort to those who prey on hate," Obama said. "I'll be honest with you, I hadn't seen it" when reacting initially on Monday, he said.

Wright had asserted that criticism of his fiery sermons was an attack on the black church. Obama rejected that notion.

"He has done great damage, I do not see that relationship being the same," said Obama.

Wright recently retired from the church. He became an issue in Obama's presidential bid when videos circulated of Wright condemning the U.S. government for allegedly racist and genocidal acts. In the videos, some several years old, Wright called on God to "damn America." He also said the government created the AIDS virus to destroy "people of color."

Obama said he didn't vet his pastor before deciding to seek the presidency. He said he was particularly distressed that the furor has been a distraction to the purpose of a campaign.

"I gave him the benefit of the doubt in my speech in Philadelphia explaining that he's done enormous good. ... But when he states and then amplifies such ridiculous propositions as the U.S. government somehow being involved in AIDS. ... There are no excuses. They offended me. They rightly offend all Americans and they should be denounced."

While Obama said he remains a member of the church "obviously this has put a strain on that relationship.

"There wasn't anything constructive out of yesterday," said Obama. "All it was was a bunch of rants that aren't grounded in truth."

At one point, Obama said he understood the pressures Wright faced but wouldn't excuse his comments.

"I think he felt vilified and attacked and I understand him wanting to defend himself," Obama said. "That may account for the change but the insensitivity and the outrageousness of the statements shocked me and surprised me."

I find this behavior by Obama disgusting. A person cannot disown their pastor anymore than they can disown a relative. Does Obama not see that Rev. Wright is just lashing at at all the discrimination America has thrown at him? What makes this the most disgusting is Obama has a white grandmother, through her racist ways he should understand the pain Rev. Wright is going through. I'm glad whomod and Ray made me see the light, hopefully they can talk to Obama and get him to understand as well!

Someone's a filthy sticking liar. Does he really expect people to believe that he didn't know about that "Government concocted the AIDS virus to kill of black people" sermon until now? Or, for that matter, that throughout the 20 years worth of sermons he sat through there wasn't a one that was even slightly similar in its extremism before now?

Look Pariah, this is the first anyone has heard of it, unless you count the other times. Give the guy a break.

Lesson for Rev. Wright, when the election looks like a blowout Obama has your back, when it gets close be quiet, you are expendable to Obama....

Originally Posted By: the G-man

National Review:

After performing Dark Side of the Moon in its entirety, Roger Waters did the usual Pink Floydian thing with the giant inflatable pig. But Mr. Rogers, who apparently has never read Shut Up and Sing, made sure that the pig was festooned with the word "Obama" on its porcine belly. Not entirely sure that's the endorsement I'd want if I were running for president of a real country, as opposed to unicorn-emperor of the mythical kingdom in Roger Waters's head.

Unfortunately for Mr. Rogers, the giant inflatable pig broke its moorings and went floating off into the night. A $10,000 reward and lifetime passes to the Coachella music festival have been offered for the pig's return.

But one wonders if, under our byzantine campaign-finance laws, a floating. pig-shaped billboard for Barack Obama constitutes an illegal campaign donation.

The Associated Press reports that "anyone with information on the pig should e-mail lostpig@coachella.com."

I'm SURE that no one will abuse that email address.

Quote:

Obama's giving doesn't match talking

Would you rather vote for a president who would give you the white oxford shirt off his back? Or do you prefer the tight-fisted guy who wouldn't give a cane to a blind man if he owned a lumber yard?

All three candidates for president sound like Mother Teresa when they talk about helping the poor. But what do they actually do about it? Do they give until it hurts? Or do they have alligator arms that can't reach their kangaroo pockets?

Thanks to their tax returns, we can get a pretty good idea. And it turns out that the biggest talker is the cheapest giver.

That's Barack Obama. The "community organizer" talks about "our empathy deficit." He told the Chicago Tribune we need to pay more attention to "the child who's hungry, the laid-off steelworker, the immigrant woman cleaning your dorm room."

Things must have been pretty cushy for Obama at Harvard. I never had any immigrant women cleaning my dorm room in college. I can honestly say that nobody cleaned it.

But how does Obama back up his talk? In 2007, the Obamas earned $4.2 million.

They donated about $240,000. That's 6 percent - well above the national average of 2.2 percent.

But in 2005, he donated 4 percent. And in 2001 and 2002, the Obamas gave less than half of 1 percent. One of his biggest donations in 2006 was to Trinity United Methodist Church - home of the Rev. Jeremiah "God damn America" Wright.

In the past two years, the Tribune reported, the Obamas gave to reading programs, the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, the Muntu Dance Theatre and international aid.

Bill and Hillary Clinton grudgingly released tax returns under pressure from Obama. There were no embarrassments like their tax returns from Arkansas, when they took deductions for donating used underwear ($2) and used socks ($9).

Since 2000, the Clintons earned $109 million and donated $10.2 million - 10 percent.

The Bush years have been very good to the Clintons. They made millions from book deals and speaking fees that gave seizures to liberals when Ronald Reagan "cashed in." They went from $416,000 in 2000 to an average of $13.6 million per year since then.

Ten percent to charity is generous. But nearly all of it went to the Clinton Family Foundation, which has been accused of hiding shady donations to the Clinton Library, paying salaries to Clinton friends and making gifts to buy endorsements for Hillary. The Washington Post reported: "The foundation has enabled the Clintons to write off more than $5 million from their taxable personal income since 2001, while dispensing only $1.25 million in charitable contributions over that period."

John McCain's wife, Cindy, owns businesses worth more than $100 million, but they file separate tax returns and hers have not been released, so it is impossible to make a direct comparison to Obama and Clinton. On his income of $405,409, he donated $105,467 in 2007.

That's 25 percent of his income. The year before, he gave 26 percent.

From 2001 to 2006, they donated $950,000 to the McCain Family Foundation, and it gave away $1.6 million. Private schools got $500,000.Harper's sniped, "McCain apparently received major tax deductions for supporting elite schools attended by his children." But many parents spend on private schools while also paying taxes for public schools.

Last year, the McCain Family Foundation's biggest donations went to Operation Smile (facial surgery for poor children) and for removal of land mines.

Since 1991, McCain has donated all his Senate pay raises to charity, totaling $450,000; since 1998, he has donated $1.8 million in book royalties.

Tax returns don't show how the Obamas and Clintons advocate for the poor. But it's easy to spend other people's money. The test of character is how you spend your own.

Arthur Brooks, author of "Who Really Cares," found that conservatives are 30 percent more generous than liberals: "You find that people who believe it's the government's job to make incomes more equal are far less likely to give their money away."

Clinton and Obama talk a lot about raising taxes to help the poor. But if the definition of character is what you do when nobody's watching, they didn't do much. And the definition of that is hypocrisy.

All kidding aside, I feel pity for Ray and whomod. Finding out their hero is a lyer must be gut wrenching. Hang in their guys.

Lyer?

Obama has a fade. I think you're thinking of Sharpton. He's the guy with the hair relaxer.

Well, so much for the superdelegates....

Quote:

Obama closing in on Clinton's advantage among superdelegates

By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer 1 minute ago

WASHINGTON - Barack Obama is closing in on Democratic presidential rival Hillary Rodham Clinton's advantage among superdelegates, building on his lead in the primary race even as he faces troubled times.

Party leaders are encouraging superdelegates to pick a side by late June to prevent the fight from going to the national convention in August, and it seems some are listening as the race enters its final five weeks of voting.

Chelsea Clinton got a superdelegate for her mom while campaigning in Puerto Rico on Wednesday, just as Obama press secretary Bill Burton sent out a statement announcing the support of Rep. Lois Capps. The statement didn't mention the personal connection — Capps is Burton's mother-in-law.

Clinton had a big jump start among superdelegates, many of whom have ties to the Clintons and backed her candidacy early on. But most of the superdelegates taking sides recently have gone for Obama, who has won more state contests.

Obama trails Clinton by just 21 superdelegates, 243-264, cutting her lead in half in less than two months. This week, he picked up seven delegates to her four.

Well there gos that avenue to steal the nomination. I guess Hillary will now have to turn logic and the primary process upside down now and argue that the popular vote determines the winner of the primaries as of now and that she leads in that even though it's only because Obama wasn't on a ballot in Michigan.

Anything to win, eh MEM? $;\)$

Originally Posted By: whomod

...

Well there gos that avenue to steal the nomination. I guess Hillary will now have to turn logic and the primary process upside down now and argue that the popular vote determines the winner of the primaries as of now and that she leads in that even though it's only because Obama wasn't on a ballot in Michigan.

Anything to win, eh MEM? $;\)$

I don't really understand how Hillary would be stealling the election if superdelegates end up choosing her over Obama. Their practically tied & now it may be becoming a case where everyone is reallizing how unelectable Obama is.

BTW the rules didn't include that Obama take his name off the ballot in MI. Kind of shows poor judgement on his part IMHO.

Originally Posted By: whomod

Lyer?

Obama has a fade. I think you're thinking of Sharpton. He's the guy with the hair relaxer.

racist.

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Originally Posted By: whomod

Mem, EVERYONE of the Democratic candidates took their name off the ballot except Hillary Clinton. Which shows what a disengenous underhanded sport she is.

BTW....

It seems more people are concerned about Hillary's capaign talk versus um... reality more than they're bothered by Rev. Wright. As far as Obama is concerned, his "bitter" comment ranked higher than the Wright story did. Which I'm sure is comforting based on how hard the bsams and the punditry have been pushing it. I guess people are more concerned about REAL issues, like Obama says than manufactured crap that politicians and pundits routinely sling about and tell us matters more than their own interests.

Quote:

* 36 percent have major concerns that Clinton seems to change her position on some issues (like driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants and the North American Free Trade Agreement, which her husband signed but which she now opposes)
* 34 percent say they’re bothered by Obama’s “bitter” remarks
* 32 percent have a major problem with the Illinois senator’s past associations with Wright and the 1960s radical William Ayers
* 27 percent have serious concerns that Bill Clinton would have too much influence on U.S. policy decisions if his wife is elected

and although it's still close, Obama is still scoring higher against McCain than Hillary.

Quote:

this latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey shows Obama besting McCain by only three points (46-43 percent) and Clinton topping the Arizona senator by only one (45-44 percent).

But that's okay, I'm sure Hillary will find some more dirt under some rock to permanently ruin Obama's chances as she is now obviously campaigning for 2012.

The only thing I can recommend is for you to stop drinking Hillary's Kool-Aid.

You do reallize Whomod that Obama & the other candidates besides Hillary took their name of the MI ballot at the last minute. Strategically at the time I would imagine it was to suck up to IA & NH primary voters. Plus when primary time came, Obama supporters ran a campaign to vote for Obama by choosing undecided. Yeah that Hillary was just awful for staying on the ballot

Quote:

Obama's Negatives Rise, Clinton Tops McCain in New Poll

April 30, 2008 6:40 PM
ABC News' Ed O'Keefe Reports: Barack Obama's recent woes may be having an effect in the polls.
A new CBS/New York Times poll released on Wednesday shows Sen. Obama, D-Ill., and presumptive Republican nominee Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., tied in a hypothetical general election match-up, while Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., edges out McCain by a five-point margin.
Here are raw CBS/New York Times numbers now (among registered voters):
If the candidates were Obama and McCain, who would you vote for?
Obama: 45%
McCain: 45%
Undecided/Don't Know: 6%
If the candidates were Clinton and McCain, who would you vote for?
Clinton: 48%
McCain: 43%
Undecided/Don't Know: 5%
"Barack Obama's problems over the last few weeks, including his Pennsylvania primary loss and the continuing media coverage of his former pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright, may have contributed to his weaker position compared to two weeks ago," read an analysis released by CBS and the New York Times.
Since their last poll four weeks ago, unfavorable views of Obama have risen 10% -- from 24% a month ago to 34% at present. Obama's woes also appear to know few demographic bounds -- unfavorable views of Obama have risen among women, whites, independents and Democrats, according to CBS News and the New York Times.
Here are the raw CBS/New York Times numbers as of their last poll on April 3, 2008 (among registered voters):
If the candidates were Obama and McCain, who would you vote for?
Obama: 47%
McCain: 42%
Undecided/Don't Know: 7%
If the candidates were Clinton and McCain, who would you vote for?
Clinton: 48%
McCain: 43%
Undecided/Don't Know: 5%
An Associated Press-Ipsos poll released Monday found similar results.
In that poll, Clinton leads McCain by 9-points, 50-41, in a hypothetical general election match-up. Obama, on the other hand, is "virtually tied" with McCain, at 46-44 percent.
...

ABCnews

It's amazing that Hillary always coming out in 2nd place behind Obama only proves to you, time and again how unelectable he is compared to her.

Originally Posted By: whomod

It's amazing that Hillary always coming out in 2nd place behind Obama only proves to you, time and again how unelectable he is compared to her.

The problem with that statement is that it's Obama that has been coming in 2nd lately. He had a nice winning streak in the middle but that's over. Now if he doesn't win Indiana & North Carolina he's in for an even rougher ride.

Former DNC Chair Switches Teams:Joe Andrew, who endorsed Clinton early in her campaign, now says a vote for Hillary is 'a vote that assists John McCain'.

Andrew is also a superdelegate.

As mentioned before, it is somewhat telling that so many people who worked closely with Bill and Hillary (such as Andrew and Richardson) are throwing their support to Barack Hussein Obama.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

I'm not sure how telling Andrew's "switch" is. He lavished praise when he endorsed Hillary Clinton, now when she's beating McCain in the polls while Obama is only matching him Andrew claims supporting Hillary is assisting McCain. Considering how much the race has changed since Hillary's PA win I guess I don't understand why he would now do a 180 & back the other guy.

sour grapes MEM?

Hillary can't even hold on to her husbands cabinet members and former supporters!!

Originally Posted By: whomod

sour grapes MEM?

Hillary can't even hold on to her husbands cabinet members and former supporters!!

Not really. After all this is a guy who lavished praise on Hillary when he endorsed her. Perhaps in a week or two he'll be back to being for Hillary.

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Originally Posted By: whomod

sour grapes MEM?

Hillary can't even hold on to her husbands cabinet members and former supporters!!

Not really. After all this is a guy who lavished praise on Hillary when he endorsed her. Perhaps in a week or two he'll be back to being for Hillary.

Joe Andrew, the former DNC Chair, who switched to Barack Obama last night, penned this letter below to the uncommitted superdelegates.

Originally Posted By: Joe Andrew

May 1, 2008

Dear Friends:

I have been inspired.

Today I am announcing my support for Senator Barack Obama for President of the United States of America. I am changing my support from Senator Clinton to Senator Obama, and calling for my fellow Democrats across my home State of Indiana, and my fellow super delegates across the nation, to heal the rift in our Party and unite behind Barack Obama.

The hardest decisions in life are not between good and bad or right and wrong, but between two goods or two rights. That is the decision Democrats face today. We have an embarrassment of riches, but as much as we may love our candidates and revel in the political process that has brought Presidential politics to places that have not seen it in a generation, we cannot let our family affair hurt America by helping John McCain.

Here is my message, explained in this lengthy letter that I hope is perceived as a thoughtful analysis of how to save America from four more years of the misguided polices of the past: you can be for someone without being against someone else. You can unite behind a candidate and a vision for America without rejecting another candidate and their vision, because in real life, opposed to party politics, we Democrats are on the same side. The battle should not be amongst ourselves. Rather, we should focus our efforts on those who are truly on the opposite side: those who want to continue the failed policies of the last eight years, rather than bring real change to Washington. Let us come together right now behind an inspiring leader who not only has the audacity to challenge the old divisive politics, but the audacity to make us all hope for a better America.

Unite the Party Now

I believe that Bill Clinton will be remembered as one of our nation's great Presidents, and Senator Clinton as one of our nation's great public servants. But as much as I respect and admire them both, it is clear that a vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote to continue this process, and a vote to continue this process is a vote that assists John McCain.

I ask Hoosiers to come together and vote for Barack Obama to be our next President. In an accident of timing, Indiana has been given the opportunity to truly make a difference. Hoosiers should grab that power and do what in their heart they know is right. They should reject the old negative politics and vote for true change. Don't settle for the tried and true and the simplistic slogans, but listen to your heart and dare to be inspired. Only a cynic would be critical of Barack Obama inspiring millions. Only the uninformed could forget that the candidate that wins in November is always the candidate that inspires millions.

I ask the leaders of our Party to come together after this Tuesday's primary to heal wounds and unite us around a single nominee. While I was hopeful that a long, contested primary season would invigorate our Party, the polls show that the tone and temperature of the race is now hurting us. John McCain, without doing much of anything, is now competitive against both of our remaining candidates. We are doing his work for him and distracting Americans from the issues that really affect all of our lives.

We need to be talking about fixing the economy, not whose acquaintances once said what to whom. We need to be talking about stopping the attacks in Iraq, not stopping the attacks in Indiana. We need to be talking about policy, not politics.

Barack Obama is the Right Candidate for Right Now

While I am a longtime critic of our Party's rules that created so-called super delegates, we have the rules we have and we must live with them. I am humbled and honored to be a super delegate, and I understand the seriousness of the duty it entails. I recognize that this is a difficult decision for super delegates like me, who owe so much to President Bill Clinton. It is right to be loyal, to be grateful and to be consistent. But it is also right to acknowledge the inevitability of change, right to dare to dream for a better world, and right to know what in your heart is the right thing for the future even if your friends and family disagree. Good things, just like good people, can disagree. But as Democrats, we must disagree with dignity, debate with admiration of each other, and in the end, go forward with mutual respect.

President Clinton and Vice President Gore gave me the opportunity to serve as the Chair of the Democratic Party. I pledged my loyalty to them, and I will never forget Al Gore putting ego aside, gently demurring, and simply asking me to put our country ahead of politics. It is a lesson I will remember forever, and it is what guides me now in this decision. What is best for our Party and our country is not blind loyalty, but passionate support for the candidate who can best correct the misguided policies of the last eight years.

We need a candidate who will re-invigorate the economy and keep good jobs here in America. We need a candidate who will end the war in Iraq. We need a candidate who will provide health coverage for our 45 million uninsured neighbors. We need a candidate who will end our addiction to high-priced foreign oil by investing in renewable energy here at home.

That candidate is Barack Obama.

What was best for America sixteen years ago was electing Bill Clinton. What would have been best for America eight years ago was not only electing Al Gore, which we did, but allowing him to serve as President of the United States. Imagine how the world would be different if Al Gore and not George Bush, would have been President of the United States. Let's seize the opportunity and vote for someone who like Al Gore, was against the war from the beginning, and who brings a new energy, a new excitement, and a new politics to our country.

Let’s put things right.

Time to Act

Many will ask, why now? Why, with several primaries still remaining, with Senator Clinton just winning Pennsylvania, with my friend Evan Bayh working hard to make sure Senator Clinton wins Indiana, why switch now? Why call for super delegates to come together now to constructively pick a president?

The simple answer is that while the timing is hard for me personally, it is best for America. We simply cannot wait any longer, nor can we let this race fall any lower and still hope to win in November. June or July may be too late. The time to act is now.

I write this letter from my mom's dining room table in Indianapolis, Indiana. Four generations of my family have argued and laughed around this table. But what I humbly believe today is that we, as Democrats and as Americans, face what Dr. King characterized and what Senator Obama reminds us is the fierce urgency of now. As a nation, we are at a critical moment and we need leaders with the character and vision to see us through the challenges at hand and those to come. I can't guess what will happen tomorrow, so I can't tell you what kind of experience our next President will need to have to deal with those challenges. But I can tell you what kind of character and vision they will need to have -- and that is what inspires me about Barack Obama.

As Democrats, however, we risk letting this moment slip through our fingers. We risk ceding the field to the Republicans and allowing the morally bankrupt Bush Agenda to continue unabated if we do not unite behind a single candidate. Should this race continue after Indiana and North Carolina, it will inevitably become more negative. The polls already show the supporters for both candidates becoming more strident in their positions and more locked into their support. Continuing on this path would be a catastrophe, as we would inadvertently end up doing Republicans work for them. Already, instead of the audacity of hope, we suffer the audacity of one Democrat comparing John McCain favorably to another Democrat. When that happens, you know it is time for all of us to stop, take a deep breath and unite to change America.

We must act and we must act now.

The Problems of the Process: 2000 and 2008

When Al Gore got a half million more votes than George Bush in 2000, yet the Electoral College elected George Bush President, we saw the absurdity of any system that does not elect the person who gets the most votes. That is why the Democratic Party's nomination process is flawed. I will continue to fight for a 2012 process where there are only primaries, and which ever Democrat gets the most votes becomes our nominee. Delegates should decide the party platform -- voters should decide who our nominee is.

But we are struck with this absurd system for 2008, and, flawed though it may be, we must work within it without betraying the voice of the people. No amount of spin or sleight of hand can deny the fact that where there has been competition, Senator Obama has won more votes, more States and more delegates than any other candidate. Only the super delegates can award the nomination to Senator Clinton, but to do so risks doing to our Party in 2008 what Republicans did to our country in 2000. Let us be intellectually consistent and unite behind Barack Obama.

A New Era of Politics

My endorsement of Senator Obama will not be welcome news to my friends and family at the Clinton campaign. If the campaign's surrogates called Governor Bill Richardson, a respected former member of President Clinton's cabinet, a "Judas" for endorsing Senator Obama, we can all imagine how they will treat somebody like me. They are the best practitioners of the old politics, so they will no doubt call me a traitor, an opportunist and a hypocrite. I will be branded as disloyal, power-hungry, but most importantly, they will use the exact words that Republicans used to attack me when I was defending President Clinton.

When they use the same attacks made on me when I was defending them, they prove the callow hypocrisy of the old politics first perfected by Republicans. I am an expert on this because these were the exact tools that I mastered as a campaign volunteer, a campaign manager, a State Party Chair and the National Chair of our Party. I learned the lessons of the tough, right-wing Republicans all too well. I can speak with authority on how to spar with everyone from Lee Atwater to Karl Rove. I understand that, while wrong and pernicious, shallow victory can be achieved through division by semantics and obfuscation. Like many, I succumbed to the addiction of old politics because they are so easy.

Innuendo is easy. The truth is hard.

Sound bites are easy. Solutions are hard.

Spin is simple and easy. Struggling with facts is complicated and hard.

I have learned the hard way that you can love the candidate and hate the campaign. My stomach churns when I think how my old friends in the Clinton campaign will just pick up the old silly Republican play book and call in the same old artificial attacks and bombardments we have all heard before.

Yet, despite the simple and overwhelming pressure to do anything and everything to win, Barack Obama has risen above it all and demanded a new brand of politics. People flock to Senator Obama because they are rejecting the hyperbole of the old politics. The past eight years of George Bush have witnessed a retreat from substance, science, and reason in favor spin, cronyism and ideology. Barack Obama has dared not only to criticize it, as all Democrats do, but to actually reject playing the same old game. And in doing so, he has shown us a new path to victory.

Uniting for Victory

The simple fact is that Democrats need to be united in November to win, and Clinton supporters, in particular, will be vital to victory. We will not convince Clinton supporters to join the Obama campaign, however, by personally criticizing them. We must welcome everyone and avoid doing Republican work for them. It is therefore incumbent on all of us who once supported Senator Clinton to welcome the thousands who should now switch their support to Senator Obama. Similarly, a necessary part of the healing process for our Party is for those who supported Senator Obama early to have the grace and good sense to broaden the tent and welcome newcomers into the fold.

The old players of the old political game will claim that I am betraying my old friend Senator Evan Bayh by switching my support to Senator Obama. I believe that Evan Bayh would be a great President, and therefore a great Vice President. I will continue to argue that he would be a great choice to be on the ticket with Barack Obama. Evan Bayh is uniquely positioned as a successful governor with executive experience who is now a U.S. Senator with foreign policy experience and who is young enough to not undercut the message of vitality and hard work that Barack Obama represents. Part of healing the Party may be to have a Clinton supporter on the ticket, let alone someone who would help with Indiana, Ohio and the moderate Midwest in the general election.

Being for Evan Bayh, however, does not mean that you have to be for Hillary Clinton. The important message to Hoosiers, and to super delegates, is that being for someone does not mean that you agree 100 percent of the time. Regardless of whether Evan Bayh and I support different candidates, I will support Evan Bayh.

We must reject the notion that we have to beat the Republicans at their own game -- or even that the game has to be played at all. It is so easy for all of us involved -- candidates, campaigns and the media -- to focus on the process and the horse race that we forget why we got into it in the first place. Barack Obama has had the courage to talk about real issues, real problems and real people. Let's pause for a second in the midst of the cacophony of the campaign circus and listen.

In 1992, I was inspired by Bill Clinton because he promised, and delivered, a framework for addressing America's problems. President Clinton ended a long-running left-right debate in our Party, and inspired millions. He drew giant crowds and spoke passionately for a generation of Americans who often disenfranchised and rarely participated in governing. Today, Barack Obama does the same thing. Winners redefine the game. Winners connect with the American people and not only feel their pain, but inspire them to take action to heal the underlying cause. Barack Obama is that kind of candidate and that kind of leader, which is why he will win in November.

Welcoming Everyone into the Party

We face significant challenges as a nation and as a Party, but time and again, Americans have shown the resilience and determination necessary to overcome even the highest obstacle. We have a difficult road ahead, but I have complete confidence that Barack Obama is the candidate who can lead our Party to victory and the President who can guide us to even greater heights.

Many Democrats know me for one short speech I gave over and over again in the 2000 Presidential campaign. That speech was about welcoming people into our Party and welcoming undecided voters to our campaign to elect Al Gore. Today, we need to welcome Clinton supporters, undecided voters, and all Americans to join Barack Obama's cause to fight for a better America. My speech ended with these words, which are even more relevant today:

The difference between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party is that you are always welcome in the Democratic Party.

Because Democrats don’t care if you are black or white or brown or a nice shade of green, you are welcome in the Democratic Party.

We don’t care if you pray in a church or a synagogue or a temple or a mosque, or just before math tests, you are welcome in the Democratic Party.

We don’t care if you are young or old, or just don’t want to tell your age, you are welcome in the Democratic Party.

We don’t care what gender you are, or what gender you want to hold hands with; as long as you want to hold hands, you are welcome in the Democratic Party.

We don’t care about the size of your bank account, just the size of your heart; and we don’t care where you are today, just where you dream you want to be tomorrow.

That is your Democratic Party.

That is Barack Obama's Democratic Party.

That is the Party that will win in November.

This is part of the reason Clinton's Superdelegate Joe Andrew switched. He got tired of Hillay's dishonest pandering.

From the LA Times:

Quote:

Candidates' plans to cut gas prices

Clinton's and McCain's plans for a summer gas-tax suspension won't solve anything.

April 30, 2008

High gas prices can prompt political hysteria in the best of times, but when they soar during an election year, the fumes rising from candidate stump speeches can make a person sick. Of the three candidates and the president they're out to replace, only one is telling the truth about oil -- and he may suffer for his political courage.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) unveiled his nonsensical solution to $4-a-gallon gasoline two weeks ago when he proposed suspending the federal excise tax on gas during the peak-travel summer months. Not to be outdone on the pandering front -- and no doubt after seeing poll results showing that high gas prices have topped Iraq among Americans' biggest concerns -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) seconded McCain's motion and spiced it up with a proposal to tax windfall profits of oil companies to make up for the lost gas-tax revenues.

McCain's gas-tax gimmick is about what one would expect from a Republican candidate, given that his party's shortsighted energy policies are partly to blame for the fix we're in today. Rather than supporting conservation measures, such as tougher vehicle fuel standards, the Republicans wasted years fighting a pointless battle to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling. President Bush continued to hammer on this tired theme Tuesday, as if unaware that it would take about a decade to extract a drop of oil from the refuge and that doing so would have a negligible effect on prices.

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) is refusing to play along with what he has called a gas-tax "scheme,” perhaps because he has learned from experience. When he was an Illinois state senator in 2000, he voted in favor of a six-month suspension of the state's sales tax on gasoline. A study later showed that the state lost $175 million in revenue, and consumers barely benefited -- gas prices simply rose to make up for the tax cut. Any economist could have predicted this: If you lower the price of gas without increasing the supply, it will only raise demand and thus boost prices.

A summer moratorium on the 18.4-cent federal gas tax would cost an estimated $9 billion, money that is desperately needed to shore up the country's transportation infrastructure. McCain's assurance that he would divert tax revenue from other sources to make up the difference is not reassuring amid a ballooning federal deficit, and Clinton's plan to tax oil companies has been tried without success by congressional Democrats for years.

Clinton is now running commercials in Indiana, site of the next Democratic primary on Tuesday, attacking Obama for his policy on gasoline prices. Never mind that there is almost no chance of getting her proposal through Congress before Memorial Day, even if it made sense. Here's hoping the people of Indiana can see through this ploy.

But this is what MEM I believe, thinks is "smart politics". Never mind that it's patently dishonest and pandering. It's true to form for Clinton though and I'm glad Obama has released an ad spelling what the LA Times explained so well. It's simply a stunt designed because these politicians think people are fucking stupid.

Originally Posted By: whomod

...The battle should not be amongst ourselves. Rather, we should focus our efforts on those who are truly on the opposite side: those who want to continue the failed policies of the last eight years, rather than bring real change to Washington. Let us come together right now behind an inspiring leader who not only has the audacity to challenge the old divisive politics, but the audacity to make us all hope for a better America.[/stand]

Unite the Party Now

I believe that Bill Clinton will be remembered as one of our nation's great Presidents, and Senator Clinton as one of our nation's great public servants. But as much as I respect and admire them both, it is clear that a vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote to continue this process, and a vote to continue this process is a vote that assists John McCain.
...

Isn't the most important part of the Democratic nomination process having people go to the polls & vote. This guy seems to want to end it at a point where it looks like voters are choosing Hillary over Obama. Recent polls show Hillary beating McCain by a better margin than Obama. It's sort of crazy to say it's really the other way around. There seems to be little logic in his very long letter IMHO.

Quote:

The Rev. Herbert H. Lusk II, a conservative black pastor at Greater Exodus Baptist Church in Philadelphia, expressed sympathy for Wright but said he relates more to Obama. He compared Obama's situation to his own, as a Republican pastor of an overwhelmingly Democratic congregation. His members get angry over his support for President Bush but remain because of family, friends and other ties, Lusk said.

Obama "doesn't appear to me to be hypocritical or disingenuous," Lusk said. "He's just another parishioner who struggles with what happens in his church, what the pastor says and all the other intangibles."

Originally Posted By: whomod

Quote:

Obama really wasn't just "another parishioner" though. They were closer than that & Obama didn't struggle with the things Wright said till it looked like it would hurt his campaign. Then it was time to throw Wright under the bus. And I'm guessing there is alot of room for more under that bus.

I hope Obama doesn't disown his grandmother this week too!

what's with saying he threw him under a bus? for weeks people said obama needed to distance himself from wright and he did. his comments were not "throwing him under a bus" he was just creating some distance and affirming that wright has nothing to do with his campaign. wright is obviously a whore for attention, and at this point it seems like he's trying to ruin things for obama. instead of attacking obama because he went to the guy's church let's look at mccain actively courting jerry falwell for his endorsment.

With bsams,there is no pleasing him. He's going to ride this Wright thing to the ground because it's something handy to use against that guy he fears and that wants to change things.

I half expect bsams to one day invent the time machine so he can live out his days in 2003 where everything made sense to him.

in 2003 we were post-9/11 but not jaded about it. the Serenity thread was 2 years away. and scrubs was still funny.

whomod had not yet jerked off to a pic of obama....

He was also still talking about what a great candidate McCain would be for the GOP and how much he respected and admired him.

it was a nice time, barack obama could quitely sit in church and let his children learn the great biblical lessons such as the us government creating AIDS to kill black men(how exactly AIDS would only kill black men isnt really important), or the lesson about ththose poor people in those buildings and on those planes deserving to die because we support a tiny nation under attack from all sides, back then barack didnt have to worry about the snoopy press and vetting presidential candidates, he and his family could worship in peace, ah the good old days....

Good times. Good times.

Rev Wright was right, super man wont let that black fellow into city hall!

Quote:

Obama's appeal to working-class whites faltering, polls show

Barack Obama's problem winning votes from working-class whites is showing no sign of going away, and their impression of him is getting worse.

Those are ominous signals as he hopes for strong performances next week in Indiana and North Carolina primaries that would derail the candidacy of Hillary Rodham Clinton, his rival for the Democratic presidential nomination. Those contests come as his candidacy has been rocked by renewed attention to his volatile former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and by his defeat in last month's Pennsylvania primary.

In an Associated Press-Yahoo News poll in April, 53 percent of whites who have not completed college viewed Obama unfavorably, up a dozen percentage points from November. During that period, the numbers viewing Clinton and Republican candidate John McCain negatively have stayed about even.

The April poll — conducted before the Pennsylvania contest — also showed an overwhelming preference for Clinton over Obama among working-class whites. They favored her over him by 39 percentage points, compared to a 10-point Obama lead among white college graduates. Obama also did worse than Clinton among those less-educated voters when matched up against Republican candidate John McCain.

"It's the stuff about his preacher ... and the thing he said about Pennsylvania towns, how they turn to religion," Keith Wolfe, 41, a supermarket food stocker from Parkville, Md., said in a follow-up interview. "I don't think he'd be a really good leader."

Just before the Pennsylvania primary, Obama said many small-town residents are bitter about their lives and turn for solace to religion and guns.

Recent voting patterns underscore Obama's continued poor performance with these voters, who are often pivotal in general election swing states like Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

In Democratic primaries held on or before Super Tuesday, Feb. 5, whites who have not finished college favored the New York senator by a cumulative 59 percent to 32 percent, according to exit polls of voters conducted for The Associated Press and the television networks.

In primaries since Feb. 5, that group has favored Clinton by 64 percent to 34 percent. That includes Ohio and Pennsylvania, in which working-class whites have favored Clinton by 44 and 41 percentage points respectively.

The AP-Yahoo poll shows less educated whites present a problem to Obama in part because of who they are. Besides being poorer, they tend to be older than white college graduates — and Clinton has done strongly with older white voters.

Yet political professionals and analysts say more is at play. They blame Obama's problems with blue-collar whites on their greater reluctance to embrace his bid to become the first black president, and his failure to address their concerns about job losses and the battered economy specifically enough.

Terry Madonna, a political science professor at Franklin & Marshall College in Lancaster, Pa., said Obama lost among working-class whites in the state because his message of how this generation's time has come did not address their economic needs.

"While it's incredibly motivating and passionate and compelling, it lacks content," Madonna said. "Hillary would come in and relate to them, talk about the specifics of her policy."

Pennsylvania also illustrated the problems racial attitudes among less educated whites are causing Obama.

In exit polls, one in five of the state's white voters who haven't completed college said race was an important factor in choosing a candidate, about double the number of white college graduates who said so. Eight in 10 of them voted for Clinton over Obama, and only about half said they would vote for Obama over McCain in November.

"The scab is pealed back off," Democratic pollster John Anzalone, not working for either presidential candidate, said of the latest attention focused on Wright and Obama's denunciations of him. In video clips of past sermons, Wright has damned the United States for its history of racism and accused the government of spreading the HIV virus to harm blacks.

Obama pollster Cornell Belcher said that while working-class whites have favored Clinton, the fact that huge numbers of them and other voters have participated in Democratic contests boded well for the November election.

"I don't think there's going to be erosion in the fall of a core group of Democratic voters," Belcher said.

While less educated whites tend to vote less frequently than better educated voters, they are important because of their sheer number.

Exit polls show they have comprised three in 10 voters in Democratic contests so far, a group that cannot be ignored in a contest that has seen Obama maintain a slim lead. They made up 43 percent of all voters in the 2004 presidential contest, when they heavily favored President Bush over Democrat John Kerry.

Underlining his need to connect with these voters, Obama has geared some television ads in Indiana toward economic issues. In recent days he has turned to small events, rather than his trademark huge rallies, concentrating on the economy, including lunching with a blue-collar Indiana family while discussing their problems.

He has let cameras record him playing basketball in hopes of connecting with the passionate fans of the sport who populate Indiana and North Carolina.

The findings from the AP-Yahoo News poll are from interviews with 863 Democrats on a panel of adults questioned in November and April. It has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.3 percentage points.

The poll was conducted over the Internet by Knowledge Networks, which initially contacted people using traditional telephone polling methods and followed with online interviews. People chosen for the study who had no Internet access were given it free.

The exit poll is based on in-person interviews with more than 36,000 voters in 28 states that have held primaries this year in which both candidates actively competed. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 1 percentage point, larger for some subgroups.

in Obama's defense, pastor Wright has clearly pointed out that all white's are racist, so this was not unexpected, what with their racism and all....

btw, the huge headline font was a homage to whomod....

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

btw, the huge headline font was a homage to whomod....

Do you have a crush on me or something?

self loathers really arent my type....

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

No one ever seems to notice that, for a disease allegedly created by the U.S. government to wipe out black americans, upwards of 85% of those infected are white homosexual/bisexual men, I.V. drug users, and homosexual/I.V. drug users.
In 1993, when I wrote an article on the status of the epidemic in the U.S. at that time, and spoke at length for several hours with representatives of the Center For Disease Control (CDC), as well as several local doctors, the consensus was that heterosexuals (women) were pretty much only infected by sex partners who were secretly bisexual or I.V. drug users. The only exception being those infected through blood or organ transplants.

Pretty misdirected effort, for a disease created to, in Rev Jeremiah Wright's paranoid words, "wipe out people of color".

I've heard this argument before. Though that version was that AIDS was zionistic created disease meant to wipe out muslims in Africa...

equally as stupid as that wright fellow

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

i like how your fantasies now include research reports and meetings with the CDC. thank you for still taking the time from all your ethnic dating and government meetings to post on this messageboard.

the man is a true public servant.

New York Post:

Tom Hanks has just released a new short film - endorsing Barack Obama for president.

"As an official celebrity, I know my endorsement has just made my mind up for you," the two-time Oscar winner jokes in a 21/2-minute homemade video on his myspace.com page.

"I want Barack Obama to be the next president of this country," Hanks says. "My support for Obama isn't just about breaking boundaries; it's because of his character and vision and the high road he has taken in this campaign."

is it a surprise that an actor is endorsing another actor?

I kind of pictured Hanks supporting Hillary since he played a gay man in Philadelphia and it seems like she has the gay vote.

i think they made a secret pact, he'd support Obama, and Obama would share the secret of how to play a black man, a white man, a elitist, a racist, a unifier, a nafta supporter, a nafta opponent, a voting member of legislature, a just present member of the legislature, a dedicated ember of the church, a member of the church that didnt hear any sermons, and a multitude of other roles!

Are you saying that the great Tom Hanks couldn't pay those roles already?

He played a woman on "Bosom Buddies," for cryin out loud!

yes but no one watching believed it, if Obama went out and said "I am going to put an end to politics as usual, and as of today i am a woman!", you would have morons like whomod on here swearing Obama was a woman , and anyone who said different was working for Fox News and Carl Rove. for every whomod there are a thousand others believing the act, even hanks couldnt attend a racist church for 20 years and get some morons to believe he didnt hear a thing when he went....

You're assuming whomod doesn't believe that Tom Hanks' sister played the part on Bosom Buddies.

i know pariah would like to have sex with hanks dressed as a woman in bosom buddies....

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

i like how your fantasies now include research reports and meetings with the CDC. thank you for still taking the time from all your ethnic dating and government meetings to post on this messageboard.

What exactly did I write that you spin as "fantasy"?

I did write an article on the AIDS epidemic, I did speak to several people at the CDC, to gather stats, nationally and for Florida, and even more local stats for Dade, Broward and Palm Beach counties.

And I have dated quite a few women of other races and nationalities, as I've expanded on at length in multiple topics here.

One small correction: I spoke to the CDC in late 1992. The article was published in January 1993.

Dumbass.

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

I did write an article on the AIDS epidemic, I did speak to several people at the CDC, to gather stats, nationally and for Florida, and even more local stats for Dade, Broward and Palm Beach counties.

Following people around after they leave the CDC spewing your hate does not mean you gave a speech. It means you're a hateful douche.

Some other sources for Ray:

http://medicine.creighton.edu/IDC242/2005/Group1/demo.htm

The CDC estimates that 850,000 to 950,000 U.S. residents are living with HIV infection, one-quarter of whom are unaware of their infection.
Approximately 40,000 new HIV infections occur each year in the U.S., about 70% among men and 30% among women. Of these newly infected people, half are younger than 25 years of age.

Of new infections among men in the U.S., the CDC estimates that approximately 60% of men were infected through homosexual sex, 25% through injection drug use, and 15% through heterosexual sex. Of newly infected men, approximately 50% are black, 30% are white, 20% are Hispanic, and a small percentage are members of other racial/ethnic groups.

Of new infections among women in the U.S., the CDC estimates that approximately 75% of women were infected through heterosexual sex [undisclosed: through sex with men who were secretly bisexual, I.V. drug users, or involved with prostitutes] and 25% through injection drug use. Of newly infected women, approximately 64% are black, 18% are white, 18% are Hispanic, and a small percentage are members of other racial/ethnic groups.

http://www.hivinfosource.org/hivis/hivbasics/demographics/

From 2001 through 2004, the estimated number of HIV/AIDS cases increased among whites, Asians/Pacific Islanders, and American Indians/Alaska Natives, and decreased among blacks and Hispanics. Blacks accounted for 50% of all HIV/AIDS cases diagnosed in 2004.
From 2001 through 2004, the estimated number of HIV/AIDS cases decreased approximately 2% among males and 15% among females. In 2004, males accounted for 73% of all HIV/AIDS cases among adults and adolescents.
From 2001 through 2004, the estimated number of HIV/AIDS cases increased among men who have sex with men (MSM). The estimated number of HIV/AIDS cases decreased among injection drug users (IDUs), MSM who were also IDUs, heterosexual adults and adolescents, and among children. MSM (47%) and persons exposed through heterosexual contact (33%)[again: hidden is the fact that these "heterosexual" transmissions were through sex with partners who were bisexual, I.V. users, or sex with prostitutes] accounted for 80% of all HIV/AIDS cases diagnosed in 2004.

and if you were wearing platform shoes, a bad dresser as well!

Originally Posted By: rex

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

Following people around after they leave the CDC spewing your hate does not mean you gave a speech. It means you're a hateful douche.

That doesn't even make sense.

Other than proving that you, in fact, are the hateful douche.

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

and if you were wearing platform shoes, a bad dresser as well!

Well, then, it's a good thing i wasn't wearing platform shoes.

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

Originally Posted By: rex

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

Following people around after they leave the CDC spewing your hate does not mean you gave a speech. It means you're a hateful douche.

I am, in fact, a hateful douche.

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

i know pariah would like to have sex with hanks dressed as a woman in bosom buddies....

$\:-\[$

dont care what they say anymore, it's your life!

Obama wins in North Carolina

Actually, the state can't be called yet.

Idiot.

Originally Posted By: whomod

Obama wins in North Carolina

Fox is also calling NC for Obama

Of course, whomod's been telling us for at least the past eight years that Fox is a right wing hate site that can't be trusted...so what does that say about Obama's victory?

will whomod use the same logic that he used in PA? Obama was supposed to win NC, so that makes it a Hilary win!

He doesn't seem to be doing well in Indiana.

While Obama congratulated Hillary on her Indiana win his campaign blamed Rush Limbaugh for Obama not being able to seal the deal yet.
Washington Post

I guess if Obama is going to have his people spin his losses that way I wish he would skip the phony congrats to Hillary. There's been plenty of polling showing he's having a tough time winning over all the voters he needs to win a general election without Limbaugh.

Technically, Obama's campaign is probably correct if at least for the following reason:

If Hillary had lost the vote in Texas or Ohio, it was widely believed (Bill even conceded) she'd have to drop out.

She "won"* Texas on primary night, but only by a razor-thin margin. In all likelihood, that margin was the result of Rush's "operation chaos."

Once that happened, there was a good chance that she would stay in this all the way to the convention, except in the highly unlikely event that Obama won the remaing states by huge margins.

Therefore, Limbaugh's actions may be, in fact, what kept Obama from sealing the deal.

With that being said, given his strong victory in North Carolina and the close results in Indiana, it's hard to see any way that superdelegates would hand the nomination to Hillary. She may hang on for the next few weeks until the primary season officially wraps up, but with no big states left, how can she win over any superdelegates she hasn't already?

* The caucus results, however, meant that Obama actually received more delegates in that state.

Gary Mayor Predicts Possible Indiana Shocker

As the fate of a nailbiter Indiana primary -- and possibly the course of the Democratic race -- hung on his city, Gary Mayor Rudy Clay said just now that it might take a while yet to finish counting the vote in Lake County, which includes Gary, and said that his city had turned out so overwhelmingly for Barack Obama that it might just be enough to close the gap with Hillary Rodham Clinton.

"Let me tell you, when all the votes are counted, when Gary comes in, I think you're looking at something for the word to see," Clay, an Obama supporter, said in a telephone interview from Obama's Gary headquarters. "I don't know what the numbers are yet, but Gary has absolutely produced in large numbers for Obama here."

Clay said the results were late coming in from Lake County because of the large numbers of absentee ballots that had to be counted -- about 11,000. Under local practice, all of the cartridges from voting machines in Gary and nearby East Chicago are first collected at the local airport before being driven to the county headquarters to be tallied with the results from the rest of the county, he said. He said there were major technical problems holding up the count.

Hillary won the Texas primary with 51% of the vote to Obama's 47% G-man. It wasn't a blow out but I'm not sure how you can realistically call that razor thin. But if you feel that is razor thin then the percentage point or two that Obama has over Hillary in the overall race so far must seem like pretty much a tie right?

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Well, yeah, mathmatically, either could win the nomination, thanks to the superdelegates.

However, with a big win for him in NC and, at best, a narrow win for in Indiana, I expect more superdelegates to now endorse Obama. Some of them will be new to the bandwagon, some will have been kept in the Obama campaign's pocket for tomorrow or later.

Russert: It's over for Hillary. She just lost the nomination.

NBC declares Hillary the winner, barely, in Indiana. Hillary may get one delegate more than Obama in Indiana. Chuck Todd says Obama will get 13 more delegates than Hillary tonight, and that wipes out the 12 delegates more than him that she got in Pennsylvania. Obama now has a pledged delegate lead of over 160, he's got a popular vote lead of over 700,000, per Todd

There is simply no path to victory for Hillary. Now she's just screwing around and hurting the party. Look at what Chuck Todd just said, again - even with Michigan and Florida, she has lost:

"With leads like this now, if you throw in Michigan and Florida, as is, then Obama would still have about 150,000 votes and he would still have 100 delegates, pledged delegate, lead." - Chuck Todd, 1:13 AM

as is.

Sorry Whomod but I find the Obama supporters who try to slam Hillary as somehow wrecking the party the ones doing the true damage. She has every right to continue & still has a chance to win the nomination.

Originally Posted By: whomod

"With leads like this now, if you throw in Michigan and Florida, as is, then Obama would still have about 150,000 votes and he would still have 100 delegates, pledged delegate, lead."

That probably means he's got the nomination right there.

Sure, Hillary can hypothetically win with the superdelegates. But when the math breaks down the way it does now on the states, my gut tells me the SD's will break for Obama.

An Obama win in NC was pretty much expected. Obama early on even predicted that he would take NC, Hillary would win PA & that Indiana would be the tie breaker. If she wins the next state perceptions will change once again.

I understand that's the Clinton talking point today. I'm also aware of what various Obama talking points have been.

But, the bottom line is that, after yesterday, he actually increased his lead over her. There are simply not enough states for her to close the deal. Hillary's once sizeable lead in IN narrowed to an almost "too close to call" victory there and, as noted above, even if you count FL and MI she's behind.

As I said before, I expect that you're going to see more and more superdelegates start to break his way now. And, once that starts, Hillary's last theoretical hope at the nomination is obliterated.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

I expect that you're going to see more and more superdelegates start to break his way now. And, once that starts, Hillary's last theoretical hope at the nomination is obliterated.

Dems lining up behind Obama candidacy: Obama attracting growing numbers of superdelegates who say Dem contest has been decided

I dunooo...

Now would be a good time for her to take credit for freeing Nelson Mandella.

Three-way call: John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama

terrible impressions, not very funny or creative.
republican "humor."

Quote:

Obama picks up two superdelegates, gap narrowed to seven

Posted: 08:58 PM ET
.

(CNN) — Barack Obama won two more superdelegate endorsements Thursday, narrowing his deficit with Hillary Clinton to seven.

North Carolina Rep. Brad Miller and Washington Rep. Rick Larsen both announced they will cast their superdelegate votes for the Illinois senator.

"The decision was not easy," Miller, a two-term congressman, said in a statement. "Senator Clinton has run an impressive campaign, and has spoken eloquently to the concerns to working and middle class American families. She is one of the great leaders of this generation.

"Senator Obama understands that he has the chance not just to win the election this year, but to be a great president," he added.

Miller's district, which includes Raleigh, overwhelmingly voted for Obama Tuesday, 63 percent to 35 percent.

Larsen, a three-term congressman whose district lies in the northwest area of Washington state, praised Obama as the "best candidate to turn our country's hopes for a better future into reality."

"This week, Senator Obama has proven that he is tough and resilient," he said. "He has shown that he can take a pounding, come back and continue to communicate with the public to deliver his message of hope and change."

Obama easily defeated Clinton in Washington's February 19 caucus, 68 percent to 31 percent.

The two endorsements bring Clinton's advantage over Obama among superdelegates down to seven, according to CNN's estimate; Clinton has the backing of 267 superdelegates, while Obama has 250.

Since Tuesday's primaries, Obama has gained six superdelegates while Clinton has picked up one. But Clinton also lost a superdelegate Wednesday — DNC member Jennifer McClellan switched her support to Obama — for a net gain of zero.

So I guess Hillary's last ugly desperate and pathetic strategy of "vote for me, I'm white" is another bust.

Have you always wanted to be white, or is this envy something new?

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

Originally Posted By: rex

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

Following people around after they leave the CDC spewing your hate does not mean you gave a speech. It means you're a hateful douche.

That doesn't even make sense.

Other than proving that you, in fact, are the hateful douche.

calling wondy a hateful douche makes you a hateful douche, at least according to wondy. and wondy is always right because he agrees with himself and it doesn't matter that no one else ever seems to.
yeah!

Quote:

Obama picks up 9 superdelegates, union endorsement

By JOAN LOWY, Associated Press Writer Fri May 9, 4:54 PM ET

WASHINGTON - Barack Obama all but erased Hillary Rodham Clinton's once-imposing lead among national convention superdelegates on Friday and won fresh labor backing as elements of the Democratic Party began coalescing around the Illinois senator for the fall campaign.

Obama picked up the backing of nine superdelegates, including Rep. Donald Payne of New Jersey, a member of the Congressional Black Caucus who had been a Clinton supporter.

In addition, the American Federation of Government Employees announced its support for Obama. The union claims about 600,000 members who work in the federal and Washington, D.C., governments.

Obama, who won a convincing victory in the North Carolina primary and lost Indiana narrowly on Tuesday, has been steadily gaining strength in the days since.

the superdelegates are really flocking to Obama now. It's been a steady stream all day. Expect it to continue thru the weekend. Especially now that Hillary has played her hand and the superdelegates see that she really has no real interest in a Democrat winning the White house if it isn't her.

Bye bye Hillary.

By any measure, this was one hell of a victory speech and a hopeful vision for America.

Primary Night in Raleigh, NC

How many times did he mention change?

Originally Posted By: rex

How many times did he mention change?

Man, you're one smart mutherfucker!

Did you notice it's also written on the placard on his podium?

I was making fun of him you dense retard.

Yes. And I was making fun of you as well.

I'm sorry, I don't speak youtube.

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Yes. Whomod and others who try to smear her out of the race are just trying to use other means than the democratic process to get the result they want.

It isn't democracy they're interested in.
Just winning.

By any deceitful means at their disposal.

YAY!!

Wonder Boy. The Democratic Party's best friend!!!!

Originally Posted By: whomod

YAY!!

I'll just say something stupid, and pretend I made a valid point!!

I lose again, but I'll pretend I won!

No, I'm just glad that you've come around from ranting about how the Democrats were traitors to now being the guy who's trying to help us choose the best candidate so we can beat McCain in the fall.

That's real personal growth!

Thanks for all you do Wondy.

I really mean that! $\:\)$

Quote:

Saturday, May 10, 2008

Obama has taken the Superdelegate lead

Sen. Obama has taken the lead in DCW's superdelegates count for the first time.
According to news media reports, 2 Superdelegates from Virgin Islands, while Sen. Clinton loses 1.

Accorinding to The page

Day’s Tally: Obama 3, Clinton 0*
Obama nabs two Virgin Island supers — Kevin Rodriquez, who switched from Clinton, and Carole Burke.
Also picks up Utah DNC super Kristi Cumming after the state elects her as its add-on
Clinton gets Massachusetts DNC super Arthur Powell

Update:
The Associated Press - AP: Obama overtakes lead in superdelegates for first time

Obama: 275
Clinton: 271

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

And Republicans have never, EVER, done ANYTHING at all like that.

Jackass.

The 'Obama in 30 Seconds' TV ad contest put on by MoveOn.org has a winner.

It's quite good.

propaganda for the people by the people. heartwarming.

Wow.

Democrats are communists.

How original.

and how 'with the times' you are.

I liked this one better:

Originally Posted By: whomod

Wow.

Democrats are communists.

How original.

and how 'with the times' you are.

it's a pretty time-tested conclusion to come to.

Originally Posted By: Captain Sammitch

Originally Posted By: whomod

Wow.

Democrats are communists.

How original.

and how 'with the times' you are.

it's a pretty time-tested conclusion to come to.

It's as old as the Hoover Depression and FDR's policies that saved the United States.

Originally Posted By: whomod

FDR's policies that saved the United States.

You mean: the policy of massive defense spending and drafting of millions of men as a result of WWII? Because that's what ended the depression, not the TVA or court packing or whatever else you might think FDR did.

I'm surprised you're comparing Obama to FDR. Are you saying that he plans to start WWIII (maybe by invading Pakistan)? Or that BSAMS was right when he predicted Obama would start sticking US citizens into concentration camps on account of their race?

Quote:

Sen. Emanuel Rebukes Ted Kennedy For "Gratuitous Attack" Against Clinton

May 12, 2008 11:20 a.m. EST

Kris Alingod - AHN News Writer

Washington, D.C. (AHN) - After calling Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) the presumptive Democratic nominee, House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) defended Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) over the weekend against what he said were negative attacks by Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA).

"I have a lot of respect for Ted Kennedy, but I don't know how the hell he comes off saying that," Emanuel told the New York Times on Sunday. "The gratuitous attack on her is uncalled for and wrong. He is a better senator than that comment reveals."

Speaking about the prospect of Clinton becoming Obama's Vice Presidential running mate in an interview with Blooomberg Television, Kennedy, a surrogate for the Illinois senator, had said that he was looking for "somebody that is in tune with [Obama's] appeal for the nobler aspirations of the American people."

Almost the same time Kennedy was making his comments last week, Emanuel called Obama the "presumptive nominee" during a conference organized by The New Yorker magazine. Emanuel, who has not endorsed anyone in the race, also said there is still the possibility of Obama losing the nomination.

AHN

I know it may look good right now for Obama to have the corronation before he actually wins the nomination but their campaign is acting in such a way that they may end up actually helping Hillary win it.

Yeah. Like Ted Kennedy is some kind of high barometer of liberal idealism.

He's had 4 decades of scandals, backroom deals, and other manifestations of arrogance and corruption. TIME magazine similarly this week has a cover with "And the winner is... [photo of Obama]"

I don't understand this compulsion to bypass the Democratic process and prematurely/un-democratically leverage Hillary aside before the primaries run their course.

It shows Obama, his supporters, and the elites in the media trying to manipulate things in Obama's favor, have something other than democracy as their agenda.

This commercial with Gen. Petraeus testifying before Congress, manifests Obama's foolhardiness in undermining the "Surge" gains in Iraq.

It's possible that Obama, if elected, will later actually listen to the generals and change his policy in Iraq to a longer commitment (rather than his stated "immediate withdrawal").
But that isn't what Obama's consistently campaigned he would do.

(see also what G-man posted about Hamas endorsing Obama, and McCain saying he's Hamas' "worst nightmare".)

Praise Allah!

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

It's possible that Obama, if elected, will later actually listen to the generals

Sorry, in light of bush's record on this matter, it's ridiculous that you bring it up in regards to Obama.

Quote:

Praise Allah!

Now you're just a right wing talk show jackass.

So, whomod, you're justifying Obama's prospective failures in Iraq by saying that would be okay because it would make him....like President Bush?

Apparently, Obama thinks there are fifty-seven states.

Rush Limbaugh thinks that this was a Freudian slip and Obama was thinking of the fifty-seven Islamic states. I tend to think he's being too hard on Obama. However, I gotta admit: if Dan Quayle, George W. Bush, or any republican, had miscounted the number of states, the press would be having a field day with it.

Allah Damn America?

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Praise Allah!

Regarding reference to Arab states, The "OBAMA: Muslim Wolf in Christian Wool" article already revealed Obama campaigned for a cousin in Kenya, among things to impose Sharia law in every part of Kenya (in a nation that is only 6% muslim, no less).

It might also be a passing thought to would-be first lady Theresa Heinz Kerry, and her famous 57 ketchup, and that Obama plans to join her flipping burgers somewhere after November.
Now that would be change I can believe in!

I would have guessed that Obama thought there was only 48 states. After being trounced in West Virginia I'm sure he would like to make it 47!

thedoctor argumentative Moderator Timelord. Drunkard.
10000+ posts Wed May 14 2008 12:08 AM Reading a post
Forum: Politics and Current Events
Thread: Barack Hussein Obama in '08?

Edwards is endorsing Obama. Wonder if another VP nod is coming his way?

I thought that back in February...with Bill Clinton being considered for S.o.S.

No, Edwards will provide some bonafides for the white wqking class. Yeah he's rich and all but, his accent and story plays pretty well among the good ol' boys. I think that Edwards will end up in some cabinet level and/or party emeritus position where he can advance his workinbg poor agenda. It's a win/win and just rings the death knell that uch louder for Hillary.

I think the best choice for VP with Obama would be Chuck Hagel(sp?).

Originally Posted By: THE Bastard

Yep. you're on my wavelength. Hagel or Strickland would make ideal choices for VP.

Hagel obviously would be the most symbolically devastating to the GOP though. and it would be a nice counter to the inevitable Lieberman pretending he's still a Democrat at the GOP convention, much like crazy old confederate Zell Miller was in '04.

as for Edwards. It's about time but it's certainly welcome. As are his delegates. not that they're not already gravitating towards Obama. Before this, obama has already increased his superdelegate lead to 10 by picking 2 endorsements today. Edwards adding the party bigwig finality to Hillary's dwindling hopes (has to win over 90% of the supers to have a chance??) to win this race only speeds it along.

Wow.

that was incredibly funny.

Pat Buchanan's racial meltdown and tirade on Hardball following the Edwards endorsement.

I'm sure video is forthcoming.

did you just laugh at your own post?

No. I laughed at the old bigot who fears change and wants to pick the Democratic candidate based on the fact that older whites say they won't vote for a black man.

Boo hoo. Fuck em then. People want change. And if most of America, and especially Generation Y has to drag West Virginia and Tennessee like the Federal Government had to drag Alabama back in the 1950's then more power to them. We're not going to remain mired in a few peoples racism for another century because some feel we need to pick the candidate the bigots will vote for and who spouts their coded language.

Welcome to the 21st Century.

Still a few stupid throwbacks though.

Originally Posted By: whomod

Yesterday, McCain got confused over the most basic facts about who is doing what in Iraq and Iran. Very basic stuff..What if Clinton or Obama had made this mistake?

Obama Gaffes on Iraq and Afghanistan

Obama posited -- incorrectly -- that Arabic translators deployed in Iraq are needed in Afghanistan -- forgetting, momentarily, that Afghans don't speak Arabic.

"We only have a certain number of them and if they are all in Iraq, then its harder for us to use them in Afghanistan," Obama said.

The vast majority of military translators in both war zones are drawn from the local population.
Naturally they speak the local language. In Iraq, that's Arabic or Kurdish. In Afghanistan, it's any of a half dozen other languages -- including Pashtu, Dari, and Farsi.

...he immediately made another [mistake].

"We need agricultural specialists in Afghanistan, people who can help them develop other crops than heroin poppies, because the drug trade in Afghanistan is what is driving and financing these terrorist networks. So we need agricultural specialists," he said.

So far, so good.

"But if we are sending them to Baghdad, they're not in Afghanistan," Obama said.

Iraq has many problems, but encouraging farmers to grow food instead of opium poppies isn't one of them. In Iraq, oil fields not poppy fields are a major source of U.S. technical assistance.

But..but...but.....

I thought he was a Muslim sleeper agent!

At the very least this should be reassuring to that ignorant West Virginia woman who made the rounds on TV the other day stating why she didn't vote For Obama.

ignorant because she was from west virginia?

ignorant because she didn't vote for obama?

possibly ignorant because she had a comparatively low level of melanin?

of course one must remember those things aren't exactly mutually exclusive in the magical world of whomolitics™.

um... ignorant because she thinks Obama is a Muslim.

Which was what the 1st sentence clearly said.

This video though sort of hits the nail on the head.

it's an honest mistake when you factor in that little cosplay incident of his from a while back.

Quote:

Three Ex-SEC Chiefs Endorse Obama

Three former chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission endorsed Sen. Barack Obama (D., Ill.) for president Wednesday. David Ruder and William Donaldson, appointed by Ronald Reagan and George Bush, respectively, joined with Arthur Levitt, who was appointed by Bill Clinton, issued a joint statement:

"We believe Senator Obama can provide the positive leadership and judgment needed to take us to a stronger and more secure economic future."

Obama, who also received an endorsement from former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, has had no trouble getting Wall Street backing. The largest firms funding his campaign include Goldman Sachs(GS - Cramer's Take - Stockpickr), JPMorgan(JPM - Cramer's Take - Stockpickr), Citigroup(C - Cramer's Take - Stockpickr), Merrill Lynch (MER - Cramer's Take - Stockpickr) and Lehman(LEH - Cramer's Take - Stockpickr).

Endorsements have been rolling in for Obama in recent weeks. Despite his drubbing Tuesday in West Virginia, Obama received two-and-a-half more supderdelegates Wednesday morning and has outpaced Sen. Hillary Clinton (D., N.Y.) since Super Tuesday.

A vote of no confidence in Republian economic "leadership" from the SEC.

I thought those evil evil corporate scumbags weren't to be trusted.

I'm sure you did.

Originally Posted By: Captain Sammitch

it's an honest mistake [to think Obama is a Muslim] when you factor in that little cosplay incident of his from a while back.

And the fact his family IS Muslim.

And the fact his middle name is Hussein.

And the fact he 'changed' his name from Barry back to Barack.

Quote:

Obama to Reporter: Sorry I Called You "Sweetie"
May 15, 2008 11:16 AM
FROM GUEST-BLOGGER RICK KLEIN, OF ABC'S THE NOTE
Really? He calls people "sweetie"? And this is a "habit"?
A little flare-up out of Sen. Barack Obama's Michigan visit: A (female) reporter for ABC's Detroit affiliate, WXYZ-TV, shouted a question in Obama's direction yesterday, inquiring about Obama's plans to help American autoworkers. Obama didn't feel like answering at the time -- not unusual, since Obama likes to answer questions at structured "avails," or media availabilities, if fielding questions at all, while on the trail.
Obama's response: "Hold on one second, sweetie, we're going to do -- we'll do a press avail."
First, the easy stuff: Obama never did do that "avail," and never did answer reporter Peggy Agar's question, which (if it matters) was substantive and relevant to Obama's visit that day.
Then, the harder stuff: Obama actually called a reporter "sweetie."
I don't know about you, but I don't believe I've ever used that term. My mother calls me "sweetie" from time to time. She's my mom. It's not a slur, but in a professional setting? I'm fairly certain that Obama would flunk basic corporate training if he used a term like that to refer to a female colleague.
Obama (or one of his aides) realized the mistake, and the candidate himself called Agar and left a voicemail that started by apologizing for not answering her question.
"I broke my word, I apologize for that, and I will make up for it," Obama said.
Then the meat: "Second apology is for using the word 'sweetie.' That's a bad habit of mine. I do it sometimes with all kinds of people. I mean no disrespect and so I am duly chastened on that front. Feel free to call me back. I expect that my press team will be happy to try to make it up to you whenever we are in Detroit next."
This would seem like the kind of "bad habit" Obama may want to break at some point, like smoking.
The New York Times' Jim Rutenberg points out that Obama has used the word "sweetie" at least once before on the trail, referring to a female factory worker in Allentown, Pa., last month.
While we're breaking the bad habits, how about media access? Sen. John McCain just gave a speech where he promised to give weekly press conferences as president -- and he gives just-about daily (and sometimes far more than that) casual and formal access to the press as a candidate. Anyone think the different styles WON'T catch up with Obama at some point in the general election? Even after this, the most he can say is that he expects his press team to "try to make it up to you" next time he's in town?
Listen to the voicemail, and see the exchange with the reporter, HERE (click on the video player to the right).
Don't miss Agar's response, toward the end of her TV spot: "This 'sweetie' never did get an answer to that question."
-- Rick Klein

ABC

He's just so presidential isn't he!

Originally Posted By: Captain Sammitch

I thought those evil evil corporate scumbags weren't to be trusted.

Originally Posted By: whomod

I'm sure you did.

it's just amusing how BIG BUSINESS™ and corporate America are dragging our nation down or trampling on the poor or whatever the hell you ramble about that given week until spokespersons from the sec decide to ~~fellate~~ endorse your personal savior.

um.. because I frown upon Exxon getting away with a well documented misinformation campaign on global warming (which right wingers happily eat up BTW), you seem to think that translates to me saying corporations are "evil"?

To think that would be to conclude that I agree with treating corporations with the same rights or even more rights than people, which they clearly are not. I do think however that business has some measure of responsibility to the people and to the country they operate in and not just simply to their shareholders and CEO's.

And they certainly have a responsibility to the planet that we all share.

but the Obama endorsement only underscores an economic fact that has been true for a long time despite the myth of Republicans being better stewards of the economy. It's nice that Wall street agrees.

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Quote:

ABC

He's just so presidential isn't he!

Are you criticizing his refusal to answer a question, or him calling someone 'sweetie'? Cuz I'll agree with you if it's the former, but not if it's the latter.

This is an attempt to get the rise out of the feminists. I think it's bullshit but in this day and age, you can't be a presidential candidate and refer to a woman that's not your wife or daughter as sweetie.

And apparently, you can't say tar baby if you are a Republican. I was just watching an interview on MSNBC between Norah O'Donnell and Rep. Tom Davis, the Republican congressman that likened the party brand to bad dogfood. In a memo he wrote he referenced that Obama could have a bit of a "tar baby" on his hands with regards with regards to his problem with hispanic voters.

O'Donnell took him to task for his bad choice of phrase. I called bullshit immediately. I knew what the guy was trying to say...that Obama had a sticky situtaion on his hands. I wasn't offended so why was tis white woman getting all idignant when it wasn't necessary? She also jumped on him for spelling Obama's name wrong..."barrack" vs "barack"...as if the guy had actually typed it himself and gleefully got a chubbie for adding an extra R to his name.

It's bullshit like that that adds to the racial divide. Don't fucking defend me when I don't need defending.

I agree. We need to stop being PC pussies and actually learn what certain words and phrases actually mean instead of trying to brand them as hate speech.

i wonder if Obama has ever heard any Carly Simon songs:

Quote:

Barack Obama accused President Bush of "a false political attack" Thursday after Bush warned in Israel against appeasing terrorists — early salvos in a general election campaign that's already blazing even as the Democratic front-runner tries to sew up his party's nomination.

The White House denied Bush had targeted Obama, who said the Republican commander in chief's intent was obvious.

In short order, the controversy spilled across the presidential campaign.

John McCain, the Republican nominee in waiting, said Obama was showing "naivete and inexperience and lack of judgment" in his willingness to meet with U.S. foes.

Hillary Rodham Clinton then called Bush's original comments "offensive and outrageous, especially in light of his failures in foreign policy."

As the workday began stateside, Bush gave a speech to Israel's Knesset in which he spoke of the president of Iran, who has called for the destruction of the U.S. ally. Then, the president said: "Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along."

"We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history," Bush added.

With the president abroad and those seeking to succeed him campaigning at home, the transcontinental tiff signaled the early direction of the general election. Bush seemed to assume the traditional lame-duck presidential role in trying to help the Republican nominee-in-waiting, and Obama tried to maneuver for advantage — and to show strength — while on the cusp of clinching the Democratic nomination.

McCain played his political role as well in tandem with Obama, notable for two White House hopefuls who are campaigning for a bipartisan governing approach free of the often divisive discourse in Washington.

By tradition, partisan politics comes to a halt when a U.S. president is on foreign soil, and Bush's remarks led Obama to quickly cry foul. The first-term Illinois senator responded to the comments as if they were criticism of his position that as president he would be willing to personally meet with Iran's leaders and those of other regimes the United States has deemed rogue.

"It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of Israel's independence to launch a false political attack," Obama said in a statement his aides distributed. "George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the president's extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel.

In turn, White House press secretary Dana Perino denied that the Knesset remark was aimed at Obama. In fact, the language is fairly typical for Bush speeches, and Gordon Johndroe, a national security spokesman for the president, said Bush was referring to "a wide range of people who have talked to or suggested we talk to Hamas, Hezbollah or their state sponsors" over a long period of time.

One such person most recently was former President Carter, who held talks with Hamas leaders, leading to criticism from Bush officials as well as Obama and McCain.

Even as the White House said Bush meant no dig at the Democrat, Perino couldn't resist the opportunity to get in a small one.

"I understand when you're running for office you sometimes think the world revolves around you. That is not always true. And it is not true in this case," she said.

Meanwhile, in Columbus, Ohio, McCain said he took the White House at its word, but then he weighed into the spat himself, saying: "This does bring up an issue that we will be discussing with the American people, and that is, why does Barack Obama, Senator Obama, want to sit down with a state sponsor of terrorism?"

Asked if Obama was an appeaser, McCain said Obama must explain why he wants to talk with leaders like Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and added that Obama's position was a serious error. "It shows naivete and inexperience and lack of judgment to say that he wants to sit down across the table from an individual who leads a country that says Israel is a stinking corpse, that is dedicated to the extinction of the state of Israel. My question is, what does he want to talk about?"

Clinton, campaigning in South Dakota in advance of a June 3 Democratic primary, said Bush's statement had "no place in any presidential address. ...

"I have differences with Senator Obama on certain foreign policy matters, but I think we are united in our opposition to the Bush policies and to the continuation of those policies by Senator McCain." Clinton has criticized Obama in the past for his pledge to meet with prominent adversaries of the United States without precondition.

Although his political interest is keen, Bush has mostly tried to refrain from injecting himself into the presidential race.

He largely remained silent during the Republican primaries but appeared with McCain at the White House after the Arizona senator clinched the nomination and, since then, has talked up McCain frequently. As for the Democratic race, the president typically avoids naming names, but he has publicly disagreed with the positions of the Democratic front-runners, including Obama's expressed willingness to meet leaders of U.S. adversaries.

The debate over whether a president should directly negotiate with such leaders has been one of the most prominent issue differences in the race for the Democratic nomination. Obama has said he would be willing to meet with heads of state in places like Iran, Cuba and North Korea. Democratic rival Hillary Rodham Clinton has argued that those meetings could be used for propaganda and her first response would be outreach through diplomatic channels.

By criticizing Bush, Obama sent a signal that he's ready to take on the sitting president and the incumbent party — and tried to counter the notion that Clinton would be the stronger Democratic general election candidate. Democrats also are working to link the unpopular Bush to McCain at every turn as the public craves change, and even if it wasn't directed at Obama, Bush's remark gave Democrats an opening to claim more of the same.

"It is time to turn the page on eight years of policies that have strengthened Iran and failed to secure America or our ally Israel," Obama said in his statement. "Instead of tough talk and no action, we need to do what (Presidents) Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan did and use all elements of American power — including tough, principled, and direct diplomacy — to pressure countries like Iran and Syria."

For their part, McCain and Republicans increasingly see Obama as their November rival and have been taking every opportunity to raise questions about his readiness to be a wartime commander in chief. The GOP also hopes to make national security — historically a Republican strength — a focus of the campaign when the political terrain favors Democrats.

Indicating what's to come, McCain said: "Peace through strength is the way we achieve peace in the world. That's the point. I will debate this issue with Senator Obama throughout this campaign."

This exchange underscores just how retarded Bush and his republican sycophants are on this issue. Diplomacy and appeasement are two completely different, completely unrelated things. And if wanting to talk to Iran is "appeasement", then Gates and Rice are appeasers too. As is Bush with the North Koreans and the Libyan's.

Priceless. 4 years ago, this moron would have been applauded as being "tough". Now it just looks like the ignorant, uninformed belligerence it's always been. And yeah, Mathews is a stick finger in air and gauge the wind kind of guy which is why both the right and left hate him. But it is a barometer of just where exactly this country is at right now and underscores what nonsense we've all had our fill of..

Originally Posted By: thedoctor

...

Are you criticizing his refusal to answer a question, or him calling someone 'sweetie'? Cuz I'll agree with you if it's the former, but not if it's the latter.

I think the refusal to answer the question was worse but calling the reporter sweetie wasn't appropiate either. I think he should use it in his speaches personally.

I tend to agree with MEM and doc both a bit.

Its' not that big of a deal. However, given this is an educated, middled age, man who constantly talks about 'respect' I think he should have chosen his words a little more carefully... and really should think about this incident the next time he gets all whiney and high and mighty over the other candidates' 'divisive' statements.

Obama did call the reporter back to apologize but had to leave a message on her machine.

I don't think it was that big a deal. If the reporter was offended, then she deserved the apology. She wasn't but Obama apologized anyway.

Editorial from New York Daily News:

Barack Hussein Obama wants it both ways.

Any American who uses his full name is trying to scare voters, his wife charges. But Obama says he understands why Islamic terror group Hamas looks at his middle name and trusts him.

Ditto for his plan to meet with Iran's madman president and other rogue leaders. Obama sees his open-door policy as evidence he will end President Bush's "cowboy diplomacy." When Bush slammed that plan Thursday as "appeasement," Obama accused him of a "false political attack."

It's a legitimate attack, because Obama's kumbaya foreign policy is dangerous. And his name, including the Hussein part, is fair game because Obama has declared it an international advantage.

He can want it both ways, but he can't have it.

The trouble started when Hamas adviser Ahmed Yousef said, "We like Mr. Obama" and added, "we hope he wins the election."

That's an endorsement, plain and simple. When John McCain jumped in, promising to be Hamas' "worst enemy," Obama got huffy and accused McCain of "divisive fear-mongering."

Maybe we should be afraid. Consider what Obama says in an interview in the current Atlantic magazine.

Asked by writer Jeffrey Goldberg if he was "flummoxed" by the Hamas support, Obama responds no and says: "It's conceivable that there are those in the Arab world who say to themselves, 'This is a guy who spent some time in the Muslim world, has a middle name of Hussein and appears more worldly and has called for talks with people, and so he's not going to be engaging in the same sort of cowboy diplomacy as George Bush,' and that's something they're hopeful about."

He adds: "That's a perfectly legitimate perception..."

Now we know why Hamas prefers Barack Hussein Obama. He's told us himself.

As near as I can tell, Obama is saying that is' okay to call refer to him by his middle name as long as the person doing so is a potential Islamic terrorist.

yes i'm sure that's what he's saying

But can't you admit hypocrisy in this? Obama says that anyone in America using his middle name is playing divisive politics by trying to associate him with terrorists, yet terrorists using his middle name is a good thing?

he's talking about people in the arab world seeing him as more worldly than george bush because of his past travels and cultural heritage. that's different than endorsing terrorists.
but people trying to link him to terrorists by his name alone is as silly as wondy linking every brown skinned person to the mexican invasion.

So having an exotic middle name makes someone more worldly and, therefore, fit to be president? You really think Obama believes that?

Heh. If he does, then maybe he can pick Jennifer Love Hewitt as Secretary of State.

A unique middle names can mask a person's inherent gayness.

-Raymond Tiberius Adler

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

I never said Obama endorsed terrorists. Please learn to read. I said it was hypocritical for him to tout his name as a boon when terrorists speak it but say it's completely off limits to anyone in the country where he's running for the highest political office. You and whomod need to stop sharing studio space together. You're starting to be influenced by his work.

Damn...

Quote:

Obama, facing likely defeat, will skip visiting Kentucky
By Ryan Alessi | Lexington Herald-Leader

LEXINGTON, Ky. — Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, facing a likely defeat in next Tuesday's primary election, won't travel to Kentucky before the voting, but said he hopes to have much more time to win over Kentucky voters before the November general election.

"When we're able to campaign in a place like Iowa for several months and I can visit and talk to people individually, I do very well. That's harder to do at this stage in the campaign," Obama said in a brief telephone interview Friday. "And once we get past the primary, we'll ble to focus more on those states where we need to make sure people know my track record."

In contrast, Obama's rival, Sen. Hillary Clinton, will make five stops in Kentucky over the weekend, including stops at two university campuses.

Obama said he'd hoped to spend a bit more time in Kentucky earlier this week, but was called back to Washington, D.C., for votes.

"We're having to campaign in a lot of different places," he said. "Obviously we think Kentucky is important. People in Kentucky are concerned about the same things people are concerned about all across the country — declining wages and incomes and everything from gas to health care."

But he conceded that he has a steep challenge to get his message and background to voters in states such as Kentucky — where he trails Sen. Hillary Clinton by 27 points, according to a poll published earlier this week — and West Virginia, where voters chose Clinton over Obama by 40 points on Tuesday.

"What it says is that I'm not very well known in that part of the country," Obama said. "Sen. Clinton, I think, is much better known, coming from a nearby state of Arkansas. So it's not surprising that she would have an advantage in some of those states in the middle."

But he said he and Clinton match up similarly against Republican nominee John McCain. Both trailed McCain by double digits in the poll, which was conducted for the Lexignton Herald-Leader and WKYT television. McCain leads Clinton by 12 points and Obama by 25 points.

"I think whoever the Democratic is we're going to have some work to do in a state like Kentucky," Obama said

Short version is Obama won't be spending anytime in Kentucky because it will highlight his weakness once again with certain voters that in my opinion make him toast in a general election. The bullshit this man can spew & get away with is impressive! I don't mean that as a slam either since it's part & parcel of being a politician. It just sucks that there are legitimate questions about how well he can do in a general & his way of dealling with it seems to be to not contest the hard states or take his name of a ballot if he can.

Quote:

But in Southern states with large black populations, like Alabama, Mississippi and Virginia, an energized black electorate could create a countervailing force, particularly if conservative white voters choose not to flock to Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee. Merle Black, a political scientist at Emory University in Atlanta, predicts “the largest black turnout in the history of the United States” this fall if Mr. Obama is the nominee.

To hold these states, Republicans may have to work harder than ever. Already, turnout in Democratic primaries this year has substantially exceeded Republican turnout in states like Arkansas, Louisiana, South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia.

Some analysts suggest that North Carolina and Virginia may even be within reach for the Democratic nominee, and they point to the surprising result in a Congressional special election in Mississippi this week as an indicator of things to come.

Oh, and then this:

Huckabee jokes about Obama ducking a gunman

Yeah, assassination of agents of change in this country have historically been really hysterical.

Obama lambastes the Bush/McCain foreign policy. This is how you fight back. It's definitely worth a watch.

Originally Posted By: whomod

Yeah, assassination of agents of change in this country have historically been really hysterical.

so it's okay to say bush should be executed for 'war crimes' but as soon as someone threatens to crucify your lord and savior you get your panties in a bunch?

Allah Damn America!

According to the article you posted Whomod it only looks like wins in North Carolina & Virginia are actually viable for Obama. It all looks good until you look at the states that will be ceded to McCain- PA, OH, WV & FL. The electoral math doesn't add up to anything close to an Obama win. He might do a little better than Dukakis & Mondale did but it won't result in a win or even a close one.

Originally Posted By: Captain Sammitch

Originally Posted By: whomod

Yeah, assassination of agents of change in this country have historically been really hysterical.

so it's okay to say bush should be executed for 'war crimes' but as soon as someone threatens to crucify your lord and savior you get your panties in a bunch?

Yep. receiving the usual sentence from the Hague for murdering thousands in an unprovoked war is the same thing as an assassination.

Um they dont believe in the death penalty in Europe....

They don't believe in it? Well, shit. I know for a fact it happens all over America!

god bless america!

AMERICA......FUCK YEAH!!!

If Obama dont like it he can go back to Iran!

Originally Posted By: whomod

Originally Posted By: Captain Sammitch

Originally Posted By: whomod

Yeah, assassination of agents of change in this country have historically been really hysterical.

so it's okay to say bush should be executed for 'war crimes' but as soon as someone threatens to crucify your lord and savior you get your panties in a bunch?

Yep. receiving the usual sentence from the Hague for murdering thousands in an unprovoked war is the same thing as an assassination.

the hague can go fuck itself with a cattle prod. all the same, I'm pretty damn impressed you went around collecting enough fingerprints to charge the President with homicide.

what's that?

oh. well, nice to know you so enjoy playing around on that fun little spectrum between slander and sedition. hope it works out for you. if you know what I mean.

Don't be angry. Anger won't bring back the (so called) permanent Republican majority that allowed this kind of stuff to go on unchallenged and uninvestigated.

Now back to our regularly scheduled election:

Quote:

ABC News Sunlen Miller reports: Sen. Barack Obama went one step further today in his pushback against presumptive GOP presidential nominee Sen. John McCain and President Bush on appeasement, suggesting that both Republicans have a problem with presidents past who have engaged in direct diplomacy.

"If George Bush and John McCain have a problem with direct diplomacy, led by the president of the United States, then they can explain why they have a problem with John F. Kennedy because that's what he did with [Soviet leader Nikita] Khrushchev, or Ronald Reagan, 'cause that's what he did with [Soviet leader Mikhail] Gorbachev, or Richard Nixon 'cause that's what they did with [Chinese leader Mao Tse-tung]," Obama said in Roseburg, Ore. "That’s exactly the kind of diplomacy we need to keep us safe."

Obama should just do what Chris Matthews did to that Republican talk show host and obliterate them for being too stupid to know the difference between diplomacy and appeasement.

I really don't think you have very much room to discuss anger. it takes a lot more than your tardations to piss me off. if anything I very much appreciate the entertainment you're providing us. while I might get frustrated with you from time to time, I think I feel more pity for you than anything else. it truly is sad when someone's own hatred so completely takes over their persona.

Originally Posted By: whomod

Sen. Barack Obama went one step further today in his pushback against presumptive GOP presidential nominee Sen. John McCain and President Bush on appeasement, suggesting that both Republicans have a problem with presidents past who have engaged in direct diplomacy.

"If George Bush and John McCain have a problem with direct diplomacy, led by the president of the United States, then they can explain why they have a problem with John F. Kennedy because that's what he did with [Soviet leader Nikita] Khrushchev, or Ronald Reagan, 'cause that's what he did with [Soviet leader Mikhail] Gorbachev, or Richard Nixon 'cause that's what they did with [Chinese leader Mao Tse-tung]," Obama said in Roseburg, Ore.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

The Wall Street Journal:

If nothing else, we now know what it takes to make a Democrat go nuts. One word: "appeasement."

Notwithstanding that President Bush named no names in his speech to Israel's Knesset on Thursday, Barack Obama instantly called it a "false political attack." On him, of course.

something has hit a nerve.

Forget the complaint that Mr. Bush used a Hitler analogy. It's the here and now that has the Democrats upset. The fuse that set them off is any suggestion inside the context of a live presidential campaign that the Democrats are soft on national security.

If Barack Obama has an Achilles' heel, this is it. He first exposed it last July in a Democratic debate when he replied, "I would," to a question of whether he'd meet as President with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad "without precondition." Even Mrs. Clinton took a shot at that one, calling the Senator's comment "irresponsible and frankly naive."

Speaker Pelosi's own April 2007 sojourn to Syria is remembered mainly for Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert feeling obliged to correct Ms. Pelosi's announcement that Mr. Olmert had told her he was ready to start peace talks with Syria. Untrue.

Meanwhile, Speaker Pelosi announced in Damascus: "We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace." There must be a word for this somewhere. Just last month, former President Jimmy Carter met with leaders of Hamas to promote, among other things, "human rights."

But Barack Obama is the party's presumptive standard-bearer for 2008. Thus, let's try to bring this dispute into sharper focus.

Mr. Obama asserted again yesterday that he will not meet with terrorists. He is, however, willing to meet with Iran or Syria. Virtually no serious person disputes that Iran has shipped weaponry to terrorists in Iraq and that Syria has provided safe haven to these terrorists and let them cross from Syria into Iraq. In turn, these jihadists have killed U.S. soldiers. At a minimum, one might expect that ceasing this lethal activity would be a "precondition" before committing the office of the presidency to meet with either.

Leaving no argument unturned, Democrats have reached back to Richard Nixon's trip to China and Ronald Reagan's negotiations with the Soviet Union as evidence that Republican Presidents "talk to the enemy." Put it this way: The day Iran brings forth a Chou Enlai and Syria a Mikhail Gorbachev, sure, give them a call.

At bottom this dispute is about understanding the nature of the enemy in Iran, Syria and other sponsors and practitioners of Islamic terror. If the tempest over his indelicate words causes the Democratic presidential nominee to think twice about the political cost of trafficking with Tehran or Damascus, uttering "appeasement" will have been worth it.

So you call that appeasement? It is way better than Bush-Rove's cowboy diplomacy. Bush is such a rip off artist that he recently tried to steal Obama's bowling campaign strategy. The problem for Bush is he couldn't get half way through without his threats:

I guess you'd rather our leader threaten anal probes than a sit down with our misunderstood friends from the middle east?

Kumbaya that fuckers!!!!

Quote:

Put it this way: The day Iran brings forth a Chou Enlai and Syria a Mikhail Gorbachev, sure, give them a call.

whomod (and wh0m0d as well) seems to overlook the fact that heads of state who willingly sponsor psychopath fuckers blowing themselves up to take out civilians probably won't be interested in making any concessions.

Why do they have to make any concessions since the entire arab word has us by the balls because of our dependence on their oil and it's us who are buying the means to our own demise.

I was struck how after being bitch slapped by his Arab masers after begging them to increase production, Bush then went on to say that we need alternate fuels and conservation.

Where the hell has he been all these years?

Quote:

President Bush said Saturday that the Saudis' modest increase in oil production is "something but it doesn't solve our problem" of soaring gas prices.

Taking note of the kingdom's recent decision to raise production by 300,000 barrels a day, the president said the United States must act, too, to ease the gasoline crisis. He mentioned steps such as developing alternate fuels, improving conservation and expanding domestic exploration.

"We've got to do more at home," the president said on a lawn of a resort overlooking the Red Sea. He spoke after a private meeting with Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai.

I'm glad Bush gets these big ideas. Only many years AFTER everyone else does though.

You really are retarded. Bush has been pushing alternative fuels for years. He pushed corn ethanol (which is horrible) as well as devote money to Cellulosic ethanol research (which would be a far better alternative). Also, America gets most of its oil from Canada, Mexico, and South America, not the Middle East. The Middle East is important because their production volume are tied to per barrel costs on commodities trading of crude oil. Please learn to actually use facts.

Also, Bush was pushing wind power as Governor of Texas.

Oh, and by the way...why the fuck is whomod bitching about George Bush and alternate fuels in a thread about Barack Hussein Obama?

Originally Posted By: thedoctor

:dancing nanner: :dancing nanner: :dancing nanner: :dancing nanner: :dancing nanner: :dancing nanner: :dancing nanner: :dancing nanner: :dancing nanner:

Check out this YouTube clip of a Neocon pundit on the Bill Maher show, and this editorial from the LA Times!

SUCK ON THAT BITCHES!

-whomod

Quote:

Obama expects more scrutiny of McCain

Posted: Sunday, May 18, 2008 5:14 PM by Mark Murray
Filed Under: 2008, McCain, Obama

From NBC/NJ's Athena Jones
GRESHAM, OR -- McCain will be getting his fair share of scrutiny from the press, his potential general-election rival Obama said here today.

During an event with mostly senior citizens, Obama was asked why the presumptive Republican nominee had not had to deal with much media scrutiny on issues like the Keating Five scandal. The voter felt the Illinois senator’s past had gotten all the focus. Obama said he thought part of the reason was that McCain’s candidacy had been written off several months ago, but that he had been able to come back and wrap up the nomination relatively early in the primary season, and that much of the focus had been on the exciting Democratic race.

“I would expect that the press will submit him to the same scrutiny that they are submitting me -- and if they don’t, I’ll have them talk to you because I can tell you would object,” he said. “I think people will lift the hood and kick the tires with John McCain, just like they do with me and just like they’ve done with Sen. Clinton. I think you’re applying for the presidency of the United States of America, then by definition you have given up your privacy and basically I think people are gonna want to know what you’ve done in your life and what you stand for.”
...

MSNBC
A primary reason I wouldn't vote for Obama is that he hasn't been around long enough to be scrutinized properly. The press in general has given him a pass on the little bit there is to look at. Plus it's annoying that he's acting like MCain somehow has managed to escape scrutiny. Considering McCain has been in the senate & has ran for President before it's just dumb to treat him like he's never been scrutinized.

Obama wants to take away your rights

Quote:

The powerful US gun lobby has painted the 2008 presidential race as a showdown over the right to bear arms, but the election could also prove to be a key test of its political firepower.

At its annual meeting in Kentucky this weekend, the National Rifle Association focused most of its energy on gearing up its members to defeat the Democratic nominee in November, whether it is Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.

NRA leaders warned that both risk eroding gun ownership rights. But their influence is hampered by a tough national climate for Republicans, after eight years of President George W. Bush, and a mixed record on past campaigns.

"Your presence here today will send a very strong message to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton: we're watching," said Chris Cox, executive director of the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action, at the group's leadership forum Friday.

He added that he expects the 6,500 people who attended the forum and the other 4.3 million NRA members to have a "very strong presence at the voting booth" in November.

While the group will not officially endorse a candidate until after the parties' national conventions this summer, it sent strong signals this weekend that likely Republican nominee John McCain would get its backing -- despite some differences with him in the past.

Addressing the NRA conference Friday, McCain sought to highlight his conservative credentials as he courted the gun owners' votes.

"For more than two decades, I've opposed efforts to ban guns, ban ammunition, ban magazines, and dismiss gun owners as some kind of fringe group unwelcome in 'modern' America," he said.

The NRA was widely credited with helping the Republicans take control of Congress in the 1994 election and make gains in 2000 and 2004, including Bush's election and re-election.

In 2006, the NRA's political arm boasted wins in 85 percent of the 276 US Senate and House of Representative races.

But Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said those numbers are misleading. He said most of those races included safe incumbents, and the NRA struggled in expensive battleground campaigns.

"They've never been as strong as they pretended to be," said Helmke.

Like the NRA, the Brady Campaign is in the early stages of targeting which of November's congressional and governor's races to become involved in.

Another gun control group, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, began running ads in Kentucky this weekend in advance of that state's primary election on Tuesday and coinciding with the NRA conference.

The commercial features quotes from Clinton, Obama and McCain calling for background checks on people who purchase firearms at gun shows -- something the NRA opposes.

McCain acknowledged the divide on this issue but said the "real differences" were with the Democrats, saying Obama and Clinton had voted as senators "to ban guns or ban ammunition or to allow gun makers to be sued out of existence."

Other Republican speakers joined McCain and focused their rhetoric on Obama, who is currently leading his race with Clinton for the Democratic nomination.

Karl Rove, Bush's former political director, said Obama has been disingenuous by claiming to support the second amendment, which gives Americans the right to bear arms, while voting against the NRA's positions.

Obama countered in a press conference Friday that it was not inconsistent to back people's right to hunt and protect themselves while also pushing for "some common sense gun laws so that we don't have kids being shot on the streets of cities like Chicago."

The debate underscores a weakness Obama has exhibited throughout the campaign -- connecting with white, rural voters, many of whom are gun owners.

He has been haunted by his own remarks last month at a San Francisco fundraiser, in which he said small-town voters have become "bitter" over job losses and "cling to guns or religion or antipathy."

The NRA handed out stickers that read: "I'm a bitter gun owner and I vote."

Rove, who emphasized Obama's "bitter" comments, urged NRA members to fight on McCain's behalf because "victory in November is not going to be easy."

"In this election, the stakes are very, very high when it comes to the constitution and the second amendment," he said.

Quote:

Obama Draws Record Crowd in Oregon

Barack Obama embraced his daughters and his wife Sunday during a campaign event in Portland, Ore., which drew about 75,000 people. (Photo: Greg Wahl-Stephens/Associated Press)

An estimated 75,000 gathered on the banks of the Willamette River in Portland on Sunday to see Barack Obama.

“Wow! Wow! Wow!” were his first words, as he surveyed the multitude, which included people in kayaks and small pleasure craft on the river.

Tom McCall Waterfront Park in Portland on Sunday. (Photo: Chris Carlson/Associated Press)

It is “fair to say this is the most spectacular setting for the most spectacular crowd” of his campaign, he told the crowd.

Previously, the campaign’s biggest crowd was when the candidate spoke to 35,000 on Independence Mall in Philadelphia.

Obama supporters in Portland on Sunday. (Photo: Chris Carlson/Associated Press)

Oregon should never count in these kinds of things. Almost everyone here is a fucking idiot and should not be allowed to vote.

What are you talking about?

I can clearly see you on the top of the 2nd photo (magnafied X1000)

You're the one holding the "hope" sign.

Too bad you can't see your mom in that picture. She's bent over in front of me.

Originally Posted By: whomod

Quote:

Obama Draws Record Crowd in Oregon

Obama supporters in Portland on Sunday. (Photo: Chris Carlson/Associated Press)

Oh. A mom joke. I suppose I need to retort with a gay joke then.

If i was 12 perhaps.

There were 75,000 proud Oregonians there today. This broke Obama's previous attendance record by more than double. So i'll just bask in that fact instead. This guy is inspiring all sorts of Americans and if bsams last post is any indicator, all the Republicans have to offer is more fear, more rumour, more innuendo. After being held in the grip of this fear and swift boat crap for way too long, I don't think people are in any mood for another election cycle of it anymore.

You know who else inspired thousands?

Hitler.

But we all know Obama isn't anything like Hitler. Its not like he surrounds himself with America hating racists or anything.

Originally Posted By: rex

You know who else inspired thousands?

Hitler.

Hitler reference.

Strike one.

Quote:

But we all know Obama isn't anything like Hitler. Its not like he surrounds himself with America hating racists or anything.

Wow. You just called 75,000 of your fellow Oregonians who want to be inspired and believe in something better than George Bush wiping his ass with their country and all it stands for, "racists".

When millions in the U.S. have to acknowledge their black President, I'll see just who in this country is racist and who is not. Until then, I'd just worry about Appalachia.

Fucking awesome!

Originally Posted By: whomod

Wow. You just called 75,000 of your fellow Oregonians who want to be inspired and believe in something better than George Bush wiping his ass with their country and all it stands for, "racists".

Yup, their all racist against white people and think Obama Christ will deliver them from evil.

you know whomod, you really are in a bad spot when rex can out debate you....

Originally Posted By: whomod

all the Republicans have to offer is more fear, more rumour, more innuendo.

Obama fact! He was married by attended a church his entire life run by a racist America hating ass hole!
Obama fact! His wife has said on numerous occasions that she has never been proud to be an American!
Obama fact! He's a socialist that will speed up the downfall of America!
Obama fact! He's surrounded himself with people that are complete scum. You know what that means? He's no better then they are. Charisma does not make a good president. Spouting fifth grade rhetoric does not make someone a great leader. Being able to gather large groups of politically correct racists does not make someone qualified to run the nation.

Those are all facts. No rumors or lies.

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

you know whomod, you really are in a bad spot when rex can out debate you....

New York Post:

Democrat Barack Obama has a message for Tennessee's Republican Party: "Lay off my wife."

Obama, his party's presidential front-runner, and his wife, Michelle, were asked in an interview aired Monday on ABC's "Good Morning America" about an online video last week by the state's GOP taking her to task for a comment some considered unpatriotic.

"The GOP, should I be the nominee, can say whatever they want to say about me, my track record," Obama said. "If they think that they're going to try to make Michelle an issue in this campaign, they should be careful because that I find unacceptable, the notion that you start attacking my wife or my family."

The video, posted on YouTube, centered on remarks Michelle Obama made while campaigning in Wisconsin last February, when she said: "For the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country."

The four-minute video replayed the remark six times, interspersing it with commentary by Tennesseans on why they are proud of America. In a news release that included a link to the video, Tennessee's GOP said "the Tennessee Republican Party has always been proud of America." It urged radio stations to play "patriotic music" during Michelle Obama's visit to Nashville last Thursday.

If he doesn't want people talking about his wife, she shouldn't be out their campaigning for him. That's just common sense. If a spokesperson for any candidate says something stupid, people are going to comment.

You know, for a politician that claims to be the enemy of cynicism, Barack Hussein Obama is quickly turning into one of the most cynical politicians I've ever seen.

Any comment against him is "divisive" or a "distraction".

It's clearly a cynical attempt to silence his critics and avoid actual debate.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

New York Post:

Democrat Barack Obama has a message for Tennessee's Republican Party: "Lay off my wife."

Obama, his party's presidential front-runner, and his wife, Michelle, were asked in an interview aired Monday on ABC's "Good Morning America" about an online video last week by the state's GOP taking her to task for a comment some considered unpatriotic.

"The GOP, should I be the nominee, can say whatever they want to say about me, my track record," Obama said. "If they think that they're going to try to make Michelle an issue in this campaign, they should be careful because that I find unacceptable, the notion that you start attacking my wife or my family."

The video, posted on YouTube, centered on remarks Michelle Obama made while campaigning in Wisconsin last February, when she said: "For the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country."

The four-minute video replayed the remark six times, interspersing it with commentary by Tennesseans on why they are proud of America. In a news release that included a link to the video, Tennessee's GOP said "the Tennessee Republican Party has always been proud of America." It urged radio stations to play "patriotic music" during Michelle Obama's visit to Nashville last Thursday.

Oh I think Obama knows that. I saw his "leave my wife alone" comments as really for show. It makes him look good image wise & the press is reseptive so it pays off for him.

Exactly. That's why I called him cynical, as opposed to, say, "whiney."

Things You Can't Say About Obama

With Obama we started out, we couldn't talk about his big ears 'cause that made him nervous. We've gone from that to this: Not only can we not mention his ears...

We can't talk about his mother.

We can't talk about his father.

We can't talk about his grandmother unless he does, brings her up as a "typical white person."

We can't talk about his wife, can't talk about his preacher, can't talk about his terrorist friends, can't talk about his voting record, can't talk about his religion.

We can't talk about appeasement.

We can't talk about color; we can't talk about lack of color.

We can't talk about race. We can't talk about bombers and mobsters who are his friends. We can't talk about schooling. We can't talk about his name, "Hussein."

We can't talk about his lack of experience. Can't talk about his income. Can't talk about his flag pin.

This started out we can't call him a liberal.

It started out we just couldn't talk about his ears.

Now we can't say anything about him.

well if rush limbaugh's says so then it must be true. could you please also link us to when he said the 13 year old chelsea clinton looked like a dog.
and aside from george w. bush who's father was president exactly how often is it considered appropriate to talk about the candidate's parents or spouse?
and while i understand that you GOPers like to have the simplest arguments possible, but is it really fair to judge a preacher's 20 years and many millions of words on like 10 words and 15 seconds?
and is he "friends" with terrorists or is he simply open to talking diplomatically with governments who in the past have supported some terrorist actions?
i mean it's not like he wants to sell arms to Iran to help fund some murdering contras. and he probably won't be declaring war on a guy he shook hands with only a few decades earlier (and then sold mustard gas to).

You're attacking the source, not the argument.

You really think its good for democracy that a man who has at least a 50/50 shot at being our next president is spending this much time telling us what we CAN'T talk about?

it's a stupid and childish argument from a stupid and childish man.

I'm very disappointed to hear that you don't think we should be able to discuss our elected officials, Ray. Why do you hate the First Amendment and, by extension, freedom?

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Quote:

Obama, facing likely defeat, will skip visiting Kentucky
By Ryan Alessi | Lexington Herald-Leader

Exactly. Despite the pro-Obama liberal media calling Obama the winner at least two months ago, we're down to the last 5 state primaries for the Democrats, and Obama still hasn't secured the nomination.

He has about a 100-plus point lead over Hillary Clinton, but she arguably is as strong a candidate.
Stronger, according to the polls, against McCain.

If Obama is the candidate, I couldn't be more pleased.
After November, he'll be flipping burgers somewhere with Michael Dukakis, Walter Mondale and Jimmy Carter.

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

...

Exactly. Despite the pro-Obama liberal media calling Obama the winner at least two months ago, we're down to the last 5 state primaries for the Democrats, and Obama still hasn't secured the nomination.

He has about a 100-plus point lead over Hillary Clinton, but she arguably is as strong a candidate.
Stronger, according to the polls, against McCain.

If Obama is the candidate, I couldn't be more pleased.
After November, he'll be flipping burgers somewhere with Michael Dukakis, Walter Mondale and Jimmy Carter.

I doubt he'll be in the flipping burgers category for a couple of reasons. He raised a ton of money. More money than any other political type has done. Plus any loss will probably be chalked up to racism & a combination of dirty tricks of Hillary & McCain. So it won't be his fault & his fundraising ability will help him keep his support in the party. I would be very surprised if he doesn't run again in '12. Can you see it playing out differently?

Owed what exactly?

Is that a direct quote or just some stupid Republican shit?

Originally Posted By: whomod

stupid Republican shit?

Replace "Republican" with "Democrat" and you'd be describing all of your retardedly random shopped photos.

finally for the first time in my adult life i can say i'm proud to be a rkmbser!

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Originally Posted By: the G-man

New York Post:

Democrat Barack Obama has a message for Tennessee's Republican Party: "Lay off my wife."

Obama, his party's presidential front-runner, and his wife, Michelle, were asked in an interview aired Monday on ABC's "Good Morning America" about an online video last week by the state's GOP taking her to task for a comment some considered unpatriotic.

"The GOP, should I be the nominee, can say whatever they want to say about me, my track record," Obama said. "If they think that they're going to try to make Michelle an issue in this campaign, they should be careful because that I find unacceptable, the notion that you start attacking my wife or my family."

The video, posted on YouTube, centered on remarks Michelle Obama made while campaigning in Wisconsin last February, when she said: "For the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country."

The four-minute video replayed the remark six times, interspersing it with commentary by Tennesseans on why they are proud of America. In a news release that included a link to the video, Tennessee's GOP said "the Tennessee Republican Party has always been proud of America." It urged radio stations to play "patriotic music" during Michelle Obama's visit to Nashville last Thursday.

Oh I think Obama knows that. I saw his "leave my wife alone" comments as really for show. It makes him look good image wise & the press is reseptive so it pays off for him.

Ummm...how is this any different from the fact that Monica Lewinsky, Whitewater and any other number of Clinton scandals has been off limits on Hillary's side? A couple of months ago, there was the big stink with some kid asking Chelsea a question that she thought was out of bounds. For that matter, how many times has The Keating 5 been brought up in reference to McCain? On the rare times that I've seen it, his handlers have been truly pissed about it and call it dirty pool.

Michelle Obama is a political figure and should be held accountable for what she says when stumping for her husband. Her 'proud' satement was unfortunate and probably not indicative of her true level patriotism. However, she put it out there so I find it fair game...even if it is a chicken shit tactic.

The man wants to protect his wife. How can you fault him for that? Can those of you with significant others honestly say that you wouldn't repsond similarly if you spouse were attacked...whether justifiable or not?

Hell...remember when Pro ripped G-Man a new one for commenting on a pic of his wife? Pro knows the rules here...in that there aren't any...but, rightfully in my opinion, had an issue with G-Man making specific references to his wife. Pro kinda brought it on himself by posting the pic but, just because one CAN do a thing doesn't mean one SHOULD do a thing.

Points of information:

1. I already said that Chelsea shouldn't be shielded from tough questions if she is going to go out and campaign for her mother;
2. The fact of the matter is that both Chelsea and Michelle (and Bill, for that matter) have taken upon themselves a public role as advocates for their respective family members. They aren't just relatives waiting in the wings. They are vocal supporters of presidential candidates, who go on talk shows, speak at events, etc. Accordingly, their remarks deserve the same level of scrutiny as any other public spokesperson for a candidate.

If Obama or Hillary (or McCain) don't want their relatives' remarks scrutinized, they shouldn't pimp them out as campaign spokespeople.

I agree. Still, I can't fault the man for standing up for his wife...just like I didn't fault the Clintons for going after the MSBNC reporter that said they were "pimping" Chelsea by have her campaign for Hillary.

i thought you didnt like slurs?

Barak Obama wants to talk to Iran and negotiate with them.

That's despicable!

As a proud American, I'd NEVER do anything like that!

whomod's altstorm continues...

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

i thought you didnt like slurs?

I don't. Your point?

im not sure i had one. that was like 3 hrs ago.

Oh.

Carry on, then.

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

im not sure i had one. [a point]

buck up, son.

Don't appease Iran.

so whomod is saying Obama has the integrity of Ollie North? that's a winning platform!

don't worry bsams, Sam the butcher doesn't like those people either.

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

so whomod is saying Obama has the integrity of Ollie North? that's a winning platform!

These colors don't run.

Quote:

Obama wins Oregon, moves to brink of nomination

By DAVID ESPO and SARA KUGLER, Associated Press Writers 36 minutes ago

LOUISVILLE, Ky. - Barack Obama stepped to the brink of victory in the Democratic presidential race Tuesday night, defeating Hillary Rodham Clinton in the Oregon primary and moving within 100 delegates of the total he needs to claim the prize at the party convention this summer.

"You have put us within reach of the Democratic nomination," he told cheering supporters in Iowa, the overwhelmingly white state that launched him, a black, first-term senator from Illinois, on his improbable path to victory last January.

Obama lavished praise on Clinton, his rival in a race unlike any other, and accused Republican John McCain of a campaign run by lobbyists.

"You are Democrats who are tired of being divided, Republicans who no longer recognize the party that runs Washington, independents who are hungry for change," he said, speaking to a crowd on the grounds of the Iowa Capitol in Des Moines as well as the millions around the country who will elect the nation's 44th president in November.

Clinton countered with a lopsided win in Kentucky, a victory with scant political value in a race moving inexorably in Obama's direction.

The former first lady vowed to remain in the race, telling supporters, "I'm more than determined than ever to see that every vote is cast and every ballot is counted."

The increasingly delusional Hillary must hate it. Here she's blowing more and more money she doesn't have to manufacture momentum which doesn't exist and the aP says it "has scant political value". (hello? MEM?) And only a few days earlier, Obama generated a record setting crowd with no effort.

Now McCain dumping 5 advisers is noteworthy. Seeing as how he did it almost on the eve of Obama getting the majority of delegates. Now if Hillary had a chance in hell anymore, McCain would have done no such thing as lobbyists and foreign agents on his payroll would not be an issue much seeing as how she's just as guilty.

McCain had some real doozies though. Agents for the Saudi's? If Obama had those on his staff, you'd hear the right howl about how Obama is an enemy Arab puppet.

On the face saving "straight talking" chopping block, Lead McCain fundraiser, Tom Loeffler, a registered foreign agent, who’s company made almost $15 million from Saudi Arabia and helped the European airplane maker get a Pentagon contract after McCain helped to kill a Boeing contract.

Also gone, convention chief, Doug Goodyear, a lobbyist, to help Myanmar regime’s while the Myanmar regime denounced "American falsehoods", as he can tell them.

Doug Davenport, a regional manager for McCain is also gone, he also took that regime’s money and McCain energy policy adviser, Eric Burgeson, gone after we learned his works as a lobbyist for, surprisingly enough, energy companies.

McCain’s top adviser, Charlie Black, called the uproar, “complete inside the beltway nonsense.” Black himself was a lobbyist up until this March. He did some of his lobbying by phone, for a literally on board the “straight talk express,” that’s why they call it straight talk. His client list included, in order of repulsive to disgusting, Ferdinand Marcos; Mobutu Sese Seko, Angolan terrorist, Jonas Savimbi, Somali warlord, Mohammed Sayed Bakri (ph), Nigerian dictator, Ibrahim Babangida, and Iraq war monger, starter and "Curveball enthusiast; Ahmad Chalabi and of course, the friends of Blackwater.

By the calculations of the government watchdog group, Public Citizen, McCain only has 54 remaining lobbyists left in his campaign.

Correct me if I'm wrong but with the few states remaining it doesn't appear that Obama can actually cross the "finish line". So it's looking like what is within reach is unreachable. Guess it's up to the supers to decide at the convention.

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

At the convention?

Why would they wait that long? I thought Hillary's entire point was that she wanted all the states to vote. That part is almost over. In fact it's already over as she can't possibly catch up now no matter when or what the supers decide.

But Hillary won Michigan and Florida. Those states have a right to be heard!!

ABC News Senior National Correspondent Jake Tapper notes that Obama's Inability to Hire Good Help Rears Its Head … Again:

We started covering Sen. Barack Obama's inability to hire good staffers in June 2007, when he blamed staffers for some opposition research trying to link Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, to outsourcing in India; for injecting some venom in the David Geffen/Hillary Clinton fight; and for missing an event with firefighters in New Hampshire.

In December, we noted again that Obama was blaming the answers on a 1996 questionnaire on a staffer; and was blaming his touring with "cured" ex-gay gospel singer Donnie McClurkin (which antagonized gays and lesbians) on bad vetting by his staff.

Those five buck-passing incidents were apparently not enough.

Yesterday, we learned that in 2004 some Jewish supporters became alarmed to learn that in a questionnaire Obama refrained from denouncing Yasir Arafat, or from expressing strong support for Israel's security fence. Mr. Obama blamed a staff member for the oversight.

In January, Obama was asked about a document put together by one of his South Carolina staffers that listed comments made by the Clinton campaign that some perceived to be attempting to stoke racial fires. "Our supporters, our staff get overzealous," Obama said.

In February in a meeting with the Chicago Tribune, Obama was asked about an earmark that went to the University of Chicago while his wife Michelle Obama worked there.

"...something that slipped through our cracks, through our screening system.”

In a March 2008 interview with the Chicago Sun-Times to answer questions about Tony Rezko, Obama was asked about the fact that Obama had told the newspaper in November 2006 that he had never been asked to do anything to advance Rezko's business interests. But the Sun-Times had subsequently learned about a October 28, 1998 letter Obama wrote to city and state housing officials on behalf of a housing project for seniors that Rezko was working on.

Responded Obama: "I wasn't even aware that we wrote the letter... I wasn’t a decision maker in any of this process.”

The Sun-Times also pointed out that in November 2006 Obama estimated that Rezko had raised somewhere between $50,000 and $60,000 for him during his political career. But since that answer, Obama has given back almost $160,000 in Rezko-related contributions.

"The original estimate was based on, I asked my staff to find what monies they attributed to Rezko, and this was the figure given to me," Obama said.

So, for those keeping track at home, that's ten instances of Obama publicly blaming his staff for various screw-ups.

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10!

(You of course could also add Austan Goolsbee, Samantha Power, Gordon Fischer, and retired Gen. Tony McPeak.)

That would be 14. We will continue to keep track.

And for the record, yet again, let me state that I find Sen. Obama's staff unfailingly competent and polite, courteous and efficient, and I once again express my regret that Sen. Obama does apparently not feel the same way.

Oregan only voted for Obama cause they are a bunch of keffer lovers.

I bet if we were still allowed to brain wash children with the pledge of allegiance McCain could beat Obama and Hillary.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

ABC News Senior National Correspondent Jake Tapper notes that Obama's Inability to Hire Good Help Rears Its Head … Again:

We started covering Sen. Barack Obama's inability to hire good staffers in June 2007, when he blamed staffers for some opposition research trying to link Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, to outsourcing in India; for injecting some venom in the David Geffen/Hillary Clinton fight; and for missing an event with firefighters in New Hampshire.

In December, we noted again that Obama was blaming the answers on a 1996 questionnaire on a staffer; and was blaming his touring with "cured" ex-gay gospel singer Donnie McClurkin (which antagonized gays and lesbians) on bad vetting by his staff.

Those five buck-passing incidents were apparently not enough.

Yesterday, we learned that in 2004 some Jewish supporters became alarmed to learn that in a questionnaire Obama refrained from denouncing Yasir Arafat, or from expressing strong support for Israel's security fence. Mr. Obama blamed a staff member for the oversight.

In January, Obama was asked about a document put together by one of his South Carolina staffers that listed comments made by the Clinton campaign that some perceived to be attempting to stoke racial fires. "Our supporters, our staff get overzealous," Obama said.

In February in a meeting with the Chicago Tribune, Obama was asked about an earmark that went to the University of Chicago while his wife Michelle Obama worked there.

"...something that slipped through our cracks, through our screening system.”

In a March 2008 interview with the Chicago Sun-Times to answer questions about Tony Rezko, Obama was asked about the fact that Obama had told the newspaper in November 2006 that he had never been asked to do anything to advance Rezko's business interests. But the Sun-Times had subsequently learned about a October 28, 1998 letter Obama wrote to city and state housing officials on behalf of a housing project for seniors that Rezko was working on.

Responded Obama: "I wasn't even aware that we wrote the letter... I wasn’t a decision maker in any of this process.”

The Sun-Times also pointed out that in November 2006 Obama estimated that Rezko had raised somewhere between $50,000 and $60,000 for him during his political career. But since that answer, Obama has given back almost $160,000 in Rezko-related contributions.

"The original estimate was based on, I asked my staff to find what monies they attributed to Rezko, and this was the figure given to me," Obama said.

So, for those keeping track at home, that's ten instances of Obama publicly blaming his staff for various screw-ups.

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10!

(You of course could also add Austan Goolsbee, Samantha Power, Gordon Fischer, and retired Gen. Tony McPeak.)

That would be 14. We will continue to keep track.

And for the record, yet again, let me state that I find Sen. Obama's staff unfailingly competent and polite, courteous and efficient, and I once again express my regret that Sen. Obama does apparently not feel the same way.

Change you can trust!

Originally Posted By: G-man-'s linked article

And for the record, yet again, let me state that I find Sen. Obama's staff unfailingly competent and polite, courteous and efficient, and I once again express my regret that Sen. Obama does apparently not feel the same way.

Quote:

In a March 2008 interview with the Chicago Sun-Times to answer questions about Tony Rezko, Obama was asked about the fact that Obama had told the newspaper in November 2006 that he had never been asked to do anything to advance Rezko's business interests. But the Sun-Times had subsequently learned about a October 28, 1998 letter Obama wrote to city and state housing officials on behalf of a housing project for seniors that Rezko was working on.

Responded Obama: "I wasn't even aware that we wrote the letter... I wasn’t a decision maker in any of this process.”

I don't know why you morons are laughing. You should be brainwashing your kids and destroying all incriminating documents for the Republican party. You can laugh as soon as we fuck up the world.

Originally Posted By: Genocidal Asshole

I don't know why you morons are laughing. You should be brainwashing your kids and destroying all incriminating documents for the Republican party. You can laugh as soon as we fuck up the world.

Sorry to correct you, dear, but don't you mean: "You can laugh as soon as we finish fucking up the world?"

I think you do.

Love,
Mommy

Originally Posted By: YourMommy

Originally Posted By: Genocidal Asshole

I don't know why you morons are laughing. You should be brainwashing your kids and destroying all incriminating documents for the Republican party. You can laugh as soon as we fuck up the world.

Sorry to correct you, dear, but don't you mean: "You can laugh as soon as we finish fucking up the world?"

I think you do.

Love,
Mommy

Don't be thinking you can correct me, madam. Unless your tits touch the floor and are registered as lethal weapons then you're not my mother.

Originally Posted By: Genocidal Asshole

I don't know why you morons are laughing. You should be brainwashing your kids and destroying all incriminating documents for the Republican party. You can laugh as soon as we fuck up the world.

i'm not the decision maker.

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

Originally Posted By: Genocidal Asshole

I don't know why you morons are laughing. You should be brainwashing your kids and destroying all incriminating documents for the Republican party. You can laugh as soon as we fuck up the world.

i'm not the decision maker.

Of course not, I am. And as a good American patriot you'll blindly obey me.

Hillary today reportedly invoked Bobby Kennedy's June assassination as reason it's too early for her to concede in May.

The New York Post:

Quote:

Hillary Clinton today brought up the assassination of Sen. Robert Kennedy while defending her decision to stay in the race against Barack Obama.

"My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don't understand it," she said, dismissing calls to drop out.

Clinton made her comments at a meeting with the Sioux Falls Argus-Leader's editorial board while campaigning in South Dakota, where she complained that, "People have been trying to push me out of this ever since Iowa."

Just when you think this shrew can go no lower...

It's almost like some subtle call to arms for some of her appalachian crazies.

assassinations aside the two examples she had (clinton and kennedy) referred to when california's primary was in june. this year it was in february so her point is invalid.

This just in-- The Crystal Skulls belongs to an alien. Also, Mutt is Indy's son.

Is yoda ass fucking our lord and savior?

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

assassinations aside the two examples she had (clinton and kennedy) referred to when california's primary was in june. this year it was in february so her point is invalid.

Her point was that it's not always a case where presidential candidates get early corronations before the convention. There have been times where it's gone into June. This is the first time however, I've seen so much effort & nastiness to push a candidate out. The excuse is it's about unifying the party but it's the efforts that started even before PA to get Hillary to drop out that's hurting the party. Obama supporters may get their guy the nomination but it will be pyrrhic victory.

Originally Posted By: rex

Is yoda ass fucking our lord and savior?

It's been asked elsewhere but...

MY GOD, what is your guys' obsession with homosexual sex??

Whats with your obsession with youtube links and shitting on dead soldiers?

It's a valid question.

So far I can think of only G-Man, Wondy, Ray, and TheBastard as being the only people who aren't endlessly fascinated by discussing bath houses, cock sucking and the like.

You should try reading more of their posts.

My empire will defeat the evil, compassionate, left wing softies.

Heh heh heh.

I did. I have to go to work right now but if not it'd be real easy to quote a bunch of posts, and not just from recently, where gay sex is discussed ad naseum. It's pathological!

Now back to the subject at hand.

While this obviously will be devastating to Hillary, Obama at least should benefit from this being Hillary's last desperate straw that'll sway the final supers his way. and more importantly, comparing Obama to RFK, however tasteless and frankly, disgusting, will hopefully remind the boomer generation of the last time there was a candidate that advocated real substantial social change and how they supported that candidate wholeheartedly.

Being compared to RFK, especially after getting endorsed by Ted Kennedy and having HIM compare Obama to RFK himself, is not a bad place to be actually. So Hillary may have inadvertently helped him with boomers by reminding them of the unfulfilled promise of the Kennedy campaign.

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

assassinations aside the two examples she had (clinton and kennedy) referred to when california's primary was in june. this year it was in february so her point is invalid.

but she pointed to two examples where that victory was in the california primary which was held in june. at this point the big primaries are over. her analogy is faulty. it's like if bush defended his record vacation days in the first few months of office by saying "well in the old days no president started work before march" which overlooks that the innaugaration used to be march 4th.

Originally Posted By: whomod

I have to log into my alts right now but if not it'd be real easy to quote a bunch of posts, and not just from recently, where gay sex is discussed ad naseum. It's pathological!

Originally Posted By: rex

I'm a dumbass troll who knows absolutely nothing

You had to edit your edit of my post. I win again!

Originally Posted By: whomod

I'm not sure where your seeing Hillary linking Obama to RFK. If you read what she said RFK's assination is only brought up because she was talking about campaigns going into June. How do you see more than that?

And let's not forget that she's talking about past campaigns going into June because sometimes they have. It's never been such a big deal before either. Nor do early picks equate to winners. Remember Kerry? While I understand Obama's supporters wanting their candidate to have the nomination, he's not entitled to it & there is a process to winning it.

Originally Posted By: whomod

Hillary today reportedly invoked Bobby Kennedy's June assassination as reason it's too early for her to concede in May

"My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don't understand it," she said, dismissing calls to drop out.

It's almost like some subtle call to arms for some of her appalachian crazies.

I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt that she didn't really mean to hint that someone should kill Barack Hussein Obama.

However, the remark is still completely indefensible. At best, she's invoking the hypothetical assassination of a former candidate mere days after that candidate's brother was diagnosed with cancer as a wildly desperate justification for staying in the race.

If it wasn't calcuated in the way whomod theorizes, it's still so wildly insensitive and stupid as to seriously damage any remaining credibility she had as a candidate for any high political office.

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

...
but she pointed to two examples where that victory was in the california primary which was held in june. at this point the big primaries are over. her analogy is faulty. it's like if bush defended his record vacation days in the first few months of office by saying "well in the old days no president started work before march" which overlooks that the innaugaration used to be march 4th.

I see your point but there are still some left. Puerto Rico has the potential to give Hillary quite a bump in her popular vote total. The credentials committee decides May 31st if Michigan & Florida gets counted. Obama may make a slip that messes up presumed victories in the other two states left. Lot's of things left that could flip superdelegates & give Hillary the nomination.

All of which, if true, should have been what she said today, NOT that Obama might get assassinated.

i just heard on the news, Obama killed Bobby Kennedy!

Did he steal his bike?

Originally Posted By: the G-man

All of which, if true, should have been what she said today, NOT that Obama might get assassinated.

She didn't say that Obama might get assassinated though. She was talking about campaigns going into June. For those that want or think she was trying to tell people to try to assinate Obama or some other scenario, what exactly do you think she was trying to accomplish? Is there any strategic gain that she could have thought to be found by bringing up RFK's assination? Is it really unreasonable to think that she was thinking of examples of campaigns going into June & remembered that RFK's did because he was assinated that month? Keep in mind this wasn't some speach but her sitting at a table answering question from an editorial board.

It seems to me the ones that are really exploiting RFK's assasination would be Obama's campaign.

I think that RFK's ghost is exploiting this in order to scare voters away from the old amusement park.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Originally Posted By: whomod

I disagree that this remark "seriously damages" Hillary Clinton's remaining credibility, G-man.

While her choice of words was a bit clumsy, all she did was cite several instances, including RFK's assasination during the 1968 primary season, and her own husband Bill Clinton's unlikely comeback in 1992, where the candidate who ended up running (and in Bill Clinton's case, elected) was much less likely a candidate at the point she's at in late May of the election cycle.

Bad choice of words by Hillary, open to interpretation that she was soliciting Obama's assassination, combined with being said within days of Ted Kennedy's hospitalization. But it probably stems from the fact that she (as well as Obama and McCain) have been campaigning about 12 hours a day, relentlessly. They're all bound to make a clumsy remark here and there. If her overall point was less valid, about her comparative viability at this stage, as compared to previous elections at this time, I might judge her remarks more harshly.

But as it stands, she makes a valid point.

Reaction to her assassination comment is almost universal.

Andrew Sullivan:

Quote:

...I saw the apology as well - an apology to the Kennedy family, I might note, not to Senator Obama. Since some seem unwilling to point out why this remark was more than unfortunate, it is worth remembering that we have the first black candidate for president. You only have to spend a few minutes talking with African-Americans about this campaign to discover that the fear that Obama could be assassinated is very much on their minds. It is in everyone's subconscious, especially Michelle Obama's. To refer to the June assassination of Bobby Kennedy in the context of reasons to stay in this interminable race against Barack Obama is therefore catastrophically inappropriate. Coming after her pitch for "white votes", it is reckless....

Yes, this season has gone on for ever. And for Senator Clinton, it has now obviously gone on too long.

She's been waiting for Obama to implode. Instead, she just has.

Rolling Stone:

Quote:

Clinton apologizes… to the Kennedy’s. Not Obama... All class.

The National Post:

Quote:

[O]ne wonders how much longer Democratic elders will stay silent.

"This is beyond the pale," Rep. James Clyburn, an undeclared superdelegate and the third-ranking Democrat in the House of Representatives, told the New York Times.

Clinton just made a phenomenal political mistake, whatever her intent. Absent a primary or another significant political event over the Memorial Day weekend in the U.S., the assassination remark is all anyone will be talking about.

In the past few weeks, Clinton has repeatedly appealed for more time to make her case to voters, more time so Florida and Michigan could count.

She just gave Democrats a reason to say no.

Keith Olbermann:

Quote:

Since those awful words in Sioux Falls, and after the condescending, buck-passing statement from her spokesperson, Senator Clinton has made something akin to an apology, without any evident recognition of the true trauma she has inflicted.

"I was discussing the Democratic primary history, and in the course of that discussion mentioned the campaigns both my husband and Senator Kennedy waged in California in June in 1992 and 1968," she said in **Brandon**, South Dakota.

"I was referencing those to make the point that we have had nomination primary contests that go into June. That's a historic fact.

Originally Posted By: Hillary Clinton
"The Kennedys have been much on my mind the last days because of Senator Kennedy. I regret that if my referencing that moment of trauma for our entire nation, particularly for the Kennedy family was in any way offensive, I certainly had no intention of that whatsoever.
"My view is that we have to look to the past and to our leaders who have inspired us and give us a lot to live up to and I'm honored to hold Senator Kennedy's seat in the United States Senate in the state of New York and have the highest regard for the entire Kennedy family."

Thanks.

Not a word about the inappropriateness of referencing assassination.

Not a word about the inappropriateness of implying -- whether it was intended or not -- that she was hanging around waiting for somebody to try something terrible.

Not a word about Senator Obama.

Not a word about Senator McCain.
Not: I'm sorry...

Not: I apologize...

Not: I blew it...

Not: please forgive me.

God knows, Senator, in this campaign, this nation has **had** to forgive you, early and often...

And despite your now traditional position of the offended victim, the nation **has** forgiven you.

We have forgiven you your insistence that there have been widespread calls for you to end your campaign, when such calls had been few.

We have forgiven you your misspeaking about Martin Luther King's relative importance to the Civil Rights movement.

We have forgiven you your misspeaking about your under-fire landing in Bosnia.

We have forgiven you insisting Michigan's vote wouldn't count and then claiming those who would not count it were Un-Democratic.

We have forgiven you pledging to not campaign in Florida and thus disenfranchise voters there, and then claim those who stuck to those rules were as wrong as those who defended slavery or denied women the vote.

We have forgiven you the photos of Osama Bin Laden in an anti-Obama ad...

We have forgiven you fawning over the fairness of Fox News while they were still calling you a murderer.

We have forgiven you accepting Richard Mellon Scaife's endorsement and then laughing as you described his "deathbed conversion."

We have forgiven you quoting the electoral predictions of Boss Karl Rove.

We have forgiven you the 3 A-M Phone Call commercial.

We have forgiven you **President** Clinton's disparaging comparison of the Obama candidacy to Jesse Jackson's.

We have forgiven you Geraldine Ferraro's national radio interview suggesting Obama would not still be in the race had he been a white man.

We have forgiven you the dozen changing metrics and the endless self-contradictions of your insistence that your nomination is mathematically probable rather than a statistical impossibility.

We have forgiven you your declaration of some primary states as counting and some as not.

We have forgiven you exploiting Jeremiah Wright in front of the editorial board of the lunatic-fringe Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.

We have forgiven you exploiting William Ayers in front of the debate on ABC.

We have forgiven you for boasting of your "support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans"...

We have even forgiven you repeatedly praising Senator McCain at Senator Obama's expense, and your **own** expense, and the Democratic **ticket's** expense.

But Senator, we cannot forgive you this.

"You know, my husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California."

We cannot forgive you this -- not because it is crass and low and unfeeling and brutal.

**This** is **un**-forgivable, because this nation's deepest shame, its most enduring horror, its most terrifying legacy, is political assassination.

Lincoln.
Garfield.
McKinley.
Kennedy.
Malcolm X
Martin Luther King.
**Robert** Kennedy.

And, but for the grace of the universe or the luck of the draw, Reagan, Ford, Truman, Nixon, Andrew Jackson, both Roosevelts, even George Wallace.

The politics of this nation is steeped enough in blood, Senator Clinton, you cannot and must not invoke that imagery! Anywhere! At any time!

And to not appreciate, immediately -- to **still** not appreciate tonight -- just **what** you have done... is to reveal an incomprehension of the America you seek to lead.

This, Senator, is too much.

Because a senator -- a politician -- a **person** -- who can let hang in mid-air the prospect that she might just be sticking around in part, just in case the other guy gets shot -- has no business being, and no capacity **to** be, the President of the United States.

Good night and good luck.

Did you blow your load while making that post?

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

...But as it stands, she makes a valid point.

No. The use of RFK undercuts the valid point. If, as she claims, her point was that a candidate can, by dint of hard work and increased public support, make a comeback late in the game, then the use of the Kennedy metaphor has no place in her list of examples. Eventual '68 nominee Hubert Humphrey didn't "come back" because of politics. He was nominated because the clear frontrunner-a young, popular, orator-was killed.

The only way that the Kennedy example makes sense was in the way that everyone took it: sometimes the young guy gets murdered in cold blood and the older, less popular, candidate has to step in.

At best it was a clumsy freudian slip and demonstrates what most of us have known for years: she really is a hateful bitch.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

...But as it stands, she makes a valid point.

Nope, if something horrible like that did happen to Obama, then Hillary would be next in line for the nomination even if she had dropped out. So the assasination itself was unimportant in her answer. She really was just thinking about campaigns going into June.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

...But as it stands, she makes a valid point.

I heard a caller make an almost similar analysis last night on Mike Malloy's radio show. It's a pretty good one too BTW.

I gotta agree that it did reveal Hillary to be a fucking ghoul. I wonder if she'd care to explain why she herself feels that her or john McCain don't have to worry as much about getting assassinated themselves.

And why is that the GENUINE people who advocate real social change are the ones who end up getting dead in this country?

I honestly think that after this, the clock really is ticking. Obama is almost there anyways so her threats of taking it to the convention will soon be rendered moot anyways i think. Once the primaries are finally over the superdelegates will move. In Obama's direction for the most part.

I'm even expecting Hillary to lose delegates. Many people who in the past have supported the long list that Olbermann outlined of forgivable Hillary actions, may think this is the last straw.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

...But as it stands, she makes a valid point.

wow.

You do reallize G-man that all that rightous anger Hillary is taking from Obama's supporters will be fully aimed at McCain if Obama gets the nomination?

Originally Posted By: whomod

You say over and over that Obama is a candidate of "real change".

That is self-delusion on your part.

Obama's 130 "no contest" votes in the Illinois state Senate, his 20-year connection trading favors with the federally indicted Tony Rezko, his loyal votes (when he didn't evasively vote "not contest") for extreme-liberal positions on abortion and gun control, his race-baiting while pretending to be above the fray, and his waffling on any nomber of other issues including Rev Wright, ALL collectively convince me that Barack Hussein Obama is nothing but the same old Democrat in a new suit.

I see nothing in his extreme-liberal record to indicate Obama will "find the middle ground" and bring the nation together at some imagined political center everyone can agree on. Obama has been a liberal partisan from the start, and an evasive liar in the classic political mold.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

...But as it stands, she makes a valid point.

I don't see it that way. I think she wanted to make a sympathetic reference to Ted Kennedy, and to the larger Kennedy legacy that has overshadowed the Democrat party for more than 4 decades (just as reference to Reagan always scores points with Republican voters) and the words just came out in a way that can be interpreted badly.

But her point is clear regardless: that any front runner can fall behind, and another candidate can rise to the nomination. And Hillary is only a hair's breadth behind Obama anyway. It's not like she was the equivalent of Dennis Kucinich in popularity.

Those slightly behind, or even far behind, can make an inspiring comeback.
Just ask John McCain.

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

the Democrat party

Hey Wondy.

Do you think the Pubes stand a god chance of winning the fall election?

I seriously don't think McCain is doing the Repubes any favors what with his gaffe after gaffe on the most basic foreign policy issues. Something tha the claims is his strong point.

Well, this puts a dent in the idea that Obama is seen as the elitist of the 2 candidates. When McCain can't even remember if he owns 7 or 8 homes and fishes in his own private man-made lake in his spare time, who really is the elitist, eh?

Quote:

More Americans would picnic with Obama: poll

Fri May 23, 3:34 PM ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) - More American voters would enjoy a picnic with Democratic White House hopeful Barack Obama than his rival Hillary Clinton, or Republican presidential contender John McCain, a poll said Friday.

Asked by Quinnipiac University which candidate they would prefer to picnic with on the holiday weekend marking Memorial Day on May 26, 35 percent chose Obama, 32 percent picked McCain and 27 percent said Clinton.

Beyond its anecdotal value, the poll suggests good news for Obama, who has been accused by critics of being too elitist and cut off from the average American.

The survey also showed that for 77 percent of the electorate, a candidate with a "likeable personality" was "very important" or "somewhat important."

"Senator Hillary Clinton has downed a few shots and beers recently to show she's a regular gal, but American voters would rather hang out with the guys," said Maurice Carroll, director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

The survey was taken May 8-12 and sampled 1,745 people. It had a margin of error of 2.4 percent.

Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama, speaks during a Cuban Independence Day Celebration at the InterContinental Hotel in Miami, Florida. More American voters would enjoy a picnic with Obama than his rival Hillary Clinton, or Republican presidential contender John McCain, a poll said Friday.

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

You do reallize G-man that all that rightous anger Hillary is taking from Obama's supporters will be fully aimed at McCain if Obama gets the nomination?

I'm not criticizing Hillary because I think it helps McCain. As I said before, I'm not a believer in that whole "operation chaos" theory.

When I think Obama is wrong (e.g., Rev. Wright), I'll say so. When I think Hillary is wrong, as is the case here, I'll say so. And vice versa.

And, likewise, I've discussed what I see as both pros and cons with McCain.

Oopsie:

Barack Obama is getting called out again for his knowledge of history, including his own family’s, after declaring to veterans on Memorial Day that his uncle helped liberate the Auschwitz death camp at the end of World War II.

Two problems with the tale: Auschwitz was liberated by the Soviet Army, and Obama’s American mother was an only child.

Obama Explains Auschwitz Remark: Dem hopeful says Memorial Day reference to 'uncle' who helped 'liberate' Polish death camp was a factual mixup.

Barack Hussein Obama seems to have a lot of those lately. Maybe early senility is setting in.

Gob Damn America and the free press!

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Oopsie:

Barack Obama is getting called out again for his knowledge of history, including his own family’s, after declaring to veterans on Memorial Day that his uncle helped liberate the Auschwitz death camp at the end of World War II.

Two problems with the tale: Auschwitz was liberated by the Soviet Army, and Obama’s American mother was an only child.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Ok, G-Man... I can't believe you're just as low as he rest of the gOP. Well, actually i can...

The other day Obama mentioned that his uncle, Charlie Payne, helped to liberate the Nazi concentration camp at Auschwitz. The Republicans were hoping that they could catch Obama lying - that maybe Obama never had an uncle who helped liberate the Jews in Europe. Well, in fact, Obama's uncle (his grandmother's brother) helped liberate the Nazi camp at Buchenwald (Obama mixed up Auschwitz and Buchenwald). So the Republicans (and a few Hillary fans) are trying to allege... what exactly? That Obama's family did in fact help save the Jews in Europe, but Obama got the name of the camp he liberated wrong? Okay. I'm not quite sure how that gives us any insight into Obama (other than his uncle is a hero) - I don't really know the difference Auschwitz, Buchenwald, Bergen Belsen and the rest of the camps. I just know that I'd be damn proud if a member of my family helped liberate them. Not to mention, according to the US Holocaust Museum, Obama's uncle's Infantry Division didn't just liberate one of the camps that made up Buchenwald. It was the first Nazi concentration camp liberated by US troops in all of Germany. That's pretty amazing.

The LA Times blog:

Quote:

The RNC seized the opportunity to fire off a news release, saying that “unless his uncle was serving in the Red Army, there’s no way Obama’s statement yesterday can be true. Obama’s frequent exaggerations and outright distortions raise questions about his judgment and his readiness to lead as commander in chief.”

The Obama campaign soon acknowledged that the Democratic candidate made a mistake. It explained that Obama’s great-uncle was in the 89th Infantry Division that helped liberate another notorious death camp, Buchenwald. Obama, the campaign said, “is proud of the service of his grandfather and uncles in World War II -- especially the fact that his great-uncle was part of liberating of one of the concentration camps at Buchenwald.”

All of which raises the question: What's worse, Obama's apparent gaffe or the RNC pouncing on a Holocaust-related historical mistake for political advantage?

and this letter pretty much nails the stupidity of the GOP.

Quote:

Want to know how idiotic this is? The difference between Auschwitz, Buchenwald, Dachau and Bergen-Belsen comes down to the fact that Auschwitz was specifically labeled an extermination camp, whereas the latter three are "merely" concentration camps where people were worked to death. One of the biggest myths surrounding the Holocaust is that every concentration camp was an extermination camp with crematoria. In fact, most were work camps where people were either worked to death, starved to death, shot, or murdered in ways so unthinkable that I cannot even imagine.

Anne Frank died at Bergen-Belsen, and 7 of my family members died at Dachau. I personally don't give a damn that Obama confused Buchenwald and Auschwitz, I'm personally glad that Obama's uncle, and his American/European/and yes, Soviet allies got there and put an end to it before the Nazi's (and their "appeasers") were able to kill, by cyanide or bullet to the head, one more innocent person.

Turning this into a political football is reprehensible, and as the daughter and granddaughter of Jews who currently reside in Florida, I can tell you that this jockeying is sickening to watch. And from the limited sample I have, it isn't doing the RNC any favors (I don't know if its hurting them, but it sure as hell isn't helping).

Kim
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida

Like i mentioned with Valerie Plame and John Kerry, it seems these Republican thugs like nothing better than to denigrate actual service to ones country and actual heroism for political advantage. This time it's going to blow back in their thug faces and they certainly deserve any ire coming their way. imagine that, Barak Obama's uncle helped liberate a concentration camp! It really must kill the gop who thought they'd paint this guy as some Muslim foreigner.

Oh, and the Holoucast Museum confirms Obama's uncle's Infantry Division liberated Buchenwald

whomod, I remember a few weeks ago, when John McCain made a simple slip of the tongue, the kind you claim Obama made here, and you went on about how this seemed to indicate that Sen. McCain was going senile. Now we are faced with what appears to be a growing pattern of such 'slips' by Obama.

Therefore, by your own logic, we have every right to inquire into Obama's mental state.

BARACK BACKTRACKS, SOFTENS VOW TO MEET IRAN PREZ:

Barack Obama backpedaled from a promise to meet with Iran's leader - but that didn't prevent a scorching attack yesterday from Republican rival John McCain.

Obama noted that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - who has repeatedly called for Israel to be wiped off the map - might not even be in office in 2009 when an Obama administration would begin, and that clerics hold most of the power in Iran.

But during a presidential debate earlier this year that featured questions from YouTube viewers, Obama didn't hesitate when asked if he would hold talks with the heads of Iran, North Korea and Venezuela.

Campaigning in Colorado, McCain stepped up his foreign-policy assault on Obama.

"Many believe all we need to do to end the nuclear programs of hostile governments is have our president talk with leaders in Pyongyang and Tehran, as if we haven't tried talking to these governments repeatedly over the past two decades," McCain said

Maybe this is another of Obama's early onset Alzheimers' symptoms. He forgot his earlier position.

Originally Posted By: whomod

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Oopsie:

Barack Obama is getting called out again for his knowledge of history, including his own family’s, after declaring to veterans on Memorial Day that his uncle helped liberate the Auschwitz death camp at the end of World War II.

Two problems with the tale: Auschwitz was liberated by the Soviet Army, and Obama’s American mother was an only child.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Quote:

and this letter pretty much nails the stupidity of the GOP.

Quote:

How's your daughter doing? What does she do while her dad spends all day being angry at the internet?

Obama Praised by America's Foes: The Democratic frontrunner has found himself to be a magnet for unwanted praise from many of America's enemies.

The odd thing, however, is this: recently Obama bragged how his heritage and Muslim middle name would make people in other countries (which, of course, would include countries that are our "enemy") welcome him as our president. Now, that they are doing so, he's suddenly finds that praise "unwanted"?

Originally Posted By: the G-man

BARACK BACKTRACKS, SOFTENS VOW TO MEET IRAN PREZ:

Barack Obama backpedaled from a promise to meet with Iran's leader - but that didn't prevent a scorching attack yesterday from Republican rival John McCain.

Obama noted that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - who has repeatedly called for Israel to be wiped off the map - might not even be in office in 2009 when an Obama administration would begin, and that clerics hold most of the power in Iran.

But during a presidential debate earlier this year that featured questions from YouTube viewers, Obama didn't hesitate when asked if he would hold talks with the heads of Iran, North Korea and Venezuela.

Campaigning in Colorado, McCain stepped up his foreign-policy assault on Obama.

"Many believe all we need to do to end the nuclear programs of hostile governments is have our president talk with leaders in Pyongyang and Tehran, as if we haven't tried talking to these governments repeatedly over the past two decades," McCain said

Maybe this is another of Obama's early onset Alzheimers' symptoms. He forgot his earlier position.

Watch and learn:

You know, we elect leaders who make claims based on facts, not on the assumptions of 'average Americans' who aern't that well versed on the Iranian political hiearchy.

It's sort of like Ted Stevens again repeating the McCain line that Al Queda is in Iran. No wonder Iraq is a custefuk. These people don't even know basic foreign policy facts.

With the Obama claim that he said he'd meet with Ahmadinejad, I can understand it being just lying to people about what Obama said for political advantage. Hell, it's what got us into Iraq. But with many other facts, it just seems the gOP are really clueless.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Oopsie:

Barack Obama is getting called out again for his knowledge of history, including his own family’s, after declaring to veterans on Memorial Day that his uncle helped liberate the Auschwitz death camp at the end of World War II.

Two problems with the tale: Auschwitz was liberated by the Soviet Army, and Obama’s American mother was an only child.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Not to belabor the point, but you should read this. The folks running the Web site for the 89th Infantry Division, the division that liberated one of the sub-camps of Buchenwald (whose members include Obama's uncle), issued a statement about Obama's uncle and this "work" camp.

Quote:

Concerning the service of Mr. Charles Payne: C.T. Payne was a soldier in the 89th Infantry Division. He served in the 355th Infantry Regiment, Company K. The 355th Infantry Regiment was the unit to liberate Ohrdruf. Mr. Payne was there.

For those who seek to minimize the horrors of Ohrdruf since it was a 'work' camp and not a 'death' camp, we have but one word: shame. Ironically, this argument has been made to us time and time again by various Holocaust-deniers and other pro-Nazi groups. We will let the testimony of survivors and veterans speak for themselves.

"It has been recorded that in Ordruf itself the last days were a slaughterhouse. We were shot at, beaten and molested. At every turn went on the destruction of the remaining inmates. Indiscriminant criminal behavior (like the murderers of Oklahoma City some days ago). Some days before the first Americans appeared at the gates of Ordruf, the last retreating Nazi guards managed to execute with hand pistols, literally emptying their last bullets on whomever they encountered leaving them bleeding to death as testified by an American of the 37th Tank Battalion Medical section, 10 a.m. April 4, 1945.

Today I'm privileged thanks to G-d and you gallant fighting men. I'm here to reminisce, and reflect, and experience instant recollections of those moments. Those horrible scenes and that special instance when an Allied soldier outstretched his arm to help me up became my re-entrance, my being re-invited into humanity and restoring my inalienable right to a dignified existence as a human being and as a Jew. Something, which was denied me from September 1939 to the day of liberation in 1945. I had no right to live and survived, out of 80 members of my family, the infernal ordeal of Auschwitz, Buchenwald, Ordruf, and its satellite camp Crawinkle and finally Theresinstadt Ghetto-Concentration Camp."

Rabbi Murray Kohn

Yep. Those lying Obama partisans of the 89th Infantry Division.

Seriously G-Man, when wil you you realize what depths you and the gOP sink to in order to cling to your quickly diminishing power? These guys just compared the right wing spinmeisters to Nazi's and Holocaust deniers (um, like the Iranian President?.

Really, just step back.

Quote:

The dogmas of the quiet past, are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise -- with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew. We must disentrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country. - Abraham Lincoln

Obama was so touched by his Uncle's story that he forgot all of it!

fucking gold!

Yeah.

By Obama logic anyone in the Navy on December 7 1941 can claim to be a survivor of Pearl Harbor, even if they were stationed someplace else.

they prolly stormed Normandy as well....

My uncle was stationed in Chesapeake Bay for his entire stint. I should begin telling people how he sank the Bismark.

My Uncle was stationed in Germany during Vietnam, I suppose I could say he liberated Poland, and if anyone caught me on it say I was mistaken....

except those are different countries in different wars in different decades.

I'm sure olbermann could reconcile the discrepancies without much trouble.

My grandfather was stationed in Italy during WWII, but I'm pretty damn sure that he's one of the dudes who raised the flag at Iwo Jima.

My grandfather was a sharecropper in Louisiana during WWI cuz, for the most part...in the deep south...blacks weren't allowed to participate in defending the country. He volunteered and was turned away because they said he couldn't read. Amazingly enough, he did know how to read. AND write.

My father was in the Army from 1945 to 1948. He was stationed in, I think, New Jersey working as a laborer.

That's close enough for Obama, TB. You dad can walk proud, knowing that he occupied Germany and rooted out the Nazi insurgents.

In all honesty, I don't really see the big deal in the statement itself. I mean, Obama's great uncle was in the military and involved with bringing down a camp built to work Jews to death. Where I see this being a problem is when you add it to the other little mistakes or 'metaphors' that Obama has used during his campaign, it just makes it seem more and more like he's being your average politician and saying what he thinks will get him elected, truthful or not. This is hardly as bad as Hillary and the Bosnian sniper.

for the record, Obama's uncle conquered Bosnia....

Originally Posted By: thedoctor

I don't disagree. However, as noted earlier, whenever McCain makes a gaffe, even a more minor one, whomod claims that such gaffes are evidence that a candidate is either a devious liar or senile (depending on which blog he cut and pasted it from). Accordingly, I think its fair to point out Obama's consistent pattern of making similar, or even more egregious, misstatements.

Getting back to Obama, I agree that some "gaffes" are worse than others and probably his worst was when he called white people in small towns "bitter" and clinging to guns and religion.

That was in a relaxed setting (a small private fundraiser) and the candidate was surrounded by like minded people. I doubt the misstatement was caused by being tired or nervous. More likely, Obama felt at ease enough to express what he really thinks about a large segment of the U.S. population.

And knowing that's how he feels is pretty disturbing.

I've been reading up on the global poverty act that Obama supports, it in effect would give the UN 845 billion dollars per year, the math equals about $8500 per person.

thanks Obama, I guess my kids can forget about college!

You're just bitter and clinging to your guns and religion.

i'll have no money for the offering and i'll have to hock my Daisy CO2!

Actually, no. But months after claiming he could no more disown Rev. Wright and his crazy church than he could his grandma, he did-in fact-quit the church today.

I am sure that this was a deeply thought out decision made with true conviction, and not a cynical political move resulting from the controversies caused by his refusal to quit these idiots twenty years ago.

More Obama-supporter whining, that listing demographics for what they truly are is "racism", to suppress the true facts

Now, undoubtedly, Clinton was trying to belittle, to diminish the importance of the South Carolina vote for Obama. But why is it racist to say what Clinton was implying: That, in a Southern state where a huge share of the Democratic vote is African-American, a strong black presidential candidate can be expected to do well?

Political history proves this. What is racist about saying it?

Aware of the truism, every political analyst was looking closely at the racial breakdown of the South Carolina vote.

Last week came Hillary's turn. After her victory in Indiana and loss in North Carolina, which pundits said rang down the curtain on her presidential bid, she advanced an argument candidates have used since primary elections began. "I can win -- and my opponent can't."

The argument was made against Goldwater, Nixon, Reagan.

In an interview with USA TODAY, Hillary argued that the coalition she has put together would be stronger against John McCain than the coalition Barack has cobbled together.

She began by relating an AP article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."

"There's a pattern emerging here," said Hillary. "I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on."

[Washington Post: ] "Clinton implies but doesn't quite come out and say ... that Obama is black -- and that white people who are not wealthy are irredeemably racist."

But Hillary was saying no such thing. Describing her coalition, she was implying that Obama's coalition -- a George McGovern-Jesse Jackson combine embracing 90 percent of African-Americans, plus liberals, students and cause people -- has less chance of beating McCain than does she and her more Middle American coalition.

Democrats, not liberal Democrats, are the swing votes who decide presidential races. Here Hillary beats Obama three to two or two to one, North and South.

Has she no right to make this argument? Can Brother Robinson explain exactly how Hillary can describe her Ohio-Pennsylvania coalition without using the dread word "white"?

Some of the reaction to the Clintons, whose once-universal support among African-Americans has crashed, is due to the immense stake black Americans have come to invest in the Obama candidacy. But some of this is something else, something more sinister.

Bill and Hillary Clinton are not playing a race card. Rather, the liberal media and some black journalists with sentimental, emotional or ideological investments in Obama are playing the intimidation card.

They are setting limits around what may and may not be said about Obama. They are seeking to censor robust adversarial speech where Barack is concerned, by branding as racists "playing the race card" any who make Barack run the same paces as anyone else.

The Clintons are today victims of a double standard that has long been employed against conservatives.

Even African-Americans critical of Obama are feeling the lash. In Saturday's Washington Post article, "Black Community Is Increasingly Protective of Obama," reporter Darryl Fears writes, "Standing in the path of Obama's campaign has been dangerous" for prominent blacks.

Bill and Hillary have lost luster and sustained damage to their reputations because, in the Democrats' universe, such smears stick. The question for Republicans is whether they will let themselves be intimidated, as they too often are, from using legitimate political weapons to defend what they still have.

It is thus a sign of trouble ahead that John McCain declared the Rev. Wright off limits and berated the North Carolina GOP for bringing him up. Let your adversaries circumscribe the content of your campaign, and you usually end up losing your campaign.

Would that the Democrats could play by the rules and not try to stack the deck, in labelling others as racists to hide their own racism.

And would that McCain would not tie one hand behind his back, and not call Democrats on their own hypocrisy.

Quote:

Barack Obama said Saturday he has resigned his 20-year membership in the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago "with some sadness" in the aftermath of inflammatory remarks by his longtime pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and more recent fiery remarks at the church by a visiting priest.

"This is not a decision I come to lightly ... and it is one I make with some sadness," Obama said at a news conference after campaign officials released a letter of resignation he sent to the church on Friday.

"I'm not denouncing the church and I'm not interested in people who want me to denounce the church," he said, adding that the new pastor at Trinity and "the church have been suffering from the attention my campaign has focused on them."

Obama said he and his wife have been discussing the issue since Wright's appearance at the National Press Club in Washington last month, which reignited the furor over remarks Wright had made in various sermons at the church.

"I suspect we'll find another church home for our family," Obama said.

"It's clear that now that I'm a candidate for president, every time something is said in the church by anyone associated with Trinity, including guest pastors, the remarks will imputed to me even if they totally conflict with my long-held views, statements and principles," he said.

"I have no idea how it will impact my presidential campaign but I know it was the right thing to do for me and my family," he said.

"This was a pretty personal decision and I was not trying to make political theater out of it," he added.

For months, Obama has been hamstrung by the rhetoric of Wright, whose sermons blaming U.S. policies for the Sept. 11 attacks and calls of "God damn America" for its racism became fixtures on the Internet and cable news networks.

Initially, Obama said he disagreed with Wright but portrayed him as a family member he couldn't disown. The preacher had officiated at Obama's wedding, baptized his two daughters and been his spiritual mentor for some 20 years.

But six weeks after Obama's well-received speech on race, Wright claimed at the Press Club appearance that the U.S. government was capable of planting AIDS in the black community, praised Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan and suggested that Obama was acting like a politician by putting his pastor at arm's length while privately agreeing with him.

The next day, Obama denounced Wright's comments as "divisive and destructive."

Remarks by Wright inflamed racial tensions and posed an unwanted problem for Obama, front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, as he sought to wrap up the party's nod.

More recently, racially charged remarks from the same pulpit by another pastor, the Rev. Michael Pfleger, kept the controversy alive and proved the latest thorn in Obama's side. As a guest speaker at Obama's church, Pfleger mocked Obama rival Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Although Obama condemned comments by both Wright and Pfleger, the controversy persisted.

Obama made clear he wasn't happy with Pfleger's comments — in which the Catholic priest pretended he was Clinton crying over "a black man stealing my show" — and said he was "deeply disappointed in Father Pfleger's divisive, backward-looking rhetoric, which doesn't reflect the country I see or the desire of people across America to come together in common cause."

Pfleger issued an apology, saying he was sorry if his comments offended Clinton or anyone else.

The timing of Obama's decision broke late Saturday, while most of the political attention was focused on the Democratic National Committee's struggle to seat delegates from Florida and Michigan.

"This was one I didn't see coming," Obama said Saturday when he asked if he had anticipated the firestorm that would erupt over his relationship with Wright.

he's not denouncing the church....unless it becomes politically convenient, ala Rev Wright...

for all his talk about not being another politician, i guess his true colors show more and more every day...

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

i guess his true colors show more and more every day...

Speaking of which, did you know he was black?

Originally Posted By: thedoctor

This is a true post. On all points.

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

$8500 per WHAT person? That's 100 million people. There are more than 100 million people living in poverty around the world. So what people are you refering to specifically? Are you angry because it's money that wouldn't be spent here in the U.S.?

And as a Republican, why would you need the governnment to help you put your kids thru college? Don't you guys favor small government and self determination and all that...?

Turning to the governnment for subsidized loans or grants would be like you were on welfare or something...which would make you either black or a democract.

Or even worse...BOTH.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Gaurantee there will be some uproar in the black community about him "selling out" his church. Not enough to have a measurable effect on his support but, there will be some harsh words for him in the barber shops, beauty parlors and neighborhood taverns across the country...

Especially since much of what Pfleger said is thought to be true in the black community.

Originally Posted By: THE Bastard

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

You used to have good reading comprehension skills what happened?

The cost of the program would average $8500 more in taxes per US taxpayer. If I have to spend $8500 xtra a year in taxes it's gunna eat up my family, I dont have $8500 xtra a year.

I can also see that youre brain is being whomoded, as you refer to me as a republican. This i suppose is based on my opposition to anything Obama utters, cross Obama and youre a Republican.

I keep forgetting in your eyes only black people are poor, talk about racism....

Originally Posted By: THE Bastard

Originally Posted By: the G-man

I don't think they'll be much uproar, as Wright said Obama has to disagree publicly but in private he agrees with all the racist statements.

Obama’s resignation from the church over, in part, “a cultural and a stylistic gap” raises additional doubts about him.

The obvious question is what “cultural and stylistic gap” exists now that hasn’t existed during the last two decades, when Obama was a member of Trinity United and an intimate friend with Rev. Wright?

The answer, obviously, is none. Trinity and Wright are what they have always been. It's Obama’s political interests that have changed.

Will the media whomods give it to him and continue the fawning? Or will they finally resent being made to look like saps over their "Obama is a different kind of politician and his speech about Wright was the greatest thing since Gettysburg" and confront the fraud they've promoted so assiduously?

Gee, that's a tough one...

I was thinking about "the speech" today. They could have a new campaign slogan:

"Barack Hussein Obama: A man who stands for change....every time the polling numbers drop!"

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

I was thinking about "the speech" today. They could have a new campaign slogan:

"Barack Hussein Obama: A man who stands for change....every time the polling numbers drop!"

It's funny cuz

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Originally Posted By: thedoctor

Yeah, I know. That's why I was giving whomod shit with the whole Iwo Jima thing. But, you know, there can still be room for actual conversation without Youtube clips and made-up AP stories.

Rev. Michael Phleger, stereotyping Hillary and "white entitlement"...

How could Obama possibly sit in this church for 20 years listening to this excrement?

I'm not Hillary's biggest fan, but she didn't feel "entitled", she paid her dues for more than 30 years, for the opportunity to step up to the presidential plate.

Wheras Obama, and thousands of Obama's fellow parishioners and like-minded fanatics elsewhere, think a minimally qualified Obama should be handed the nomination, because he's black.

"Entitlement", anyone?

"because he's black"

He won the most pledged delegates, the most states and the most supers. And despite Hillary's twisted math, the most votes.

but to you, you can't seem to move past the fact that he has black skin. Condemning him as having won on account of some affirmative action.

It's gonna be a sweet couple of days. Seeing everyone who has a problem with black people go ballistic that the White House is within a black man's reach.

BTW, does Obama have to answer for anyone who steps into his church, either now or in the past?

And at least this time you didn't call Obama a Muslim. It is comforting to know that the Dr. Martin Luther King, who has a national holiday in his honor mind you, was in his lifetime also aligned with the then US enemy in order to try to discredit him.

You discount how close the primary race has been between Hillary and Obama.

And I firmly believe Hillary would have the slight upper hand if she wasn't so disowned and vilified by liberal elites in the party and the media since February. They gave a free pass to Obama, even as they kicked Hillary down.

I don't have a problem with the fact that Obama is black. I do have a problem with the fact that Obama's ideology is rooted in the worst hatreds of white America and paranoid conspiracy theories that the black community holds. And his muslim connections. And his ultraliberalism. If it were Colin Powell or J.C. Watts, I'd be cheering a black candidate, qwho is aligned with the rest of America, not harboring clear resentment for it.

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

You discount how close the primary race has been between Hillary and Obama.

Delegates needed for the nomination:

Obama 31.5
Clinton 200.5

Originally Posted By: whomod

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

You discount how close the primary race has been between Hillary and Obama.

Delegates needed for the nomination:

Obama 31.5
Clinton 200.5

Oh i'm sorry,

It's 27.5 delegates that Obama needs.

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

Originally Posted By: whomod

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Wouldn't an Obama wheezes to the nomination announcement be better suited for his own thread G-man?

Read about it in Hillary's thread $;\)$

The victory in South Dakota, while gratifying for Clinton, makes no difference as Obama has already crested the magic number of delegates needed to claim the party's nomination.

Originally Posted By: Barack Hussein Obama

Originally Posted By: the G-man

The victory in South Dakota, while gratifying for Clinton, makes no difference as Obama has already crested the magic number of delegates needed to claim the party's nomination.

It may be a little bit more than that though. This was a state that was supposed to be an easy win for him not so long ago. That's not supposed to happen to the presumptive nomination winner. That with her other wins will make it very tough for Obama not to have her on the ticket as VP.

Obama's Fuzzy Math:

"I have seen people of differing views and opinions find common cause many times during my two decades in public life..."

By that he means under 12 years.

Mickey Rooney: Hi, Milhouse. The studio sent me to talk to you, being a former child star myself, "and" the number one box office draw from 1939 to 1940.
Bart Simpson: Wow, spanning two decades.

Originally Posted By: whomod

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

You discount how close the primary race has been between Hillary and Obama.

Delegates needed for the nomination:

Obama 31.5
Clinton 200.5

Originally Posted By: the G-man

The victory in South Dakota, while gratifying for Clinton, makes no difference as Obama has already crested the magic number of delegates needed to claim the party's nomination.

Obama is losing altitude, even as he secures the nomination.

I find it telling that he NEVER could have secured the nomination in state primary delegates, and was only able to do so with superdelegates (i.e., elite DNC insiders, in backroom deals).

And even more telling is that Hillary won North Dakota, again proving herself to be the DNC voters' choice, even as Obama circumnavigated the voters with superdelegates.
Hillary wins actual states.
Obama wins superdelegates.

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

Political Fundraiser Tony Rezko Found Guilty on 16 Counts in Corruption Trial

A federal jury has found a prominent political fundraiser for Sen. Barack Obama and Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich guilty of 16 of 24 counts in his Illinois corruption trial.

Antoin "Tony" Rezko was accused of scheming to get bribes from businesses seeking state contracts.

The jury delivered its verdict Wednesday after a nine-week trial.

Rezko has known Obama since he entered politics and was involved in a 2005 real estate deal with the Democratic presidential candidate, although testimony barely touched on their relationship.

I am sure that whomod will be happy to apply the same "guilt by association" standards he uses for republicans and we will hear his strong words of condemnation shortly.

it looks like the new way of politics is a lot like the old way, only with a tight haircut!

do the kids still say tight?
seriously?

Probably not.

But I do know they don't wear 3-D glasses anymore.

Originally Posted By: Michael Jackson

Probably not.

But I do know they don't wear 3-D glasses anymore.

8 year olds, dude.

"Many Democratic voters in Illinois are especially proud of their junior
senator. They believe more than ever that Barack Obama was the right choice for
the Senate in 2004. I couldn't agree more, and I promise to do everything in
my power to help him finish his first term in the United States Senate."
--John McCain

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

First, Howard Dean will stay as DNC Chair. We actually have a 50-state party after all. As opposed to the Hillary/DLC strategy of just courting only already blue states. since of course that has been a winning strategy up until '06 when we tried Dean's way.

Obama's uber-strategist Paul Tewes has moved into the DNC building.

And, no more lobbyist money into DNC coffers:

Quote:

"The DNC and the Obama Campaign are unified and working together to elect Barack Obama as the next president of the United States. Our presumptive nominee has pledged not to take donations from Washington lobbyists and from today going forward the DNC makes that pledge as well," said Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean. "Senator Obama has promised to change the way things are done in Washington and this step is a sure sign of his commitment. The American people's priorities will set the agenda in an Obama Administration, not the special interests."

uh oh. Now Obama won't be beholden to lobbyists and large donors in order to get elected . He'll have to continue to rely on the general public donating small $20.00 donations and actually answering to them. So as opposed to Hilary, he'll actually have something to challenge McCain with, since his campaign is nothing but lobbyists, to dictators, the energy companies, banks wanting to foreclose on average Americans etc. etc.

Originally Posted By: whomod

And, no more lobbyist money into DNC coffers:

Quote:

Obama's not taking any more because he's already gotten a shitload from the oil companies to begin with.

They didn't cover that at moveon.org yet, doc. Cut some whomod some slack...

Quote:

A new Gallup Poll summary of surveys taken in May shows Obama winning 62% of Latino registered voters nationwide, compared with just 29% for McCain. Others have found a wide gap as well. The pro-Democratic group Democracy Corps compiled surveys from March through May that showed Obama with a 19-point lead among Latinos. And a Times poll published last month showed Obama leading McCain among California Latinos by 14 points.

Republicans say McCain's numbers among Latinos at the moment are disappointing...

But.. but... I thought we needed to nominate Hillary because Latino's would only vote for her and no one else!!!!

Does this mean that some Democratic women might vote for Obama as well????!!!

*GASP*

Originally Posted By: whomod

Quote:

"They will not fund our party, they will not run our White House and they will not drown out the voice of the American people" - Barak Obama

this makes me hopeful! I have so much reason to believe this is more than empty rhetoric!

Originally Posted By: whomod

Quote:

"They will not fund our party, they will not run our White House and they will not drown out the voice of the American people" - Barak Obama

Yes, by not taking money from PACs, they're not limited as much for the amount of money that big oil and speacial interest groups can get them through 'fund raisers'.

Matt Lewis

Obama continues to talk about being a "new kind of politician," but his posturing on lobbyists seems a bit hypocritical. Here are a few examples:

... Obama continues to accept money from employees of lobbying firms who aren't technically registered lobbyists. How hard would it be for a lobbyist to have his "employee" make a donation to Obama (in exchange for a favor, of course?).

... Obama will accept money from past lobbyists -- as well as statehouse lobbyists.

... MoveOn -- a large pac -- is encouraging folks to give money to Obama through them. They admit the goal is to gain "influence." Will Obama reject this money? No way.

... Two arms of the Democratic Party (DCCC and DSCC) will continue taking money from lobbyists. Obama is the head of the Democratic Party. If he really wanted to impose a rule to ban lobbyist money, don't you think he could? More importantly, though, money spent by these Democratic Committees will help Obama by increasing turnout for Democratic Congressional candidates.

Aside from the fact that Obama is obviously tight with lobbyists, the fact that he is playing the game of pretending not to be -- makes him even more of a "politician."

I noticed yesterday int he news story that he said he won't accept money from Lobbyists but this does not exclude their spouses. He's such a hypocrite.

At least he's not black!

Originally Posted By: whomod

Why did you post a cartoon of Beardguy?

Obama is cybering with beardguy?

Jerry always did have the jungle fever.

indeed.

OBAMA'S GOAL, 'JEAPORDIZE U.S. BATTLEFIELD SUPERIORITY:
Critics blast Dem for assurance he'll cut nation's defense dollars

Posted: May 30, 2008
© 2008 WorldNetDaily

An organization dedicated to the mission of protecting and defending individual freedoms and rights under the U.S. Constitution is criticizing presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama for promising to cut, and possibly gut, U.S. military defense spending.

The Center for Individual Freedom, a non-partisan, non-profit, has posted one version of a YouTube video of Obama "inexplicably" pledging" to "unilaterally jeopardize American military superiority."

"When you find yourself in a hole, just keep digging," the organization said in its accompanying commentary. "That appears to be the logic of Sen. Barack Obama, who already finds himself in the proverbial hole on defense and national security issues. At this pace, he'll reach China by November."

The organization said the Obama video, which originally was posted online by BarackObamadotcom in late 2007 but has been reproduced in other versions too, he tells an audience at a group called Caucus4Priorities he would cut "tens of billions of dollars" in spending.

This would come at a time "when our armed forces are already stretched and in need of new weapon technologies and armor," said CFIF.

The original video is here:

He also guarantees he will "cut investments in unproven missile defense systems," and he "will not weaponize space," and that "unnecessary" spending will be eliminated.

"Most alarmingly, however, Sen. Obama literally promises to 'slow development of future combat systems,'" CFIF said.

"Think about the frightening implications of this pledge for a moment.

"Future combat systems are the cornerstone of American military modernization and superiority. As America fights the war on terror and deters potential military aggression by rogue nations cross the world, advanced combat systems provide us with better equipment, unmatched situational awareness and communication systems that result in American battlefield domination. Other ascendant nations such as China and Russia seek to match our prowess, but we continue to outpace them," CFIF said.

It cited new satellite technology that "allows us to pinpoint and eliminate the enemy, unmanned drones that promise amazing advances in battlefield safety and effectiveness, bunker-buster weapons that penetrate deep into the caves in which remote terrorists hide and communications systems that allow lightning-quick troop deployment and rescue missions."

"They ultimately protect the lives and health of our troops, just as they protect us," CFIF said. "Despite this, Sen. Obama bizarrely pledges to jeopardize our battlefield superiority."

The group cited the nation's stealth aircraft, which penetrated Saddam Hussein's air defenses, precision-guided weaponry that has reduced harm to non-combatants and the Strategic Defense Initiative, "which forced Mikhail Gorbachev's negotiating hand and helped end the Cold War."

Obama uses the speech to emphasize that he is "the only major candidate who opposed this war from the beginning."

He says:

Thanks so much for the Caucus4Priorities, for the great work you've been doing. As president, I will end misguided defense policies and stand with Caucus4Priorities in fighting special interests in Washington.

First, I'll stop spending $9 billion a month in Iraq. I'm the only major candidate who opposed this war from the beginning. And as president I will end it.

Second, I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending.

I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems.

I will not weaponize space.

I will slow our development of future combat systems.

And I will institute an independent "Defense Priorities Board" to ensure that the Quadrennial Defense Review is not used to justify unnecessary spending.

Third, I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal, I will not develop new nuclear weapons; I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material; and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert, and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals.

"In what realm does Sen. Obama’s ideology dwell, that he would expect his promises to somehow endear him to American swing voters?" CFIF asked.

"What makes Sen. Obama's statement most perplexing is the fact that he already faces an uphill battle to convince American voters that he won't be the second coming of Jimmy Carter in undermining our military forces."

another "if you want to end wars you must hate the soldiers dying in them" argument.

i like this idea of Obamas that we make an agreement with the russians not to nuke each other. why didnt anyone think of this before!

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

another "if you want to end wars you must hate the soldiers dying in them" argument.

Wow.

That's such a blatantly false and off-point argument that I don't even need to post a rebuttal. You really ought to try and improve your reading comprehension.

Or is it just feigned ignorance on your part, to partisanly deny how dangerous Obama truly is to our national defense? This article is quite a revelation.

IGNORANCE FEIGNER!

Quote:

Obama, Political Viagra
Now is when you get worried.
By Mark Steyn
The short version of the Democratic-party primary campaign is that the media fell in love with Barack Obama but the Democratic electorate declined to. “I felt this thrill going up my leg,” said MSNBC’s Chris Matthews after one of the senator’s speeches. “I mean, I don’t have that too often.” Au contraire, Chris and the rest of the gang seem to be getting the old tingle up the thigh hairs on a nightly basis. If Obama is political Viagra, the media are at that stage in the ad where the announcer warns that, if leg tingles persist for over six months, see your doctor.
Out there in the voting booths, however, Democrat legs stayed admirably unthrilled. The more the media told Hillary she was toast and she should get the hell out of it and let Obama romp to victory, the more Democrats insisted on voting for her. The more the media insisted Barack was inevitable, the less inclined the voters were to get with the program. On the strength of Chris Matthews’s vibrating calves, Sen. Obama raised a ton of money — over $300 million — and massively outspent Senator Clinton, but he didn’t really get any bang for his buck. In the end, he crawled over the finish line. The Obama Express came a-hurtlin’ down the track at two miles an hour.
...

National Review

We could be headed into one of those pre-Clinton general elections where the GOP candidate wins most of the states IMHO. When Karl Rove presented his electoral map the media in general ignored what he was saying & the real story for them was that Rove was seen as aiding Hillary. Yet once you cut through the rhetoric & bs, it still comes down to the voters & the signs don't look good for Obama. The South Dakota loss in particular was a state he was set to win. He lost it by double digits from Hillary who's campaign had been pronounced dead for quite some time.

BLASPHEMER!

Quote:

Marc Ambinder is right. Obama’s rhetoric is in a different “emotional register” from John McCain’s. It’s in a different “emotional register” from every U.S. president — not just the Coolidges but the Kennedys, too. Nothing in Obama’s resume suggests he’s the man to remake America and heal the planet. Only this week, another of his pals bit the dust, convicted by a Chicago jury of 16 counts of this and that. “This isn’t the Tony Rezko I knew,” said the senator, in what’s becoming a standard formulation. Likewise, this wasn’t the Jeremiah Wright he knew. And these are guys he’s known for 20 years. Yet at the same time as he’s being stunned by the corruption and anti-Americanism of those closest to him, Obama’s convinced that just by jetting into Tehran and Pyongyang he can get to know America’s enemies and persuade them to hew to the straight and narrow. No doubt if it all goes belly up and Iran winds up nuking Tel Aviv, President Obama will put on his more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger face and announce solemnly that “this isn’t the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad I knew.”

Blasphemer!

Shame on you for diverting attention away from Chris Matthews quivering thighs!!!

$\:-\[$

"The Audacity of Barack Obama"

In addition to the information about kickbacks and perks of the allegedly oh-so-above-it-all Obama, it's a clever wordplay on the title of his Wright-sermon inspired title of his book.

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

"The Audacity of Barack Obama"

In addition to the information about kickbacks and perks of the allegedly oh-so-above-it-all Obama, it's a clever wordplay on the title of his Wright-sermon inspired title of his book.

I would have preferred "The Audacity of a Dope". Much more punny.

Quote:

Obama’s “New Politics” Inspired by Rush Limbaugh and Ken Starr

By Edward Olshaker

Mr. Olshaker is a longtime journalist whose research on conservative talk radio is cited in The Republican Noise Machine, by David Brock.

In the closing days of the primary season, unity was finally achieved—between the Obama campaign and the most extreme elements of the GOP attack machine, who spoke with a single voice as they eagerly ascribed the darkest imaginable thoughts and motives to Sen. Hillary Clinton simply because she mentioned the murder of Sen. Robert Kennedy. Just as remarkable, the Obama team was gearing up to resurrect the thoroughly yet fruitlessly investigated Whitewater controversy if the race had been closer.

While Clinton’s own less-than-graceful exit will be long remembered, the Obama campaign’s brutal tactics have left little impression and are likely to be lost to history, perhaps for no more complex reason than the media’s preference for a predetermined storyline of “hardball Clinton” versus “transcendent new politics” Obama.

As Zachary A. Goldfarb reported in the Washington Post, “Obama senior strategist David Axelrod dodged questions about why the campaign was still circulating commentaries criticizing Clinton [for allegedly invoking the possibility of another assassination] even after suggesting it wants to move beyond the controversy.” Axelrod’s interview by George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s “This Week” is revealing:

Mr. Stephanopoulos: “You say you’re not trying to stir the issue up. But a member of your press staff yesterday was sending around to an entire press list — I have the e-mail here — Keith Olbermann’s searing commentary against Hillary Clinton. So that is stirring this up, isn’t it?”

Mr. Axelrod: “Well, Mr. Olbermann did his commentary and he had his opinion. But as far as we’re concerned.”

Mr. Stephanopoulos: “But your campaign was sending it around.”
...

History News Network
I give team Obama an A+ for being able to play so dirty with getting so little mud on themselves. How will they fair against McCain though? Will he be accused of playing racial politics or inadvertently send out a call to have Obama assasinated if he mentions Robert Kennedy? Right now it seems to go no further than depicting McCain as a 3rd Bush term. This would be the same McCain that had folks like Rush Limbaugh practically openly weeping when it became clear that he was going to be the GOP candidate. Yet Obama hammers his talking point with a straight face.

Matter-eater Man argumentative User Fair Play!
5000+ posts Sun Jun 08 2008 10:45 PM Reading a post
Forum: Politics and Current Events
Thread: Barack Hussein Obama in '08?

While walking down the street one day a US senator is tragically hit by a truck and dies.

His soul arrives in heaven and is met by St. Peter at the Golden Gate

"Welcome to heaven," says St. Peter. "Before you settle in, it seems there is a problem. We seldom see a high official around these parts, you see, so we're not sure what to do with you."

"No problem, just let me in," says the man.

"Well, I'd like to, but I have orders from higher up. Wha t we'll do is have you spend one day in hell and one in heaven. Then you can choose where to spend eternity."

"Really, I've made up my mind. I want to be in heaven," says the senator.

"I'm sorry, but we have our rules."

And with that, St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down to hell. The doors open and he finds himself in the middle of a green golf course. In the distance is a clubhouse and standing in front of it are all his friends and other politicians who had worked with him.

Everyone is very happy and in evening dress. They run to greet him, shake his hand, and reminisce about the good times they had while getting rich at the expense of the people.

They play a friendly game of golf and then dine on lobster, caviar and champagne.

Also present is the devil, who really is a very friendly guy who has a good time dancing and telling jokes. They are having such a good time that before he realizes it, it is time to go.

Everyone gives him a hearty farewell and waves while the elevator rises...

The elevator goes up, up, up and the door reopens on heaven where St.
Peter is waiting for him.

"Now it's time to visit heaven."

So, 24 hours pass with the senator joining a group of contented souls moving from cloud to cloud, playing the harp and singing. They have a good time and, before he realizes it, the 24 hours ha ve gone by and St.
Peter returns.

"Well then, you've spent a day in hell and another in heaven. Now choose your eternity."

The senator reflects for a minute, then he answers: "Well, I would never have said it before, I mean heaven has been delightful, but I think I would be better off in hell."

So St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down to hell.

Now the doors of the elevator open and he's in the midd le of a barren land covered with waste and garbage.

He sees all his friends, dressed in rags, picking up the trash and putting it in black bags as more trash falls from above.

The devil comes over to him and puts his arm around his shoulder. "I don't understand," stammers the senator. "Yesterday I was here and there was a golf course and clubhouse, and we ate lobster and caviar, drank champagne, and danced and had a great time. Now there's just a wasteland full of garbage and my friends look miserable. What happened?"

The devil looks at him, smiles and says, "Yesterday we were campaigning...... Today you voted."

Jeremy talkative Moderator Mediocre douche
10000+ posts Sun Jun 08 2008 11:28 PM Viewing list of forums

MisterJLA talkative Moderator Citizen on Patrol
15000+ posts Sun Jun 08 2008 11:27 PM Checking who's online

Matter-eater Man argumentative User Fair Play!
5000+ posts Sun Jun 08 2008 11:33 PM Reading a post
Forum: Politics and Current Events
Thread: Barack Hussein Obama in '08?

Man... doesn't it just make sense ?

MarxistsSocialistsCommunistsforObama

Robert Stacy McCain of the American Spectator asks "is Obama another classic Democratic blunder?

Somewhere, there should be a Hall of Fame honoring profoundly stupid Democratic Party campaign ideas. Among the featured exhibits would be Michael Dukakis's 1988 tank ride and John Kerry's 2004 Ohio duck-hunting trip. ("Can I get me a hunting license here?")

The important thing to remember about such classic campaign blunders, however, is that Democrats didn't realize their disastrous potential until it was too late to prevent them.

Whether it's George McGovern's choice of Thomas Eagleton as his 1972 running mate or Fritz Mondale's promise to raise taxes in 1984, for some reason there's never anybody around Democrat HQ with the foresight to shout an advance warning.

Writing at the Huffington Post, Hillary Clinton supporter Larry Johnson declared on Feb. 16 that Obama's association with former Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers "will be Barack Obama's Willie Horton."
On March 13, ABC News was the first major media outlet to report on the anti-American rants of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the pastor of Obama's Trinty Church in Chicago, igniting a controversy that continued to make headlines for weeks.
On April 7, Christopher Hitchens noted that Obama had named a radical Catholic priest, the Rev. Michael Pfleger, among his religious "mentors," and that Pfleger had defended Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan. On May 25, Pfleger preached a bizarre sermon at Trinity church, mocking Hillary as an advocate of "white entitlement," resulting in a YouTube video clip that quickly went viral -- like the plague -- on the Internet.
Obama's connection to corrupt Chicago Democratic fund-raiser Tony Rezko was widely reported by major media. In January, for example, ABC News reported that Rezko and his associates had "contributed more than $120,000 to Obama's 2004 campaign for the U.S. Senate, much of it at a time when Rezko was the target of an FBI investigation."

His scandalous associations didn't stop Obama from squeaking past Hillary to clinch the Democratic nomination, but his responses to these controversies so far -- such as first "distancing" himself from Wright, then finally quitting the Trinity congregation -- are unlikely to immunize him from further scrutiny in the general-election campaign.

Even the manner in which Obama won the nomination suggests that he may prove an unusually weak candidate in the general election.

ALL OF OBAMA'S problems would be enough to worry Democrats if he were a veteran politician, but he's not. He's a 46-year-old former state legislator who was only elected to the Senate in 2004 and whose presidential candidacy got an artificial boost from media enthusiasts like Oprah Winfrey and Chris Matthews.

Obama's nomination is part of a pattern of Democrats preferring "fresh new faces" as their presidential candidates. McGovern, Jimmy Carter, Dukakis and Bill Clinton all won the nomination on their first attempts.

By contrast, Republicans have tended toward the "it's his turn" approach to their White House candidates. Excluding only vice president Richard Nixon's 1960 campaign and the historical anomaly of Gerald Ford, George W. Bush was the first GOP presidential candidate since Dwight Eisenhower to get the Republican nomination on his first try.

the "it's his turn" approach means that McCain is already a familiar character to independent swing voters, who typically pay less attention to politics than do avid partisans of either party. Such scandals as his membership in the "Keating Five" are all old news, and it's unlikely the fall campaign will produce any shocking revelations about the Republican. Democrats can't say the same about the untested Obama.

"terrorist fist jab"????!!!

Desperation is funny.

believe me, you are living proof of that!

Originally Posted By: whomod

[youtube]

[/youtube]

Originally Posted By: whomod

"terrorist fist jab"????!!!

Desperation is funny.

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

believe me, you are living proof of that!

I'm living proof of a terorisst fist jab??

So is Michael Jordan and Charlie Sheen BTW

FOX News, home of pasty out of touch squares.

Originally Posted By: whomod

FOX News, home of pasty out of touch squares. $\:lol\:$

Whomod's brain, home of dimentia and, well...

$\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$
$\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$

So... beyond partisan Youtube clips of Olbermann, who is nothing more than an extension of the Obama campaign disguised as a journalist...

Obama was at least raised a "devout muslim" and is doing his best to be evasive about his muslim past:
http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12745.htm

Obama has a racist hostility toward white America, and attended a black racist church for 20 years:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=25831

And Obama plans to dangerously cut our military and its technological edge:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=65771

Gee, why would anyone think Obama is anti-American?

Originally Posted By: whomod

"terrorist fist jab"????!!!

Desperation is funny.

Apparently, the anchor at Fox was NOT calling what Obama did a "terrorist fist jab." She introduced a story about how the fist jab meant different things in different context and reported that various individuals were interpreting the act differently.

That's not the same thing.

Oh.

And Obama is guilty of exactly the corruption he alleges in McCain and the republicans.

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

"The Audacity of Barack Obama"

In addition to the information about kickbacks and perks of the allegedly oh-so-above-it-all Obama, it's a clever wordplay on the title of his Wright-sermon inspired title of his book.

Originally Posted By: Captain Sammitch

Originally Posted By: whomod

[youtube]

[/youtube]

The Associated Press:

Democratic Rep. Dan Boren of Oklahoma said Tuesday Barack Obama is "the most liberal senator" in Congress and he has no intention of endorsing him for the White House.

However, Boren will vote for Obama at the Democratic National Convention in Denver in August and will vote Democratic on Nov. 4.

"I think this is an important time for our country," Boren said in a telephone interview. "We're facing a terrible economic downturn. We have high gasoline prices. We have problems in our foreign policy. That's why I think it's important."

Boren, the lone Democrat in Oklahoma's congressional delegate, said that while Obama has talked about working with Republicans, "unfortunately, his record does not reflect working in a bipartisan fashion."

Boren, a self-described centrist, is seeking a third term this year in a mostly rural district that stretches across eastern Oklahoma.

"We're much more conservative," Boren said of district. "I've got to reflect my district. No one means more to me than the people who elected me. I have to listen them." He called Obama "the most liberal senator in the U.S. Senate."

It's potentially quite telling that for all of the talk earlier this year of Obama's ability to redraw the map, a red state Democrat already feels the need to distance himself from Obama.

Stuttering Barack:

watching Obama stammer his way through a press conference today when he was asked about [VP search team member Jim Johnson's ties to mortgage companies Countrywide Financial and Fannie Mae], as well as about the fact that another member of his team, Eric Holder, was involved in Bill Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich, I was reminded of how poorly the typically eloquent Obama holds up to actual scrutiny.

Bumbling his way through an answer, Obama said it was a "game" to bring up such relationships, that he wouldn't hire a "vetter to vet the vetters," and most oddly, that Johnson and Horder weren't even working for him--even though they are helping him find a VP.

And, look, there's a YouTube video of Obama stammering and stuttering through an unscripted statement:

Poor Obama. Under the whomod standards, he's now proven to be a senile idiot, in bed with big corporate lobbyists.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=66787

Quote:

Bloggers are raising questions about Illinois Sen. Barack Obama's qualifications to be U.S. president, because of the secrecy over his birth certificate and the requirement presidents be "natural-born" U.S. citizens.

Jim Geraghty, reporting on the Campaign Spot, a National Review blog, cited the "unlikely" but still circulating rumor that Obama was born not within the United States, but elsewhere, possibly Kenya.

Geraghty defined the concerns most clearly, stating: "If Obama were born outside the United States, one could argue that he would not meet the legal definition of natural-born citizen … because U.S. law at the time of his birth required his natural-born parent (his mother) to have resided in the United States for '10 years, at least [f]ive of which had to be after the age of 16.'"

He then points out Ann Dunham, Obama's mother, was 18 when Obama was born "so she wouldn't have met the requirement of five years after the age of 16."

Geraghty continues: " (Interestingly, apparently there isn't much paperwork on Obama's parents' marriage. 'Obama: From Promise to Power,' page. 27: 'Obama later confessed that he never searched for the government documents on the marriage, although Madelyn (Obama's maternal grandmother) insisted they were legally married.' Also note that Obama's father apparently was not legally divorced from his first wife back in Kenya at the time, a point of contention that ultimately led to their separation.)"

(Story continues below)

The reports released to date show Obama was born in Honolulu to Barack Hussein Obama Sr., of Nyangoma-Kogelo, Kenya, and Ann Dunham, of Wichita, Kan.

According to FindLaw.com, which is cited by Geraghty, the requirements that were in force from Dec. 24, 1952 to Nov. 13, 1986, encompassing the time of Obama's birth, state, "If only one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least 10 years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16."

Obama's father, a student sent to the United States from Africa, lived several places in the United States while attending class. He then returned to his homeland. Obama's mother later married another man and moved to Indonesia.

Geraghty said the Obama campaign could "debunk" the rumors about his birth simply by releasing a copy of his birth certificate, but the campaign has so far chosen not to do that.

"The campaign cited the birth certificate in their 'Fact Check' on William Ayers, so presumably, someone in the campaign has access to it," he said.

Hawaii doesn't make public information from birth certificates.

"If the concern of the Obama campaign is that the certificate includes his Social Security number or some other data that could be useful to identity thieves, that information could easily be blocked out and the rest released. (Although I wonder if identity thieves would find Obama a tougher than usual target, since using the name on purchases would almost inevitably bring closer scrutiny.)," Geraghty said.

The Obama campaign repeatedly has declined to respond to WND requests for comment.

The presumptive Republican nominee for president, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., already has gone through the same type of challenge, and the U.S. Senate responded with a resolution in April declaring him to be a "'natural born Citizen' under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States."

That article declares that "no person except a natural born citizen … shall be eligible to the Office of president."

McCain was challenged because he was born to two U.S. citizens in the Panama Canal Zone.

According to a report from Michael Dobbs on The Fact Checker, the McCain campaign consulted two leading jurists, Theodore Olsen and Laurence Tribe, and they agreed.

"They argue that McCain is a natural born citizen because the United States exercised sovereignty over the Panama Canal at the time of his birth on August 29, 1936, he was born on a U.S. military base, and both of his parents were U.S. citizens," the report said.

Others say the issue isn't quite that simple, and the matter could be resolved fully only by a constitutional amendment or a U.S. Supreme Court ruling.

I'm going to give Obama the same benefit of the doubt I gave McCain. As far as I'm concerned, if one or both of your parents are a US citizen, that makes you a natural born citizen.

Of course, I assume that whomod will be equally consistent and, if he questioned McCain's eligibility, will question Obama's as well.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Which just goes to show the general nuttiness of these World Net Daily articles that keep popping up around here.

You think if either McCain or Obama were in any way ineligible for the Presidency, they'd be the candidate of their respective parties right now??

(rhetorical question G-Man, not addressed to you BTW who happens to agree with the non-issue this is)

get a room!

Originally Posted By: the G-man

I'm going to give Obama the same benefit of the doubt I gave McCain. As far as I'm concerned, if one or both of your parents are a US citizen, that makes you a natural born citizen.

that's not the law, why the sudden opposition to the rule of law?

As you recall, I did post a similar McCain story a while back. Not that I thought anything would come of it though. It's just good sport.

Originally Posted By: whomod

"terrorist fist jab"????!!!

Desperation is funny.

Edie Hill apologizes for the 'terrorist fist jab" comment.

Good. Show these FOX fucks they can't get away with this crap anymore.

The Evolution of The Fist Bump

Originally Posted By: the G-man

I'm going to give Obama the same benefit of the doubt I gave McCain. As far as I'm concerned, if one or both of your parents are a US citizen, that makes you a natural born citizen.

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

that's not the law, why the sudden opposition to the rule of law?

Actually, my position pretty much IS the rule of law. As a general rule "natural born citizen" means someone who was born a US citizen, as opposed to someone who wasn't born a citizen but later becomes a "naturalized citizen" (ex: Arnold Schwarzenegger).

Both McCain and Obama were born to American parents. Therefore, under the law as it is generally understood, they are natural born citizens.

The people on both sides of the aisle making this argument against one candidate or the other are, in my opinion, playing a silly semantic game, trying to warp a generally accepted term of law.

keep the Niggers out of the White house.

Jerusalem Post:

Barack Obama's half brother Malik said Thursday that if elected his brother will be a good president for the Jewish people, despite his Muslim background.

But...wait? I thought anyone who claimed that Obama had a Muslim background was a liar and/or racist. But, now, here's his own brother, seemingly telling us that Barack is a former Muslim.

Oh well, at least Malik didn't mention his brother's middle name.

technically it is racist to use his middle name to link him with terrorists. the name is ethnically very common, like juan sanchez. Do you think that every Mexican named Jesus is holy?

Originally Posted By: wikipedia

Husayn, Hussein, Hossain, Hussain, Husain, Hosein (Arabic:حسین Turkish: Hüseyin), is an Arabic name which is the diminutive of Hasan, meaning "good" or "handsome". It is commonly given as a male given name among Muslims, after Husayn ibn Ali, although the name is so common it is also given to persons of secular backgrounds.

John Mccain shares his first name with John Wayne Gacy. And please don't tell me John is a common name and sharing a name means nothing, because obviously it does if you keep mentioning it. "John" is also slang for someone who uses prostitutes. That concerns me because of my value voting values.

I'm proud of America for the first time in my adult life!

Actually, Obama is on record as stating his middle name and background would allow our enemies to better identify with him as President.

There is no record of McCain showing any sympathy to murderers. Unless you count his friendship with Ted Kennedy.

he gets Hamas' vote!

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Actually, Obama is on record as stating his middle name and background would allow our enemies to better identify with him as President.

but did he mean that in ethnic terms or in idealogical terms. obviously a person of color who has been outside the country would help to undo our racist isolationist (wondyist) reputation. again, you were being racist.

Quote:

There is no record of McCain showing any sympathy to murderers. Unless you count his friendship with Ted Kennedy.

unless you count....

See he's with a white guy, he must be friends with murderers! God Damn America!

Originally Posted By: Ray Adler

obviously a person of color who has been outside the country would help to undo our racist isolationist reputation.

So we should choose the president on the basis of race?

Now who's being racist, Mr. Adler?

I'm ashamed of you. Why do hate the idea of a colorblind society?

[quote=Black Machismo]

Wait! DID YOU TAKE THAT FROM MY TRUCK?

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

technically it is racist to use his middle name to link him with terrorists. the name is ethnically very common, like juan sanchez. Do you think that every Mexican named Jesus is holy?

Originally Posted By: wikipedia

Husayn, Hussein, Hossain, Hussain, Husain, Hosein (Arabic, Turkish: Hüseyin), is an Arabic name which is the diminutive of Hasan, meaning "good" or "handsome". It is commonly given as a male given name among Muslims, after Husayn ibn Ali, although the name is so common it is also given to persons of secular backgrounds.

Except that it is not merely Barack Hussein Obama's name.

http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12745.htm

Obama is a closeted muslim, who up until he was married in his 30's was described by classmates, co-workers, friends and colleagues as a "devout muslim".

Obama also campaigned for a relative in Kenya, during his present term as a U.S. Senator, part of whose platform was imposing sharia law in every province of Kenya.

I would actually have less of a problem with it if he was at least straightforward and honest about his muslim beliefs.

no matter how colorblind you are g-man, you still managed to pick an old white guy.

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Actually, Obama is on record as stating his middle name and background would allow our enemies to better identify with him as President.

I love the way you sweepingly stereotype myself or anyone else who believes in taking the slightest preventative measures to exclude dangerous undesireables from immigrating to, or staying in, the U.S.

Or who believes allowing offshoring of high-paying jobs and factories to other countries should be discouraged, and steps taken to encourage factories, high-paying jobs and research in the U.S.

Or who believes allowing unfair trade practices that put Americans in unfair competition with people in Third World countries who are working for a dollar an hour should be levelled with tariffs and other limits.

Or who believes we should eliminate the trade deficit that is now 850 billion annually, that is bankrupting the U.S., while China has 2 trillion in assets, enriching themselves at the our expense.

How racist of me, to welcome LEGAL immigrants to the U.S., and even socialize and date many people of foreign origin. But still have disdain for those who come here illegally, and who often break our laws.

My alleged "racism" is a counterweight to your "Adlerism" which basically amounts to hating your native country and slandering your country, and anyone who defends it, at every possible opportunity.

You couldn't be more of a treasonous scumbag if you strapped a bomb to your chest and blew up a U.S. naval base. And given the fact that you live near one in San Francisco bay, I wouldn't put it past you.

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

no matter how colorblind you are g-man, you still managed to pick an old white guy.

Age-discriminationist !

McCain's mother is 95 years old, and is still a feisty lady and fully active woman. She even appeared in a commercial with McCain, to humorously prove the quality of his gene-pool, and that he has many good decades left in him.

30 years ago, people often died in their sixties.
Now they often live to be 100.

Try to set aside your outdated age prejudices, Ray, and join us in the 21st century.

I'm not muslim! I swear on my burqa!

Originally Posted By: whomod

McCain's already gotten himself into legal trouble with the public financing system ... McCain drew criticism of his own earlier this year when he backed away from public financing for the primary elections. He initially sought those public matching funds, which come with limits of their own, after his campaign nearly ran out of money, but decided to bypass them after donations started coming in....That makes McCain a campaign finance criminal.

Oopsie: Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Thursday he'll bypass the federal public financing system in the general election, abandoning an earlier commitment

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Originally Posted By: whomod

Oopsie: Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Thursday he'll bypass the federal public financing system in the general election, abandoning an earlier commitment

Wow G-Man, you're pretty clever there. Yes, Obama is guilty of the same thing!!!

Except Obama was never doing so badly in fund raising that he had to sign up for public financing. McCain was and did. Now he's trying to back out of that in violation of the law. This in no way applies to Obama's situation and you know it.

If you can point to me where obama signed up for public financing then you'll have a point. But you can't so case closed.

Nice try to obfuscate though. But of course Republicans have had years of practice.

In fact I'd think you're worried that Obama can easily outspend McCain 4 to 1 without needing to break the law to do it.

Originally Posted By: whomod

Obama scares G-man

Having the country led by an inexperienced, underqualified leftist with crazy ideas about foreign and domestic policy, shady associations with racist ministers, and a murky past should frighten people.

uh huh.

and you're completely wrong about obama being a campaign finance criminal.

Oh wait, you never accused him of that. You merely asked the question.

Typical FOX wankery.

Actually, whomod, you were the one who described the type of activity contemplated by Obama as "criminal."

Of course, that was when McCain was doing it.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

What a difference being the Republican nominee makes [to whomod]

I, personally, have no problem with either Obama or McCain eschewing public funding of their campaigns since, you know, I believe in free speech.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080619/pl_politico/11182

Quote:

Until 2000, it hadn’t happened in more than 100 years, but plugged-in observers from both parties see a distinct possibility of Barack Obama winning the popular vote but losing the Electoral College — and with it the presidency — to John McCain.

Here’s the scenario: Obama racks up huge margins among the increasingly affluent, highly educated and liberal coastal states, while a significant increase in turnout among black voters allows him to compete — but not to win — in the South. Meanwhile, McCain wins solidly Republican states such as Texas and Georgia by significantly smaller margins than Bush’s in 2004 and ekes out narrow victories in places such as North Carolina, which Bush won by 12 points but Rasmussen presently shows as a tossup, and Indiana, which Bush won by 21 points but McCain presently leads by just 11.

One possible result: Even as the national mood moves left, the 2004 map largely holds. Obama’s 32 new electoral votes from Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado and Virginia are offset by 21 new electoral votes for McCain in Michigan and New Hampshire — and despite a 2- or 3-point popular vote victory for Obama, America wakes up on Jan. 20 to a President McCain.

According to Tad Devine, who served as the chief political consultant for Al Gore in 2000 and as a senior adviser to John F. Kerry in 2004, “it certainly is a possibility. Not a likelihood, but it is a real possibility.”

Some observers, such as Joseph Mercurio, a political consultant and pollster who worked on Sen. Joe Biden’s Democratic primary bid, see this as unlikely given the dramatic increase in Democratic Party enrollment and President Bush’s near record-low approval rating. Also skeptical is Nate Silver, a political cult-favorite blogger whose statistical model — which factors in population change since electoral votes were last allocated in the 2000 census — shows McCain as more likely than Obama to lose the Electoral College while winning the popular vote.

But others, pointing to the competitiveness of the past two elections, predict that this will be another such tight race. If they’re proven correct, this would be the fourth in the past five elections, making for the most closely contested run of presidential contests since those spanning the popular vote-Electoral College splits of 1876 and 1888.

Hank Sheinkopf, president of Sheinkopf Communications and an adviser to Bill Clinton in 1996, warns that such a split “is anything but impossible.” While he gives Obama a slight edge in the general election “because he doesn’t have George Bush riding with him,” he predicts that “Obama’s going to get big votes for a Democrat in the Southern states but not enough to win any new electoral votes. So it’s a distinct possibility that he could lose the entire South, split the Midwest” and end up not as president but rather as the second coming of Al Gore. When asked the odds of this playing out, he offers “50-50.”

Devine points out that Bush’s strategy in 2004 “was predicated on massive base turnout” that pushed up margins in safe states. He doesn’t “expect the McCain campaign to be directed the same way — using issues like gay marriage on the ballot to get the base to the polls — so McCain won’t have the same forces at play to drive out the popular vote.”

Recalling the impact of Ralph Nader’s third-party run in 2000, Devine also wonders if Bob Barr’s Libertarian run might play out differently, costing McCain popular — but not electoral — votes, while producing another popular-electoral split.

Lloyd M. Green, who served as research counsel to George Bush in 1988, also rates Obama a slight favorite and predicts that, if the Democrat does win, he’ll do so with “even larger margins in New York and California than in the last several elections [in 2004, Kerry won the two states by a combined margin of a little more than 2.5 million votes], and yet with all that margin run-up in safe states, this will end up a tight general election.”

In a sentiment also expressed by Sheinkopf and Green, Devine sees little chance of this happening if Obama wins the popular vote by more than 4 points. “But if he gets it by 2 or 3 points, it is plausible," he said. "Absolutely.”

Green, who sees “about a 20 percent chance” of Obama winning the popular vote while losing the Electoral College, doesn’t expect anything resembling a blowout: “Given that the only clear and clean majorities [since 1992] were in 1996 and 2004, ... this election will have the ferocity of all recent elections.” It’s a tough trend to buck, he argued, noting that “Americans traditionally change their religious affiliations more often than their party affiliations.”

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Actually, whomod, you were the one who described the type of activity contemplated by Obama as "criminal."

Of course, that was when McCain was doing it.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

What a difference being the Republican nominee makes [to whomod]

I, personally, have no problem with either Obama or McCain eschewing public funding of their campaigns since, you know, I believe in free speech.

G-Man do you even pay attention to the stuff you yourself post?

Here, let me explain it to you.

If you go into the public finance system on account of needing funds to keep your candidacy alive, you can't later, when things are going better for you, decide to just drop out of it. It's not a revolving door.

that is what McCain did. Obama, never needing for funds, never went into the public financing system thus this issue doesn't apply to him in any way. Despite you trying (very badly) to confuse the issue.

look whomod, this isnt Obama's first lie, it wont be his last, don't sweat it....

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

look whomod, this isnt Obama's first lie, it wont be his last, don't sweat it....

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." - George W. Bush

at least you agree they are no different.....

Originally Posted By: whomod

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Actually, whomod, you were the one who described the type of activity contemplated by Obama as "criminal."

Of course, that was when McCain was doing it.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

What a difference being the Republican nominee makes [to whomod]

I, personally, have no problem with either Obama or McCain eschewing public funding of their campaigns since, you know, I believe in free speech.

but he's black and muslim and he has a christian pastor who controls his mind!

Hey, Ray's starting to get it.

The first ad of the general election is on the air. We're told it's on running on t.v. stations in 18 states: Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Virginia. Interesting combination.

Bush won fourteen of the states on that list -- all except Michigan, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Those other fourteen have been red states -- John McCain really, really needs to win all of them. This year, they're all in play.

Originally Posted By: whomod

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

look whomod, this isnt Obama's first lie, it wont be his last, don't sweat it....

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." - George W. Bush

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

at least you agree they are no different.....

Or you could compare it to Clinton's lies too.

Clinton's Lies = 0 dead.
Bush's lies = 4000+ Americans dead.

Obama's "lies"

= 0 Americans dead.
Bush's lies = 4000+ Americans dead.

Originally Posted By: whomod

The first ad of the general election is on the air...

I don't think that's really Obama, whomod.

51% to 36% among registered voters!!

The last time this poll was taken they were tied 46% to 46%

Quote:

CAMPAIGN 2008
Barack’s Bounce

The latest NEWSWEEK Poll shows the Democrat with a 15-point lead over McCain.

Barack finally has his bounce. For weeks many political experts and pollsters have been wondering why the race between Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain had stayed so tight, even after the Illinois senator wrested the nomination from Hillary Clinton. With numbers consistently showing rock-bottom approval ratings for President Bush and a large majority of Americans unhappy with the country's direction, the opposing-party candidate should, in the normal course, have attracted more disaffected voters. Now it looks as if Obama is doing just that. A new NEWSWEEK Poll shows that he has a substantial double-digit lead, 51 percent to 36 percent, over McCain among registered voters nationwide.

In the previous NEWSWEEK Poll, completed in late May when Clinton was still fighting him hard for the Democratic nomination, Obama managed no better than a 46 percent tie with McCain. But as pollster Larry Hugick points out, that may have had a lot to do with all the mutual mudslinging going on between the two Democrats. By contrast, in recent weeks Clinton has not only endorsed Obama but has made plans to campaign with him. "They were in a pitched battle, and that's going to impact things. Now that we've gotten away from that period, this is the kind of bounce they've been talking about," said Hugick.

The latest numbers on voter dissatisfaction suggest that Obama may enjoy more than one bounce. The new poll finds that only 14 percent of Americans say they are satisfied with the direction of the country. That matches the previous low point on this measure recorded in June 1992, when a brief recession contributed to Bill Clinton's victory over Bush's father, incumbent George H.W. Bush. Overall, voters see Obama as the preferred agent of "change" by a margin of 51 percent to 27 percent. Younger voters, in particular, are more likely to see Obama that way: those 18 to 39 favor the Illinois senator by 66 percent to 27 percent. The two candidates are statistically tied among older voters.

Pollster.com's collected regional polls also finds the same trend.

buh bye Mcain!

Originally Posted By: Captain Sammitch

There might be hope for the U.S afterall.

Originally Posted By: whomod

51% to 36% among registered voters!!

The last time this poll was taken they were tied 46% to 46%

Quote:

Pollster.com's collected regional polls also finds the same trend.

buh bye Mcain!

Originally Posted By: Captain Sammitch

Originally Posted By: Wank&Cry

There might be hope for the U.S afterall.

isn't this the part where sammitch comes in and declares that the poll was taken out of context?

Originally Posted By: Captain Sammitch

Originally Posted By: whomod

51% to 36% among registered voters!!

The last time this poll was taken they were tied 46% to 46%

isn't this the part where sammitch comes in and declares that the poll was taken out of context?

Mark Hemingway

Looking at the the pollster.com and RCP polling averages I see that not a single other poll has Obama up by anything more than six. That's quite the outlier. And Newsweek's methodology here seems highly suspect — 1010 people polled, and the bulk of that is 896 registered voters, comprised of 324 Democrats vs.231 Republicans, with the remainder indpendent.

Compare that to the latest reults from other polls. USA TODAY/Gallup poll of 1310 likely voters (a higher pollster standard than registered voters) which has Obama up by six. Rasmussen polled 3000 likely voters and has Obama up by four.

Make no mistake about it, McCain is behind Obama in the polls — but come on. This Newsweek poll sure looks aberrant, and for other Newsweek and especially other organizations like Reuters to parrot the results sans context is ridiculous.

plus so many things can happen from now until November that quite honestly it doesn't mean diddly.

Originally Posted By: The New Adventures of Old PJP

plus so many things can happen from now until November that quite honestly it doesn't mean diddly.

Yeah. I have a feeling that, if I started searching old threads from 2004, I'd find a lot of posts by whomod from the summer of that year, trumpeting one poll or another showing Kerry beating Bush.

Dukakis had almost a 20 point lead at one point right after the dem convention over Bush 41. But in the end the world wasn't ready for a Greek president.

Factcheck.org:

Obama announced he would become the first presidential candidate since 1972 to rely totally on private donations for his general election campaign, opting out of the system of public financing and spending limits that was put in place after the Watergate scandal.

One reason, he said, is that "John McCain's campaign and the Republican National Committee are fueled by contributions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs."

We find that to be a large exaggeration and a lame excuse. In fact, donations from PACs and lobbyists make up less than 1.7 percent of McCain's total receipts, and they account for only about 1.1 percent of the RNC's receipts.

Oopsie.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/2008062...MjTcSjwb.as0NUE

Quote:

Sen. Barack Obama's announcement Thursday that he won't participate in the public financing system for this fall's general election was no big surprise. He has been telegraphing the move for months. But it is disappointing nevertheless, particularly for a candidate who claims to be running as a reformer and a different kind of politician.

In this case, Obama is choosing to be different by becoming the first presidential candidate to spurn public financing since Richard Nixon's excesses led to its creation. That's not the sort of change voters expected when he pledged last fall to "aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election."

But that was then, and this is now. Obama has become a remarkably effective money raiser who has will take public money instead of private donations for the general election. Obama's "aggressive" pursuit of an agreement with McCain appears to have consisted of little more than a single meeting between aides for the two campaigns.

Despite the Democrat's earnest rhetoric about declaring independence from a "broken" system and the edge the cash-rich Republican National Committee gives McCain, it's hard to escape the conclusion that Obama's huge financial advantage over McCain is the real reason for his move.

The public system — financed with the voluntary $3 checkoff on tax returns — is far from perfect. But is it broken? Maybe for the primaries, where it provides so little money that almost every major candidate opted out. For the general election, however, it's robust enough to offer each candidate $84.1 million to spend in September and October if he forgoes private donations. Shouldn't that be enough?

Although Obama is being disingenuous about his reasons for opting out of public financing, he gets points for jawboning against the independent groups called "527s," after the section of the tax code they operate under.

Free of the contribution limits that apply to candidates and party committees, the 527s can raise vast sums and coarsen the campaign by smearing rivals in ways the candidates themselves cannot. McCain has said he can't "referee " them. He and Obama should at least try.

Obama likewise deserves credit for raising most of his campaign money from small donors in contributions of less than $200.

He's way ahead of McCain in that respect — but he's hardly the influence-free candidate he styles himself as. One-third of his money comes from the sort of big donors and bundlers whose influence public financing is designed to lessen.

Obama's pledge to reform the campaign-finance system after he gets elected reminds us of St. Augustine's famous prayer: "Lord, make me chaste — but not yet."

Real reformers don't do it just when it's convenient. The best way for Obama to support public financing is not to fix it later, but to participate in it now.

Obama was for public campaign financing before he was against it!

http://www.suntimes.com/news/commentary/1018070,CST-EDT-edit22a.article

Quote:

There are a number of firsts to be proud of in Barack Obama's presidential campaign.

But the candidate's recent decision to reject $84 million in public financing for the general election, and the spending limits that come with it, isn't one of them.

Obama's announcement finalized the backpedaling his campaign had done for months on the issue.

Last year, Obama, the reformer, made his position clear. In a questionnaire on campaign financing, he wrote: "If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election."

That was at the end of a nearly 200-word statement about his belief in the public financing of campaigns "as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests."

In short, if John McCain agreed to public financing in the general election, so would Obama.

All fine sentiments.

But that was before it became crystal clear that Obama and his savvy staff have a prodigious talent for raking in the bucks, from the hordes of small contributors e-mailing him money to high-rollers looking to back a winner to the White House. And before it became crystal clear what a disadvantage it would be for Obama to limit himself to spending the same amount of money as his challenger in the general election.

So now Obama, the insanely good fund-raiser, has flip-flopped, saying that the system is broken and he can't allow his Republican opponents to spend millions of dollars through independent groups to smear him.

He's right about that weakness in the system. The only problem with his argument is that Democrats can take advantage of the same loopholes and seem better positioned to do so this election season.

We judge our politicians by their willingness to stand tall on their long-held principles, even when it inconveniences them.

Obama has passed that test time and again.

He has set the bar high.

But in the end, his past performance serves only to spotlight how brilliantly he has failed this time.

Yeah this is Obama being just like most political types. He's for whatever helps him win. Public financing sounded good a year ago, now it's broken! He couldn't even be sincere in his reasons for flip flopping.

When did it become bad to change ones mind?

i think when one supports a certain position until the opposite position favors them is the issue, especially when you are running as an idealist.

Yeah. It's one thing to legitimately change one's mind in response to a new set of circumstances and new challenges. It's quite another to realize that the rules you supported no longer benefit you and then dump them on a flimsy premise.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/opinio...gin&oref=slogin

Quote:

God, Republicans are saps. They think that they’re running against some academic liberal who wouldn’t wear flag pins on his lapel, whose wife isn’t proud of America and who went to some liberationist church where the pastor damned his own country. They think they’re running against some naïve university-town dreamer, the second coming of Adlai Stevenson.

But as recent weeks have made clear, Barack Obama is the most split-personality politician in the country today. On the one hand, there is Dr. Barack, the high-minded, Niebuhr-quoting speechifier who spent this past winter thrilling the Scarlett Johansson set and feeling the fierce urgency of now. But then on the other side, there’s Fast Eddie Obama, the promise-breaking, tough-minded Chicago pol who’d throw you under the truck for votes.

This guy is the whole Chicago package: an idealistic, lakefront liberal fronting a sharp-elbowed machine operator. He’s the only politician of our lifetime who is underestimated because he’s too intelligent. He speaks so calmly and polysyllabically that people fail to appreciate the Machiavellian ambition inside.

But he’s been giving us an education, for anybody who cares to pay attention. Just try to imagine Mister Rogers playing the agent Ari in “Entourage” and it all falls into place.

Back when he was in the Illinois State Senate, Dr. Barack could have taken positions on politically uncomfortable issues. But Fast Eddie Obama voted “present” nearly 130 times. From time to time, he threw his voting power under the truck.

Dr. Barack said he could no more disown the Rev. Jeremiah Wright than disown his own grandmother. Then the political costs of Rev. Wright escalated and Fast Eddie Obama threw Wright under the truck.

Dr. Barack could have been a workhorse senator. But primary candidates don’t do tough votes, so Fast Eddie Obama threw the workhorse duties under the truck.

Dr. Barack could have changed the way presidential campaigning works. John McCain offered to have a series of extended town-hall meetings around the country. But favored candidates don’t go in for unscripted free-range conversations. Fast Eddie Obama threw the new-politics mantra under the truck.

And then on Thursday, Fast Eddie Obama had his finest hour. Barack Obama has worked on political reform more than any other issue. He aspires to be to political reform what Bono is to fighting disease in Africa. He’s spent much of his career talking about how much he believes in public financing. In January 2007, he told Larry King that the public-financing system works. In February 2007, he challenged Republicans to limit their spending and vowed to do so along with them if he were the nominee. In February 2008, he said he would aggressively pursue spending limits. He answered a Midwest Democracy Network questionnaire by reminding everyone that he has been a longtime advocate of the public-financing system.

But Thursday, at the first breath of political inconvenience, Fast Eddie Obama threw public financing under the truck. In so doing, he probably dealt a death-blow to the cause of campaign-finance reform. And the only thing that changed between Thursday and when he lauded the system is that Obama’s got more money now.

And Fast Eddie Obama didn’t just sell out the primary cause of his life. He did it with style. He did it with a video so risibly insincere that somewhere down in the shadow world, Lee Atwater is gaping and applauding. Obama blamed the (so far marginal) Republican 527s. He claimed that private donations are really public financing. He made a cut-throat political calculation seem like Mother Teresa’s final steps to sainthood.

The media and the activists won’t care (they were only interested in campaign-finance reform only when the Republicans had more money). Meanwhile, Obama’s money is forever. He’s got an army of small donors and a phalanx of big money bundlers, including, according to The Washington Post, Kenneth Griffin of the Citadel Investment Group; Kirk Wager, a Florida trial lawyer; James Crown, a director of General Dynamics; and Neil Bluhm, a hotel, office and casino developer.

I have to admit, I’m ambivalent watching all this. On the one hand, Obama did sell out the primary cause of his professional life, all for a tiny political advantage. If he’ll sell that out, what won’t he sell out? On the other hand, global affairs ain’t beanbag. If we’re going to have a president who is going to go toe to toe with the likes of Vladimir Putin, maybe it is better that he should have a ruthlessly opportunist Fast Eddie Obama lurking inside.

All I know for sure is that this guy is no liberal goo-goo. Republicans keep calling him naïve. But naïve is the last word I’d use to describe Barack Obama. He’s the most effectively political creature we’ve seen in decades. Even Bill Clinton wasn’t smart enough to succeed in politics by pretending to renounce politics.

From the PBS News Hour, Friday, June 20th:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june08/sbdrilling_06-20.html

JUDY WOODRUFF: And to the analysis of Shields and Brooks. That's syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.

Gentlemen, good to see you both.

Presidential candidates, both of them this week changed their position on two pretty important things.

Let's start with Obama, Mark, deciding that he is going to opt out of public financing after saying a year ago that he was going to take public financing for his campaign. What do you make of the argument?

MARK SHIELDS: Judy, Barack Obama made history this week. He became the first presidential nominee since Richard Nixon in 1972 to state that his campaign will be funded totally by private donations with no limits on spending.

It was a flip-flop of epic proportions. It was one that he could not rationalize or justify. His video was unconvincing. He looked like someone who was being kept as a hostage somewhere he was so absolutely unconvincing in it. It could not have passed a polygraph test.

I mean, coming up with this bogus argument the Republicans have so much more money -- the Republicans don't have so much more money. He's raised three times as much as John McCain has.

He has every possible committee, except Republican National Committee, Democrats at the Senate level, congressional level have this lopsided edge over Republicans. They spent three times as much, did Democratic leaning 527s, in the last election as did Republicans.

So what Obama didn't admit was, up until February of this year, when he told Tim Russert that not only would he aggressively seek an agreement on public financing, that he personally would sit down with John McCain and work it out, then, all of a sudden, they realized that all these small contributions were coming in and he was going to have a financial advantage in the fall against the Republican, and they grabbed it.

And that's what the Democrat panelist had to say !

And...

JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, David, would it have helped Obama if he had just come out and said, "Look, I think I'm raising more money, and I'm raising small contributions, and I've just changed my mind?"

DAVID BROOKS, columnist, New York Times: It would have at least been honest, as opposed to sort of operatic, which that video was. He treated it as if some noble decision to finalize democracy. It was ludicrous.

I do think it's the low point of the Obama candidacy, and I think it for this reason. His entire career he has put political reform at the center of it. In the Illinois legislature, in the Senate, political reform has been the essence of who he has been. And so for him to betray this, to sell out this issue, what won't he sell out?

And it really reveals something about his conscience. It reveals that he has this idealistic side, which is a serious policy side, but he also has a tough Machiavellian side, a political hack side, and he wants to win.

And so, in some ways, this is terrible because it's epic hypocrisy. In some ways, if you want a tough SOB to be your president, he's shown he is a tough S.O.B.

From here on out, he will be able to spend gobs of money in Georgia, all over the country, and force McCain to campaign with money he doesn't have.

OBAMA FOREGOES PUBLIC FINANCING

JUDY WOODRUFF: So does this hurt him politically?

DAVID BROOKS: Well, I do think it's a window into his conscience. Now, if I was a political consultant without a conscience and I was advising him what to do, I suppose I'd advise him to do this, because, from here on out, he will be able to spend gobs of money in Georgia, all over the country, and force McCain to campaign with money he doesn't have.

So, in a narrow political sense, it's a smart thing to do.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Does this register with voters?

MARK SHIELDS: Well, Judy, put it this way, just to enlarge on David's point. It gives him a tactical advantage in this campaign.

Right now, Barack Obama's campaign is advertising in Georgia, and North Carolina, in Indiana, in North Dakota, in Colorado, in Georgia, David mentioned, in states -- Virginia -- where the Republicans have nearly owned the states politically and presidentially for the past quarter-century. And it forces John McCain with limited resources to try and defend those states. So it gives you a real big advantage.

Historically, voters have not said on campaign financing -- they haven't been nearly as interested. It's probably one of the arguments against it on Capitol Hill and elsewhere. Voters don't care. It's a reform issue.

But I really do think that Obama has made this so central to his mission, which is, "I'm going to change Washington, and you can't change Washington until you change the money, until you change the way we raise the money and who we raise it from." And he just basically went back on that.

And I think, in that sense, it can become a character issue against him, and I think that's potentially a problem.

John McCain is no plaster saint on this issue. McCain opted into public financing to get a bank loan, private bank loan for his campaign during the primaries, and then, as soon as money started to come in, he pulled out of public financing.

DAVID BROOKS: But McCain wouldn't have done this. When the chips are down and McCain faced the crucial issue of his career, which was backing the surge, he backed the surge thinking it would cost him the presidency.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Troops in Iraq.

DAVID BROOKS: On a core issue of character, I do not believe McCain will bend. He'll bend on all this other stuff he doesn't care about, but Obama did bend on a core issue of his conscience.

MARK SHIELDS: Well, bending is...

JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, Obama...

MARK SHIELDS: ... You tell me what the core issues of character, what they bend on. I mean, John has been quite flexible. And I do think John McCain has got a lot more political capital fighting for campaign finance reform than the Democrats have, because their constituency is far more disposed to it than is John McCain's.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Originally Posted By: The New Adventures of Old PJP

plus so many things can happen from now until November that quite honestly it doesn't mean diddly.

Yeah. I have a feeling that, if I started searching old threads from 2004, I'd find a lot of posts by whomod from the summer of that year, trumpeting one poll or another showing Kerry beating Bush.

Gallup Poll I saw yesterday on CBS News had Obama ahead by only 2 points 46% to 44%.

Top 10 Concerns about Barack Obama

1. Barack Obama’s foreign policy is dangerous, naïve, and betrays a profound misreading of history.
Warning, Spoiler:
For at least the past five years, Democrats and liberals have said our standing in the international community has suffered from a “cowboy” or “go-it-alone” foreign policy. While politicians with favorable views of our president have been elected in Germany, Italy, France, and elsewhere, Barack Obama is giving cause to make our allies even more nervous. This past Sunday’s Washington Post reported, “European officials are increasingly concerned that Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign pledge to begin direct talks with Iran on its nuclear program without preconditions could potentially rupture U.S. relations with key European allies early in a potential Obama administration.”

Barack Obama’s stance toward Iran is as troubling as it is dangerous. By stating and maintaining that he would negotiate with Iran, “without preconditions,” and within his first year of office, he will give credibility to, and reward for his intransigence, the head of state of the world’s chief sponsor of terrorism. Such a meeting will also undermine and send the exact wrong signal to Iranian dissidents. And, he will lower the prestige of the office of the president: In his own words he stated, “If we think that meeting with the president is a privilege that has to be earned, I think that reinforces the sense that we stand above the rest of the world at this point in time.” Not only has his stance toward Iran caused concern among our allies in Europe, U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton called it, “Irresponsible and frankly naïve.”

Barack Obama’s position on negotiating with U.S. enemies betrays a profound misreading of history. In justifying his position that he would meet with Iran without precondition and in his first year of office, Barack Obama has said, “That is what Kennedy did with Khrushchev; that’s what Nixon did with Mao; what Reagan did with Gorbachev.”

In reverse order, Ronald Reagan met with no Soviet leader during the entirety of his first term in office, not (ever) with Brezhnev, not (ever) with Andropov, not (ever) with Chernenko. He met only with Gorbachev, and after he was assured Gorbachev was a different kind of Soviet leader — and after Perestroika, not before.

If Barack Obama wants to affiliate with Richard Nixon, that’s certainly his call. But one question: Was Taiwan’s expulsion from the U.N. worth “Nixon to China”? That was the price of that meeting.

As for the Kennedy-Khrushchev summit of 1961, Kennedy himself said “He beat the hell out of me.” As two experts recently wrote in the New York Times: “Paul Nitze, the assistant secretary of defense, said the meeting was ‘just a disaster.’ Khrushchev’s aide, after the first day, said the American president seemed ‘very inexperienced, even immature.’ Khrushchev agreed, noting that the youthful Kennedy was ‘too intelligent and too weak.’ The Soviet leader left Vienna elated — and with a very low opinion of the leader of the free world.”

So successful was the summit that the Berlin Wall was erected later that year and the Cuban Missile Crisis, with Soviets deploying nuclear missiles in Cuba, commenced the following year.

2. Barack Obama’s Iraq policy will hand al-Qaeda a victory and undercut our entire position in the Middle East, while at the same time put a huge source of oil in the hands of terrorists.
Warning, Spoiler:
Barack Obama brags on his website that “In January 2007, he introduced legislation in the Senate to remove all of our combat troops from Iraq by March 2008.” His website further states that “Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months.” This, at the very time our greatest successes in Iraq have taken place. And yet, as Gen. David Petraeus has stated (along with other military experts from Michael O’Hanlon at the Brookings Institution to members of the U.S. military), our progress in Iraq is “fragile and reversible.”

Obama’s post-invasion analysis of Iraq is anything but credible or consistent, leading one to even greater doubt about his strategy as commander-in-chief. When President Bush announced the surge strategy in January 2007, Barack Obama opposed it, saying it “would not prove to be one that changes the dynamics significantly,” and that “the President’s strategy will not work.” Of course, the surge is one of the greatest achievements in Iraq since the initial months of the invasion, and is has reversed much of the loss suffered since the invasion.

Beyond these miscalculations and poor judgment on Iraq strategy, Obama has been anything but consistent on Iraq. For example, the same year (2007) he stated it would be a good idea to bring home the U.S. troops from Iraq within March of 2008, three months later he stated, we should bring them home “immediately…. Not in six months or one year — now.”

3. Barack Obama has sent mixed, confusing, and inconsistent messages on his policy toward Israel.
Warning, Spoiler:
Earlier this month, Barack Obama told an audience at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.” The next day, Obama backtracked, stating: “Obviously, it’s [Jerusalem] going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues…And Jerusalem will be part of the negotiations.” Later, Obama’s Middle East adviser tried to explain the flipping of positions on Jerusalem by stating Obama did not understand what he was saying to AIPAC: “[h]e used a word to represent what he did not want to see again, and then realized afterwards that that word is a code word in the Middle East.”

Such quick switches of policy may stem from mere inexperience or they may stem from a general tone-deafness on the meaning of words and policy when it comes to the Middle East. After all, earlier this year, a leading Hamas official endorsed Barack Obama stating, “I do believe [Obama] is like John Kennedy, a great man with a great principle. And he has a vision to change America to make it in a position to lead the world community, but not with humiliation and arrogance.” Rather than immediately renouncing such an endorsement, Obama’s chief political strategist, David Axelrod, embraced the endorsement, saying “We all agree that John Kennedy was a great president, and it’s flattering when anybody says that Barack Obama would follow in his footsteps.” Given Barack Obama’s long-standing ties to Palestinian activists in the U.S., one has good cause to wonder.

4. While his Mideast policy may have been the quickest turnaround or flip-flop on a major issue, it is not the only one.
Warning, Spoiler:
In the primary campaign, Barack Obama consistently campaigned against NAFTA, but has now changed his tune, as he has with other issues. During the primary, Obama sent out a campaign flier that said “Only Barack Obama consistently opposed NAFTA,” and called it a “bad trade deal.” He also said NAFTA was “devastating,” “a big mistake,” and in what the Washington Post labeled as a unilateral threat to withdraw from NAFTA, Obama said “I think we should use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage.”

No longer. Recently, Barack Obama backtracked on NAFTA and said, “I’m not a big believer in doing things unilaterally.” “I’m a big believer in opening up a dialogue and figuring out how we can make this work for all people.” He explained his primary campaign opposition this way: “Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified.”

This is of a piece with his further change of position on public campaign financing. As a primary candidate, he touted his support for the public financing of presidential campaigns, but then witnessing his own fundraising prowess, as a general election candidate he has gone the unique route of forswearing the system. As David Brooks put it in the New York Times:

Barack Obama has worked on political reform more than any other issue. He aspires to be to political reform what Bono is to fighting disease in Africa. He’s spent much of his career talking about how much he believes in public financing. In January 2007, he told Larry King that the public-financing system works. In February 2007, he challenged Republicans to limit their spending and vowed to do so along with them if he were the nominee. In February 2008, he said he would aggressively pursue spending limits. He answered a Midwest Democracy Network questionnaire by reminding everyone that he has been a longtime advocate of the public-financing system. But Thursday, at the first breath of political inconvenience, Fast Eddie Obama threw public financing under the truck.

5. Barack Obama’s judgment about personal and professional affiliations is more than troubling.
Warning, Spoiler:
On March 18, after several clips of sermons by his longtime friend and pastor Jeremiah Wright surfaced (showing Wright condemning the United States with vitriolic comparisons and denunciations), Obama defended his friend stating: “I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother.” After Rev. Wright delivered two more talks along the same lines as the clips that led to the March 18 speech, Sen. Obama finally denounced Wright the following month, stating: “His comments were not only divisive and destructive, but I believe that they end up giving comfort to those who prey on hate, and I believe that they do not portray accurately the perspective of the black church.” “They certainly don’t portray accurately my values and beliefs,” he said.

It strained credulity to believe Obama was unaware of Wright’s previous rants — especially after a 20-year membership in Wright’s church, especially when in February of last year Obama asked Wright not to attend his campaign announcement because he “could get kind of rough in sermons,” and especially when his church’s magazine honored on its front cover such a man as Louis Farrakhan. Nonetheless, once he ceased being a political asset and turned into a political liability, Obama dumped him.

Jeremiah Wright is, of course, not the only person close to Barack Obama who holds vitriolic anti-American views. Bill Ayers was a founding member of the Weather Underground. According to his own memoir, Ayers participated in the bombings of New York City Police Headquarters in 1970, of the Capitol building in 1971, the Pentagon in 1972. As recently as 2001, Ayers said “I don’t regret setting bombs….I feel we didn’t do enough.’’ When asked if he would engage in such terrorism again, Ayers responded: “I don’t want to discount the possibility.” When confronted with his friendship with Bill Ayers, Barack Obama dismissed the negative connections saying he is also friendly with abortion opponent U.S. Senator Tom Coburn. While Obama has never, himself, discussed his relationship with Ayers, what we do know is that Ayers hosted a fundraiser for Obama in his home and, according to the Los Angeles Times:

Obama and Ayers moved in some of the same political and social circles in the leafy liberal enclave of Hyde Park, where they lived several blocks apart. In the mid-1990s, when Obama was running for the Illinois Senate, Ayers introduced Obama during a political event at his home, according to Obama’s aides….

Obama and Ayers met a dozen times as members of the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago, a local grant-making foundation, according to the group’s president. They appeared together to discuss juvenile justice on a 1997 panel sponsored by the University of Chicago, records show. They appeared again in 2002 at an academic panel co-sponsored by the Chicago Public Library.

6. Obama is simply out of step with how terrorists should be handled; he would turn back the clock on how we fight terrorism, using the failed strategy of the 1990s as opposed to the post-9/11 strategy that has kept us safe.
Warning, Spoiler:
The most recent example is his support for the Supreme Court decision granting habeas-corpus rights to terrorists, including — theoretically — Osama bin Laden. When the 5-4 Supreme Court decision was delivered, Obama said, “I think the Supreme Court was right.” His campaign advisers held a conference call where they claimed the Supreme Court decision was “no big deal” according to ABC News, even if applied to Osama bin Laden, because a judge would find that the U.S. has “ample grounds to hold him.”

In a recent interview, Obama stated: “What we know is that, in previous terrorist attacks — for example, the first attack against the World Trade Center, we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial. They are currently in U.S. prisons, incapacitated. And the fact that the administration has not tried to do that has created a situation where not only have we never actually put many of these folks on trial, but we have destroyed our credibility when it comes to rule of law all around the world, and given a huge boost to terrorist recruitment in countries that say, ‘Look, this is how the United States treats Muslims.’”

Ask the legal officials during the 1990s just how cowed terrorists were by our continued indictments against them. Or, witness the bombings at the African embassies, the attack on the USS Cole, or the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. Now, ask yourself why we have not been attacked since 9/11, and, even more specifically, why there have been no successful attacks against American civilian interests abroad since 2004.

7. Barack Obama’s economic policies would hurt the economy.
Warning, Spoiler:
As Kimberly Strassel recently put it in the Wall Street Journal: “Mr. Obama is hawking a tax policy that would take the nation back to the effective marginal tax rates of the Carter days. He wants to further tax income, payroll, capital gains, dividends and death. His philosophy is pure redistribution.”

When Barack Obama speaks of taxing only the wealthy, keep in mind this could have a devastating effect on new small businesses. As Irwin Stelzer has written: “Taxes change behavior. By raising rates on upper income payers, Obama is reducing their incentive to work and take risks. The income tax increase is not all that he has in mind for them. He plans to increase their payroll taxes, the taxes they pay on dividends received and capital gains earned, and on any transfers they might have in mind to their kith and kin when they shuffle off this mortal coil. If the aggregate of these additional taxes substantially diminishes incentives to set up a small business of the sort that has created most of the new jobs in recent decades, the $1,000 tax rebate will be more than offset by the consequences of reduced growth and new business formation.”

8. Barack Obama opposes drilling on and offshore to reduce gas and oil prices.
Warning, Spoiler:
While Barack Obama has opposed off-shore drilling and a gas-tax holiday (as supported by John McCain or Hillary Clinton), his solution to our energy crisis does include additional tax burdens on oil company profits, taxes we can only imagine will be passed on to the consumer, thus causing an even more expensive trip to the gas station. As the New York Times recently detailed, ethanol subsidies are a major plank in Barack Obama’s view of energy independence and national security; the “Obama Camp is Closely Linked with Ethanol,” and “Mr. Obama…favors [ethanol] subsidies, some of which end up in the hands of the same oil companies he says should be subjected to a windfall profits tax.”

9. Barack Obama is to the left of Hillary Clinton and NARAL on the issue of life.
Warning, Spoiler:
As a state senator in Illinois, Barack Obama voted against the Induced Infant Liability Act, a law that would have protected babies if they survived an attempted abortion and were delivered alive. When a similar bill was proposed in the United States Senate, it passed unanimously and even the National Abortion Rights Action League issued a statement saying they did not oppose the law.

10. Barack Obama is actually to the left of every member of the U.S. Senate.
Warning, Spoiler:
According to the National Journal, “Sen. Barack Obama…was the most liberal senator in 2007.” As the magazine reported: “The ratings system — devised in 1981 under the direction of William Schneider, a political analyst and commentator, and a contributing editor to National Journal — also assigns ‘composite’ scores, an average of the members’ issue-based scores. In 2007, Obama’s composite liberal score of 95.5 was the highest in the Senate. Rounding out the top five most liberal senators last year were Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D., R.I.), with a composite liberal score of 94.3; Joseph Biden (D., Del.), with a 94.2; Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.), with a 93.7; and Robert Menendez (D., N.J.), with a 92.8.”

Whom will a man this far left appoint to the Supreme Court?

From what I've observed, Obama's loyal flock of sheep are immune to the facts, G-man.

And just jump into "you're just a racist, you just don't like him because he's black" mode any time you offer the facts to them.

Has anyone noticed, beyond the socialist domestic policies Obama offers, how even his poster-images and logos are replacement symbols for national symbols?

Again re-inforcing the notion that Obama plans to replace American democracy with something far more leftist and sinister.

Not since the days of National Socialism, Lenin and Stalin have we seen such party symbols, where a party has its own replacement symbols and flag for national institutions.

I don't think its sinister or leftist, as much as it's Obama trying to strike a delicate balance with those symbols.

His core supporters-including his wife and former minister-are from the "blame America first" crowd, the people who view our flag as "jingoistic" or "racist." So he doesn't want to risk offending them by decking himself out in the traditional symbols of patriotism. At the same time, he needed to come up with symbols that would look, at a quick glance, like something the mainstream would expect from a candidate.

Unfortunately for him, his latest attempts have been roundly ridiculed, so now he's thrown them, along with so many other things, under the bus.

Indeed. They were ridiculed by the public, and quickly disowned by Obama.

And they were made to appeal to his un-American constituency, who want to vomit at the sight of anything patriotic.

I see them as replacement symbols, as the Nazi and Soviet symbols were replacements for symbols of Russian and German state institutions. And whether that is truly sinister, or simply reminiscent of something historically sinister, the symbolism is the same regardless.

The adaptations of these symbols are reminiscent of Nazi badges for the German Workers Front, German Students Union, Hitler Youth, Women's League, German Railroad Officials, and so forth.

If anything, I think it was clumsy act that displayed a certain overconfidence in his electability.

Don't get me wrong, there's a good chance he'll be our next president (God help us all), but it's not a done deal by any stretch.

Especially if his supporters turn out to be as skilled at managing a general election as they are at raiding message boards.

I'm concerned that Obama will try and steal my Lucky Charms.

Originally Posted By: Captain Sammitch

Seig Heil !

Oh, excuse me. Si se puede !

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Isn't that the truth !

Short of Bill Clinton in 1992, I've never seen a candidate with so many strikes against him as Obama. And there isn't a Ross Perot to take 19% of the Republican vote this time out.

I'd agree the pseudo-presidential symbols were an arrogant over-reach by the Obama-ites. And it's gratifying to see those symbols so thoroughly rejected. It hopefully shakes the faith of Obama's true believers.

Here's some great comments on the Obama symbols from Hot Air

I found this both hard to fully grasp (I suppose like Physics is to people that aren't so inclined as I) and rather frustrating to read.

Taken from http://www.counterpunch.org

Quote:

Obama's Rightward Lurch

By GREGORY KAFOURY

Barack Obama arrived on the political scene with a smile as beautiful as salvation itself, like a visitor from an idealized future, one where the races have combined to a golden hue, sent here to show us the way. Of course people fell in love with him. Yet now we see Obama drawn into the great room where the Democratic/Corporate establishment dwells, and the door is slowly closing behind him. This is not how it was supposed to be.

Obama has just opted out of public financing, the first presidential candidate to do so since 1972. NewsHour’s Mark Shields, keeper of the flame for all that is good in the Democratic Party, called it "a flip-flop of epic proportions,” noting that Obama’s argument about a GOP financial advantage was "bogus." Shields even said it raised issues of Obama's "character." The New York Times editorialized that 2008 may now be "the year public financing died." In seizing a tactical advantage, Obama has handed an enormous strategic victory to corporate power.

Many progressives will argue that Obama, having raised huge amounts from small contributors, is akin to getting public financing, which liberates the candidate from dependence on corporate support. Yet just the opposite is happening. In the three weeks since Hillary Clinton fell upon her sword, Obama has lurched far to the right. Consider:

- Obama announced a new financial team of supply-side economists led by Jason Furman, famous for declaring that it would be "damaging to working people" if Wal-Mart were to raise its wages and benefits. Obama had recently criticized Clinton for serving on the Wal-Mart board, declaring, "I won't shop there." In the Audacity of Hope, he sympathized with “Wal-Mart associates who hold their breath every single month in the hope they’ll have enough money to support their children.”

-When questioned in a Fortune interview about his promise to renegotiate NAFTA to protect workers and the environment, Obama replied, "Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified."

- In a close congressional primary race in Georgia, Obama endorsed a troglodyte incumbent – a “Bush enabler” – over an exemplary progressive insurgent.

- In a speech to the Israeli lobby, he moved to the right of Israel’s government by ruling out negotiations with Hamas. A day earlier, Obama had told Cuban exile groups that he would only sit down with Raul Castro if the exiles had a seat at the table, a precondition that Cuba will never agree to.

- Obama refused to criticize recent Israeli war maneuvers and accompanying threats to launch massive air attacks on Iran. He failed to even urge restraint.

- Just as a move was growing in the Senate to strip the House-passed Telecom bill of its immunity provisions, Obama declared his support for the House version. Obama's opposition to immunity had been our best hope to learn whose phones and emails had been wiretapped by the Bush administration, and to punish those Telecom companies that assisted this massive criminal enterprise.

Is he lost to us? Was he ever ours to lose?

Progressives were all too eager to overlook the warning signs in Obama's brief career, his support for the Patriot Act, for nuclear power, his vote against limiting credit card interest to 30%, his calls for increased defense spending, and his equivocation on full withdrawal from Iraq. These decisions were mere matters of political expediency, we were assured, not to be taken seriously.

Yet how can political expediency explain Obama's retreat on NAFTA? Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania are all in play - how many of those voters have been broken on the wheel of NAFTA? Those who contend that the real Obama will suddenly emerge after the election to overturn an imperial foreign policy and to bring justice to the home front, might be advised not to hold their breath.

Obama desperately needs pressure from the left, and he is amenable to pressure. Once we on the left agree that this analysis is correct, then we must choose the correct strategy.

So far, blind support of Obama has yielded the same kind of benefits that we got from John Kerry. With the united left in his pocket, Kerry went from a declared "anti-war" candidate to a thoroughly hawkish one, berating Bush for wimping out in the face of massive civilian casualties in Falluja, and promising to win the Iraq war. Unconditional support for the Democratic nominee is unconditional surrender, with all the utter powerlessness that the terms imply.

As one alternative, we can complain, write and blog, for all these have their place. But we are all too good at talking to ourselves, and disparate efforts without a focus are all too easily dismissed.

We must consider support for Ralph Nader's campaign. Nader has been as high as six percent in recent national polls, something he has achieved with only modest support from left intellectuals, and virtually no recognition by corporate media.

Yet Google has announced its intent to hold at least one presidential debate, and has set the bar at 10% support. It is hard to imagine Obama or McCain snubbing Google, and the prospect of such a debate carries more promise than anything the left has seen in recent memory.

For those who claim that Nader can only hurt Obama, I suggest the opposite is true. Gore and Kerry were both doomed by the accurate perception that they were corporate to the core. People knew in their gut that these guys were not on their side. (In 2004, Kerry fled from a living wage initiative in Florida; it passed nearly three to one.) It must also be remembered that in 2000, when Nader was at 5%, a full 15% believed he was the best candidate. More importantly, Nader's positions are not just majoritarian ones, most enjoy overwhelming public support. Full military and corporate withdrawal from Iraq, major reductions in the defense budget, a crackdown on corporate crime, single-payer health care, massive investment in renewable energy and conservation, a living wage - these would provide a platform that would send Obama to a historic victory, and all are available for the taking.

Those who insist we must work only within the Democratic Party have clearly failed to hold Obama to his promise. We must get outside the box. Obama needs a great big push, and we are the only ones who can give it to him.

Gregory Kafoury is a trial lawyer and political activist in Portland, Oregon. He can be reached at kafoury@kafourymcdougal.com.

also re-directed from:
http://community.livejournal.com/smart_punx/282456.html?style=mine#cutid1
with the personal comment:

Originally Posted By: opticon07

Obama's (and America's) slow and steady swing towards fascism....

[text]

I think I would have been a lot angrier if I hadn't understood the trends leading everything this direction. The transformation into an imperialist, authoritarian police state has been long and steady and is far from over.

Stock up on your lighter fluid and matches, my friends; we'll be burning draft cards before the end of Obama's first term....

Just in case that meand anything to anyone.

Originally Posted By: Uschi

I'm afraid I do not understand that article fully. Political specifics are still alien. For example, I didn't "get" those bullet points.

So the report is indicating hypocritical behavior, yes? That he seems to have questionable intent regarding the information provided on the early campaign trail?

On one hand, that irritates me. I just want to throw up my hands and say, "Now what?" On the other hand, I've known for years that no politician is ever the right person for any political office. They're all trained manipulators, not an honest soul in the lot.

What the hell are we supposed to do here? What actions are viable? How the hell are we as non-politician Americans supposed to affect the ruling Weeble People? What are real steps that could lead us toward a government that actually represents and respects the will and good of the people living under it?

REVOLUTION!

yeah, but I have a job, you know?

Originally Posted By: Uschi

I found this both hard to fully grasp (I suppose like Physics is to people that aren't so inclined as I) and rather frustrating to read.

Taken from http://www.counterpunch.org....

In regards to the 'counterpunch' article, I think the gist of the article is that the writer believes that Obama, for all his 'liberal' rhetoric is an old fashioned statist who will attempt to exercise a great deal of control over personal liberty including, but not limited to, drafting people into military (or other) service.

I'm not sure I would agree that Obama would do that. On the other hand, the draft was completely abolished in 1972, only to be reinstated (at least to the point of requiring registration at the age of 18) under-of all people- "good liberal" Jimmy Carter.

So you never know.

Originally Posted By: Uschi

I'm afraid I do not understand that article fully. Political specifics are still alien. For example, I didn't "get" those bullet points.

So the report is indicating hypocritical behavior, yes? ...

If you mean the article I posted with "top ten concerns", its more than hypocrisy or his questionable associations. It's the idea that his policies are problematic in a number of key areas, both in terms of domestic issues (the economy and social issues) and military/diplomatic issues.

It was a long article so I wrapped the text of each bulleted topic in spoiler tags so that people could either read the whole thing or not if they wanted.

I meant the bulleted points in that article I posted. You post so much stuff here, and it's all gibberish to me, so I rarely read it.

Originally Posted By: Uschi

no politician is ever the right person for any political office. They're all trained manipulators, not an honest soul in the lot.

besides, that' the main point I rest on. It's the one thing I am sure of. The only thing I understand.

Originally Posted By: Uschi

...it's all gibberish to me, so I rarely read it.

Nothing like an 'informed electorate.'

Originally Posted By: Uschi

yeah, but I have a job, you know?

WEEKEND REVOLUTION!

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Originally Posted By: Uschi

...it's all gibberish to me, so I rarely read it.

Nothing like an 'informed electorate.'

Nobody takes the time to help me learn and I've never been able to teach myself. I do what I can, but it's like reading a particle accelerator error code manual straight out of elementary. WAY over my head.

I try reading the Wall Street Journal for my info most often, but after that I can't be arsed too much.

Well, if you're going to read only one, the Journal's a good one to pic.

that's what I thought. 'cause Mom told me so.

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/today_now_how_to_pretend_you_give
uschi, this should help.

right, 'cause you can believe everything on the internet, doubly so from the Onion.

oh, heh. nevermind.

teach me to read, eh? I'll show your ass!

Quote:

"To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies." -- Obama spokesman Bill Burton, Oct. 24, 2007

WASHINGTON -- That was then: Democratic primaries to be won, netroot lefties to be seduced. With all that (and Hillary Clinton) out of the way, Obama now says he'll vote in favor of the new FISA bill that gives the telecom companies blanket immunity for post-9/11 eavesdropping.

Back then, in the yesteryear of primary season, he thoroughly trashed the North American Free Trade Agreement, pledging to force a renegotiation, take "the hammer" to Canada and Mexico, and threaten unilateral abrogation.

Today, the hammer is holstered. Obama calls his previous NAFTA rhetoric "overheated" and essentially endorses what one of his senior economic advisers privately told the Canadians: The anti-trade stuff was nothing more than populist posturing.

Nor is there much left of his primary season pledge to meet "without preconditions" with Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. There will be "preparations," you see, which are being spun by his aides into the functional equivalent of preconditions.

Obama's long march to the center has begun.

And why not? What's the downside? He won't lose the left, or even mainstream Democrats. They won't stay home on Nov. 4. The anti-Bush, anti-Republican sentiment is simply too strong. Election Day is their day of revenge -- for the Florida recount, for Swift-boating, for all the injuries, real and imagined, dealt out by Republicans over the last eight years.

Normally, flip-flopping presidential candidates have to worry about the press. Not Obama. After all, this is a press corps that heard his grandiloquent Philadelphia speech -- designed to rationalize why "I can no more disown (Jeremiah Wright) than I can disown my white grandmother" -- then wiped away a tear and hailed him as the second coming of Abraham Lincoln. Three months later, with Wright disowned, grandma embraced and the great "race speech" now inoperative, not a word of reconsideration is heard from his media acolytes.

Worry about the press? His FISA flip-flop elicited a few grumbles from lefty bloggers, but hardly a murmur from the mainstream press. Remember his pledge to stick to public financing? Now flush with cash, he is the first general-election candidate since Watergate to opt out. Some goo-goo clean-government types chided him, but the mainstream editorialists who for years had been railing against private financing as hopelessly corrupt and corrupting, evinced only the mildest of disappointment.

Indeed, The New York Times expressed a sympathetic understanding of Obama's about-face by buying his preposterous claim that it was a pre-emptive attack on McCain's 527 independent expenditure groups -- notwithstanding the fact that (a) as Politico's Jonathan Martin notes, "there are no serious anti-Obama 527s in existence nor are there any immediate plans to create such a group" and (b) the only independent ad of any consequence now running in the entire country is an AFSCME-MoveOn.org co-production savaging McCain.

True, Obama's U-turn on public financing was not done for ideological reasons, it was done for Willie Sutton reasons: That's where the money is. It nonetheless betrayed a principle that so many in the press claimed to hold dear.

As public financing is not a principle dear to me, I am hardly dismayed by Obama's abandonment of it. Nor am I disappointed in the least by his other calculated and cynical repositionings. I have never had any illusions about Obama. I merely note with amazement that his media swooners seem to accept his every policy reversal with an equanimity unseen since the Daily Worker would change the party line overnight -- switching sides in World War II, for example -- whenever the wind from Moscow changed direction.

The truth about Obama is uncomplicated. He is just a politician (though of unusual skill and ambition). The man who dared say it plainly is the man who knows Obama all too well. "He does what politicians do," explained Jeremiah Wright.

When it's time to throw campaign finance reform, telecom accountability, NAFTA renegotiation or Jeremiah Wright overboard, Obama is not sentimental. He does not hesitate. He tosses lustily.

Why, the man even tossed his own grandmother overboard back in Philadelphia -- only to haul her back on deck now that her services are needed. Yesterday, granny was the moral equivalent of the raving Reverend Wright. Today, she is a featured prop in Obama's fuzzy-wuzzy get-to-know-me national TV ad.

Not a flinch. Not a flicker. Not a hint of shame. By the time he's finished, Obama will have made the Clintons look scrupulous.

damn

i hope he had the decency to brush the tire marks off granny....

Looks like things between Obama and the Clintons aren't as "unified" as they might want the public to believe:

Bill Clinton is so bitter about Barack Obama's victory over his wife Hillary that he has told friends the Democratic nominee will have to beg for his wholehearted support.

Mr Obama is expected to speak to Mr Clinton for the first time since he won the nomination in the next few days, but campaign insiders say that the former president's future campaign role is a "sticking point" in peace talks with Mrs Clinton's aides.

The Telegraph has learned that the former president's rage is still so great that even loyal allies are shocked by his patronising attitude to Mr Obama, and believe that he risks damaging his own reputation by his intransigence.

A second source said that the former president has kept his distance because he still does not believe Mr Obama can win the election.

"He's saying he's not going to reach out, that Obama has to come to him. One person told me that Bill said Obama would have to 'kiss my ass,' if he wants his support."

Another Democrat said that despite polls showing Mr Obama with a healthy lead over Republican John McCain, Mr Clinton doesn't think he can win.

"Bill Clinton knows the party will unite behind Obama, but he is telling people he doesn't believe Obama can win round voting groups, especially working-class whites, in the swing states," the strategist said.

"He just doesn't think Obama will be able to connect with the voters he needs."

I've never had much cop for Bill Clinton's opinions.

Gallup Poll: McCain and Obama are tied at 45%

Again, considering the unpopularity of the Republican brand right now, Obama should be 20 points ahead now.
But he's not.

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

Gallup Poll: McCain and Obama are tied at 45%

I'm victimizing myself and the republican party because I'm a stupid douchebag.

45 + 45 = a pretty good coverage of approval in leadership, assassinations be damned

Originally Posted By: Uschi

I've never had much cop for Bill Clinton's opinions.

Say what you will about the man's politics and morality, but Bill's a pretty astute political observer.

More importantly, however, this story, if true, tends to prove (albeit not conclusively) what some of us have predicted for a while now: that the Clintons would pay lip service to supporting Obama, while not actually supporting him behind the scenes.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Originally Posted By: Uschi

I've never had much cop for Bill Clinton's opinions.

Proof with anymous sources & the phrase "if true" isn't really very good proof IMHO. Besides the public support of Obama, Hillary has been helping Obama with getting her contributers to support him. Those are probably the two biggest things she can do for him & probably all his campaign is interested in.

And Obama is helping Hillary pay off her campaign debts so that she can get her five mill back.

and Leon is getting larger!

looks like i picked the wrong day to give up amphetamines.

Bill is pissed:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080629/ap_on_re_us/obama_vandalism;_ylt=ArAB30R.n4YkuVCp3xqjeOis0NUE

Quote:

Vandals have spray-painted 60 city vehicles in Orlando, Fla., some with messages against Sen. Barack Obama.

The cars were parked across from city hall late Saturday night. Investigators say the culprits tagged notes such as "Obama smokes crack" and a racial epithet. They even left business cards on each vehicle.

Mike Lowe, a videographer working for The Associated Press, first told police about the damage. He saw three cars with anti-Obama messages, while the others were just heavily painted.

The business cards disparage both Obama and Sen. John McCain but have messages of support for Sen. Hillary Clinton.

United Under 'Hussein': More Obama supporters adopt his controversial middle name as a show of solidarity with the candidate.

That's just divisive politics.

No, doc, don't you understand? I'm showing my solidarity by using his actual, ~~Allah-~~God-given, middle name.

Just think of this as my small way of reaching across the aisle.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/uc/20080626/cm_uc_crlelx/op_246500;_ylt=AmVo.21Kuvx3ynsLkB_eNnVOxBIF

Quote:

Mr. Elder,

I am shocked that you oppose Barack Obama and belong to the Republican Party. We must get over ourselves and realize there is room at the top for everyone and we must get there by helping each other — instead of agreeing with policies and old politics that are proven not to work.

To endorse John McCain, a person who will not make it easier for the underprivileged, is just too much. How can a fellow black American feel this way?

Your Former Supporter

Dear Former Supporter,

Do you have any Republican friends, let alone black ones? If so, how many of them want to make it harder "for the underprivileged"?

You also might want to familiarize yourself with the history of the Democratic and Republican parties, and see which party has stood up longer for the rights of people of color. Do you know that Democrats opposed the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution — abolishing slavery, granting citizenship rights to newly freed slaves, and guaranteeing the right to vote (at least on paper) to blacks, respectively? Do you know that most of the politicians who stood for segregation were Southern Democrats? Do you know that the Ku Klux Klan was founded by Democrats, one of whose goals was to stop the spread of the Republican Party? Do you know that, as a percentage of the party, more Republicans than Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

Do you know that inner-city parents want vouchers — the right to determine where their children go to school? Do you know most Democrats, including Barack Obama, oppose this? Republicans, for the most part, support vouchers. Where vouchers have been tried, kids appear to perform better, with higher parental satisfaction. You tell me, how many things are more important than a child's education?

Do you know that 36 percent of babies aborted are black, while blacks make up 17 percent of live births? Do you know that polls show blacks are more pro-life than are whites? Yet the Democratic Party — to which over 90 percent of blacks belong — is the party of Roe v. Wade, requiring states to legalize abortion on demand. Do you know that Margaret Sanger, the founder of the organization that became Planned Parenthood, believed that poor blacks were inferior and that aborting their babies made our society better? Look it up.

Do you know that blacks stand to benefit more than whites through Social Security privatization, a position opposed by Obama but supported by McCain? Are you even familiar with the issue and what a powerful income-generating vehicle it would be for blacks? If not, take a look at the research done by the libertarian think tank Cato Institute and the conservative think tank Heritage Foundation.

Porous borders enable illegal aliens to enter our country and threaten the jobs and lower the wages of Americans, many of whom are unskilled people of color. Which party is more determined to deal with this — Republicans or Democrats? Obama called the foes of the House anti-illegal immigration bill "ugly and racist." I did not support the bill, but vehemently object to characterizing those who did as "ugly and racist."

You speak of policies that have "proven not to work." What about the "war on poverty" that began in the '60s, the policies that Obama and his party want to continue and expand? Do you know that today 70 percent of black children and over 50 percent of Hispanics are born outside of wedlock? The welfare state — which Democrats want to expand — has played a huge role in discouraging marriage and destabilizing families.

Speaking of helping the "underprivileged," I'd suggest you read a book called "Who Really Cares," by Arthur C. Brooks. A non-Republican professor raised by Democrats, he examined the charitable spending habits of Democrats and Republicans. The results surprised him. Brooks found that Republicans give far more of their money and time for charitable purposes than do Democrats. And the giving is not confined to their churches or other houses of worship. This, by the way, has nothing to do with income. Poor Republicans give more than poor Democrats.

Compassion is not about making people dependent on government. Compassion is about encouraging personal responsibility, and getting people to understand that life is about making choices. Poverty does not cause crime. Crime causes poverty. Poverty does not cause a child to have a child. A child having a child causes poverty. Finishing high school is a choice. Not joining a gang is a choice. Not having a child until you have the maturity and the means to raise that child is a choice.

You ask how can a "fellow black American feel this way"? Quite a statement. You may disagree, but it doesn't make me less caring and compassionate than you are. I'm sure you truly consider yourself open-minded and tolerant. But based on your letter, tolerance ends — especially with "fellow black Americans" — if someone has an opposing point of view.

Larry

http://news.yahoo.com/page/parade/patriotism/obama

Quote:

By Senator Barack Obama

As with most Americans, patriotism starts for me as a gut instinct, a loyalty and love for my country that's rooted in my earliest memories. It's not just the recitations of the Pledge of Allegiance, the Thanksgiving pageants at school, or the fireworks on the Fourth of July, but how the American ideal wove its way throughout the lessons my family taught me.

One of those memories is sitting on my grandfather's shoulders and watching the Apollo astronauts come ashore in Hawaii. People cheered and waved small flags, and my grandfather explained with pride and assurance how we Americans could accomplish anything we set our minds to do. I lived overseas for a time as a child, and I remember listening to my mother reading me the first lines of the Declaration of Independence and explaining how its ideas applied to every American, black and white and brown alike. She told me that those words, and the words of the United States Constitution, protected us from the brutal injustices we witnessed other people suffering during those years abroad.

And I remember my grandfather's funeral at Punchbowl National Cemetery in Hawaii. As I listened to the rifles fire in salute and the long, solemn notes of taps, as I watched the honor guard fold the flag and tenderly present it to my grandmother, I thought about the country that my grandfather was so proud to serve — a country where we have the unparalleled freedom to pursue our dreams.

That is the true genius of America. A faith in simple dreams, an insistence on small miracles. We can tuck in our children at night and know that they are fed and clothed and safe from harm. We can say and write what we think, without hearing a sudden knock on the door. We can have an idea and start our own businesses without paying a bribe. In America, anything is possible.

For a young man of mixed race, without firm anchor in any community, without even a father's steadying hand, the essential American ideal — that our destinies are not written before we are born, that in America we can travel as far as our energy and talents will take us — has defined my life. With a mother from Kansas and a father from Kenya, I know that stories like mine can happen only in the United States of America.

But each generation must understand that the blessings of freedom require our constant vigilance, and that true patriotism also means a willingness to sacrifice for our common good. For those who have fought on the battlefield under the Stars and Stripes — for the young veterans I meet at Walter Reed Army Medical Center or those like John McCain who endured physical torment while serving our nation — no further proof of such sacrifice is necessary. Those who have signed up to fight for our country in distant lands inspire me, just as I am inspired by those fighting for a better America here at home by teaching in underserved schools, caring for the sick in understaffed hospitals, or promoting more sustainable energy policies in their communities.

In the end, it may be this quality that best describes patriotism in my mind — not just a love of America in the abstract, but a very particular love for, and faith in, one another as Americans. The greatness of our country — its victories in war, its enormous wealth, its scientific and cultural achievements — have resulted from the toil, drive, struggle, restlessness, humor, and quiet heroism of the American people. That is the liberty we defend — the liberty of each of us to follow our dreams. That is the equality we seek — not an equality of results but the chance of every single one of us to make it if we try. That is the community we strive to build — one in which we recognize we share common hopes and dreams, one in which we continue to insist that there is nothing we cannot do when we put our minds to it, and one in which we see ourselves as part of a larger story, our own fates wrapped up in the fates of all who share allegiance to America's singular creed.

another Fox News follower, wearing a little pin and waving a flag is all that matters to you.
grow up.

I don't think him wearing, or not wearing, a flag pin is a big deal.

However, the fact that he starting wearing it again after he got criticized for it seems symptomatic of a continuing pattern of adjusting his "beliefs" whenever it suits him politically (see, eg, Rev. Wright, his racist white grandmother, campaign finance reform, the revised presidential seal, etc.).

That pattern at best reveals him to be a 'typical politican' and, at worst, reveals him to be a shameless phony with no moral compass whatsoever.

I didn't think it was possible that I could hate someone more than Kerry.

What about Chris Nolan?

Chris Nolan is just a cooz that's not worthy of my hate.

I'm apathetic to his existence.

Pariah, the boy who reads scripts.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

That's realpolitik. At least he changes his opinion BEFORE the election.

Lets see what he will do with the more important stuff.

A terrific editorial in the New York Examiner about how Obama left a big mess behind in his state Senate district, where the only people who benefited (hell, made out like bandits) were the rich developers who paid his campaign bills.

Can we fleece you? Yes we can!

Jesse Jackson Apologizes for Crude Obama Remarks:

Jesse Jackson apologized Wednesday for saying Barack Obama is “talking down to black people”

Jackson was speaking at the time about Obama’s speeches in black churches and his support for faith-based charities. Jackson added to the reporter, “I want to cut his nuts off.”

At a hastily arranged news conference Wednesday evening in Chicago, Jackson said he supports Obama “unequivocally” and that he hopes to “get this behind me.”

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Jackson was speaking at the time about Obama’s speeches in black churches and his support for faith-based charities. Jackson added to the reporter, “I want to cut his nuts off.”

that's just a bizarre thing to say no matter what the reason.

Jackson's always been prone to bizarre statements when he thinks no one's listening. Remember "Hymietown"?

Ultimately, this will help Obama...the further away from Obama is seen from Jesse, the better off he'll be in the eyes of some of those blue collar folks that he's having such a hard time with.

I agree I think this was calculated by the Obama campaign.

I would not be surprised. Kinda like I think that someone in the campaign suggested Rev. Wright go on TV and play over-the-top jackass to give Obama the excuse he needed to completely repudiate him.

Wright wasnt being a jackass, you obviously dont know the pain he has been through, his color has held him back his entire life, he has a right to be angry...

True.

But he was still a jackass. Who knew that you were so sensitive to the plight of the black man in America? Better be careful, brit...before too long you'll have to give up your KKK membership and join the NAACP.

i would if i could, i imagine living the life of luxury off the backs of other people's paranoia must be great!

http://www.whereskilroy.com/?p=243

Quote:

Barack Hussein Obama enlisted the help of a edgy comic for a recent fundraiser event. Bernie Mac headlined the show and according to Yahoo news had this to say about the supposedly family event:

Toward the end of a 10-minute standup routine at the Hyatt Regency Hotel in downtown Chicago, the 50-year-old star of "The Bernie Mac Show" joked about menopause, sexual infidelity and promiscuity, and used occasional crude language.

"My little nephew came to me and he said, 'Uncle, what's the difference between a hypothetical question and a realistic question?'" Mac said. "I said, I don't know, but I said, 'Go upstairs and ask your mother if she'd make love to the mailman for $50,000.'"

As the joke continued, the punchline evoked an angry response from at least one person in the audience, who said it was offensive to women.

Of course Senator Obama later rebuked these comments:

"Sen. Obama told Bernie Mac that he doesn't condone these statements and believes what was said was inappropriate," spokeswoman Jen Psaki said in a statement after the event.

It must be nice to be Barack Hussein Obama, you always have the do over card in your pocket. He attends a racist church for 20 some odd years, but he didn't realize it till he was running for president and decides the comments of his spiritual mentor Rev. Jeremiah Wright are inappropriate.

Now he invites Bernie Mac to speak for him a comedian who has made his name by doing crude off color jokes, and then says his jokes are inappropriate. I'm not criticizing Mac, I find some of his jokes funny. I'm saying that I wouldn't invite someone to do their act and feign ignorance and disgust after they perform said act. I mean if a guy is going to flip flop on campaign finance, and gun control from primary to general election is one thing, but to flip flop on a fund raising guest in less than an hour, wow.

But maybe Obama is being sincere, maybe he didn't realize that Wright was a racist, and that Mac was an off color comedian. Obama is the man who believes you can sit down unconditionally with Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad unconditionally and talk out their differences. Perhaps he hasn't seen Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spouting death tho the Jews, and wanting Israel wiped off the map. Perhaps he hasn't noticed that the terrosorists want us all dead. Is he ignorant of the facts, or is he just being politically expediant? Who really knows, no one really knows who Barack Obama is, I just hope the American people don't end up like Barack and have to apologize later for his actions.

Quote:

Now he invites Bernie Mac to speak for him a comedian who has made his name by doing crude off color jokes.... I wouldn't invite someone to do their act and feign ignorance and disgust after they perform said act.

Is Bernie Mac really known for "off color" jokes? Other than Bad Santa, the only thing I've ever really seen him in was that "family" TV show he did for Fox and PG films.

Furthermore, unlike, say, the Rev. Wright thing, I don't really think its fair to blame Obama on this one. Just because a comedian tells off color jokes in one venue doesn't mean you assume he's going to do so at every event. For example, Steve Martin doesn't show up to host the Oscars and do his "she had the best pussy I'd ever seen" bit. Bob Sagat made his name as a "blue comedian" but he doesn't tell the same jokes on "Full House" and "America's Funnist Home Videos" that he does in, say, "the Aristocrats."

Obama probably expected the Bernie Mac that shows up in things like "the Bernie Mac show" and "Oceans 11."

I realize wikipedia doesnt list jokes, so you have no reference but his stand up act is off color. He was a stand up comedian before he did the Bernie Mac show(and still is), Obama didn't ask him to re-enact the Bernie MAc show, they asked him to do some stand up.....

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Just because a comedian tells off color jokes in one venue doesn't mean you assume he's going to do so at every event. For example, Steve Martin doesn't show up to host the Oscars and do his "she had the best pussy I'd ever seen" bit. Bob Sagat made his name as a "blue comedian" but he doesn't tell the same jokes on "Full House" and "America's Funnist Home Videos" that he does in, say, "the Aristocrats."

nice re-edit of your post.

but as the article says Obama acted as if he didnt know the racist wright and he acted as if he didnt know that Mac does the off color stuff either, feel free to go back and edit your post again.....

I'm still mystified as to what anyone even so much as passively supports Obama for.

He's a pedantic dork, who ummms and ahhhs his way through every press appearance, talks in a monotone, and for my money has absolutely no charisma whatsoever. When I listen to him speak, he sounds more like an assistant college professor than a presidential candidate or any other kind of leader.

Obama blatantly waffles his way through questions, has been busted in endless reversals, contradictions, lies, and manifestations of bad judgement. And incredibly, he continues to remain viable.

And beyond that, he has in no uncertain terms said he will raise taxes, and will enact socialized medicine. (And yes, yes, Obama claims he'll only raise taxes on those earning over 250,000 a year, but even liberals in the media are saying his numbers don't add up, and that the only way he can do what he promises is to raise taxes.)
Obama's proposals add up to 1.4 trillion in new spending. And rather than stimulate the economy, these burdensome new taxes will further suppress an economy that is just barely managing to stay out of recession.

McCain proposes tax cuts of 1.5 trillion that will stimulate corporate and small business and job growth, and proposes increased domestic production of oil and nuclear power, in addition to alternative feuls (whereas Obama rejects drilling in the U.S.'s untapped reserves, and gambles completely on finding environmentally friendly alternative feul sources).

I'm not McCain's biggest fan, but he seems a lot more lucid in what he proposes than Obama.
And more likeable.
And more trustworthy.

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

...as the article says Obama acted as if he didnt know the racist wright and he acted as if he didnt know that Mac does the off color stuff...

And I'm on record, many times, as calling b.s. on Obama's denials vis a vis Wright (and others).

However, here's the editorial you posted, exactly as you posted it:

Quote:

Barack Hussein Obama enlisted the help of a edgy comic for a recent fundraiser event. Bernie Mac headlined the show and according to Yahoo news had this to say about the supposedly family event:

Toward the end of a 10-minute standup routine at the Hyatt Regency Hotel in downtown Chicago, the 50-year-old star of "The Bernie Mac Show" joked about menopause, sexual infidelity and promiscuity, and used occasional crude language.

"My little nephew came to me and he said, 'Uncle, what's the difference between a hypothetical question and a realistic question?'" Mac said. "I said, I don't know, but I said, 'Go upstairs and ask your mother if she'd make love to the mailman for $50,000.'"

As the joke continued, the punchline evoked an angry response from at least one person in the audience, who said it was offensive to women.

Of course Senator Obama later rebuked these comments:

"Sen. Obama told Bernie Mac that he doesn't condone these statements and believes what was said was inappropriate," spokeswoman Jen Psaki said in a statement after the event.

It must be nice to be Barack Hussein Obama, you always have the do over card in your pocket. He attends a racist church for 20 some odd years, but he didn't realize it till he was running for president and decides the comments of his spiritual mentor Rev. Jeremiah Wright are inappropriate.

Now he invites Bernie Mac to speak for him a comedian who has made his name by doing crude off color jokes, and then says his jokes are inappropriate. I'm not criticizing Mac, I find some of his jokes funny. I'm saying that I wouldn't invite someone to do their act and feign ignorance and disgust after they perform said act. I mean if a guy is going to flip flop on campaign finance, and gun control from primary to general election is one thing, but to flip flop on a fund raising guest in less than an hour, wow.

But maybe Obama is being sincere, maybe he didn't realize that Wright was a racist, and that Mac was an off color comedian. Obama is the man who believes you can sit down unconditionally with Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad unconditionally and talk out their differences. Perhaps he hasn't seen Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spouting death tho the Jews, and wanting Israel wiped off the map. Perhaps he hasn't noticed that the terrosorists want us all dead. Is he ignorant of the facts, or is he just being politically expediant? Who really knows, no one really knows who Barack Obama is, I just hope the American people don't end up like Barack and have to apologize later for his actions.

Other than speculation from the author, there's nothing there to indicate that Obama knew Mac was an off-color comedian. Furthermore, as I mentioned before (using Steve Martin and Bob Sagat as examples), the mere fact that a comedian sometimes works "blue" doesn't mean one is going to expect that comedian to tell off-color jokes at a "mainstream" event.

There are a lot of legitimate reasons to criticize Obama: his hypocrisy, his inexperience, his crappy policies, etc. And most of the time of time, you and I agree on those issues in regards to him.

However, with all the legitimate issues to question him on, making a stink over the idea he should have known the star of a family sitcom was going to start telling off-color jokes, seems to be an unneccessary distraction.

the artical also says that maybe Obama was ignorant of the fact that Mac was an off color comedian, just as maybe he is ignorant of Rev. Wright, and the Iranian dude, please pay attention....

I realize that the editorial made that supposition. However, it doesn't really follow that the Obama-Mac incident is particularly telling one way or another.

Mac is a comedian best known for his role in a now-cancelled family-friendly sitcom and PG movies.

Wright was Obama's pastor for twenty years. Ahmadinejad is in the news on a daily basis and, further, the object of much discussion and analysis among members of congress.

As I mentioned before, there's plenty of matter of substance over which to attack Obama. In that context, going after him on the question of whether or not he was sufficiently familiar with the comedy stylings of a supporter is not only a bit petty, it's counterproductive.

I WIN AGAIN!

B Hussein SAMS in '08!

Originally Posted By: whomod

51% to 36% among registered voters!!

The last time this poll was taken they were tied 46% to 46%

isn't this the part where sammitch comes in and declares that the poll was taken out of context?

Originally Posted By: the G-man

...not a single other poll has Obama up by anything more than six. That's quite the outlier. ...

Originally Posted By: The New Adventures of Old PJP

plus so many things can happen from now until November that quite honestly it doesn't mean diddly.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Yeah....

And, as predicted:

People with a crush on Barack Obama aren't as numerous as they used to be.

Republican John McCain has pulled up into a statistical dead heat with Democrat Obama, according to a new Newsweek poll. Obama leads McCain 44% to 41%, compared with the cushy 15% advantage he held in the magazine's June survey.

More than half surveyed - 53% - now say Obama has changed his stance on key policy issues "to gain political advantage," while 32% say he has not. By comparison, McCain may be gaining ground. Among independents, McCain now leads Obama 41% to 34%. Last month with the same group, Obama was ahead 48% to 36%.

it's the Bernie Mac effect....

Heh. Well played, BSAMS. Well played.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080714/pl_politico/11719

Quote:

Barack Obama's campaign is condemning as “tasteless and offensive” a New Yorker magazine cover that depicts Obama in a turban, fist-bumping his gun-slinging wife.

An American flag burns in their fireplace.

The New Yorker says it's satire. It certainly will be candy for cable news.

The Obama campaign quickly condemned the rendering. Spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement: “The New Yorker may think, as one of their staff explained to us, that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Sen. Obama's right-wing critics have tried to create. But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree."

McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds quickly e-mailed: “We completely agree with the Obama campaign, it’s tasteless and offensive.”

The issue, which goes on sale Monday, includes a long piece by Ryan Lizza about Obama’s start in Chicago politics.

At a press availability Sunday afternoon in San Diego, Obama was asked, according to a transcript by Maria Gavrilovic of CBS News: “The upcoming issue of The New Yorker, the July 21 issue, has a picture of you, depicting you and your wife on the cover.

“Have you seen it? If not, I can show it to you on my computer. It shows your wife Michelle with an Afro and an AK-47 and the two of you doing the fist bump with you in a sort of turban-type thing on top. I wondered if you’ve seen it or if you want to see it or if you have a response to it?”

Obama, shrugging incredulously, replied: “I have no response to that.”

The magazine explains at the start of its news release previewing the issue: “On the cover of the July 21, 2008, issue of The New Yorker, in ‘The Politics of Fear,’ artist Barry Blitt satirizes the use of scare tactics and misinformation in the presidential election to derail Barack Obama’s campaign.”

Howard Kurtz of The Washington Post said Sunday on his CNN media show “Reliable Sources” that the cover is arguably “incendiary.”

“I talked to the editor of The New Yorker, David Remnick, who tells me this is a satire, that they are making fun of all the rumors,” Kurtz added.

Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune defended it as “quite within the normal realms of journalism,” adding that “it's just lampooning all the crazy ignorance out there.”

The panelists agreed it would succeed in its goal of getting attention.

Originally Posted By: thedoctor

who took that photograph?

Wonder boy works at the new yorker?

Yet another gaffe from the mouth of the Obamassiah, as he demonstrates that he doesn't know what it is that the joint chiefs of staff do.

I dont understand, a man with as much experience as him surely knows how the military operates?

Boy wouldn't it be embarrassing if he ordered a Navy Destroyer into Kabul....

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

Boy wouldn't it be embarrassing if he ordered a Navy Destroyer into Kabul....

it would be more embarrassing if he ordered Kabul into a Navy Destroyer, it would never fit.

Bernie Mac lover.

Obama vs. McCain on "just like Bush", wasteful spending,
and actually doing what they promise:

UBB Error
We encountered a problem. The reason reported was

Unable to connect to database server, please try again in a few minutes.

Please use your back button to return to the previous page.

He used the "igger" word!

Quote:

"Really? You know what your response should've been? It's very easy here, let me put the statement out for you: Barack Obama is in no way upset about the cartoon that depicts him as a Muslim extremist. Because you know who gets upset about cartoons? Muslim extremists! Of which Barack Obama is not. It's just a fucking cartoon!"

thedoctor argumentative Moderator Timelord. Drunkard.
15000+ posts Sat Jul 19 2008 12:39 AM Reading a post
Forum: Politics and Current Events
Thread: Barack Hussein Obama in '08?

Lothar of The Hill People cool User Don't make fun of my hat!
10000+ posts Tue Jul 22 2008 12:28 AM Viewing list of forums

Obama: We don't know what would have happened...

What a fucking retard. That was such a stupid thing to say.

According to Obama, only a single bomb hit Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941.

Oh well, at least he didn't say the bomb came from the Germans.

Originally Posted By: Pariah

Obama: We don't know what would have happened...

What a fucking retard. That was such a stupid thing to say.

like refusing to see a movie because he read the script online?

Originally Posted By: the G-man

According to Obama, only a single bomb hit Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941.

Oh well, at least he didn't say the bomb came from the Germans.

unlike John Mccain who talked recently about the trouble on the Iraq/Pakistan border.

Or Bush who can't keep events from his own administration straight.

that's ok Adler, keep your head in the sand, when things explode on the Iraq/Pakistan border, i'll be here to tell you John McCain told you so.....

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

Originally Posted By: Pariah

Obama: We don't know what would have happened...

What a fucking retard. That was such a stupid thing to say.

like refusing to see a movie because he read the script online?

Yeah, Ray, because a comic book fan bitching about a movie is exactly as important an issue as a presidential candidate displaying a foolish view of policy.

I guess Obama can do anything he wants now and say whatever he wants and its all excused because Pariah didn't want to see a Batman movie.

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

unlike John Mccain who talked recently about the trouble on the Iraq/Pakistan border.

Which was obviously a mere slip of the tongue. And, to be honest, I'm sure that Obama's comment was a slip of the tongue also. Every one makes those kind of innocent mistakes.

But there's something really hypocritical, if not near-Orwellian, about how Obama makes gaffe after gaffe and the media (and the left) gloss right over it, whereas, any similar (or lesser) gaffe from a Republican immediately means (or meant) that said Republican is either senile (McCain) or some sort of moron (Bush and Quayle).

The double standard is really disconcerting.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

But there's something really hypocritical, if not near-Orwellian, about how Obama makes gaffe after gaffe and the media (and the left) gloss right over it, whereas, any similar (or lesser) gaffe from a Republican immediately means (or meant) that said Republican is either senile (McCain) or some sort of moron (Bush and Quayle).

The double standard is really disconcerting.

bush got all sorts of passes after 9/11. i think the reason no one really mentions obama's gaffes is because they let bush be an idiot for so long and compared to him obama is tame. bush has kind of numbed the press.

deal with it, bitch.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

I guess Obama can do anything he wants now and say whatever he wants and its all excused because Pariah didn't want to see a Batman movie.

I want to put that on a t-shirt. but i'll settle for making it my signature.

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

i think the reason no one really mentions obama's gaffes is because they let bush be an idiot for so long ...

They were criticizing Bush for gaffes regularly during the 2000 campaign. As noted in the New York Times back in 2000:

From his tongue-twisted explanations of his tax plan to his reluctance to accept a bipartisan commission's roster of debates and even to his vulgar comment about a reporter, Mr. Bush has seemed defensive, lacking in humor and easily flappable....Mr. Bush's gaffes on the stump are nothing new, but they are being picked up more by the media ....The more critical coverage could contribute to a damaging of Mr. Bush's image, which, if reflected in the polls, could result in still more critical coverage.

''Bush picked the worst time to start getting terrible press,'' said S. Robert Lichter, director of the Center for Media and Public Affairs. ''Journalists are setting the story line for the whole campaign.''

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/07/21/obama-ditches-the-american-flag/

Quote:

Barack Obama used donations to refurbish and repaint his campaign plane, and has removed the flag of the United States from the tail of the plane. Reports Bonnie Kapp for Fox Embed:

[T]he plane that once had an American flag on its tail now sports the Obama “O.” “Change We Can Believe In” and the candidate’s website are splayed across both sides of the fuselage, making this 757 anything but inconspicuous.

This means, of course, that the people of Afghanistan, Iraq, Jordan, Israel, Germany, and other countries will see a plane without an American flag — a plane on which the sole symbol is all about one man. Barack: Afghans and Iraqis won’t be voting for you in November. But they will notice that you failed to represent yourself as a proud American citizen while you are abroad. We’ve noticed too.

Wonder Boy content User a man's signature quote is inversely proportionate to his cock size
3000+ posts Wed Jul 23 2008 10:32 PM Reading a post
Forum: Politics and Current Events
Thread: Barack Hussein Obama in '08?

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

"The Audacity of Barack Obama"

In addition to the information about kickbacks and perks of the allegedly oh-so-above-it-all Obama, it's a clever wordplay on the title of his Wright-sermon inspired title of his book.

Wonder Boy content User a man's signature quote is inversely proportionate to his cock size
3000+ posts Wed Jul 23 2008 10:36 PM Reading a post
Forum: Politics and Current Events
Thread: Barack Hussein Obama in '08?

Captain Sammitch annoyed Moderator invisible editor
10000+ posts Wed Jul 23 2008 10:48 PM Reading a post
Forum: Politics and Current Events
Thread: Barack Hussein Obama in '08?

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

"The Audacity of Barack Obama"

In addition to the information about kickbacks and perks of the allegedly oh-so-above-it-all Obama, it's a clever wordplay on the title of his Wright-sermon inspired title of his book.

Don't forget that he's black.

"The Bad Company of Barack Obama"

"Barack Obama: Muslim Wolf in Christian Wool"

Obama's Dimestore Mein Kampf"

Obama's plans to slash the U.S. military, endanger U.S. battlefield superiority

That's not even a complete list.

There's also

1) his 20 year history of trading political favors for campaign donations from the federally indicted Tony Rezko, including the purchase of his 1.6 million dollar Chicago mansion,

2)donations from oil executives (while alleging he doesn't take money from oil corporations),

3) opting out of public funding when he said he wouldn't (for which even the liberal media vilified him),

4) promising to re-negotiate NAFTA (then assuring the Canadian government that it was just an empty campaign promise to fool the white folks clinging to their guns and religion,

and on and on...

August 2006: Obama --WHILE A U.S. SENATOR-- campaigns for Sharia Law in Kenya, with Kenyans who slaughtered 600 non-muslims

Quote:

Even in the midst of the primaries, the horrific scenes from that country since the disputed election on December 27 will not have escaped most people. In particular, the burning of a church with up to 50 men, women, and children inside, while machete-armed mobs slaughter up to 600 more people, have evoked memories of the Rwandan genocide of 1994...

...Who is behind these massacres? The opposition leader, Raila Odinga, has had a good press in the West, after he accused the president, Mwai Kibaki, of rigging the election. But the victims of the recent violence have mostly been members of Mr. Kibaki's tribe, the Kikuyu, while those who have gone berserk are supporters of Mr. Odinga's Orange Democratic Movement, which is dominated by the rival Luo tribe....

...Even more sinister has been Mr. Odinga's electoral pact with the National Muslim Leaders' Forum — a hardline Islamist organization that represents Kenya's Muslim minority. According to this document, dated August 29, 2007, Mr. Odinga promised the Muslim leaders that, if elected, he would establish Sharia courts, not only in the northern and coastal regions where Kenyan Muslims are concentrated, but throughout the country.

He also promised to impose Muslim dress codes on women, ban alcohol and pork, indoctrinate children, ban Christian preaching, and dismiss the Commissioner of Police "who has allowed himself to be used by heathens and Zionists."

In short, Mr. Odinga in effect offered to Islamize Kenya in return for Muslim votes, despite the fact that Muslims make up only 10% of the population, compared to the 80% who are Christian. Mr. Odinga himself is nominally an Anglican, yet he signed a document that refers to Islam throughout as "the one true religion" and denigrates Christians as "worshippers of the cross."

and

Quote:

In August 2006, Mr. Obama visited Kenya and spoke in support of Mr. Odinga's candidacy at rallies in Nairobi. The Web site Atlas Shrugs has even posted a photograph of the two men side by side. More recently, Mr. Odinga says that Mr. Obama interrupted his campaigning in New Hampshire to have a telephone conversation with his African cousin about the constitutional crisis in Kenya.

What should Americans make of Mr. Obama's Kenyan connection? If he has been putting tribal or family considerations above America's national interest by supporting Mr. Odinga's anti-Western candidacy, it raises serious questions about his judgement.

At the time of his visit in 2006, President Kibaki's spokesman complained that Mr. Obama was behaving like a "stooge" of Mr. Odinga — which was at best undignified for a visiting American senator, and at worst unwarranted interference in the internal politics of another country.

Even more serious are the doubts raised by Mr. Obama's attitude toward Islam, which has so far received much less scrutiny than might be expected in a post-September 11 presidential election.

If Mr. Obama did not know about Mr. Odinga's electoral deal with the Kenyan Islamists when he offered his support, then he should have known. If he did know, then he is guilty of lending the prestige of his office to America's enemies in the global war on terror. We need to know exactly what Mr. Obama knew about Mr. Odinga, and precisely when he knew it.

I'm not sure but I think wondy has something against obama.

his penis.

I thought wondy only fucked* female minirities?

*Wondy has had less luck with women than me. This is what he claims.

I think if you ever met Wondy in real life you'd run up to him and give him an open mouth kiss with lots of tongue.

If you know what I mean.

and i think you do.....

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/time_publishes_definitive_obama

Quote:

NEW YORK—Hailed by media critics as the fluffiest, most toothless, and softest-hitting coverage of the presidential candidate to date, a story in this week's Time magazine is being called the definitive Barack Obama puff piece.
Enlarge Image Fluff Piece

One twelfth of the light, glossy, groundbreaking surface-level feature.

"No news publication has dared to barely scratch the surface like this before," columnist and campaign reporter Michael King wrote in The Washington Post Tuesday. "This profile sets a benchmark for mindless filler by which all other features about Sen. Obama will now be judged. Just impressive puff-journalism all around."

The 24-page profile, entitled "Boogyin' With Barack," hit newsstands Monday and contains photos of the candidate as a baby, graduating from Columbia University, standing and laughing, holding hands with his wife and best friend, Michelle, greeting a crowd of blue-collar autoworkers, eating breakfast with diner patrons, and staring pensively out of an airplane window while a pen and legal pad rest comfortably on his lowered tray table.

According to political analysts, the Time piece features the most lack-of-depth reporting on Obama ever published, and for the first time reveals a number of inconsequential truths about the candidate, including how he keeps in shape on the campaign trail, and which historical figures the presidential hopeful would choose to have dinner with.

"The sheer breadth of fluff in this story is something to be marveled at," New York Times Washington bureau chief Dean Baquet said. "It's all here. Favorite books, movies, meals, and seasons of the year ranked one through four. Sure, we asked Obama what his favorite ice cream was, but Time did us one better and asked, 'What's your favorite ice cream, really?'"

Time managing editor Rich Stengel said he was proud of the Obama puff piece, and that he hoped it would help to redefine the boundaries of journalistic drivel.

"When the American people cast their vote this November, this is the piece of fluff they're going to remember," Stengel said. "Not the ones by Newsweek, Harper's, The New Yorker, The Atlantic, The New Republic, The Economist, Nightline, The Wall Street Journal, or even that story about lessons Obama learned from his first-grade teacher we ran a month ago."

The article, which follows Obama for 12 days during his campaign, was written by reporter Chris Sherwood, and is relentless in its attempt to capture the candidate at his most poised and polished. Sherwood said the profile easily trumps all other fluff pieces in its effort to expose the presidential candidate for who he really is: "an awesome guy."

"My editors told me that if I wanted to uncover the most frivolous, trivial information on Obama, I had to be prepared to follow the puff," Sherwood said. "That meant that not only did I have to stay and watch Sen. Obama play endless games of basketball with city firemen to show readers how athletic and youthful he is, but I also had to go to NBA shooting experts to learn what aspects of his jump shot are good and what parts are great."

Sherwood said he was granted full access to the candidate, and was permitted by chief strategist David Axelrod to ask any question he desired—an opportunity the reporter used to lob the easiest softballs at Obama yet, ranging from how happy he felt when he met his wife to what songs are currently on his iPod playlist. Sherwood was also fearless in his effort to paint the candidate as someone who is "surprisingly down to earth," a phrase that is used a total of 26 times throughout the feature.

"If we were going to get the story we wanted, it was my responsibility as a journalist to ask the really tough questions to his two young daughters," said Sherwood, who grilled Malia and Sasha Obama, 9 and 7, about whether they were "proud of [their] daddy." "I also had to capitalize on every opportunity to compare the story of Obama's upbringing and rise to power to that of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s and John F. Kennedy's, no matter how suspect those parallels really are."

According to the Time reporter, work on the profile was often harder than he had anticipated, with Obama at times dodging questions about whether or not he played a musical instrument, and about what Monopoly piece he thought best represented his candidacy and why.

"Situations like these are when you have to get on the phone and talk, not only to his mother, but to his aunt, his uncle, a Boy Scout leader, or maybe even one of his camp counselors growing up," Sherwood said. "And if they don't return your call, you turn to Sunday school teachers and former babysitters—anyone who is willing to go on record and say that Barack Obama was a really good kid who was destined for great things."

Added Sherwood, "It's all about getting the factoids out in the open."

Readers have so far responded favorably to the piece, with sales of the latest issue of Time nearly tripling that of an issue last month featuring a 36-page exposé that tore apart and vilified former candidate Hillary Clinton's health-care plan.

"I'm not quite sure how he intends to turn around the economy or get us out of Iraq," said California resident Geoff Mills, an ardent Obama supporter who read the Time story. "But any man who prefers his steak cooked medium-rare has my vote."

Army Captain describes how Obama blew off the troops on his visit to Afghanistan

Quote:

Hello everyone,

As you know I am not a very political person. I just wanted to pass along that Senator Obama came to Bagram Afghanistan for about an hour on his visit to ' The War Zone ' . I wanted to share with you what happened.

He got off the plane and got into a bullet proof vehicle, got to the area to meet with the Major General (2 Star) who is the commander here at Bagram.

As the Soldiers where lined up to shake his hand, he blew them off and didn't say a word as he went into the conference room to meet the General. As he finished, the vehicles took him to the ClamShell (pretty much a big top tent that military personnel can play basketball or work out in with weights) so he could take his publicity pictures playing basketball. He again shunned the opportunity to talk to Soldiers to thank them for their service.

So really he was just here to make a showing for the Americans back home that he is their candidate for President. I think that if you are going to make an effort to come all the way over here you would thank those that are providing the freedom that they are providing for you.

I swear we got more thanks from the NBA Basketball Players or the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders than from one of the Senators, who wants to be the President of the United States . I just don't understand how anyone would want him to be our Commander-and-Chief. It was almost that he was scared to be around those that provide the freedom for him and our great country.

If this is blunt and to the point I am sorry but I wanted you all to know what kind of caliber of person he really is. What you see in the news is all fake.

In service,

CPT J
Bagram, Afghanistan

Followed by a lot of back-and-forth comments by mostly military personnel that field allegations of its untruth, and even challenge a Snopes account that they explain with supporting evidence got it wrong in saying the allegations against Obama are false. They stand by them being absolutely true, despite their being challenged by military commanders who find them embarrassing.

Here's another message board with some choice comments about it.

McCain's campaign has been quick to put out a commercial regarding the issue:
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2008/07/mccain_slams_obama_for_dissing_troops/

Now you're linking to other nut jobs posts on other message boards? Is it really that hard to form your own opinion?

Originally Posted By: rex

Now you're linking to other nut jobs posts on other message boards? Is it really that hard to form your own opinion?

Nut jobs in glass houses, throwing stones, rex?

Let me guess, thats you at the other board as well? Do you spew your hatred of minorities in other places as well?

Originally Posted By: rex

Let me guess, thats you at the other board as well? Do you spew your hatred of minorities in other places as well?

Nice reach, rwex.
But you're just grabbing at empty air. I barely have time to post these days to RKMB, let alone anywhere else.

As opposed to you, who have all too much time.

Too busy raping underage minority women?

With Obama in Europe, polls show tighter White House race

The US White House race tightened Saturday after new opinion polls suggested Barack Obama's shine was wearing off and Republican John McCain was gaining ground in several important states.

The Illinois Democratic senator was greeted like a rock star by some 200,000 people in Berlin....But voter polls inside the United States showed McCain chipping away at Obama's lead in the race, which remains between one and six points.

An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll published Wednesday showed 55 percent of US voters considered Obama the riskiest choice for US president, while just 35 percent said the same of McCain.

The same poll found that 58 percent of voters identified more closely with McCain's values and background, against 47 percent who said the same of Obama.

A separate study published Thursday by Quinnipiac University showed McCain has gained ground in several key battleground states, and has overtaken Obama in Colorado.

While his reception at each stop on the trip has been generous, the polls showed his message was having less impact among some segments of the US voter population.

it should be noted they didn't poll muslim extremists.

Originally Posted By: rex

Too busy raping underage minority women?

It's what I do.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

With Obama in Europe, polls show tighter White House race

The US White House race tightened Saturday after new opinion polls suggested Barack Obama's shine was wearing off and Republican John McCain was gaining ground in several important states.

The Illinois Democratic senator was greeted like a rock star by some 200,000 people in Berlin....But voter polls inside the United States showed McCain chipping away at Obama's lead in the race, which remains between one and six points.

An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll published Wednesday showed 55 percent of US voters considered Obama the riskiest choice for US president, while just 35 percent said the same of McCain.

The same poll found that 58 percent of voters identified more closely with McCain's values and background, against 47 percent who said the same of Obama.

A separate study published Thursday by Quinnipiac University showed McCain has gained ground in several key battleground states, and has overtaken Obama in Colorado.

While his reception at each stop on the trip has been generous, the polls showed his message was having less impact among some segments of the US voter population.

That's the problem with building your campaign on empty rhetoric. Eventually, people see that everything you are saying is void of anything real. Doesn't surprise me that McCain is catching up in the least.

No shit. Obama be fuckin' up. Might do the "none of the above" option this year.

i find it sad that hope is called empty rhetoric, but an old man who sees continuing a war that most Americans disprove of for 100 years is seen as a leader.
if obama's hope is empty, then it's no more empty than mccain's continuation of bush paranoia, which is also empty. i prefer to roll the dice on hope than to continue the nastiness.

And it's sad that people call obama empty when he talks about restoring the world's respect for America and creating a solid international force to combat terrorism, which is cheaper and smarter than our current unilateral wars.

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

Fact is that Obama has only talked about things in very general terms. He's not very forthcoming with how he's going to do all these great and wonderful things. Turns out that some of the things he talks about changing has been shown to just be political BS to garner votes without him really planning on doing shit about it (see NAFTA).

I'm not too keen on the McCain running in this campaign; but just to get the facts straight, he never said that the war would go on for 100 years. He said US would most likely still have troops in Iraq for 100 years. Just like we still have bases and troops in Germany and Japan over 60 years after WWII.

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

...it's sad that people call obama empty when he talks about ... creating a solid international force to combat terrorism, which is cheaper and smarter than our current unilateral wars.

Yeah, because those international peace-keeping forces have always worked out so well in places like the Congo, Darfur, Rwanda, etc.

I'm going to vote for the first man that has a solid plan for cutting spending, paying off our loans and buying back bonds from foreign investers, and leveling trade practices with countries that abuse human rights and exploit workers laboring for poverty wages that are undercutting U.S. domestic business.

The largest threat to the united states is our increasing dependence on foreign powers that actually hate us. See; China, Middle East

Barrack says he wants to end the occupation of Iraq and raise taxes. That'll put us half the way to paying for this debacle after 6 years. But it's better than McCain's "let's keep cutting taxes and continuing the occupation while we "pay" for it by selling ourselves to china"

China hates us, and that's not changing anytime soon. I don't honestly know what the fuck these Neocons are thinking, they act like the united states is defended against stupidity by a writ from God or something.

Actually, the last I looked, McCain was a strong proponent of cutting discretionary spending.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Actually, the last I looked, McCain was a strong proponent of cutting discretionary spending.

Great, but how large a cut? I'm all for a line-item veto and a war on earmarks, but there's not enough money there to balance the budget against the wars ... let alone buy back any bonds.

The sooner we buy back our country from the chinese, the better I'll feel.

Originally Posted By: The Dread Pirate Westley

If you think Obama is raising taxes in order to pay down our national debt, dream on.
Obama has already made clear that he plans to spend the additional tax revenue on social programs. But even liberal critics have noted that even with his proposed tax increases, Obama's numbers don't add up. Which means more taxes, more deficit spending, or both.

I agree with your other points though, about Britain, Japan and (most unsettling) China holding an increasing portion of our debt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

I'm a reformed neo-con myself. Pat Buchanan's book, Where the Right Went Wrong (2004) has converted me. Neo-cons have a false notion that it's the U.S. mission to save the world and promote democracy worldwide (and many Democrats too, as demonstrated by wars in Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia and elsewhere, as well as massive foreign aid by presidents and congresses of both parties, over 4 decades)But the neo-con influence is waning anyway.

I've reformed to see the wisdom of fighting war by other means, short of planes and bombs, to more gently leverage the world to see our way, or just stay out of it altogether. In examples where the U.S. has intervened in recent decades, like Korea, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Chile, Argentina, Iran, Iraq, the Phillipines and elsewhere, things have a way of reaching a natural equilibrium in all these places, regardless of what we do.
If we let them fight their civil wars or regional wars, it will run its course, they'll get tired of war, and a new era of peace and hunger free markets and democracy will arise, even without U.S. intervention.

Vietnam, for example, was over-run by communists, had a bloodbath in 1975, and 30 years later, they are taking on free-market reforms and are very welcoming toward Americans.
If we stay and hold a region and exert our influence, they often end up resenting us, no matter how well it turns out (Chile, for example, has one of the best economies in South America, but they'll never forget U.S. involvement with Pinochet).
Likewise the Phillipines.
And Iraq.

The reverse is true, though, of U.S. involvement and occupation in Germany and Japan. Our military presence in Germany and Japan has arguably made our nations remain closer allies than if we withdrew and both went our separate ways.

There are times when U.S. military action is necessary, and there are times when it is not, and just complicates things.

My problem with the neo-cons is they think U.S. military power is the answer for everything, and want to do it alone rather than build an international consensus.

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

You, and liberals in general, are quick to forget that McCain was a major thorn in Bush's side for openly criticizing Bush's strategy in Iraq, and along with Richard Lugar, Chuck Hegel and other Republicans, called for Rumsfeld's removal and more troops in Iraq to stabilize the nation and get the job done. McCain was called all kinds of names by his fellow Republicans for it, and is FAR from "just like Bush" or "continuing Bush's insanity".

There are aspects where McCain and Bush support the same policy (particularly amnesty and free trade), but it's deliberately misrepresentative to say McCain is just like Bush.

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

You, and liberals in general, are quick to forget that McCain was a major thorn in Bush's side .

and he takes being a thorn in bush's side literally.

seriously though, I don't hate Mccain. I just think he's past his prime. I'm more concerned with his visible slowness when he speaks. I've seen him since 2000 and he has gotten slower mentally. He's the oldest candidate ever to run and I don't think it's a good sign for where he'll be in 4 or 8 years.

You know, ray, unlike certain liberals, many people can disagree with President Bush without out and out hating the man.

you know g-man some people would call a retarded man who starts a war based on lies that kills hundreds of thousands of people and then tanks the economy to pay for it a contemptable man.

Ray, do you really expect us to believe that you didn't hate him even before the Iraq war?

g-man do you really hate people who you don't know personally? i mean hate, real hate, is a strong thing. maybe if you were into the san francisco liberal scene you might have some zen exposure to give you a stronger sense of peace.
i never liked bush, he's an idiot and had no place running in the first place. i don't like the fact that he only got in because of his dad and the supreme court justices his dad appointed. i was uncomfortable with the fact he lost the popular vote, i found his reaction to 9/11 to be very troubling and the resulting wars and the needless deaths because of his actions to be something very sad and unsettling.

Two columns by Pat Buchanan, advocating a change in foreign policy :

Honorable Exit From Empire

Where Buchanan pragmatically suggests the timing is good to give up occupation and costly defense alliances in places that are no longer vital to the U.S., such as Taiwan, Poland, South Korea, and provocatively... Iraq, and Afghanistan, which he says would free us to shift our resources toward Pakistan, which is far more vital.
I'm not sure I agree with the last one, but it's an interesting question to raise. Iraq is largely won at this point, and I think within a year or two we'll be out completely, regardless of which candidate wins in November.

and

Obama's War

Suggesting that Obama is pursuing pretty much the same shortsighted focus on gradual buildup of forces in Afghanistan, that Kennedy and Johnson did in Vietnam.
I wonder when liberals will start chanting "just like Bush" about Obama.

Although Buchanan fails to mention that while Obama advocated 2 brigades (about 10,000 men), McCain advocated 3 brigades (about 15,000 men).

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

You, and liberals in general, are quick to forget that McCain was a major thorn in Bush's side .

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

http://nixonisinhell.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/5mccain_bush_hug_300.jpg

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/mccain%20bush%20hug%20twn.jpg

and he takes being a thorn in bush's side literally.

Regardless of one photo-op of Bush and McCain together, which McCain is obligated to (and which you post the photo for endlessly, as if it occurred a thousand times), if McCain wants the nomination.
Bush and McCain have clearly had their differences, including a 2000 smear by the W.Bush camp (without factual basis or any evidence) that McCain had allegedly fathered a black child, which lost McCain the South Carolina primary, and for which McCain scolded Bush on a T.V. with unrestrained anger during a panel they appeared on together a few days after.

Regarding McCain's age, his mother is a very alert and spry 95, and even appeared in a Mother's Day commercial with McCain, that demonstrates McCain comes from a good gene-pool and ages well, even at 95.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2XTDHltNVU
The allegation that McCain has "become mentally slow" is a new one on me, and I haven't seen any stories to support what you allege.

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

i never liked bush, he's an idiot and had no place running in the first place. i don't like the fact that he only got in because of his dad and the supreme court justices his dad appointed. i was uncomfortable with the fact he lost the popular vote, i found his reaction to 9/11 to be very troubling and the resulting wars and the needless deaths because of his actions to be something very sad and unsettling.

Yep. Ray always hated Bush.

If I were to balance the budget and start buying our country back ..

1 ) End the occupation of Iraq, for better or worse.
2 ) Close our bases in countries that can defend themselves. (England, Italy, Germany, Turkey, ect ect. )
3 ) redistribute those resources to the southern border to combat para-military narcos.
4 ) Introduce a line-item veto. This will effectively kill any desire to load a bill with earmarks. Thus, allowing a bill to pass or fail on it's own merit.
5 ) Raise taxes.
6 ) Cut all social spending for those persons who are not citizens of the united states, or here through visa

7 ) Disband all trade agreements with countries that do not meet our humanitarian or economic standards. Thus, restoring the viablity of local production and manufacturing. No longer will an American company be forced to compete against a foreign producer that employs what ammounts to slave labor.

8 ) Work closely with the EU to continue to combat terrorism using their local assests instead of our extremely costly extended assests.

9 ) Stop proactively meddling in the affairs of other sovereign nations.

and

10 ) Make everybody realize that the world has shifted from a trade based economy to an energy based economy and begin aggressively producing clean abundant domestic energy.

You know, if I could have a crack at it.

And I'm not Liberal, nor Conservative.

Originally Posted By: The Dread Pirate Westley

1 ) End the occupation of Iraq, for better

Yes.

Quote:

or worse.

No.

Quote:

2 ) Close our bases in countries that can defend themselves. (England, Italy, Germany, Turkey, ect ect. )

Depends on the country.

Quote:

3 ) redistribute those resources to the southern border to combat para-military narcos.

Yes.

Quote:

4 ) Introduce a line-item veto. This will effectively kill any desire to load a bill with earmarks. Thus, allowing a bill to pass or fail on it's own merit.

Yes.

Quote:

5 ) Raise taxes.

No.

Quote:

6 ) Cut all social spending for those persons who are not citizens of the united states, or here through visa

YES YES YES YES OH GOD YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSS!!!!

Quote:

7 ) Disband all trade agreements with countries that do not meet our humanitarian or economic standards. Thus, restoring the viablity of local production and manufacturing. No longer will an American company be forced to compete against a foreign producer that employs what ammounts to slave labor.

Yes. But more than that, most trade should be cut off anyway. Even if China and Saudi Arabia cleaned up their acts, they still shouldn't have as much of America's assets as they do.

Isolationism for the win!

Quote:

8 ) Work closely with the EU to continue to combat terrorism using their local assests instead of our extremely costly extended assests.

Good luck making them work with us.

Quote:

9 ) Stop proactively meddling in the affairs of other sovereign nations.

Even the threatening nations?

Still, this is something you should be saying to the UN.

Quote:

10 ) Make everybody realize that the world has shifted from a trade based economy to an energy based economy and begin aggressively producing clean abundant domestic energy.

........Yes. However, this shouldn't be an excuse not to drill for oil. In lieu of a new energy source's slow development into mass production and distribution, we need to have oil till then.

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

Yep. Ray always hated Bush.

it's kind of sad someone of your advancing years is so shallow and petty.

Actually, Ray, I would respectfully submit that the people who hate Bush no matter what are the shallow and petty ones.

i listed many reasons for disliking bush. many reasons that make the man dislikable, even contemptable. many reasons that justify people opposing him as president.

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

For such a "zen exposed" guy, with such a "strong sense of peace", you sure do express a lot of spiteful and vitriolic anger on these boards.

The U.S. Supreme Court, if it wanted to pick our president in 2000, would not have kicked it back to the Florida state supreme court the first of 2 times it was handed to them, they would have picked Bush the first time.
It was because of the blatant partisanship of the Florida supreme court that the U.S. Supreme Court, the SECOND time it was presented to them for a ruling, opted only then to decide the issue.

And further, as Ann Coulter points out in a chapter of her book Slander (detailing how liberals and the liberal-partisan media slander conservatives and avoid an honest dialogue to push their liberal agenda) it was the media who rigged the election by prematurely calling the state of Florida falsely for Al Gore. A mistake the media only corrected AFTER the polls had closed in Florida, thus suppressing Republican voter turnout by an estimated 10,000 votes, when compared to the Republican voter turnout in the previous 1992 and 1996 elections.
10,000 votes that would have decisively given the election to Bush, without decisions by the U.S. and FL supreme courts.
Also, several of the most respected papers in this country (liberal media) did several recounts of the ballots in the months after the election, that also found on each recount that Bush was the winner.

And further, Gore tried to cherry pick the districts to count, and tried to suppress counting of strong Bush districts, and also tried to exclude overseas military votes, which are consistently strongly Republican as well.

For the record, as I've said often, I didn't vote for Bush in 2000 (I voted Nader), and only voted Bush in 2004 because Kerry was the unthinkable alternative. If the Democrats had given us a candidate such as Lieberman, Biden, Graham, Richardson or Dodd, I would have gone for an alternative to Bush.
Bush wasn't my first choice, but I do accept that he is our legitimately elected president, and he is the 3rd or 4th to win the election but not the popular vote. [ Thomas Jefferson(1800), John Quincy Adams (1824), Rutherford B. Hayes(1876), Benjamin Harrison(1888), and W.Bush(2000) ]
Richard Nixon would have been perfectly justified to challenge the 1960 presidential election (there is no dispute that the Kennedys have rigged elections, particularly RFK's seat as N.Y. Senator, through mob assistance), but out of patriotism chose not to bitterly divide the nation by doing so. If only Gore could have followed his example.

Finally, if you think Bush is an "idiot" (but you don't hate people, right?

) then you must really think Kerry and Al Gore are idiots, since their grades are actually lower than Bush's.

Kerry's low grades
Gore's low grades

But amazingly, the oh-so-neutral media hails both these guys as geniuses, and barely mentions their poor academic achievement. No bias at all, none, I'm sure.

Kerry was allowed to skate along and pass himself off as the latest manufactured genius, and only revealed his college transcripts a few months after the 2004 election.

you know, wondy. there really is no point in arguing with you. we'll never agree and i just feel a lot of energy is wasted on all sides.
but i will address the black or white stance your side often takes. why can't i call someone an idiot without "hating" them? and even if i did "hate" bush (a very strong emotion to have for someone i don't know personally) have i not listed enough actions on his part to justify my dislike of him? seriously, don't you think it's ok to dislike someone who has caused hundreds of thousands of deaths in the world based on eithr faulty intel or flat out lies?

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

Calling Bush an idiot is a rather personal, bitter, insulting, and non-specific way to address your disagreement with Bush.

As I just deconstructed, what you allege about Bush isn't even true.

I've voiced my fair share of criticisms of Bush (particularly his undue loyalty to corrupt incompetents, amnesty for illegals, the Harriet Miers nomination, not using his veto power to cut spending, not conducting the first 4 years of the Iraq war with the needed troop strength, and his costly go-it-alone approach of unilateral action, when diplomacy could have split the cost across many nations, as Bush Sr managed to arrange in 1991).

Again: if the whole world had the same intelligence as us, and believed Saddam's Iraq had WMD's, then it wasn't a lie. It was going to war with the best intelligence available at the time.
And as I pointed out elsewhere: MATERIAL BREACH is still WMD's, and there was plenty. (in another topic, I called it the story the liberal media absolutely refuses to report)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kay

Testimony Before House and Senate Committees

In testimony on the progress of the Iraq Survey Group on October 2, 2003 he revealed to House and Senate committees that the ISG had found that Iraq had a network of clandestine laboratories containing equipment that should have been (but was not) disclosed to UN inspectors. He also said that the ISG found an undeclared prison laboratory complex and an undeclared Unmanned Aerial Vehicle production facility. The Iraq Survey Group also found out that a UAV had been test-flown out to a range of 500 kilometers even though the agreed upon limit was 150 kilometers. Kay said that Iraq lied to the UN about the range of that particular UAV.

He testified that Iraq had done research on Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever and Brucella but had not declared this to the UN. Iraq also continued research and development work on anthrax and ricin without declaring it to the UN.

Kay told the committees that between 1999 and 2002 Iraq attempted to obtain missile technology from North Korea that would allow them to build missiles with a range of 1300 kilometers, far beyond the UN limit of 150 kilometers that Iraq agreed upon in UN Resolution 687. They also sought anti-ship missiles with a range of 300 kilometers from North Korea.

"With regard to delivery systems, the ISG team has discovered sufficient evidence to date to conclude that the Iraqi regime was committed to delivery system improvements that would have, if OIF had not occurred, dramatically breached UN restrictions placed on Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War," Kay testified

and:

On January 23, 2004, Kay resigned, stating that Iraq did not have WMD and that "I think there were stockpiles at the end of the first Gulf War and a combination of U.N. inspectors and unilateral Iraqi action got rid of them."[1] Kay was replaced in his role by Charles Duelfer and spent the following days discussing his discoveries and opinions with the news media and the U.S. political establishment. He testified on January 28, 2004 that “[i]t turns out that we were all wrong” and “I believe that the effort that has been directed to this point has been sufficiently intense that it is highly unlikely that there were large stockpiles of deployed, militarized chemical weapons there.” However, Kay defended the Bush administration, saying that even if Iraq did not have weapons stockpiles, this did not mean the nation wasn't dangerous. Kay also blamed faulty intelligence gathering for the prewar WMD conclusions. On February 2, 2004, Kay met with George W. Bush at the White House and maintained that Bush was right to go to war in Iraq and characterized Saddam Hussein's government as “far more dangerous than even we anticipated” when it was thought he had WMDs ready to deploy.

you're still beating that dead horse?

Associated Press:

A day after Democratic candidate Barack Obama warned that Republican rival John McCain would tell voters “he doesn’t look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills,” McCain’s campaign on Thursday accused Obama of playing racial politics.

Obama “played the race card, and he played it from the bottom of the deck,” McCain campaign manager Rick Davis said in a statement. He called Obama’s remarks “divisive, negative, shameful and wrong.”

Stumping in Missouri, Obama, the first black candidate with a shot at winning the White House, argued Wednesday that President Bush and McCain will resort to scare tactics to maintain the GOP’s hold on the White House because they have little else to offer voters.

“Nobody thinks that Bush and McCain have a real answer to the challenges we face. So what they’re going to try to do is make you scared of me,” Obama said. “You know, ‘he’s not patriotic enough, he’s got a funny name,’ you know, ‘he doesn’t look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills.”‘

so what you're saying is that republicans can call emphasize his middle name, show pictures of him in foreign garb, call him a muslim, complain about the black church he goes to and the issues of race raised there, but if Obama mentions it at all then he's "playing the race card?"
classy

McCain never said that so Obama really shouldn't be saying it either.

Just a few opinions:

I like all of Wesley's ideas
If Obama's camp said it, it's his responsibility. If McCain's camp said it, it's his.
There are no WMD's in Iraq. There never was. Digging up twenty-year-old fragments of what could have been a chemical-something is not a WMD. It is, in fact, a piss-poor excuse to try to make up for the fact that our administration outright lied to us. Flail and cry all you want, the truth is the truth.
I have the right to call George W. Bush a complete and utter fucking moron just for being who he is. He has more than proved he's not only unfit for the Presidency, but has no place in 21st century politics. Thanks to him and all the rest of his liars, he's killed thousands of innocent Americans with the Iraq Disaster, setback global relations by about twenty-years, and destroyed our economy. Yeah, he's a real winner.

You don't agree? I understand. Even Hitler had apologists...

yeah, mccain keeps himself safe while other people around him make the comments.

There are WMDs in Iraq. I know people that have seen them.

One of the reasons the economy is so bad is because of all the money hating anti-American "environmentalists" they are the ones who stopped us from making new refineries in America which would have lowered gas prices. They are the ones who said ethanol would solve all our problems. Guess what? It didn't. All it did was waste who knows how much money and created a global food shortage.

I don't know enough about ethanol to comment on it, but we don't need more refineries. Our over dependence on foreign oil and our overuse of petroleum products is the problem. We need to find a way to cut pollution, not keep polluting just because we don't want to undermine our way of life.

And no, a few mustard gas containers given to him by Reagan in the 80's and some feelers to buy missiles he wouldn't have been able to get do not justify the claims of colin powell at the UN or bush in his state of the union address.

Originally Posted By: The New Adventures of Old PJP

McCain never said that so Obama really shouldn't be saying it either.

I know we joke around a lot about Obama here, but we're not McCain. Also, the issue with Obama is that he seems to think every possible criticism one can make about him, his views, his experience, etc., is "divisive" or "out of bounds."

He needs to develop a thicker skin if he's going to be President.

Also getting on to the question of more refineries, mentioned most recently by Ray, you can argue about whether or not that's a good idea. However, when you have Obama saying stuff like "we could save all the oil that they’re talking about getting off drilling — if everybody was just inflating their tires... And getting regular tune-ups? You’d actually save just as much!"

So, the man who would be the next president thinks underinflated tires caused an energy crisis?

Seriously, and people think George W. Bush was stupid and under-qualified?

Originally Posted By: rex

There are WMDs in Iraq. I know people that have seen them.

Rex, you have to leave the basement to know "people". Besides, I "knew" a guy who swore to me he had Saddam in his sniper-sights when he did his six-month tour over there. I believed him, too!

Quote:

One of the reasons the economy is so bad is because of all the money hating anti-American "environmentalists" they are the ones who stopped us from making new refineries in America which would have lowered gas prices. They are the ones who said ethanol would solve all our problems. Guess what? It didn't. All it did was waste who knows how much money and created a global food shortage.

Yeah, THAT's it. Funny, I don't remember us having this problem before we hauled off and attacked Iraq for no readily understandable reason...

Originally Posted By: Prometheus

There are no WMD's in Iraq. There never was.

Lets not play the "never was" game shall we? There's already a great deal of evidence that they were either classified like the Sarin gas stock-pile or moved to Syria as Hussein's former general claimed.

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

yeah, mccain keeps himself safe while other people around him make the comments.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

So, the man who would be the next president thinks underinflated tires caused an energy crisis?

Seriously, and people think George W. Bush was stupid and under-qualified?

Yeah, G. Because that's Obama's ENTIRE plan. That's ALL he's ever said on the subject, or offered as a solution. Good old Republicans. Their key skill is taking quotes out of context to try and back their personal opinions...

You're right, Pro. I forgot he also plans to raise taxes on oil and gas. THAT'll drive the price down.

Originally Posted By: Pariah

Originally Posted By: Prometheus

There are no WMD's in Iraq. There never was.

Fair enough. That is, as long as one of you can convince Wondy to stop quoting the same, tired useless memos as if they were the Golden Ticket of Salvation for the lies of the Bush Administration.

So, in restrospect, and out of respect for Pariah's kinder, gentler maturity as of late (you've changed man, you've changed...

), there may have been WMD's two decades ago, at some point, possibly. But, absolutely nothing like the Republicans claimed...

Originally Posted By: Prometheus

... there may have been WMD's two decades ago, at some point, possibly. But, absolutely nothing like the Republicans claimed...

Whoa. It wasn't just "republicans" making that claim. Clinton, Gore, Kerry and dozens of other Democrat officials, in both the Clinton WH and Congress, all made the same claim as Bush prior to the war, namely, that Saddam either had them or was about to have them. And, further, Clinton and Gore were making that claim before Bush was even in office.

This wasn't a Republican claim. It was a bipartisan claim.

To be fair to Obama (this thread is about him, after all), he voted against the war. However, he did that largely out of a belief that diplomacy was a better alternative, not because he didn't believe the weapons were there/coming.

Still, this whole idea that "Bush LIED"(TM) gets a little ridiculous, unless you're willing to claim that the Clintons, Gore, Kerry, etc., all lied too.

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

I don't know enough about ethanol to comment on it

Doesn't stop you from commenting on anything else.

Quote:

but we don't need more refineries.

Yes we do. If we could refine oil here it would lower costs. Same thing with off shore drilling and Alaska. If the government would pull their heads out of their asses and stop listening to groups based on hating humanity we wouldn't be in the situation we're in now.[/quote]

Originally Posted By: Prometheus

Originally Posted By: rex

There are WMDs in Iraq. I know people that have seen them.

Rex, you have to leave the basement to know "people". Besides, I "knew" a guy who swore to me he had Saddam in his sniper-sights when he did his six-month tour over there. I believed him, too!

Its called working with people in the reserves. Its called knowing people that have been there and are there now. Fuck you.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Originally Posted By: Prometheus

... there may have been WMD's two decades ago, at some point, possibly. But, absolutely nothing like the Republicans claimed...

ummm... you didn't run that through any of the approved fact-checking websites before you posted it. you know we're all sick and tired of your bitter old-fashioned republican smear tactics by now.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Okay, you're right. I concede it wasn't entirely the Repubs. But, they were the ones in power, calling most of the shots. The majority of the blame falls on their shoulders.

Quote:

To be fair to Obama (this thread is about him, after all), he voted against the war. However, he did that largely out of a belief that diplomacy was a better alternative, not because he didn't believe the weapons were there/coming.

Really? Is that supposition, or did he actually say that?

Quote:

Still, this whole idea that "Bush LIED"(TM) gets a little ridiculous, unless you're willing to claim that the Clintons, Gore, Kerry, etc., all lied too.

If I'm not mistaken, I don't believe everyone else had the same level of access to all of the information Bush did. I also don't believe anyone else was able to make the big decisions he did. So no, I don't see where it's ridiculous at all...

Originally Posted By: rex

Its called working with people in the reserves. Its called knowing people that have been there and are there now. Fuck you.

Pretty defensive there, reax...

Originally Posted By: Captain Sammitch

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Originally Posted By: Prometheus

... there may have been WMD's two decades ago, at some point, possibly. But, absolutely nothing like the Republicans claimed...

ummm... you didn't run that through any of the approved fact-checking websites before you posted it. you know we're all sick and tired of your bitter old-fashioned republican smear tactics by now.

Please don't speak if you're not going to add something of substance to the discussion. Even rex is talking (somewhat) rationally. No one in this thread is interested in being "impressed" with your cheerleading skills right now...

whoa. pro's cranky. astounding. $;\)$

I'm just dismayed at the apparent lack of short-term memory these politicians are demonstrating. they'll lampoon a guy for supporting something they voted for when they thought no one was looking and tear him a new one if he continues the policies of a previous officeholder for no other reason than the party platform changing since then. I'm sure if they were allowed to vote on their own principles they'd probably be best friends with the guy, but forbid someone go against the party line.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Originally Posted By: Prometheus

... there may have been WMD's two decades ago, at some point, possibly. But, absolutely nothing like the Republicans claimed...

but they didn't invade the country based on faulty intel. they didn't say things about confirmed intel that later turned out to be lies (or "bad intel" as they say).

[quot] This wasn't a Republican claim. It was a bipartisan claim. [/quote]
but it was a republican who started the war. and it was a republican administration stacked with people who wanted to invade iraq long before 9/11.

Quote:

and diplomacy probably would've been a better option. i think also building up support in the arab world would've been better than a christian army swarming in and basically fulfilling bin laden's warnings.

Quote:

Still, this whole idea that "Bush LIED"(TM) gets a little ridiculous, unless you're willing to claim that the Clintons, Gore, Kerry, etc., all lied too.

well there are so many other lies, and scandals, and indictments to choose from in the administration. even you have to admit that bush is a bad president, or at the very least someone who made bad choices in the people he put in place.
and again, kerry gore and clinton didn't start a war. bush did.

Originally Posted By: Captain Sammitch

whoa. pro's cranky. astounding. $;\)$

Don't act shocked. Like I've ever been able to tolerate your "Lookit me!" mode.

Quote:

I'm just dismayed at the apparent lack of short-term memory these politicians are demonstrating.

They lack short-term memory?

Quote:

they'll lampoon a guy for supporting something they voted for when they thought no one was looking and tear him a new one if he continues the policies of a previous officeholder for no other reason than the party platform changing since then. I'm sure if they were allowed to vote on their own principles they'd probably be best friends with the guy, but forbid someone go against the party line.

Who are you talking about? How does this apply to what we're discussing?

Originally Posted By: Prometheus

Quote:

I'm just dismayed at the apparent lack of short-term memory these politicians are demonstrating.

They lack short-term memory?

Sammitch is probably referencing reagan. sometimes i wonder if alzheimers was trying to get jodie foster's attention.

Originally Posted By: Prometheus

Originally Posted By: Pariah

Originally Posted By: Prometheus

There are no WMD's in Iraq. There never was.

), there may have been WMD's two decades ago, at some point, possibly. But, absolutely nothing like the Republicans claimed...

What I quoted was David Kay, the former U.N. inspector who investigated Iraq's WMD program.
David Kay said before Congress that Iraq did have a WMD program.
And that Iraq was in "material breach" of U.N bans on WMDs
And that even though there were not massive stockpiles of WMD's in Iraq, Kay said that U.S. invasion was justified. (Killer germs found in scientists' freezers, huge vats of chemical weapons, disguised as pest-contol factories, with the componedts separated but ready to be easily combined into Sarin and other chemical weapons).
And that the Iraqi state was on the brink of collapse, and that Iraq's WMD scientists and materials, without U.S. invasion, would have become "a WMD arms bazaar, on sale to the highest bidder.".

I also posted several articles and topics in recent months that show that we did find WMDs in Iraq, and that the liberal media just refuses to report it. And liberals in general just bury their heads in the sand and pretend the evidence doesn't exist.

The liberal media also refuses to acknowledge the surge was a success, or acknowledge we are winning in Iraq, or report either of these.

this is not a recent phenomena, shit with the media goes back to the sixties. case in point, fall of 1969. Dick York is mysteriously replaced by Dick Sergant on Bewitched, yet to this day all major media outlets "pretend" it's still the same Darrin.

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

shhh shut up. you'll get the boards shut down with talk of things best left unsaid.

it was one of those cases where the police said it was best left unsolved.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

A day after Democratic candidate Barack Obama warned that Republican rival John McCain would tell voters “he doesn’t look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills,” McCain’s campaign on Thursday accused Obama of playing racial politics.

Obama “played the race card, and he played it from the bottom of the deck,” McCain campaign manager Rick Davis said in a statement. He called Obama’s remarks “divisive, negative, shameful and wrong.”

Well, well, well...

Obama advisor David Axelrod admits to ABC News that Obama was referring to his race after all when Obama said he didn't look like the other presidents printed on our currency.

Obama had previously tried to deny that he was playing the race card.

The Obamessiah lied? Impossible! That would make him "just another politician."

Obamadodd
doot doo doo doot
doot doot doo

I'm starting to become frightened by the people making Obama out to be the next Christ. There are some really balls-out blind supporters I've been running into. They actually think he's being 100% honest, 100% of the time.

Whoof.

You just described most the people in eugene.

No no no, these people bathe and have jobs.

Obama Backs Away From McCain's Debate Challenge

Democratic candidate Barack Obama on Saturday backed away from rival John McCain's challenge for a series of joint appearances, agreeing only to the standard three debates in the fall. In May, when a McCain adviser proposed a series of pre-convention appearances at town hall meetings, Obama said, "I think that's a great idea." In summer stumping on the campaign trail, McCain has often noted that Obama had not followed through and joined him in any events. Obama's reversal on town hall debates is part of a play-it-safe strategy he's adopted since claiming the nomination

Given all the gaffes Obama makes when he goes off script, I can see why he wouldn't want to submit to an unstructured event.

Obama Flips on Oil Reserves Dip: Dem hopeful reverses field, touts tapping nation's petroleum reserve; pushes windfall profits tax to fund $1G rebate

Can somebody tell me why changing one's mind is a bad thing? All changing one's mind proves is that you're not a self-absorbed, arrogant, hard-headed ass that thinks he's right about everything regardless of facts and realistic practicality.

Honestly, the country would be a lot better off if minds could be changed after fair consideration and debate when it comes to big questions like "How do we unfuck the United States?"

Scientists change their minds on a regular basis and don't feel at all bad about it. Why? Because yeilding to the facts only betters one's self and mankind at large. If we "stayed the course" scientificly we'd still be putting leaches on people to cure herpes and syphilis.

This isn't specific to the strategic fuel reserves, just an address in general to changing one's mind.

I don't care if a politician changes his mind just so long as it was motivated by a discovery or consideration of the facts and a personal duty to the truth.

I will allow myself one cheap shot, though. "Not changing one's mind dispite facts and observable reality seems to be typical of an organization voted into power by citizens that can't grasp the concept of evolution."

As you note, I don't think saying "I've studied the issue, events have changed and, as a result, I am changing my position" is a bad thing.

I think saying whatever one thinks a particular constituency wants to hear, and changing one's postion from day to day based on political expediency is a problem.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

So it is your position that he mearly says what people want to hear, and will openly contradict himself on record in order to farm public favor. I see.

I don't think the facts support this position.

Originally Posted By: The Dread Pirate Westley

Scientists change their minds on a regular basis and don't feel at all bad about it. Why? Because yeilding to the facts only betters one's self and mankind at large.

actually this is a fallacy, the major scientific community only changes it's position when enough people call bullshit and shoot holes in their self made continuity, in the mean time they scuttle opposing viewpoints, and actually slander the opposition.

a good case in point is global warming, there is significant counter evidence to the entire thing yet scientist who speak out are nearly blacklisted. it serves the scientific community to have this made up crisis in order to get panicked people to fund "more study" into it.

only once people know that they are full of shit do they finally change their tune, which is real difficult since they get to make up the rules of the game....

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

Originally Posted By: The Dread Pirate Westley

Scientists change their minds on a regular basis and don't feel at all bad about it. Why? Because yeilding to the facts only betters one's self and mankind at large.

There's never been much debate on global warming. The debate has been about the major cause of global warming.

Scientist that deny that the globe is warming are often ridiculed, true. Because that opinion is countered by the observable, and documented, fact that the earth IS warming.

However, nobody has rock solid proof either way as to the primary cause(s) and it's these points that scientists debate across the globe. No scientist has been blacklisted for proposing other causes besides manmade global warming.

It's happened before, after all. Ever wonder what happened to the ICE AGE?

Originally Posted By: The Dread Pirate Westley

Scientist that deny that the globe is warming are often ridiculed, true. Because that opinion is countered by the observable, and documented, fact that the earth IS warming.

Documented by record cold winters and studies that suggest a global cooling of 1 degree.

Westley just proved my point well, he thinks that scientist who present opposing evidence should be ridiculed, the fact that the average temp is lower is of no concern to him, we still must fight global warming even if it doesn't exist!

yet another flip flop:

Originally Posted By: The Dread Pirate Westley

There's never been much debate on global warming.

You're an idiot.

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

Don't put words in my mouth. It's rude and violates my strict list of objects that belong in my mouth.

At no time did I say that a scientist should be ridiculed, I said that they are ridiculed. Graciously granting you the point.

And Global Warming does exist, as does Global Cooling. The Earth is dynamic, not static. You can deny either, warming or cooling, but it would be foolish given what we know of the history of the planet.

The planet began it's existence a burning, toxic wasteland and has cycled between what we call extreme hot, extreme cold, and temperate. It's fact.

The question is, does mankind have the impact to artificially effect these trends or accelerate\magnify their effects. That's the debate.

The proof that there's a net increase in significant warming is the north's inability to sufficiently regenerate it's frost from sea water. That cold, but not frozen, water cycles south and impacts the water flows that heat certain areas. Yes, those areas that have reported record winters, the east coast of america and the coasts of france and England to be specific.

You guys can debate me on Ecology, and I won't be ridiculing you or advocating ridiculing. But the facts are plain, the logic sound.

The earth heats, the earth cools .. it boils and freezes and everything in between. It's the "why" that you have to prove and predict. It's the why that the debate is over.

If you deny Global Climate change, you're arguing with a history as old as the planet.

Originally Posted By: rex

Originally Posted By: The Dread Pirate Westley

There's never been much debate on global warming.

You're an idiot.

But not a sock fucker.

I really don't want to see this turn into yet another global warming thread, since we already have multiples of that. But there's a big damn difference between saying "there's global warming and global cooling" and making the leap to the "inconvenient truth" conclusion.

The simple fact of the matter, however, is that Obama-if he really believes that shit on global warming, energy savings, etc.-should be doing a hell of a lot more to be a "green" candidate, and not flying around in "O Force One," etc.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

no. as always, you're wrong.

Yeah, ray, god forbid the Obamessiah should practice what he preaches.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Riiiight .... because as everybody knows, advocating non-fossil fuel power alternatives means you also have to walk your campaign across the country.

He's green, not Amish. I wouldn't care if he piloted the space shuttle from houston to miami if he got us off our dependance on Oil, both foreign and domestic.

Nothing to do with global warming, I just don't like wallowing in waste like an infant.

If Willie Nelson and Sheryl Crow can tour on biodiesel buses, why can't Obama?

Originally Posted By: The Dread Pirate Westley

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

It's fact? Did you bring back pictures from the time bubble? Almost every single scientific "fact" about the planet has been disproved within 20 years or so of the "fact" being held in high esteem.

I can remember when Pluto was a planet, can you remember back to that fact?

but the facts didn't change, only the scale of measurement for what qualifies as a planet.

seriously ray, you really shouldn't believe everything they spoon feed you....

Originally Posted By: the G-man

If Willie Nelson and Sheryl Crow can tour on biodiesel buses, why can't Obama?

You show me the biodesiesel bus that can make meetings on opposite sides of the country in roughly 9 hours and I'll ask the same question.

Just like McCain, he's only got so much time to build up support and make his points.

Does it have to be a flying press studio? Of course not, but what matters to me isn't the size of his jet. We get the power plants and cars off fossil fuel, the jets will be a drop in the bucket.

Until we get a green way to fly at almost mach 1, we're not saying bye to jets of any kind no matter how much green peace bitches.

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

Originally Posted By: The Dread Pirate Westley

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

Thank you for proving my point about changing one's mind given new facts and consideration. You've been most helpful.

you can tell that youve been around Halo with that response....

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

you can tell that youve been around Halo with that response....

One of my first points was that facts do change. A point that you initially refuted as a fallacy on the grounds of resistance, and then grandly and probably accidently, supported.

I honestly don't see how Halo figures into this.

But if you think I'm dodging your question, I do remember when current facts suggested that pluto was a lone body. I also remember when, like in my point, new facts came to light and they were considered by the scientific community. Resulting in the fact being changed to reflect our new understanding.

I also remember when Pluto was thought the last orbiting body from the sun and that fact changing as well.

Maybe I'm missing your point here, was there something in it that damages my position?

EDIT; Add:

Until facts are found that the Earth is not 4 billion years old, did not have a molten beginning, and did not have several climate changes resulting in mass extinctions .. until then, the facts support my position. You can argue about how slippery these darned scientific facts are, just don't expect any substantial doubt to be cast without proof.

yet these facts of yours have no proof either, how did we get to a point to where theories and conjecture are taught as facts?

if something is a fact it cannot change, that means it was a guess that was proved wrong.

it's silly to believe the world is millions of years old because some people you dont even know string together some circular logic stating it is.

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

Fist off, it's not millions of years old, it's billions of years old. Second, Scientific fact is not always the same as empirical fact, but often is.

I'm not here to educate you, but there's nothing circular about radiometrics.

However, even if it's later proven wrong through further exploration, it's a line, not a circle. A line that continually leads us to the truth.

how does the kool-aid taste?

britneyspearsatemyshorts annoyed Moderator

15000+ posts Tue Aug 05 2008 01:02 AM Reading a post
Forum: Politics and Current Events
Thread: Barack Hussein Obama in '08?

The Dread Pirate Westley argumentative User only mostly dead
100+ posts Tue Aug 05 2008 01:04 AM Making a new reply
Forum: Politics and Current Events
Thread: Re: Obama Ducks Debate Challenge

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

how does the kool-aid taste?

*sigh* Implying that somebody is drinking magic Kool-aid means that they're believing something ridiculous based on nothing but faith.

I don't take anything on faith, as I have none. All my opinions are informed by current scientific findings and exploration, widely regarded as "true" with sufficient proof.

Asking me to believe that the world is say ... 10 thousand years old, and mankind existed along side dinosaurs, that would be an act of faith on my part as there are no actual findings to support it and it must simply be believed. That would be Kool-Aid.

However, if you come back with the definition of Radiometrics I'll tell you why I believe the Earth is 4 and some change Billion years old.

The Dread Pirate Westley argumentative User only mostly dead
100+ posts Tue Aug 05 2008 01:11 AM Reading a post
Forum: Politics and Current Events
Thread: Barack Hussein Obama in '08?

The Dread Pirate Westley argumentative User only mostly dead
100+ posts Tue Aug 05 2008 01:13 AM Reading a post
Forum: Politics and Current Events
Thread: Barack Hussein Obama in '08?

The Dread Pirate Westley argumentative User only mostly dead
100+ posts Tue Aug 05 2008 01:18 AM Reading a post
Forum: Politics and Current Events
Thread: Barack Hussein Obama in '08?

Originally Posted By: the "Who's Online" obsessor

The Dread Pirate Westley argumentative User only mostly dead
100+ posts Tue Aug 05 2008 01:13 AM Reading a post
Forum: Politics and Current Events
Thread: Barack Hussein Obama in '08?

Just to let you know, I'm going to be here a while. I'm just going to F5 periodicly while I watch Youtube.

The Dread Pirate Westley argumentative User only mostly dead
100+ posts Tue Aug 05 2008 01:19 AM Making a new reply
Forum: Politics and Current Events
Thread: Re: Obama Ducks Debate Challenge

The Dread Pirate Westley argumentative User only mostly dead
100+ posts Tue Aug 05 2008 01:25 AM Reading a post
Forum: Politics and Current Events
Thread: Barack Hussein Obama in '08?

The Dread Pirate Westley argumentative User only mostly dead
100+ posts Tue Aug 05 2008 01:30 AM Reading a post
Forum: Politics and Current Events
Thread: Barack Hussein Obama in '08?

The Dread Pirate Westley argumentative User only mostly dead
100+ posts Tue Aug 05 2008 01:32 AM Reading a post
Forum: Politics and Current Events
Thread: Barack Hussein Obama in '08?

The Dread Pirate Westley argumentative User only mostly dead
100+ posts Tue Aug 05 2008 02:02 AM Reading a post
Forum: Politics and Current Events
Thread: Barack Hussein Obama in '08?

Originally Posted By: The Dread Pirate Westley

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

how does the kool-aid taste?

I notice the challenge has gone unanswered.

Science is the determination of facts and explanations for what's going on. It proceeds by successive reduction of doubt/uncertainty, improving its accuracy with each pass.

Nothing else even comes close to the success record of science. So forgive me if I show entirely justified disdain for clueless idiots making wild guesses and saying "That's just as likely as what qualified scientific minds are saying, because they haven't been 100% accurate since Day One like me!"

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

Originally Posted By: The Dread Pirate Westley

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

how does the kool-aid taste?

And that's when I realized I was wasting my time ....

tis a shortage of perfect bresats in the world.

it'd be a pity to damage basams'

science is a DESCRIPTIVE endeavor whose methods and practices were devised to operate within the context of the observable. that's empirical science and it's got a pretty decent track record. beyond the realm of the observable, testable, and repeatable stuff of empirical science, all we can really do is extrapolate a potential explanation from what we already know for certain. really, it's a highly involved process of making educated guesses.

radiometry is an excellent tool for determining the age of organic matter, but the further back you try to take it, the wider the margin for error becomes, and for geological purposes it's really just something to help you ballpark the age of some rocks. outside of that, you get to play this really fun guessing game - how old are these rocks? we can guess the age of the rocks by the age of these fossils. how old are the fossils? we can guess the age of the fossils by the... the age of... these... rocks. yeah. and while radiometry is a good way to avoid completely clowning yourself, it's far from bulletproof.

the error isn't in supporting a theory. some really clever people put in a lot of time coming up with their educated guesses on how the earth got here, how old it is, and so on. the error is in presenting that theory as absolute fact, which according to the operating principles of science itself really isn't possible without direct observation. that places the concepts you're discussing within the realm of the theoretical, and any honest scientist who's not afraid of what the people funding his/her work might say will agree with that wholeheartedly.

the error is definitely in the frantic attempts made to quash any challenges to the [current] officially-accepted explanations for the origins of EVERYTHING. if you think someone's ideas are preposterous, fine. call them on it and compare your actual evidence to their actual evidence instead of firing blindly into the night and contorting yourself into a pretzel condemning them as ignorant or extremist or whatever else you wanna call 'em. it especially gives the scientific establishment a bad name when people invoke 'the system' to silence dissent through firings, demotions, and the like.

I don't have a beef with science or with the scientists who put in hard work in their respective fields. I have a problem with the way that people who help fund the scientific establishment keep pushing their own agendas. people are always complaining that 'religious people' aren't doing enough to stop the atrocities committed in the name of religion. if you want people to trust the scientific establishment more, shouldn't something be done about the people who destroy careers and reputations in the name of science?

also, even if you don't believe there is a God, it hardly invalidates the statement 'thank GOD for PJP'.

I don't take issue with point that radiometrics isn't pinpoint accurate. However, the decay of isotopes is incredibly stable and predictible. Materials with long lived half-lifes provide proof, accurately, to at least 4 billion years.

The ballpark is give or take millions of years, which is acceptable given the scale.

given your mom's scale.

Originally Posted By: Captain Sammitch

radiometry is an excellent tool for determining the age of organic matter, but the further back you try to take it, the wider the margin for error becomes, and for geological purposes it's really just something to help you ballpark the age of some rocks. outside of that, you get to play this really fun guessing game - how old are these rocks? we can guess the age of the rocks by the age of these fossils. how old are the fossils? we can guess the age of the fossils by the... the age of... these... rocks. yeah. and while radiometry is a good way to avoid completely clowning yourself, it's far from bulletproof.

In simplest terms, you're way off here. Radiometric dating is LESS reliable for organic materials, and far MORE reliable for inorganic radio-decay, on the order of millions of years (not thousands).

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html

And by the way, evolution HAS been directly observed...
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#observe

...even though the idea that science can only proceed by direct observation is absurd.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html

Very useful site, TalkOrigins. It distills the exchanges of a long-standing Usenet newsgroup full of proofs and discussions of legitimate science and the evidence of evolution.

Originally Posted By: Calybos

Very useful site, TalkOrigins. It distills the exchanges of a long-standing Usenet newsgroup full of proofs and discussions of legitimate science and the evidence of evolution.

So it's not just one liberal blog, it's all liberal blogs mushed together into a single liberal "superblog"?

If by "liberal," you mean "scientifically accurate and proven," then yes.

Reality, as you know, has a liberal bias. That's why Mr. Bush don't hold much with book-learnin' or them sciency types.

Originally Posted By: Calybos

Reality, as you know, has a liberal bias.

All kidding aside, that's about as stupid a statement as "liberalism is mental disorder."

Well of course it is.

But scientific fact is scientific fact; attempts to censor or alter it to suit political leanings are silly and counterproductive.

And on climate change, as on evolution, the people who actually know what they're talking about--i.e., the scientists--have spoken. You don't get to argue that you don't like their conclusions, and you don't get to drag in talking heads--even PhDs from unrelated fields--to try to deny it. It's settled.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080805/ap_on_el_pr/obama

Quote:

Democratic candidate Barack Obama criticized Republican John McCain on Tuesday for taking a page out of "the Cheney playbook" on energy, overlooking his own support of oil-friendly policies that the unpopular vice president helped to craft.

Vice President Dick Cheney, a former oilman, early in the Bush administration helped draft an energy policy that Obama asserted is biased in favor of tax breaks and favorable treatment for big oil. Obama's remarks were an attempt to capitalize on Cheney's unpopularity.

"President Bush, he had an energy policy. He turned to Dick Cheney and he said, 'Cheney, go take care of this,'" Obama said. "Cheney met with renewable-energy folks once and oil and gas (executives) 40 times. McCain has taken a page out of the Cheney playbook."

In stumping Tuesday in this key battleground state, Obama sought to link the troubled economy with Republican policies and offer his own energy plan in contrast. He has tried to cast McCain as more concerned about oil company profits and drilling than an overall energy strategy.

However, Obama himself voted for a 2005 energy bill backed by Bush that included billions in subsidies for oil and natural gas production, a measure Cheney played a major role in developing. McCain opposed the bill on grounds it included billions in unnecessary tax breaks for the oil industry.

whoopsy!

Originally Posted By: Calybos

look i can see how you feel this way you've been spoon fed this throughout school. i really pity people like yourself and westley, hell you had to register an alt to even debate this. i think the westley dud is an alright guy from most of his posts, just because he and whomever you are are naive doesnt make you bad people, just naive.

the fact is what you hold up as fact today will be disproven tomorrow shows that your facts are flawed. for me to pay higher energy prices because today your "facts" say we need to curb emissions or the planet will burn up strikes me of chicken little. but go ahead and stick your head in the sand, just dont expect me to be as big a sucker as you.

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080805/ap_on_el_pr/obama

Quote:

whoopsy!

Not that Obama will say anything to get elected...

"I was for Bush's energy policies, before I was against them"

the complete ad:

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

the complete ad:

the star of david over the world trade center is meant to mean what exactly?

it's america's birds coming home to roost, did you miss another sermon?

The Dread Pirate Westley argumentative User only mostly dead
100+ posts 08/05/08 06:42 PM Making a new reply
Forum: Politics and Current Events
Thread: Re:Obama flip-flops on energy vote

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

it's america's birds coming home to roost, did you miss another sermon?

But Jews don't like Obama.

please try to keep up.

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

please try to keep up.

Wait, you mean to tell me that we were attacked for something besides our freedom, wealth, and white whores?

Bolderdash.

obama's mentor, rev. wright would be ashamed by your ignorance.

Originally Posted By: The New Adventures of Old PJP

tis a shortage of perfect bresats in the world.

it'd be a pity to damage basams'

Obama is a Muslim and hates America.

Originally Posted By: The New Adventures of Old PJP

Obama is a Muslim and hates America.

Have fun storming the castle!

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

Have fun storming the castle!

Though your obsession is flattering, it doesn't mean I'll concede any points.

i win again!

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

the complete ad:

Nice one, BSAMS.

anyone been reading at the calls to black list Jon Voight in Hollywood for his op-ed piece about Obama's failings. oh to be a left winger, you stand for freedom, except when it is opposition speech.....

btw here is the op-ed, very well written:

Quote:

We, as parents, are well aware of the importance of our teachers who teach and program our children. We also know how important it is for our children to play with good-thinking children growing up.

Sen. Barack Obama has grown up with the teaching of very angry, militant white and black people: the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan, William Ayers and Rev. Michael Pfleger. We cannot say we are not affected by teachers who are militant and angry. We know too well that we become like them, and Mr. Obama will run this country in their mindset.

The Democratic Party, in its quest for power, has managed a propaganda campaign with subliminal messages, creating a God-like figure in a man who falls short in every way. It seems to me that if Mr. Obama wins the presidential election, then Messrs. Farrakhan, Wright, Ayers and Pfleger will gain power for their need to demoralize this country and help create a socialist America.

The Democrats have targeted young people, knowing how easy it is to bring forth whatever is needed to program their minds. I know this process well. I was caught up in the hysteria during the Vietnam era, which was brought about through Marxist propaganda underlying the so-called peace movement. The radicals of that era were successful in giving the communists power to bring forth the killing fields and slaughter 2.5 million people in Cambodia and South Vietnam. Did they stop the war, or did they bring the war to those innocent people? In the end, they turned their backs on all the horror and suffering they helped create and walked away.

Those same leaders who were in the streets in the '60s are very powerful today in their work to bring down the Iraq war and to attack our president, and they have found their way into our schools. William Ayers is a good example of that.

Thank God, today, we have a strong generation of young soldiers who know exactly who they are and what they must do to protect our freedom and our democracy. And we have the leadership of Gen. David Petraeus, who has brought hope and stability to Iraq and prevented the terrorists from establishing a base in that country. Our soldiers are lifting us to an example of patriotism at a time when we've almost forgotten who we are and what is at stake.

If Mr. Obama had his way, he would have pulled our troops from Iraq years ago and initiated an unprecedented bloodbath, turning over that country to the barbarianism of our enemies. With what he has openly stated about his plans for our military, and his lack of understanding about the true nature of our enemies, there's not a cell in my body that can accept the idea that Mr. Obama can keep us safe from the terrorists around the world, and from Iran, which is making great strides toward getting the atomic bomb. And while a misleading portrait of Mr. Obama is being perpetrated by a media controlled by the Democrats, the Obama camp has sent out people to attack the greatness of Sen. John McCain, whose suffering and courage in a Hanoi prison camp is an American legend.

Gen. Wesley Clark, who himself has shame upon him, having been relieved of his command, has done their bidding and become a lying fool in his need to demean a fellow soldier and a true hero.

This is a perilous time, and more than ever, the world needs a united and strong America. If, God forbid, we live to see Mr. Obama president, we will live through a socialist era that America has not seen before, and our country will be weakened in every way.

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

Yes, I've been reading that there HAVE been no such calls to blacklist Voight, except in the fevered imaginations of pathetic right-wingers like FreeRepublic.

Voight's free to air his hypocritical nonsense all he likes. Blacklisting was a right-wing activity, remember?

what color is the sky in your world?

Funnily enough; Nascar, Formula 1, Rally Cross, Ford, Mitsubishi, Toyota, and "others" also advocate proper tire maintenance to obtain peak efficiency.

Those damned commies at Nascar, they'll rue the day!!

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

what color is the sky in your world?

Just give us the proof that he's been blacklisted and the point's your's.

give me proof that he's not.

also you forgot to log into you Cylabis alt.

Originally Posted By: Calybos

Yes, I've been reading that there HAVE been no such calls to blacklist Voight, except in the fevered imaginations of pathetic right-wingers like FreeRepublic.

I'm not sure whether to call this "apparent elitist denial" or "denial of apparent elitism."

Or maybe I should just settle for calling you naive.

Quote:

Voight's free to air his hypocritical nonsense all he likes. Blacklisting was a right-wing activity, remember?

Actually, it's more of a person(s) in power activity.

I hope no one tells the lefties that there was a Hollywood Communism Blacklisting that took place in the the early 1900's. Most of those blacklisted were investigated by the FBI by order of Democrat and Republican congressional committees, of course I'm sure the Dems were forced.

the hippies were to blame for vietnam, not the men giving the orders and starting the wars nor the men making millions off the war?

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

give me proof that he's not.

It is for the positive position to prove their point. If it were not so, groundless, ridiculous claims would have to be taken as fact just on the basis that one cannot always disprove the impossible to observe.

IE: Should you say that pluto is composed of Rocky Road icecream, it is your burden to prove it so, and not my burden to fly to pluto and prove it false.

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

also you forgot to log into you Cylabis alt.

I hope you're not saying he's my alt. You've gotta be talking to Ray, right?

Originally Posted By: The Dread Pirate Westley

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

give me proof that he's not.

your the science guy, you believe in plenty of uproven things like global warming,the age of the earth for examples.

but back to the issue at hand, dont go asking me to prove something that you cannot disprove. it's weak sauce.

Originally Posted By: The Dread Pirate Westley

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

also you forgot to log into you Cylabis alt.

I hope you're not saying he's my alt. You've gotta be talking to Ray, right?

I no longer speak to ray, not since Macho Grande.

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

the hippies were to blame for vietnam, not the men giving the orders and starting the wars nor the men making millions off the war?

While JFK is at fault for not sending in enough men to do the job in the first place, it is in some respect the fault of the hippies for making it politically inconvenient to win the war. Just like Iraq if the Obama's of the world had their way, there would have not been a surge and it would have been Vietnam 2(yes Electric Boogaloo), and just like JFK, Bush and Rumsfeld bare a lot of blame for not sending enough troops in the first place. This would all have been over by now had they listened to people like Powell and McCain.

Originally Posted By: The Dread Pirate Westley

There's nothing groundless about Hollywood being exclusive with certain actors. Voight is going through a Ron Silver after talking to Fox.

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

Originally Posted By: The Dread Pirate Westley

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

give me proof that he's not.

It is not weak sauce. It's the basis on which to sort verifiable fact from opinion and nonsense. When you assert that something is fact, you must have the evidence to back it up. Otherwise, it's gossip, rumor, conjecture, slander, or libel.

I accept that 4.5 billion years is the age of the Earth. Why? Because we can measure the decay of isotopes and we have physical evidence of rocks that read consistently as 4+ billion years old. Not just from the Earth, but from the moon also.

There's more proof of this, than of J.V. being blacklisted.

Originally Posted By: Pariah

Originally Posted By: The Dread Pirate Westley

There's nothing groundless about Hollywood being exclusive with certain actors. Voight is going through a Ron Silver after talking to Fox.

J.V. was having a tough time long before he criticized Obama. Shit the man's been doing bit parts and minor supporting roles for 10 years. The only way things could get worse for him is if he were to get nothing at all.

Considering he's got 3 movies all either in post production or current production, I don't really see the proof that he's been blacklisted.

EDIT; Adding example:
Movie starring Voight, PreObama

Face it, the guy burned his bridges long before now. Hell, his own daughter won't even talk to him.

Originally Posted By: The Dread Pirate Westley

I accept that 4.5 billion years is the age of the Earth. Why? Because we can measure the decay of isotopes and we have physical evidence of rocks that read consistently as 4+ billion years old. Not just from the Earth, but from the moon also.

There's more proof of this, than of J.V. being blacklisted.

Oh Gawd. Not this again.

Radiometric dating can't accurately measure the isotopes if they're past the age of 50,000 years. Aside from the travel-distance of radiation from the stars of other systems indicating a certain run time, there's actually very little credible evidence that Sol is even 4.5 billion years old. It's easy enough to guesstimate how long it took for the light from other systems to get to earth (or at least its constituent elements), but that doesn't actually tell us how long Sol's been here. So in the end we suffer from circular reasoning: Scientists think they can measure the lifespan of the Sun by earth/moon's age. But their dating process is too corrupted to make such a conclusion. Ergo there's no way to prove that the radiation from other stars started reaching Sol at the time they predict.

Personally, I'm open to the possibility, but I'm not fully convinced there's enough evidence to measure earth's age based on the universe around us. That's not to say I couldn't accept it though.

Originally Posted By: The Dread Pirate Westley

This isn't just about movies; there's more indicators than that. Ron Silver was never a big star but he was a notorious liberal who attended all the social functions. After he supported the war, he stopped being invited to Hollywood social occasions. If this happens for Voight, are you still going to call us conspiracy nuts?

Quote:

Face it, the guy burned his bridges long before now. Hell, his own daughter won't even talk to him.

I'm not sure what bridges you're talking about, but considering the public spectacle he and Jolie put on, I doubt she'd be estranged from him because of any burned bridge, that is to say I doubt he was the sole destructive party in that relationship.

Originally Posted By: Pariah

Oh dawg... not this again.

Pariah, you're simply wrong on this point. Ask any astronomer, chemist, or geologist. Radiometric dating has an upper effectiveness limit, yes--but the 50,000 year mark applies only to organic material, not inorganic ones.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating#Modern_dating_techniques

You're thinking of CARBON DATING, which is a (relatively) short-term isotope and is less accurate at its upper range of 50,000 years or so. URANIUM-LEAD dating, which works with much longer-lived isotopes, operates in the range of hundreds of millions of years.

Unless you think the U.S. Geological Survey is in on the conspiracy, you'll have to give this one up.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html

In a few minutes I'm going to give birth to a brown baby boy. The contractions are about 3 minutes apart.

Here I am overseas.

We get a different but thorough perspective on US politics.

Forgive me for being blunt, Republicans....

...but how can he lose?

(and, frankly even if he does, McCain is noone to sneeze at.)

It was 6 pounds 8 oz. and I named him Silky Johnson.

Quote:

Are you telling me this is about parties?

First, show me the proof that he's been consistantly invited to these parties in the past, then illustrate the decline in invitation that begins, more or less, after his Obama speech. That's at least something to go on.

But just so you know, J.V. has been openly pro-war and republican since 2004. Yet, now is when the blacklist nonsense starts?

The truth is, Jon Voight just doesn't matter anymore and he hasn't mattered for a long time. He's done fine work, but his peak was long ago and he's been coasting ever since. Nobody cares that he's anti-Obama, because honestly, nobody cares about Jon Voight. The man's no Kevin Costner - The Guardian after all.

He's right about that. Kevin Costner is a God.

Originally Posted By: First Amongst Daves

Well, considering the fact that Obama's lead keeps shrinking the closer we get to election day, how the hell do you think that he can't lose?

It's a toss up. It will be very close andf quite possibly a repeat of 2000 where McCain wins the electoral college and the Presidency but Obama wins the meaningles popular vote.

Or vice versa. It's really anyone's game at this point. Anyone declaring either side the clear winner at this point is not only premature, but it's also bullshit.

Originally Posted By: First Amongst Daves

Here I am overseas.

We get a different but thorough perspective on US politics.

Forgive me for being blunt, Republicans....

...but how can he lose?

Didn't you guys think Kerry was a lock also? PJP and doc are more or less correct. This race is either's to lose at this point.

Originally Posted By: The Dread Pirate Westley

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

Originally Posted By: The Dread Pirate Westley

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

give me proof that he's not.

really how many isotopes have you measured the decay of? this should be interesting.

Originally Posted By: The Dread Pirate Westley

Originally Posted By: Pariah

Originally Posted By: The Dread Pirate Westley

There's nothing groundless about Hollywood being exclusive with certain actors. Voight is going through a Ron Silver after talking to Fox.

burned his bridges? bullshit no one would burn a bridge based on his political views, you said so yourself

Originally Posted By: The New Adventures of Old PJP

He's right about that. Kevin Costner is a God.

yeah but i got a feeling Westley never would have known about Costner's greatness had it not been for this board.

Originally Posted By: First Amongst Daves

Here I am overseas.

We get a different but thorough perspective on US politics.

Forgive me for being blunt, Republicans....

...but how can he lose?

I think once the American people have time to think about it, they'll decide a closet Muslim socialist isn't a safe choice for President.

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

Originally Posted By: The Dread Pirate Westley

Originally Posted By: Pariah

Originally Posted By: The Dread Pirate Westley

There's nothing groundless about Hollywood being exclusive with certain actors. Voight is going through a Ron Silver after talking to Fox.

burned his bridges? bullshit no one would burn a bridge based on his political views, you said so yourself

There are many ways to burn bridges in Hollywood, I don't imagine Mickey Rourke hit the shit can because of his politics.

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

Originally Posted By: The Dread Pirate Westley

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

Originally Posted By: The Dread Pirate Westley

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

give me proof that he's not.

really how many isotopes have you measured the decay of? this should be interesting.

Considering I get my time from an atomic clock, I measure radio-decay on a millisecond basis. Unless you're going to tell me that Atomic Clocks are also a global conspiracy of this "made up science stuff."

Originally Posted By: The Dread Pirate Westley

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

Originally Posted By: The Dread Pirate Westley

Originally Posted By: Pariah

Originally Posted By: The Dread Pirate Westley

There's nothing groundless about Hollywood being exclusive with certain actors. Voight is going through a Ron Silver after talking to Fox.

burned his bridges? bullshit no one would burn a bridge based on his political views, you said so yourself

There are many ways to burn bridges in Hollywood, I don't imagine Mickey Rourke hit the shit can because of his politics.

i believe getting you to use Mickey Rourke as a basis for an argument counts as a win.

Originally Posted By: The Dread Pirate Westley

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

Originally Posted By: The Dread Pirate Westley

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

Originally Posted By: The Dread Pirate Westley

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

give me proof that he's not.

really how many isotopes have you measured the decay of? this should be interesting.

so your saying you've never measured the decay of an isoptope? the wins keep coming.

You guys leave Mickey Rooney out of this! All that old, crazy bastard ever wanted to do was make us laugh!

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

Originally Posted By: The Dread Pirate Westley

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

Originally Posted By: The Dread Pirate Westley

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

Originally Posted By: The Dread Pirate Westley

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

give me proof that he's not.

really how many isotopes have you measured the decay of? this should be interesting.

so your saying you've never measured the decay of an isoptope? the wins keep coming.

Just do me a favor real quick, unplug your computer and run it on ignorance and nay-saying.

Originally Posted By: The Dread Pirate Westley

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

Originally Posted By: The Dread Pirate Westley

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

Originally Posted By: The Dread Pirate Westley

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

Originally Posted By: The Dread Pirate Westley

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

give me proof that he's not.

really how many isotopes have you measured the decay of? this should be interesting.

so your saying you've never measured the decay of an isoptope? the wins keep coming.

Just do me a favor real quick, unplug your computer and run it on ignorance and nay-saying.

this is really easy, no wonder halo like your company, nothing but silly comebacks.

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

Originally Posted By: The Dread Pirate Westley

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

Originally Posted By: The Dread Pirate Westley

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

Originally Posted By: The Dread Pirate Westley

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

Originally Posted By: The Dread Pirate Westley

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

give me proof that he's not.

really how many isotopes have you measured the decay of? this should be interesting.

so your saying you've never measured the decay of an isoptope? the wins keep coming.

Just do me a favor real quick, unplug your computer and run it on ignorance and nay-saying.

this is really easy, no wonder halo like your company, nothing but silly comebacks.

You're right, I shouldn't be stealing your thunder.

Until you have creditible proof to back anything you've said, I'm done debating a fool.

Originally Posted By: The Dread Pirate Westley

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

Originally Posted By: The Dread Pirate Westley

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

Originally Posted By: The Dread Pirate Westley

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

Originally Posted By: The Dread Pirate Westley

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

Originally Posted By: The Dread Pirate Westley

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

give me proof that he's not.

really how many isotopes have you measured the decay of? this should be interesting.

so your saying you've never measured the decay of an isoptope? the wins keep coming.

Just do me a favor real quick, unplug your computer and run it on ignorance and nay-saying.

this is really easy, no wonder halo like your company, nothing but silly comebacks.

You're right

i know. i knew that before the first letter was typed. check out the archives, i've yet to be wrong.

Gas prices have fallen about 25 cents in the last two weeks at the pumps around here with the current drop in crude per barrel dropping down to about $115. Wall Street is also rebounding as well as the dollar. Considering the rebounding of the economy and the settling down of Iraq, how is this gonna affect the presidential race since those have, so far, been the key issues?

Originally Posted By: thedoctor

Wall street recently took another huge hit. More Americans are taking out loans, while unemployment nationwide seems to be hovering. This caused massive instability in the market.

But the good news is, home loans are up 5% above projections.

Walmart stock was a big item of conversation yesterday. I haven't checked today, but yesterday it was stagnant.

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

Originally Posted By: The Dread Pirate Westley

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

Originally Posted By: The Dread Pirate Westley

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

Originally Posted By: The Dread Pirate Westley

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

Originally Posted By: The Dread Pirate Westley

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

Originally Posted By: The Dread Pirate Westley

[quote=britneyspearsatemyshorts]give me proof that he's not.

really how many isotopes have you measured the decay of? this should be interesting.

so your saying you've never measured the decay of an isoptope? the wins keep coming.

Just do me a favor real quick, unplug your computer and run it on ignorance and nay-saying.

this is really easy, no wonder halo like your company, nothing but silly comebacks.

You're right

Quote:

i know. i knew that before the first letter was typed. check out the archives, i've yet to be wrong.

Wow! Such a massive display of ignorance from such a tiny brain. Amazing, simply amazing.

It's a wonder BSAMS even has motor function let alone pretense to an intellect.

are you a bringer of change?

because that didn't work out too well the last time.

Originally Posted By: Calybos

Carbona and Uranium-Lead suffer from the same calibur problem though. Scientists have no way of knowing if the daughter cells they measure within the half-life were there from the beginning or not. They both need perfect environments to work.

I'm not sure exactly what a Wiki article is supposed to prove. Here's something that explains how the particles in the Radiometric methods actually work:

http://www.trueauthority.com/cvse/radiometric.htm

Originally Posted By: The Dread Pirate Westley

Are you telling me this is about parties?

More to point, it's about being persona non grata. If he's forced into the status of Hollywood social pariah, that alludes to more casting bias.

The Dread Pirate Westley argumentative User only mostly dead
100+ posts Fri Aug 08 2008 11:10 PM Making a new reply
Forum: Politics and Current Events
Thread: Re: Hollywood Calls For Blacklisting

Originally Posted By: Pariah

Originally Posted By: The Dread Pirate Westley

Are you telling me this is about parties?

More to point, it's about being persona non grata. If he's forced into the status of Hollywood social pariah, that alludes to more casting bias.

Well, if he suddenly stops getting bit parts and minor supporting roles I'll go ahead and give you the point.

The one condition is that his lack must not be due to the fact that he's 70 or more years old, or dead.

Originally Posted By: The New Adventures of Old PJP

are you a bringer of change?

because that didn't work out too well the last time.

Nobody wanted to change you assholes. Just call you out. And despite all your half assed attempts at maligning/miscontrueing our motives...that's what we did.

Originally Posted By: Wank and Cry

Originally Posted By: The New Adventures of Old PJP

are you a bringer of change?

because that didn't work out too well the last time.

Wank and Cry content User Feared by RKMB
3000+ posts 08/09/08 10:43 AM Reading a post
Forum: Politics and Current Events
Thread: Barack Hussein Obama in '08?

If that doesn't describe spineless sacks of shit like WB and BSAMS I don't know what does.

I don't know how you can put WB and basmas in the same sentence. They are very different people.

for one, i never wear slacks.

Originally Posted By: The New Adventures of Old PJP

I don't know how you can put WB and basmas in the same sentence. They are very different people.

I'm talented like that.

he has experience with two guys at once.

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

he has experience with two guys at once.

I bet that idea got you all kinds of excited.

Originally Posted By: Wank and Cry

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

he has experience with two guys at once.

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

Originally Posted By: Wank and Cry

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

he has experience with two guys at once.

Well, at least you're branching out.

Originally Posted By: Wank and Cry

Quote:

http://www.trueauthority.com/cvse/radiometric.htm

After reading this for the 3rd time I've come to the conclusion that it was only created to cast doubt through dubious assumptions. The one I have the most problem with is the unsupported notion that radio-decay is not constant and without support the author claims that you can not trust the decay of Uranium.

However, all scientific evidence suggests that decay is constant by element. We've built applications based on this vary notion, see Atomic Clocks for one.

In another article on the site I found this sentence; "So far, no known environmental factors have been able to significantly cause the decay rates to vary. For this reason, I will have to bite the bullet and accept that it is reasonable to assume the decay rate is constant .."

Though this article too seems only created to cast doubt, and offers no substantial proof that the process is flawed.

The closest they come is saying, and I paraphrase; "there's room for error so why trust it all?" Which is the same tired argument that has been shutdown time and time again.

I have no problem doing an about-face on any issue, but you do have to meet some sort of burden. Casting doubt through questionable assumptions isn't the same as proof.

Originally Posted By: Captain Sammitch

Originally Posted By: Wank and Cry

You should try following BSAMS example and using different graemlins/moties/smilies every once in awhile.

Originally Posted By: Wank and Cry

Originally Posted By: Captain Sammitch

Originally Posted By: Wank and Cry

Originally Posted By: Captain Sammitch

Originally Posted By: Wank and Cry

Originally Posted By: Captain Sammitch

Originally Posted By: Wank and Cry

No, that doesn't work either.

Originally Posted By: Wank and Cry

Originally Posted By: Captain Sammitch

Originally Posted By: Wank and Cry

Originally Posted By: Captain Sammitch

Originally Posted By: Wank and Cry

stoooooooooooop!

Originally Posted By: Captain Sammitch

Originally Posted By: Wank and Cry

Originally Posted By: Captain Sammitch

Originally Posted By: Wank and Cry

Originally Posted By: Captain Sammitch

Originally Posted By: Wank and Cry

stoooooooooooop!

You really are afraid of change, aren't you?

Originally Posted By: Wank & Cry

Written by Thomas Tantillo
Silver Surfer is a property of Marvel Comics and is used without permission.

Silver Surfer #1 The Obsessed.

Page 1

Panel 1: Looking out into the cosmos seeing only stars.

1 Cap: Looking up into the heavens a boy once wished for nothing more then roam among the stars. He and his kin had everything they could ever want yet the boy needed more.

Panel 2: Focusing in we see a bright light in the distance.

2 Cap: He was a born explorer and like all explorers he was possessed by desire that he could not define. A yearning to find something deeper in all around him.

Panel 3: Coming closer we see the light streaking through the cosmos.

3 Cap: I came to pass that the boy's boys wishes would come true when he made a noble, yet self serving, sacrifice to become the herald to Galactus the Devourer of worlds.

Panel 4: Now we're close enough to see that there are two distinctly diffrent lights. One orange followed by blue.

4 Cap: Not only did he get to roam with the stars but he became one with them. He became.

Page 2

Splash: Silver Surfer chasing after Firelord.

5 Cap: ...The Silver Surfer.

6 Cap: He and I have engaged in a tit for tat for years now. He is my greatest obsession. And he is not without his own compulsions. Like all explorers he never stops searching. Even now he searches for the slightest possibility of redemption for a foe he once considered friend.

7 Silver Surfer: End this mad rampage Perilous Kryl.

8 FireLord: My name is Firelord. Whatever remained of Perilous Kryl was left behind in the cold corridors of death.

Page 3

Panel 1: Silver Surfer unleashes powerful blasts from his hands towards Firelord.

9 Silver Surfer: And now you dispense that which you abhor.

Panel 2: Firelord spins his staff shielding him from the Surfers blasts.

11 Firelord: The Kree are a disease. It is time they taste of extinction so they may no longer brutishly leave death and destruction in their wake.

Panel 3: The right side of Surfers face and shoulder. He has a stern look while he tries to reason with FireLord.

12 Surfer: No love have I for the Kree but they are not the only one who have fell before your pharisaic wrath.

Panel 4: The left side of Firelords face and shoulder as he harshly rebukes Surfers reasoning.

13 FireLord: All scum. Perhaps if "heroes" such as yourself had taken firmer action years ago with the Kree or Skrull their victims wouldn't number so high. Perhaps Annihilation would not have caused such carnage with his Wave. Carnage that you missed while once again in thrall to Galactus.

Panel 5: Surfer and Firelord speeding toward eachother.

14 Surfer: And what would you have me do with you Perlous?

15 Firelord: I'd have you stay out of my way.

16 Surfer: That I cannot do.

Panel 6: The left side Firelords face with his eye squinted and focused.

17 Firelord: Very well.

Page 4

Panel 1: Mephisto watching a massive and yet splendidly beautiful explosion from a distance standing on a asteroid.

18 Cap: The power Galactus has givin his Heralds is uncanny. Firelord has created a supernova engulfing them both in a magnifient yet catastrophic explosion. Most amazing of all is that neither of them will be harmed by the blast so I'm not quite sure why Firelord has envoked this stratagy but I'm sure he had his reasons.

Panel 2: Seeing Mephisto from the side as the waves of the Supernova pass by him.

19 Cap: It is unbecoming of one such as I to express sentiment but there are exceptions. How could I not appreciate the splendor of a Supernova. Our roles in the scheme of things are actually quite akin when I too bring out the beauty in death, destruction, and tragedy.

Page 5

Panel 1: The Surfer, having been laid low, rises from his board looking around for Firelord.

20 Cap: Ah, now I see Firelords purpose for that Supernova. A means of escape.

Panel 2: Firelord camoflaged with the darkness of space behind the Surfer.

21 Cap: He has rather cleverly cloaked himself in dark matter.

Panel 3: Surfer peering into space with his eyes illuminated looking for Firelord.

22 Cap: With his Galactus givin sight, which can see across galaxies, Surfer undoubtedly sees the pocket of Dark Matter but assumes it's a result of the explosion.

Panel 4: Surfer suddenly sees something that horrifies him.

23 Cap: Eventually Surfer would figure it out but...

Panel 5: Over Surfer's shoulder we see Mephisto in the distance.

24 Cap: ...Something else catches his eye.

Panel 6: Surfer speeding toward Mephisto's location.

25 Cap: Like all explorers he's easily distracted.

Page 6

Panel 1: Surfer gets to where Mephisto was standing only to find no one there. He looks around bewildered.

26 Cap: Perhaps he'll assume the explosion has upset his senses. Or not. Either way I've provideded Firelord the space he needs to escape. Which serves my purposes for another day.

Panel 2: From a chest level view we look to see Surfer staring intently at the stars.

27 Surfer: I know you can hear me Kryl. Beware.

Panel 3: Surfer leaving the scene behind with some final words.

28 Surfer: There are deeper and darker abysses then death to fall into.

29 Cap: HA. There certainly are.

Panel 4: Firelord leaving with a heavy brow.

Page 7

Panel 1: Surfer riding the spaceways.

30 Cap: There are many misconceptions of the Surfer. For one, he's not a warrior. Battle and hate have very taxing affects on him. Between my looming presence in his mind and his donnybrook with Firelord he is in need of repast.

Panel 2: Surfer looking into the distance with a slight look of glee.

31 Cap: And what better place to gather his thoughts.

Panel 3: A light blue spot among the starts.

32 Cap: Then Earth. The world he has all but adopted as his own.

Page 8

Panel 1: Surfer entering Earths atmosphere.

33 Cap: I cannot read minds but in the case of the Silver Surfer I do not need to. I know why he returns to a world that once served as his prison for years. I know why he returns to a world that has disheartened and infuriated him at every turn.

34 Cap: It reminds him of Zenn-La

Page 9

Panel 1: Surfer soaring over the ocean.

33 Cap: Far less advanced and civilized but in terms of visage the geography and people are very similiar.

Panel 2: With his hands behind his back Surfer moves slowly a few feet above the ocean, staring down at the waves.

34 Cap: He sacrificed his freedom long ago so that Zenn La would be spared but it turned out it was a sacrifice in vain since the world had been ravaged again and again till meeting it's final doom.

35 Cap: He would never speak the words but he is almost glad that Zenn La is at final peace. But from time to time he enjoys being reminded of his homeworld and it's enchanting traquility.

Panel 3: Surfer flying through the Tibetan mountains.

36 Cap: There is another reason though.

Panel 4: Surfer walking through the snow.

37 Cap: Of all the worlds Surfer has tread upon...

Panel 5: A stone door hidden among the rocks is ajar.

38 Cap: ...Earth is one of the few that manage to surprise him.

Panel 6: Surfer with a look of curiousity on his face.

Page 10

Panel 1: The Shadows of two boys playing on the walls as Silver Surfer walks forward.

39 Mutt: You won't catch me Spider-man.

40 Eight: Oh yes I will Green Goblin.

Panel 2: A mutant boy who has 6 arms and 8 eyes hangs from the wall shooting webs out of his hands at his friend.

41 Eight: For good always triumphs over evil.

Panel 3: A boy with the features of a wolf is on the ground webbed up.

42 Mutt: Man, how come you always get to be Spider-man?

Panel 4: Eight jumps down to the ground near Mutt who is getting loose.

43 Eight: I'll give you eight guesses why.

44 Mutt: Who cares when your Spidey dialogue sucks.

Panel 5: Eight and Mutt face to face with Surfer in shadows behind them.

45 Eight: Does not.

46 Mutt: Does too. Spidey doesn't say corny stuff like that. That's more like...

Page 11

Panel 1: Mutt talking while Eight stares in awe behind him.

47 Eight:...the Silver Surfer???

48 Mutt: Yeah, somebody like...

Panel 2: Mutt and Eight staring up at the ledge above them staring at a glistening Silver Surfer.

49 Surfer: Hello young ones.

Page 12

Panel 1: Mutt is scared and Eight is excited.

50 Mutt: AHHHHHH

51 Eight: Relax Mutt, he's a good guy. I read all about him on the internt.

Panel 2: Eight turning to Silver Surfer

52 Eight: I read all about you on the internet.

Panel 3: Silver Surfer looking down at the two kids with a bit of a smile.

53 Surfer: I am glad you know I intend you know harm. It seems everyone on this planet normally assumes the worst when it comes to me.

Panel 4: Surfer walks down to the same ground level as the kid

54 Surfer: Though, I am somewhat curious how you two traversed the harsh weather conditions and mountains to get here.

Page 13

Panel 1: Looking down over Surfers shoulder we see Mutt and Eight.

55 Mutt: Well, if you haven't noticed, we're a little diffrent. We can take the cold and handle the mountains. We were playing outside and found this place.

56 Surfer: Are you mutants?

Panel 2: Looking at Surfer, Mutt, and Eight from the side.

57 Eight: No no no we're freaks.

58 Surfer: Freaks? I'm unfamiliar with the application of this term here on earth?

59 Eight: There was an accident in our hometown and we were some of the people changed by it. How did you find this place?

Panel 3: Surfer holding his arm out with his hands open palms facing up.

60 Surfer: My story is not that foreign from your own. There was a time I was trapped here on earth thanks to my former master Galactus. While exploring this world I stumbled upon the hidden ruins of these mountains. I return here from time to time to gather myself.

Panel 4: Looking over Mutt and Eight's shoulders to Surfer

61 Mutt You don't mind us being here do you?

Panel 5: Surfer looking down at the boys.

62 Surfer: No, I do not mind. I have no more claim to this place then you and I could use the company.

63 Mephisto: Really?

Page 14

Panel 1: See Mephisto posturing, from an upward angle, with his arms crossed from an upward angle.

64 Mephisto: How about the company of an old friend?

Page 15

Panel 1: Surfer with a look of intensity on his face while Mutt is pulling Eight away by his shirt.

65 Surfer: Children, you must leave now.

66 Eight: But we can help.

67 Surfer: No, you cannot, now hurry.

Panel 2: Mutt dragging Eight out of there with Surfer in the background heading towards Mephisto on his board.

68 Mutt: Stop being an asshole Eight and let's get out of here.

Panel 3: Surfer on going downward toward Mephisto

69 Surfer. DEMON

70 Surfer: I don't know why you've chosen to appear before me now but you will rue that decision.

Panel 4: Mephisto smurking.

71 Cap: One of the reason I take such intrest in the Surfer is I absolutely love how he reacts to me.

Panel 5 From behind Mephisto we see him looking up at Surfer soaring over head.

72 Cap Such unbridled hate from one so gentle. Knowing that the mere sight of me causes him such agita is almost vengeance enough. Almost.

73 Mephisto: Must you always act the fool with such hysterics? After all this time don't you know I only want to talk.

74 Surfer: Your words are more dangerous then the actions of most evil one.

Panel 5: The left side of Mephisto's face with Surfer hovering right above the ground.

75 Mephisto: True. But it is not the words alone.

Page 16

Panel 1: Mephisto with his hands in the air, as though he's casting a wicked spell, while Surfer looks on.

76 Mephisto: It's the guile behind them.

77 Mephisto: BEHOLD

78 Mephisto: A vision in my Stygian mists.

Panel 2: Outside in the Snow Mephisto's Souless Ones are grabbing the Eight and Mutt.

79 Mephisto: My newly resurrected Souless Ones have captured your young friends.

Panel 3: Surfer looking past the mist at Mephisto yelling at him.

80 Surfer: MEPHISTO.

81 Surfer: Hurt those children and I'll

81 Mephisto: Do not waste my time with with idle threats and I will not waste yours with mourning. They are merely to insure I have your attention.

Panel 3: Surfer slightly bowing his head submissively.

82 Surfer: What do you want Mephisto?

Panel: 4: Mephisto manifesting another image in his mist as Surfer watches.

83 Mephisto: For once, you and I want the same thing.

Page 17

Panel 1: Surfer and Mephisto looking into the mist to see an image of Morlun.

84 Surfer: Morlun!

85 Mephisto: I see you know of him? He has been givin the power to destroy you.

Panel 2: Surfer with his back to us and Mephisto facing us with both facing the other.

85 Surfer: Why are you telling me this?

86 Mephisto: Morlun is a small part of a much larger threat to Earth. One of my largest sources for souls to reap. It would hardly serve my best intrest for Earth to be destroyed.

86 Surfer: Deciever, I know there is far more to this then you present. What do you want in return for this information?

Panel 3 With a view from behind Surfers right side seeing Mephisto standing with his fist against his hips.

87 Mephisto: All I ask is that you stay here on earth until you are certain the threat has subsided. And perhaps there is more to this but...

Panel 4: Mephisto leaning into Surfers face with Surfer staring unflinchingly.

88 Mephisto: Are you really willing to take that chance.

Page 18

Panel 1: Outside the Souless ones release the children.

89 Mephisto: As a showing of good will I'll release your friends.

Panel 2: Mephisto vanishing.

90 Mephisto: I leave you with one promise Surfer, never has the earth needed you more.

Panel 3: Surfer with a pensive look.

Panel 4: Surfer flies outside while the children move away from the Souless ones.

91 Mutt: Let's get out of here.

Panel 5: Surfer comes to the childrens side to check on them.

92 Surfer: Are you okay?

93 Eight: Yeah.

Panel 6: Surfer with his arms around the boys as all three look to the souless ones.

94 Surfer: It will all be okay now.

Page 19

Panel 1: The Horned Souless one about to enter a portal while the other masked Souless one stares at Surfer.

95 Horned Souless one: Come brother. Mephisto beckons.

Panel 2: Close up of Masked Souless Ones face.

96 Masked Souless One: Be seeing you, Surfer.

Panel 3: Both Souless Ones disappear into the portal as Surfer and the boys watch on.

Panel 4: Eight looks up to Surfer.

97 Eight: What was that about?

98 Surfer: The continuation of a game between me and an old foe who seeks to torment me by keeping me here on Earth.

99 Cap: That's part of it, sure.

100 Surfer: But what he does not realize is that things are diffrent now.

Panel 5: Surfer transforms into a flesh and blood man.

101 Cap: Hmm, I didn't see that coming but I suppose it is not totally unexpected. Easily accomplished for the Surfer and his power cosmic. Intresting he hasn't done it earlier.

Page 20

Panel 1 Surfer in process of transforming back into his Silver form while kneeling in front of the children with his hands on their shoulders.

102 Surfer: Come, I will take you to your home.

103 Cap: I suppose it doesn't matter. I can take comfort in the knowledge I have that he doesn't.

Panel 2 Surfer flying away with the boys on his board.

104 Cap: For in these coming days the stars will need him more then ever and thanks to me he won't be there.

Page 21

Panel 1 The home world of the Grandmaster.

Panel 2 From behind the grandmaster we see the Elders of the Universe gathered.

105 Grandmaster: My fellow Elders. Thank you for attending this meeting. Each of us share a common bond of being the last of our respective races due to some cataclysm. Well I believe it is time for us to bring others into our fold which means...

Panel 3: Grandmaster leaning back with his fingertips touching with a cold stare.

106 Grandmaster: It is time for another cataclysm.

Panel 4: A battle being waged in the outer atmosphere of a planet.

Panel 5: Three sillouettes stand watching the battle outside on a screen.

107: Such destruction. It's tragic this had to happen.

108: Yes, tragic but necessary.

Page 22

Panel1: The three figures revealed as bald men all wearing Silver robes.

109: For all the Universe must know the way of Zenn-La.

The End.

Originally Posted By: Wank and Cry

Originally Posted By: Captain Sammitch

Originally Posted By: Wank and Cry

Originally Posted By: Captain Sammitch

Originally Posted By: Wank and Cry

Originally Posted By: Captain Sammitch

Originally Posted By: Wank and Cry

stoooooooooooop!

You really are afraid of change, aren't you?

of course not! I change your posts all the time!

Can you guys take this outside, BSAMS may not remember to obsess over me if you bury my posts and I've grown accustomed to having a loyal fan.

sorry did you say something?

Originally Posted By: Captain Sammitch

sorry did you say something?

CURSE YOU!

Originally Posted By: The Dread Pirate Westley

Can you guys take this outside, BSAMS may not remember to obsess over me if you bury my posts and I've grown accustomed to having a loyal fan.

He was my fan first. But hey, all the whores here are my fans so you can have BSAMS. Don't say I never did anything for you.

Originally Posted By: Wank and Cry

Originally Posted By: The Dread Pirate Westley

Can you guys take this outside, BSAMS may not remember to obsess over me if you bury my posts and I've grown accustomed to having a loyal fan.

I am defending my story's internet honor!

I win. again.

Originally Posted By: The Dread Pirate Westley

I have no problem doing an about-face on any issue, but you do have to meet some sort of burden. Casting doubt through questionable assumptions isn't the same as proof.

That's too simplistic a description of the critique. These are hardly "assumptions" of error. They're pointing out that our knowledge of how much time has passed is too arbitrary to properly judge the amount of daughter cells that may or may not have been present in the isotopes to start with.

yeah westley. fucking mormon.

Originally Posted By: Captain Sammitch

I win. again.

You sure do. Nobody can make themselves look like a weak minded simpleton like you can! Congrats Captain Smuggish.

people say things in politics about their opponent that they later reverse on. if he were to pick her they would just say they sat down and worked out their differences and are commited to blah blah blah.

The point being that Clinton not only put down Obama, but she did it by boosting up McCain. And we're not talking an 8 year gap here either. We're talking about a few months ago.

Originally Posted By: thedoctor

The point being that Clinton not only put down Obama, but she did it by boosting up McCain. And we're not talking an 8 year gap here either. We're talking about a few months ago.

Maybe she thinks that if she gets McCain elected that she'll have A shot in the '12 elections. The alternative for her is a possible 8 year wait behind Obama.

and by then Obama and Wright will have all the white people in concentration camps.

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

and by then Obama and Wright will have all the white people in concentration camps.

White and White mixed account for 75% of the population. They'd have to send us blankets covered in smallpox first.

black people dont believe in blankets. it's a scientific fact.

Originally Posted By: The Dread Pirate Westley

White and White mixed account for 75% of the population.

Yeah, but the "white mixed" will do the same thing as Obama did and declare themselves "black."

at least his grandma only hates %25 of the population.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Originally Posted By: The Dread Pirate Westley

White and White mixed account for 75% of the population.

Yeah, but the "white mixed" will do the same thing as Obama did and declare themselves "black."

Black people won't buy it. Shit, they accepted Bill Clinton and still won't claim Halle Berry.

perhaps they havent seen her tour de force performance in Catwoman!

Originally Posted By: thedoctor

The point being that Clinton not only put down Obama, but she did it by boosting up McCain. And we're not talking an 8 year gap here either. We're talking about a few months ago.

She made an obvious point about the experience McCain undeniably has. Her comment somehow being a deal breaker only seems to be something that really resonates with people that I suspect won't be voting for Obama reguardless.

Bloomberg:

Democrat Barack Obama, beset this week with new attacks from Republican rival John McCain, says there will be little or no politicking over the next seven days as he takes a vacation in his childhood home of Hawaii.

``I'm going to go body surfing at some undisclosed location,'' Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, told the crowd at a welcoming rally yesterday in Honolulu. ``I'm going to go get some shaved ice.''

he plans to relax, see his [racist white] grandmother and visit old hangouts

I wonder if Michael Moore and other Obama supporters will attack him for taking a vacation they way they did with President Bush?

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Bloomberg:

Democrat Barack Obama, beset this week with new attacks from Republican rival John McCain, says there will be little or no politicking over the next seven days as he takes a vacation in his childhood home of Hawaii.

``I'm going to go body surfing at some undisclosed location,'' Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, told the crowd at a welcoming rally yesterday in Honolulu. ``I'm going to go get some shaved ice.''

he plans to relax, see his [racist white] grandmother and visit old hangouts

I wonder if Michael Moore and other Obama supporters will attack him for taking a vacation they way they did with President Bush?

G, let's get real here, taking a vacation from campaigning is different than taking a vacation from running the country during a time of crisis.

The upside for conservatives is that McCain could pull off a hat trick and get his real message out there. So far the attack ads just tell why I shouldn't vote for Obama, but not why I should vote for McCain.

you should vote for McCain because he isn't a dirty closet Muslim.

Actually, McCain is also running ads where he talks about what he'd do if elected President.

Originally Posted By: Pariah

Yeah, and radio-isotope scientists never thought of the possibility of contamination until a crackpot creationist site came up with it. They account for that in the analysis, Pariah.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html#isowrong

If you go to a junk-science site like "True Authority," you'll get ignorant junk-science comments from people who don't understand the stuff they're trying to criticize.

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

I think once the American people have time to think about it, they'll decide a closet Muslim socialist isn't a safe choice for President.

Good thing one isn't running, then. President Obama is a Christian and a Democrat. Confusing either those with "muslim" and "socialist" reflects profound ignorance of the caliber normally associated with Bush appointees.

wow Calybos doesnt have an original thought either...not surprising....

Any second now, he'll call us "bitter."

I thought that was obvious!

Originally Posted By: Calybos

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

I think once the American people have time to think about it, they'll decide a closet Muslim socialist isn't a safe choice for President.

Perhaps you missed Obama's Freudian slip about the 57 states of Islam:

http://www.whereskilroy.com/?p=185

I guess they don't teach US geography at the madrassa

In Obama's defense he was for the US before he was against it.

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

wow Calybos doesnt have an original thought either...not surprising....

"If I have seen farther it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants."
-Isaac Newton

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

In Obama's defense he was for the US before he was against it.

Actually, I'm guessing it was the other way around.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Bloomberg:

Democrat Barack Obama, beset this week with new attacks from Republican rival John McCain, says there will be little or no politicking over the next seven days as he takes a vacation in his childhood home of Hawaii.

``I'm going to go body surfing at some undisclosed location,'' Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, told the crowd at a welcoming rally yesterday in Honolulu. ``I'm going to go get some shaved ice.''

he plans to relax, see his [racist white] grandmother and visit old hangouts

I wonder if Michael Moore and other Obama supporters will attack him for taking a vacation they way they did with President Bush?

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

actually i wouldn't be able to get to the beach because i have a full time job.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Bloomberg:

Democrat Barack Obama, beset this week with new attacks from Republican rival John McCain, says there will be little or no politicking over the next seven days as he takes a vacation in his childhood home of Hawaii.

``I'm going to go body surfing at some undisclosed location,'' Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, told the crowd at a welcoming rally yesterday in Honolulu. ``I'm going to go get some shaved ice.''

he plans to relax, see his [racist white] grandmother and visit old hangouts

I wonder if Michael Moore and other Obama supporters will attack him for taking a vacation they way they did with President Bush?

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

actually i wouldn't be able to get to the beach because i have a full time job.

is Obama the President? does Obama already have the record for most vacation days and trips?

yes he's the President, did you miss his victory lap in Europe?

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Bloomberg:

Democrat Barack Obama, beset this week with new attacks from Republican rival John McCain, says there will be little or no politicking over the next seven days as he takes a vacation in his childhood home of Hawaii.

``I'm going to go body surfing at some undisclosed location,'' Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, told the crowd at a welcoming rally yesterday in Honolulu. ``I'm going to go get some shaved ice.''

he plans to relax, see his [racist white] grandmother and visit old hangouts

I wonder if Michael Moore and other Obama supporters will attack him for taking a vacation they way they did with President Bush?

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

actually i wouldn't be able to get to the beach because i have a full time job.

is Obama the President? does Obama already have the record for most vacation days and trips?

Ray, some day when you get employment that doesn't involve wearing flair and waiting on tables, you might realize that it's usually not considered a good thing when a job candidate lazes about before he even gets the position.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Bloomberg:

Democrat Barack Obama, beset this week with new attacks from Republican rival John McCain, says there will be little or no politicking over the next seven days as he takes a vacation in his childhood home of Hawaii.

``I'm going to go body surfing at some undisclosed location,'' Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, told the crowd at a welcoming rally yesterday in Honolulu. ``I'm going to go get some shaved ice.''

he plans to relax, see his [racist white] grandmother and visit old hangouts

I wonder if Michael Moore and other Obama supporters will attack him for taking a vacation they way they did with President Bush?

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

actually i wouldn't be able to get to the beach because i have a full time job.

is Obama the President? does Obama already have the record for most vacation days and trips?

Quote:

A few weeks back, Time magazine was musing that John McCain was in danger of sliding from “a long shot” to a “no-shot.” Around the same time, a hard-nosed former Hillary Clinton insider declared the race “effectively over” thanks to the McCain campaign’s ineptitude, the tanking U.S. economy and Obama’s advantages in cash, charisma and hope. And Obama, up by three to six points nationally, was about to leverage a much-anticipated trip to Iraq, Afghanistan and Europe into a pre-convention poll surge.

Instead, his supporters are now suffering a pre-Denver panic attack, watching as John McCain draws incrementally closer in state and national polls – with Rasmussen’s most recent daily national tracker showing a statistical dead heat.

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton has been privately enumerating her doubts about Obama to supporters, according to people who have spoken with her. Clinton’s pollster Mark Penn recently unveiled a PowerPoint presentation red-flagging Obama’s lukewarm leads among white female voters and Hispanics – while predicting a five-point swing could turn a presumed Obama win into a McCain landslide.

“It’s not that people think McCain will win – it’s that they are realizing that McCain could win,” says Quinnipiac University pollster Peter Brown, whose surveys show tight races in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida. “This election is about Barack Obama — not John McCain — it's about whether Barack Obama passes muster. Every poll shows that people want a Democratic president, the problem is they’re not sure they want Barack Obama.”

Obama’s aides point to the stability of his small national lead, say they aren’t worried about his summer stall and think his numbers will improve when voters begin tuning in to the conventions.

“This is a country that is looking for a fundamentally different direction and John McCain offers nothing but the status quo,” said spokesman Bill Burton, adding that he wasn’t “losing any sleep” over his boss’s rough patch.

The campaign’s confidence may turn out to be justified but two weeks prior to the national convention there are more than a few worrisome signs for Obama. Here are seven:

1. Race. “The idea that Obama was going to win in a blowout was always preposterous,” says former Nebraska senator and onetime presidential hopeful Bob Kerrey, an Obama backer. “A big piece of this, of course, is whether white people are going to support a black guy… If [Obama] is a tall, skinny white guy named Paul Jones it's a different story.”

Obama is running nearly neck-and-neck with McCain among white voters in most polls, a major cause for optimism considering that John Kerry and Al Gore lost the white vote by 17 and 12 points respectively. Among whites, he does well with women, the affluent and college grads but fares poorly among low-income earners and Catholics – key swing groups that handed Hillary Clinton stunning blowouts in West Virginia and Kentucky.

How much does his race factor into tightening contests in Missouri, Wisconsin, Florida, Minnesota and Ohio? Nobody knows – and that’s the problem.

A huge challenge for Obama, insiders say, is simply determining how much skin color will matter in November. Race is nearly impossible to poll – no one ever says “I’m a racist” – and no campaign wants it revealed they are even asking questions on the issue.

“It’s the uncertainty that kills me – we know it’s going to be factor, but how big a factor?” asks a Democratic operative with ties to the Obama camp. “How do you even measure such a thing?

Adding to the jitters: GOP surrogates like New York Rep. Pete King have vowed to make Obama’s relationship with Rev. Jeremiah Wright a centerpiece during the homestretch.

2. Obama’s strength in Virginia may be overhyped. His chances of ending the Democrats 44-year losing streak in the commonwealth are pretty good – thanks to the explosive growth of the liberal D.C. suburbs, and a 147,000 spike in voter registration sure to benefit Democrats. But Obama’s aides privately concede his odds in Virginia are probably no better than 50-50 and that the state is far from a lock-solid hedge if he loses Ohio and Florida.

3. Michigan’s in play for McCain. In the year of the downturn, the hard-hit upper Midwest should be prime Obama country. Instead it’s a potential minefield. Obama is still ahead by two to five points here – similar to margins of victory enjoyed by Gore and Kerry in the last two presidential contests– but McCain has quietly crept up over the past month and could vault ahead if he anoints ex-Gov. Mitt Romney. Simmering tensions between predominantly-black Detroit and its white suburbs could hurt Obama. And McCain’s surrogates were handed a gift in the jailing of Obama supporter Kwame Kilpatrick, Detroit’s mayor.

“Watch Michigan -- the Democrats think they've got it but they don't,” says Quinnipiac’s Peter Brown, a longtime Michigan observer. “Obama should be killing [McCain] there, but there's a lot more racial tension in Michigan than in other states.”

Obama also hasn’t pulled away in other Democrat-friendly neighboring states, watching leads in Wisconsin and Minnesota erode over the last month.

4. Bad times could be good for McCain. If anger helps Democrats, fear advantages Republicans. A growing number of Democratic strategists worry that some swing state voters may opt for McCain if the economy veers from merely awful to downright terrifying. The typical political calculus – that bad economic times will deliver the White House to Democrats – may not hold if people start viewing the downturn as, essentially, a national security crisis that can’t be entrusted to a novice. And that was McCain’s underlying message in his Paris Hilton ad: Bank failures, soaring gas prices and plummeting house values are forms of economic terrorism and he’s an all-purpose anti-terror warrior.

“John McCain is a known quantity,” says Bob Kerrey, who thinks Obama will ultimately prevail. “You don't look at John and say, ‘Who the heck is he?’ he's a veteran, he's a guy who got pretty banged up in Vietnam. He can deal with crisis. There's some uncertainty about Senator Obama.”

The good news for Obama, of course, is that McCain – who infamously admitted he “never understood” economics – is loathed by unions, was somnambulant at the dawn of the housing meltdown and still gropes for a coherent economic policy that doesn’t include the words “offshore drilling.” But he doesn’t have to win the argument, just reinforce doubts about Obama with wavering swing state voters. The Illinois senator still enjoys a major edge on the economic issues, but his 20-point June lead on the who-can-best-fix-the-economy question slipped to a 17-point edge in July, according to the Pew Research Center.

“Obama wins on the economy,” said Guy Cecil, Hillary Clinton’s field director during the primaries. “But it will be interesting to see if McCain’s able to close the economic gap.”

5. Where have you gone, Ross Perot? Bill Clinton, the lone two-term Democratic president since FDR, wouldn’t have been elected if independent Ross Perot hadn’t siphoned 19 percent of the vote in 1992. Former Georgia Rep. Bob Barr, staging an indie bid from McCain’s right, has little cash and doesn’t seem to be a factor in competitive states.

6. The Legacy of LBJ, Jimmy and Bubba. Barack Obama would have been a trailblazer no matter what – but the Democrats’ trail to the White House has been remarkably narrow since 1960, accommodating only southern whites with border-state strength: Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. (Add Al Gore if you’re counting the popular vote.)

7. Americans may want divided government. Some Democratic operatives think a possible landslide for their party in congressional races could backfire on Obama.

“Fairly or not, folks think he’s pretty liberal and nobody wants a pair of Pelosi’s running things,” says a New York-based Democratic consultant.

Adds Bob Kerrey: “The country's still pretty divided… people may want a divided government. They want change but I'm not sure that the Democratic agenda has the support of a majority of Americans.”

wow it must be nice to be Obama, if he loses he is going to rack it up to racism, not the fact that American's aren't ready to elect a guy they know nothing about....

#8 he is a Muslim and hates America.

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

wow Calybos doesnt have an original thought either...not surprising....

What a flaming hypocrite you are, BSAMS.

as flaming as a guy who played catcher for the entire platoon?

and then weaseled his way out of his commitment to the marines?

and then cried a bunch!

Obama Camp: Loony Clooney Story. Campaign denies report that actor George Clooney advising Obama on body language, Middle East.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Obama Camp: Loony Clooney Story. Campaign denies report that actor George Clooney advising Obama on body language, Middle East.

Try and include "Fox News" in the link text so I won't waste time clicking on it. I feel dirty just reading the words "fox news."

Given the Fox story is purporting to debunk a story in the Daily Mail that alleged Clooney was an Obama advisor, what are you trying to imply?

That Fox is in the tank for Obama and helping him debunk negative press? That Fox is unreliable and, therefore, Clooney IS advising Obama on the Middle East? Or that getting advice on foreign policy from actors is a good thing?

Originally Posted By: the G-man

I'm implying that I find the entire "Fox News" organization to be composed largely of shills and attention whores.

The only reason this story is getting any carry with Fox is so that they can bring in retarded headlines from across the pond.

The Daily Mail is to England, as the National Enquirer is to the United States.

Let me know when they want to refute the "Obama is having bigfoot's baby" headline.

Ok maybe that's not fair. Still, it's not a very respected publication.

Another Daily Mail Exclusive!

More front page news.

Originally Posted By: The Dread Pirate Westley

Originally Posted By: the G-man

I more or laess agree with you about trash publications but once in awhile they do break stories that conventional media outlets don't want to cover and should.....like the Enquirer breaking the Edwards story long before anyone else.

people were calling it lies then as well. also i dont think Obama would fuck bigfoot, muslims detest hooved animals.

Bigfoot doesn't have hooves!

But he has hair unlike a certain someone.....

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

and then weaseled his way out of his commitment to the marines?

You must think the government is pretty stupid to be fooled by me, BSAMS. Which is weird considering how much of a blind zealot you are.

BSAMS IS A REBUBLINAZIFASCIST!

Originally Posted By: The New Adventures of Old PJP

But he has hair unlike a certain someone.....

Where's Nowie to photoshop us a bald, virgin, sasquatch?

what's to photoshop?

Originally Posted By: Wank and Cry

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

and then weaseled his way out of his commitment to the marines?

You must think the government is pretty stupid to be fooled by me, BSAMS. Which is weird considering how much of a blind zealot you are.

fooled? they let deserters go free all the time. if your Marine service was anything like your failed message board raid, I'm sure theyre glad youre gone.

I worked with a guy who faked a sciatic nerve problem to get out of being deployed. The Guard knew he was faking but pretty much said they didn't want such a pussy along anyways.

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

Originally Posted By: Wank and Cry

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

and then weaseled his way out of his commitment to the marines?

You must think the government is pretty stupid to be fooled by me, BSAMS. Which is weird considering how much of a blind zealot you are.

You really are clueless and sheltered, aren't you? The military doesn't operate like that. At least not the Marines. There's no fucking way the Guard or anybody else would let somebody get away with "malingering" like that. They might have suspected, but if they could prove it they would have nailed his ass. So ultimately he fooled the guard (that's assuming you aren't full of shit...which I already know you are) If the the Marines were "glad I was gone" they wouldn't have recalled me in the first place. They spent a lot of money on me and would have wanted to collect on their investment. So anyway you cut it you must think the government is pretty dumb. And I must be pretty smart to not only fool your precious government but fake test results and fool machines.

My raid had you idiots chasing your tails and making yourselfs out to be redundant, juvenile, helpless, pathetic, assholes who couldn't do anything more than hide behind circular logic and graemlins. Even Yellow Blossum (one of the neutral ones) called you and Sammitch out for being to chicken shit to make an actual argument.

Originally Posted By: rex

BSAMS IS A REBUBLINAZIFASCIST!

He sure is. Only a REBUBLINAZIFASCIST would speak of commitment without thinking about what he's commited to.

Originally Posted By: Wank and Cry

My raid had you idiots chasing your tails and making yourselfs out to be redundant, juvenile, helpless, pathetic, assholes who couldn't do anything more than hide behind circular logic and graemlins.

Dude, just let it go. You've gone past "amusingly delusional" with this tripe and landed square into "starting to deserve our pity."

"Your" raid resulted in your own board getting shut down, several posters defecting to join this one, this board seeing a huge increase in traffic, more money for Rob, and the guy who were claiming to defend (whomod) quitting yet again.

Seriously, if you can't see that you failed, and failed spectacularly, you've got a problem.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Originally Posted By: Wank and Cry

My raid had you idiots chasing your tails and making yourselfs out to be redundant, juvenile, helpless, pathetic, assholes who couldn't do anything more than hide behind circular logic and graemlins.

How is it that you guys who claim none of this shit is serious are so hellbent on declaring our raid a failure? If it means nothing to you than you shouldn't have to bend reality to make it seem we failed.

Iggy's board got shut down. We were gone by the time Invision collapsed the whole thing.

The only member who "defected" was Iggy (as opposed to you claiming "several" posters) and he's no big loss since he's not only dead weight but he was never a big poster anyway. Queen (Comiclass/Nemesis/BizarroLass) and Neo don't count since they were always more Renegades than Insurgents.

Whomod was never a big part of the raid anyway and hasn't quit anything.

Don't talk to me about being delusional or letting go G-man, cause you've just proven you have no idea what's going on. In fact, you prove that in just about every post you make.

Originally Posted By: Wank and Cry

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Originally Posted By: Wank and Cry

My raid had you idiots chasing your tails and making yourselfs out to be redundant, juvenile, helpless, pathetic, assholes who couldn't do anything more than hide behind circular logic and graemlins.

no YOU are!

Originally Posted By: Wank and Cry

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Originally Posted By: Wank and Cry

My raid had you idiots chasing your tails and making yourselfs out to be redundant, juvenile, helpless, pathetic, assholes who couldn't do anything more than hide behind circular logic and graemlins.

How is it that you guys who claim none of this shit is serious are so hellbent on declaring our raid a failure? If it means nothing to you than you shouldn't have to bend reality to make it seem we failed.

Iggy's board got shut down. We were gone by the time Invision collapsed the whole thing.

The only member who "defected" was Iggy (as opposed to you claiming "several" posters) and he's no big loss since he's not only dead weight but he was never a big poster anyway.

Whomod was never a big part of the raid anyway and hasn't quit anything.

Don't talk to me about being delusional or letting go G-man, cause you've just proven you have no idea what's going on. In fact, you prove that in just about every post you make.

I think it's more simple than that. More like, whenever you show up they just feel an overwhelming compulsion to mock you.

Originally Posted By: The Dread Pirate Westley

Originally Posted By: Wank and Cry

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Originally Posted By: Wank and Cry

My raid had you idiots chasing your tails and making yourselfs out to be redundant, juvenile, helpless, pathetic, assholes who couldn't do anything more than hide behind circular logic and graemlins.

How is it that you guys who claim none of this shit is serious are so hellbent on declaring our raid a failure? If it means nothing to you than you shouldn't have to bend reality to make it seem we failed.

Iggy's board got shut down. We were gone by the time Invision collapsed the whole thing.

The only member who "defected" was Iggy (as opposed to you claiming "several" posters) and he's no big loss since he's not only dead weight but he was never a big poster anyway.

Whomod was never a big part of the raid anyway and hasn't quit anything.

Don't talk to me about being delusional or letting go G-man, cause you've just proven you have no idea what's going on. In fact, you prove that in just about every post you make.

I think it's more simple than that. More like, whenever you show up they just feel an overwhelming compulsion to mock you.

True. Though I have a feeling you and I disagree on the cause of that compulsion...

I forgot about you Neo. You must be the other poster G-moron was talking about. You and QueenMoron.

Originally Posted By: Captain Sammitch

Originally Posted By: Wank and Cry

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Originally Posted By: Wank and Cry

My raid had you idiots chasing your tails and making yourselfs out to be redundant, juvenile, helpless, pathetic, assholes who couldn't do anything more than hide behind circular logic and graemlins.

no YOU are!

Captain Shallow strikes again!

Tommy is funny in his delusions...

Still need to believe that Invision shut Iggy down, even with no proof to support the claim? Still need to believe that you didn't retreat TWICE? Still need to spin failure of stated goals to make yourself feel like your botched "raid" accomplished something. Sad...well, not really.

Can we go back to talking politics? I need someone to explain to me - a politically jaded/cynical/apathetic person - why Obama is such a better candidate than McCain. I hate 'em both and, at this point, my vote will come down to a coin toss.

Originally Posted By: Joe Mama

Tommy is funny in his delusions...

Common sense is proof enough. Iggy shut down the board around the same exact time other Insurgents were writing Invision about the baby rape stuff. Iggy's desperation to have you all believe it was shut down cause I wasn't there anymore (which in and of itself is weird) is testimony as well.

But since Iggy can't prove he shut the board down of his own volition I guess you just shot yourself in the foot...again.

Is that the same kind of logic that lead you to believe that Pro hacked your message boards?

Originally Posted By: Wank and Cry

Originally Posted By: Joe Mama

Tommy is funny in his delusions...

Common sense is proof enough...

Wrong. Common sense isn't proof at all. Why don't you just choose to be honest and say, "I can't prove it, but I BELIEVE that Invision shut down our former boards. And that FAITH is unshakable." Or does that statement then force you to admit that you WEREN'T the reason Iggy shut down the boards (as the two contentions contradict each other - you can't have it both ways, Tommy), which would harm your fragile sense of self worth...it would be another failure, as you needed Invision to play the role of "daddy" to get the job (that you failed to do) done?

Tommy fails again...

Seriously, why vote for Obama over McCain? Or vice versa?

Originally Posted By: Joe Mama

Seriously, why vote for Obama over McCain? Or vice versa?

Not really good either way. I'm just hording food, water, guns, and ammo and waiting for the revolution.

man i never woulda brought up his weaseling out of his commitment again if i knew he was gunna break down so bad, i thought he was over that.

Originally Posted By: Joe Mama

Tommy is funny in his delusions...

How about ... Obama doesn't have to have chunks of his face biopsied on a regular basis?

Nothing says national vitality like a president with a medical jacket the size of the greater Chicago phonebook.

yeah but Obama is a closet Muslim.

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

yeah but Obama is a closet Muslim.

No you're right, just not a closet corpse.

after reading through this thread i think it's safe to say that we are the heirs to the witty rivalries of the algonquin roundtable itself.

Originally Posted By: The Dread Pirate Westley

McCain's probably healthier that either FDR or JFK. Their views aside, are you saying that neither was fit for the presidency?

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Originally Posted By: The Dread Pirate Westley

McCain's probably healthier that either FDR or JFK. Their views aside, are you saying that neither was fit for the presidency?

Well, DUH. They're both dead.

When they were in office, Joe. Duh.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

When they were in office, Joe. Duh.

Why do you insist on no-selling obviously facetious comments? And, to re-hash my initial (serious question, why should I vote for McCain over Obama?

Mccain's age is a valid issue. Age does slow mental process down over time. Mccain is visibly slower and less aware than he was 8 years ago. He's too old for the office.

I think also attending a racist Church full of hatred for whites and jews for 20 years could have an effect on ones decision making process, don't you Ray?

i don't know if you can sum up a man's entire career with only a few statements. and even the statements people focus on are kind of minor. he expresses anger at the racial situation in america using harsh language. a far cry from david duke.

i figured that would be your response, you are so partisan. the fact is Obama raised his kids in that church, and if a man would take his children to hear that kind of trash it shows you what judgment he has.

maybe if i thought the comments made by wright were out of line or wrong i would care. but wright dressed up racial tensions with some colorful speech. the fact is how he feels is not so uncommon. and it's not about hatred of white people like the KKK is, it's about a feeling of being the victim and the anger that is all too human that comes with being a victim. what i care about here is that obama addressed the issue in a pretty fair manner, he admitted these issues are real and should be gotten passed.

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

...it's about a feeling of being the victim and the anger that is all too human that comes with being a victim...

yeah I guess turning the other cheek and all that is kinda passe anymore...

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

have you seen KKK speeches on tv? they feel they are victimized as well. being a victim is self brought on, if you let people victimize you, you will be victimized, it isnt solved by expressing hatred for people who did nothing to you. the fact that Obama took his children to hear that every Sunday os very telling of him.

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

well, the kkk was formed because they felt "victimized" that black people were no longer slaves. and they organized to fight for segregation.
black people were slaves, experimented on, kept down in education and jobs. now things are obviously much improved today, but people have memories. wright grew up before civil rights so there is more of a sense of anger than someone like obama would have.

Originally Posted By: Captain Sammitch

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

...it's about a feeling of being the victim and the anger that is all too human that comes with being a victim...

yeah I guess turning the other cheek and all that is kinda passe anymore...

so your solution is to not mention any problems, just ignore them and hope it all goes away?

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

Originally Posted By: Captain Sammitch

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

...it's about a feeling of being the victim and the anger that is all too human that comes with being a victim...

yeah I guess turning the other cheek and all that is kinda passe anymore...

so your solution is to not mention any problems, just ignore them and hope it all goes away?

there's a difference between mentioning problems and pinning one's own misfortunes on a vast group of mostly unrelated individuals.

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

wright grew up before civil rights so there is more of a sense of anger ....

Wright isn't that old. He was born in 1941, in a middle-class, mixed race, neighborhood in Philadephia. He's only about twenty years older than Obama and only a few years older than Clarence Thomas.

He's younger than Colin Powell, Thomas Sowell and/or Walter Williams.

Accordingly, I don't think you can blame his stridency on his age or the environment in which he grew up. He's just an asshole attention whore.

the G-man ass-kicky User Lawyers, Guns & Money
15000+ posts Wed Aug 13 2008 09:29 PM Reading a post
Forum: Politics and Current Events
Thread: Barack Hussein Obama in '08?

the G-man ass-kicky User Lawyers, Guns & Money
15000+ posts Wed Aug 13 2008 09:31 PM Reading a post
Forum: Politics and Current Events
Thread: Barack Hussein Obama in '08?

Taking your kids to ANY church for an extended period is child abuse, but most Americans seem okay with it. Go figure.

yeah, that's not a knee-jerk reaction at all.

You think so? Replace "church" with "public schools" and see how many raving, knee-jerk right-wingers bob their heads in unison.

(My apologies for the typo.)

What the fuck is a 'chuch'?

Joanie loves Chuchie?

apparently not all bitter people cling to guns and religion.

Time may chuch me, but I can't trace time.

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

your ignorance of history, could be why you hold the views you do.

Actually, the KKK was formed as a social club for Civil War vets. When it was discovered that their initiation ritual of having someone ride a horse at night while wearing a white bed sheet, carrying a torch, and singing love songs scared the local blacks as they thought the men were actually ghosts. That's when the KKK's goals turned violent and founder Nathan Bedford Forrest demanded the group disbanded.

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

your ignorance of history, could be why you hold the views you do.

what ignorance of history? this is what really gets me about internet message boards. people say "you're wrong" or "you're ignorance of history" without explaining why they think the person is wrong, without presenting counter points.
If you watch the film Birth of a Nation, which the Hitstory channel aired one night about 6 years ago, you see the victim justification being used. that was about 100 years ago. long before bush, obama, or google.

But the fact, and the point of this, is that black people have been victimized for a long time. Whites haven't, not really. Whatever angry words Wright used, he didn't advocated terrorism or racial violence (at lease from what i read). He talked about very real issues. Very complex issues. And he used the language that was most effective with his audience, just like any other public speaker.
You can't just tell an entire group of people that slavery is over so they need to get over it, that the Tuskegee experiments were 50 years ago and they need to get over the government experimenting on blacks, that segregation is gone 40 years and they should just get over it. People remember things, it stays a part of their cultural identity in the same way that Irish people still bitch about St. Patrick and the English and Guinness (or whatever a typical Irish person does).
I think for a lot of lower income blacks especially it's harder to see the racial equality mentioned in one of wondy's "get over it" threads.

Quote:

black people have been victimized for a long time. Whites haven't, not really.

Tell that to the Jews.

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

your ignorance of history, could be why you hold the views you do.

it is racist to blame all whites for the actions of other whites. people are directly responsible for their actions. if it was John Blank that discriminated against a black man then it is John Blank that is to blame, not white people. The fact that John Blank was white doesnt not indict the entire white race. People like Wright would like to indict the entire white race and that is racist. As racist as the KKK.

Whether you want to believe it or not, there were ignorant people that when they had a loved one raped or killed(or framed) by a black man believed all the bullshit that black people wanted to rape, kill, or steal. They were wrong to believe this way, but the people who preached this garbage that it was the black man doing this and not the individual man were worse, they took advantage of the ignorant and developed them into racists as well. Same with Wright, he is a smart man, he has to know it wasn't the withe man, but some men who were white who used racism for their evil purposes. Obama is smart enough to know better as well. But he raises his children in that bigoted church that keeps perpetuating the same circle of it's the whites, it's the hews. the same bigoted stuff that was foisted on the blacks. they are no better for the actions. individuals make decisions and when you cast it as a race based on a few then you are indeed a racist.

What I hate about the internet? People who love the the victimization game. For all my dislikes about Obama, the people crying about racial equality should do what he did, work to get at the nomination for US president, dont set around waiting for a handout. He has proved it is a matter of working for what you want, ask Jesse Jackson how the blame game did for him. People can choose to blame the world of 50 years ago for their problems or they can move and do something for themselves.

Adler is right, calling out for the murder of jews has nothing do to with racial violence or terrorism.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Quote:

black people have been victimized for a long time. Whites haven't, not really.

Tell that to the Jews.

ok, but blacks were held in slavery, experimented upon, and victimized by this country and it's government. therefore they may feel some resentment towards America and it's very white leaders, who debate the glorious history of the confederate flag.
I believe G-man if you check a map you'll see that Ancient Egypt and Nazi Germany are not part of the united states. guess you missed the geography class at traffic school.

Ray, your earlier posts referenced other countries, including Ireland. As such, it is a bit disingenuous for you to now claim that you were only referring to victimization within the United States.

g-man, you're just sidestepping the issue to attack the person making their point.

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Quote:

black people have been victimized for a long time. Whites haven't, not really.

Tell that to the Jews.

there were also Africa blacks who has slaves in Africa and sold them to European and American whites. Even if there were no blacks involved it's not an indictment on all whites then, or any whites now. This is why you fail.

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Quote:

black people have been victimized for a long time. Whites haven't, not really.

Tell that to the Jews.

and that might be a valid issue if we weretalking about the government/society of Africa. We're talking about America and black people feeling resentment, feeling like an underclass. Valid points that should be addressed.
I reject your grading system and grade myself a check++ while you get a fail.

you sidestepped again ray.

Slavery ended more than 150 years ago. They can vote. They can own property. They have all the same rights as anyone other citizen.

The only people holding them back is themselves.

A black man is nominated for President and looks to be the early favorite to win. Racism as a raodblock is dead. But as long as it can be used to funnel vores and money from poor African American's the left will continue to use it, in effect making them worse than the KKK ever was, the Klan effected lives for a few decades, the left is taking these peoples future from them.

I live in the South; trust me, racism is alive and well. Very many of my fellow "citizens" have explicitly said "There's no way America (i.e., them and their redneck buddies) will ever elect a BLACK MAN president!"

No, I think there's plenty of racism left. Pretending otherwise is idealistic, but not reflective of reality.

sure black mustachio sure

Originally Posted By: Calybos

Pretty much any place between Texas and Florida fits this statement.

Originally Posted By: rex

sure black mustachio sure

Brilliant rebuttal.

If you'd like to see for yourself, check out http://www.ajc.com and stroll through the Opinion section.

You do realize that opinions are things that aren't backed up by facts, don't you mustachio?

When the fact is "the existence of certain opinions," then the Opinion section seems like a reasonable place to find them, don't you think?

(Or is that the underlying problem here?)

Only a fool would argue that racism doesn't exist. As long as race is a concept there will be racism.

But I don't see BSAMS or rex arguing that racism doesn't exist. The point they are making is that, when a "black" man has at least a 50/50 shot of being our next president, it discredits, if not disproves, the old argument that racism is so powerful and pervasive as to be serious stumbling block to people's success.

i never said it didn't exist, there a re people of all colors that are racist. the fact that it is a one sided stumbling block is not true anymore.

also I said that all white people should not be judged by white racist. if one is not a racist what another does is not his burden because he shares the same skin tone.

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

i never said it didn't exist, there a re people of all colors that are racist. the fact that it is a one sided stumbling block is not true anymore.

Exactly. Calybomod, or whomever (s)he is, is making a "straw man" argument.

it's just a way to use people for political gain, it's done on the right as well, the far right uses the good intentions of people of faith to get their political support.

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

it's just a way to use people for political gain, it's done on the right as well, the far right uses the good intentions of people of faith to get their political support.

True dat. One area I definitely break with the GOP is when they try to mix faith with politics.

Even if I agree with a particular policy, I want to see a non-religious basis for it, not because some crazy Reverend thinks Jesus told us to do it that way.

I think it's more than that, the neconservative movement uses it to get votes, they claim to be anti abortion, anti gay marriage but they never actually put it to the test, no motions for a constitutional amendment, no rallying to get one, just keep telling the people they're working at it but in reality not doing anything about it.

I would respectfully disagree on that, simply because they do put up anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage laws. They also work to get judges appointed that support those things.

So (unfortunate in a way, from my perspective) they do try to do something about those things.

Where I definitely think they play the game you are talking about is when they start up on things like flag burning. They know that's going nowhere but still keep beating that drum every few years.

Exploiting ignorance is what has sustained the Republican Party for the past 25 years or so... why should they change their formula now?

Most politicians, regardless of political affiliation, try to exploit ignorance.

Finally, something I can agree with you on.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Sure society has made big changes and advancments. But Obama is one guy. There are millions of blackmericans who have had their lives constantly touched and effected by racism, by social systems set up before they were born that made it harder on them. Imagine how they might feel, probably a bit of anger. I would think people would appreciate the Obama isn't really trying to get in using the race card, he's not talking about being kept down. In fact he's talked about mending things between black and white, talked about how it is valid for some white people to be angry over affirmative action.
That's actually why i like him, he talks about issues like they're more complicated than simple....black vs. white.

and he's met Bigfoot:

Originally Posted By: Calybos

Exploiting ignorance is what has sustained the democratic Party for the past 25 years or so... why should they change their formula now?

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

Originally Posted By: the G-man

if a qualified man is disqualified from getting a job and a less qualified man gets it because of affirmative action it is valid for him to be angry at affirmitive action. it is not valid for him to blame all blacks people, just those people that supported affirmative action no matter their color. the individuals that supported the injustice.

if a white guy's daughter get's raped by a black man, he shouldnt hate all black people its not all black peoples fault, but the individual.

if a black guy is fired by a white guy who is a racist, he should hate the racist idiot, not all white people it isn't the white peoples fault but the individual.

individuals are individuals, blaming their race is in and of itself racist. Barack had his kids listening to that crap for since they were born. He can change his tune now that he is in an election, but rational people understand otherwise.

Quote:

I would think people would appreciate the Obama isn't really trying to get in using the race card

Quote:

"You know, `he's not patriotic enough, he's got a funny name,' you know, `he doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills."

it's hardly playing the race card to simply mention it.

just don't let me catch you wearing a Harvard shirt. you didn't go there, you don't have the right.

I've been to paradise, but I've never been to me.

National Review:

The problem of Barack Obama’s relationship with Bill Ayers will not go away.

Ayers and his wife, Bernardine Dohrn were terrorists for the notorious Weather Underground during the turbulent 1960s, turning fugitive when a bomb — designed to kill army officers in New Jersey — accidentally exploded in a New York townhouse. Prior to that, Ayers and his cohorts succeeded in bombing the Pentagon.

Ayers and Dohrn remain unrepentant for their terrorist past. Ayers was pictured in a 2001 article for Chicago magazine, stomping on an American flag, and told the New York Times just before 9/11 that the notion of the United States as a just and fair and decent place “makes me want to puke.”

Although Obama actually launched his political career at an event at Ayers’s and Dohrn’s home, Obama has dismissed Ayers as just “a guy who lives in my neighborhood,” and “not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis.” For his part, Ayers refuses to discuss his relationship with Obama.

This sounds a lot like Barack Hussein Obama's early attempts to minimize his relationship with Rev. Wright.

There were anti-government people in the 60's? No way!

And being against the Federal Government is not the same as being anti-American, you know. But, nice try...

Oh, and I'm certain the National Review is the most fair-and-balanced news outlet, ev-ar!

Originally Posted By: National Review Media Kit

"America's most widely read and influential magazine and web site for Republican/conservative news, commentary, and opinion."

Looks like I broke Pro. He couldn't answer the charge against the Obamessiah so he dredged up the "I hate Bush" line and an ad hominem attack on my source.

But, anyway, more on Ayers, this time from unquestionably not conservative New York Times:

''I don't regret setting bombs,'' Bill Ayers said. ''I feel we didn't do enough.'' Mr. Ayers, who spent the 1970's as a fugitive in the Weather Underground, was sitting in the kitchen of his big turn-of-the-19th-century stone house in the Hyde Park district of Chicago.

So, would Mr. Ayers do it all again, he is asked? ''I don't want to discount the possibility,'' he said.

And from the non-partisan Politico:

"Ayers was a terrorist. Bernardine Dohrn was a terrorist. Ayers has never offered one word of apology — he glories in it, thinks it’s terrific. And that to me is not what I would call acceptable or mainstream behavior,” said Dan Polsby, a former law professor at Northwestern who is now dean of George Mason University Law School.

“If Obama takes a different view on that — well, OK, that’s data about Obama.”

But don't worry, Pro, I'm sure Obama will throw his terrorist buddy under the bus soon enough... if there's still room left under the thing, that is.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Looks like I broke Pro. He couldn't answer the charge against the Obamessiah so he dredged up the "I hate Bush" line and an ad hominem attack on my source.

no he didn't. you posted an article from a conservative "news" source and he did what you do any time a liberal article is posted.
does that mean mem and whomod broke you everytime you attack moveon.org? And he didn't say "I hate bush" as his argument, he directly responded to the article you posted, by questioning the kool-aid you drank of anyone questioning America being unpatriotic. I guess your "I hate Obama" avatar means he broke you.

Quote:

But, anyway, more on Ayers, this time from unquestionably not conservative New York Times:

''I don't regret setting bombs,'' Bill Ayers said. ''I feel we didn't do enough.'' Mr. Ayers, who spent the 1970's as a fugitive in the Weather Underground, was sitting in the kitchen of his big turn-of-the-19th-century stone house in the Hyde Park district of Chicago.

So, would Mr. Ayers do it all again, he is asked? ''I don't want to discount the possibility,'' he said.

he did what he believed was right. would you prefer he spent his time coked up and drunk driving?

Quote:

And from the non-partisan Politico:

"Ayers was a terrorist. Bernardine Dohrn was a terrorist. Ayers has never offered one word of apology — he glories in it, thinks it’s terrific. And that to me is not what I would call acceptable or mainstream behavior,” said Dan Polsby, a former law professor at Northwestern who is now dean of George Mason University Law School.

“If Obama takes a different view on that — well, OK, that’s data about Obama.”

what exactly did Obama do? last I checked he was a bit young to be involved with ANY 60's radical activity. Did he do anything illegal, aid in any actions? How many people are dead because of the actions of Bush's cabinet (not counting this war). Take their whole careers, how many people died because they were doing what they believed was right?

Quote:

But don't worry, Pro, I'm sure Obama will throw his terrorist buddy under the bus soon enough... if there's still room left under the thing, that is.

Again, guilt by association is your attack on Obama. Donald Rumsfeld and the others in the Reagan administration worked with Saddam and Osama. They funded them, trained them, and even gave Saddam the foundations of whatever WMDs ever existed in Iraq. Why won't you condemn them? Is this a double standard, is it because he's black, or is this "I hate Obama" rhetoric from you just another sign that you've been broken (using your own logic).

Originally Posted By: Adler

... he didn't say "I hate bush" as his argument....

Rather than deal with the fact that Obama is apparently friends, and trying to cover up that friendship, with an unrepentent terrorist, Pro--and you--started calling Bush a cokehead, even though he had nothing to do with the thread. That's a classic page out of the "I Hate Bush" rhetoric book.

Originally Posted By: Ray Adler

[Ayers] did what he believed was right

Pretty much every politically motivated terrorist is fighting for a cause. Osama Bin Laden does what he thinks is right.

And, as always, you're quick to defend those terrorists whenever they attack Americans.

Originally Posted By: Ray Adler

...is it because [Obama]'s black...

Ray had to resort to the race card. If Pro failed, Ray failed spectacularly.

wow. you just cut up my post to make up your own argument.
bravo, counselor. bravo.

Thank you, Ray. Apology accepted.

and you completely cut out the whole point that Bush also has friends with colored histories and questionable motives. but they have Rs next to their names....

See, you're back to trying to make the thread about Bush. Proving my point yet again.

Further making my point is the following:

Rumsfeld, et al, dealt with Saddam in the 1980s solely as a way to advance the interests of this nation against Iran. Later, when Hussein was revealed to be an enemy of our interests, they disavowed him and even went to war against him. In each case you attack them. Since you attack both their alliance with Saddam and their antipathy towards him, it would seem that it's another example of your "Damn Republicans no matter what" attitude. Or perhaps your "the enemy of the US is my friend" attitude.

In contrast, long after Ayers was revealed to be an enemy of our nation's interests, and even after Ayers refused to disavow his terrorist past, Obama made it a point to befriend him and, like Wright, treat him as a political mentor. And, it should be noted, I'm on record here as criticizing Bush for often prizing loyalty over competence, including with AG Gonzales.

But, as a I said before, don't worry. It's likely Obama will have to "disavow" this mentor for political expediency also.

see you're just avoiding the actual arguments to make this about me. and you're saying that it's somehow wrong to mention the current president while we discuss the qualifications of a candidate for the job. are you so insecure about the man you've spent 8 years loving and supporting? are you just another abused woman?
I guess we broke you afterall.

Ray, I don't see where you've made an argument, other than defending an admitted terrorist and attacking a guy who isn't running.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Ray, I can't read and am kind of retarded and senile. forgive me.

no. i think we need to talk about pulling the plug, gramps.

Ray had to fabricate quotes from me because he couldn't address the points I raised.

I win again!

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Ray had to fabricate quotes from me because he couldn't address the points I raised.

I win again!

I guess I won when you proved you could only handle heavily edited quotes and pre-planned/overused arguments.

Bickering aside, I do find fault for Obama being friends with a known remorseful terrorist. I also have problems as previously discussed with a man raising his children in such a racist church. I don't put a lot of salt in personal life vs politics, but in these two cases his decision making skills have to be called into question.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Looks like I broke Pro. He couldn't answer the charge against the Obamessiah so he dredged up the "I hate Bush" line and an ad hominem attack on my source.

Come on. Really. Take a moment. Come on. You're starting to sound like Halo, now.

G-Man...or whatever your real name is....let me ask you a question: Why are you so threatened when someone has a different belief or point-of-view than you do? Is it because you are shaky in your own convictions, and the only way to convince yourself of your beliefs is to attempt to discredit/argue/taunt those that don't share them? Or, are you so arrogant to actually believe you are correct in all thinking? I mean, really man.

At no point did I attack you. At all. I simply pointed out that:

A) So there were subversive groups that opposed the Federal Government in the 1960's. Big shock! I think it's pretty common knowledge. So, is that to say that they should, in fact, not have any friends or relationships? Is it a big deal if Obama knows this guy? What about Bush's sordid past? What about his disreputable friends (you know, all the Repubs that get charged with federal crimes)? How is this any different? I mean, other than you hate Obama, Liberals, the Democratic Party, and generally everyone that disagrees with you.

B) The "attack on your source" was no more or less than you do when someone posts a "factual" link from a Far Left website. Your own medicine bitter?

...and...

C) Nowhere in that post did I say "I hate Bush". Nowhere. You're simply lying, no doubt about it. It's factual and right there on the screen. What I noticed was that you change the title of these threads to your whim. And, in this one, it's all anti-Obama. So, when you change the title (for no apparent reason, mind you...and please, don't insult my intelligence by trying to say it was 'needed' or anything...we all know the truth) to slant Obama, I see no reason why mine can't point out a fact about your Republican Lord & Master George W. Bush. What's wrong? Does it offend you? Does it make you angry in some way to be treated as you treat others?

Quote:

But don't worry, Pro, I'm sure Obama will throw his terrorist buddy under the bus soon enough... if there's still room left under the thing, that is.

Don't worry yourself, G. You miss the point if you think I'm defending Obama instead of voicing my opposition to your constant, Right-slanted, unfair, bullying propaganda that you laughingly try to sell as "neutral" or "fair".

If anyone is "broken" (and I'm pretty sure we're all past that term, but whatever), it's only you when you feel the need to taunt and ridicule instead of conceding the truth about your petty views. Because, let's face it...that's exactly what we belittle guys like Halo for.....(well, with him it's also that he's an ignorant child...but, I've seen evidence of your intelligence, so that doesn't apply for you).

Try not to fly off the handle again the next time I post one or two sentences questioning the validity of one of your propoganda posts. It will go a long way in helping everyone here get along...

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

what specific wright comments did you find "racist?"

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

In a lot of ways, Obama's friendship with Ayers is worse than the one with Wright.

Wright may be a vile racist, but he's a former Marine who fought for his country and has never, to my knowledge, planted bombs and committed terrorist acts.

Ayers may have committed his terrorist acts a long time ago, but he still brags about them to this day, including in an article that appeared September 11, 2001. He obviously still holds the view that attacks on innocent Americans are justified.

This is yet another example of Obama's poor judgement when it comes to his allies. At best, he's befriending these lowlifes for political expediency. At worse he secretly shares at least some of their views.

Pro and Ray, for all their bluster, probably realize this. That's why they're sputtering about George W. Bush and whatnot.

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

Bickering aside, I do find fault for Obama being friends with a known remorseless terrorist. I also have problems as previously discussed with a man raising his children in such a racist church. I don't put a lot of salt in personal life vs politics, but in these two cases his decision making skills have to be called into question.

While I would agree about the pastor, I'm not certain it surprises me. It wasn't so much that the pastor was anti-American, but that he's anti-WHITE-American. You'll find that type of resentful racism in many black churches and/or groups. I'm not stereotyping, you understand. It's simply what it is. Should Obama have gotten out if he didn't agree with it? Absolutely. Am I convinced he carries a racial chip on his shoulder? Yes. Is that bad? Honestly...I hate it. I hate that there are threads in society that perpetuate this whole "race" idea. It's the fucking 21st century, and we still can't seem to get past it. I don't know what to say on that. Am I convinced that Obama is anti-American because of the church/pastor? No. Again, I think it's a racial motive, versus a political/idealogical motive.

Having a relationship with Bill Ayers is very radical, I would agree. And, although neither has confirmed their "relationship" with each other, I will go ahead and give the Right the benefit of the doubt on this and say that they're probably friends. However, even given that, I don't feel this is an issue. First of all, Bill Ayers never killed anyone. He blew up a statue quite a few times. But, he never took a life. Second, he and the Weatherman Group weren't opposed to Americans. They were opposed to what they percieved to be an American Imperialism in the Federal Government. As I pointed out in my initial response to G, there's a BIG difference between being opposed to America, and being opposed to the Federal Government. One does not equate to the other. And hating one does not equate to hating America. I, myself, think the Federal Government is a corrupt cancer that will be the eventual downfall of America as we know it. But, that's an entirely different issue here.

Basically, when it comes down to it, I don't agree with lumping the pastor in with the Bill Ayers thing. And, I also don't think the Bill Ayers is anything. it's a non-story. Now, if Ayers plants a new bomb and kills people, then we'll talk... $;\)$

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

what specific wright comments did you find "racist?"

"I hate white people and believe they should all die. Except for Vanilla Ice, man that guy can helluva rap!"

-Rev. Jeremiah Wright

Originally Posted By: the G-man

He obviously still holds the view that attacks on innocent Americans are justified.

Fear-Mongering!

Show me where he wants to kill "innocent Americans".

Quote:

Pro and Ray, for all their bluster, probably realize this. That's why they're sputtering about George W. Bush and whatnot.

Again an attack/insult, and still without responding to my rebuttal. Thanks for being mature, G-Man. You're all class. Especially when you're floundering for steady ground to attack from...

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

"I hate white people and believe they should all die. Except for Vanilla Ice, man that guy can helluva rap!"

-Rev. Jeremiah Wright

I heard it was Barry Manilow, but whatever...

Originally Posted By: Prometheus

I, myself, think the Federal Government is a corrupt cancer that will be the eventual downfall of America as we know it. But, that's an entirely different issue here.

There's nothing inherently wrong with that viewpoint, Pro.

However, Ayers took it a lot farther when he started trying to blow up innocent people. And, unlike a lot of his comrades from the 1960s who have expressed remorse for their violent acts, Ayers is still bragging about it and saying he wished he had planted more bombs.

It's those actions that make him such a poor choice of friend for Obama.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

I asked him what specific quotes wright said that he finds "racist." He responded with a joke. Will you respond by posting the quotes you find so offensive or just not quote this part and say you won?

Quote:

In a lot of ways, Obama's friendship with Ayers is worse than the one with Wright.

Do you know either man personally? You're condemning them for their beliefs, for their views.

Quote:

Wright may be a vile racist, but he's a former Marine who fought for his country and has never, to my knowledge, planted bombs and committed terrorist acts.

A vile racist? All I've seen from him is comments reflecting the sentiments of many black people about the flawed history of this country.

Quote:

Ayers may have committed his terrorist acts a long time ago, but he still brags about them to this day, including in an article that appeared September 11, 2001. He obviously still holds the view that attacks on innocent Americans are justified.

All I've found on him was that he helped blow up a statue which destroyed some area windows. You compare him with the WTC attacks, but get all bitchy if I dare say anything about Bush and his people who have caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands through their actions.
Ayers seems to believe America is flawed, he believes (and I disagree with him) that grandiose acts like blowing up a statue are a way to get attention. That is not the same as blowing up a marketplace full of people.

Quote:

This is yet another example of Obama's poor judgement when it comes to his allies. At best, he's befriending these lowlifes for political expediency. At worse he secretly shares at least some of their views.

Do you agree with every single thing every single one of your friends thinks and feels? Haven't you ever had a friend who you had disagreements with but ultimately found that they were good people who challenged you? Maybe Obama has long arguments with him about how Ayers was wrong, but finds those arguments push him to define his own stances. Maybe Wright is a good guy who acts a little silly on stage. Someone pointed out that in over 20 years and hundreds of thousands of words, people have chosen to focus on about 20-30 words.

Quote:

Pro and Ray, for all their bluster, probably realize this. That's why they're sputtering about George W. Bush and whatnot.

I think that maybe we realize that Obama does not exist in some vacuum where only his actions and friends are held to scrutiny. The reason you don't like Bush being brought up-despite the fact that every candidate is compared to the incumbent-is because Bush is worse. Bush has caused more deaths than Obama, Bush's friends (the people he chose for his cabinet) have a history of questionable actions some of which have caused death that is far worse than some preacher speaking about race.

Originally Posted By: Prometheus

I, myself, think the Federal Government is a corrupt cancer that will be the eventual downfall of America as we know it.

I can't argue with that. but if that's what you believe, then why do you support (or at least not openly oppose) agendas (e.g. 'universal health care') that consolidate more and more power within that very same federal government?

Originally Posted By: Captain Sammitch

Originally Posted By: Prometheus

I, myself, think the Federal Government is a corrupt cancer that will be the eventual downfall of America as we know it.

I can't argue with that.

by g-man's rules if you hate the government than you hate america.

Quote:

but if that's what you believe, then why do you support (or at least not openly oppose) agendas (e.g. 'universal health care') that consolidate more and more power within that very same federal government?

because the completely free market with no government oversight and no taxes and no social programs does not work with hundreds of millions of people. for every person who abuses welfare there's 100 people who need it to get a leg up and they work hard to get out of it. those people have children. those people aren't all driftless losers manipulating the system, a lot of them are people in a bad spot accepting a hand up from the government to get them out of that spot.
universal healthcare is a good thing. completely privatized medicine is about money, government run healthcare has more of an obligation to help the poor live.

the real problem is corporations. i'm not against business, or even big business, but corporations are legally people with a legal obligation to survive and that means they can do so much evil and not be stopped. government regulation is in response to these bad acts. they regulate the water and air pollution because companies were heavily polluting, to the degree that people got sick.
The government will always be big and powerful because they have the military, because they write the rules that we have to live by. so they might as well be using that might to at least attempt to help the people they govern.
taxes are part of living in such a large society. if you want to live in society then you need to be a part of that society, you need to help your neighbor in need and they need to help you in need. taxes pay for the programs that help you when in need (911, military, etc) and they also help others.

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

universal healthcare is a good thing. completely privatized medicine is about money, government run healthcare has more of an obligation to help the poor live.

We've been over this before, Ray. That's you're idealized image of government run healthcare, and it's bullshit. Current government healthcare is also about money. If it needs money to run it, it's going to be about how much money it spends just like privatized.

I'm not against government oversight, but I don't want it controlling it.

Originally Posted By: Ray Adler

Do you know either man personally? You're condemning them for their beliefs, for their views.

It's a pretty sad day when we're supposed to ignore someone's morals when forming an opinion on them.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Originally Posted By: Prometheus

I, myself, think the Federal Government is a corrupt cancer that will be the eventual downfall of America as we know it. But, that's an entirely different issue here.

But, what "violent acts" are you talking about? Blowing up a statue, twice? Both times, there weren't even any injuries, let alone deaths. So, what are you talking about when you say "trying to blow up innocent people"?

Originally Posted By: thedoctor

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

universal healthcare is a good thing. completely privatized medicine is about money, government run healthcare has more of an obligation to help the poor live.

When you say government healthcare is about money, I assume you mean taxes. If so, then I have to say that higher taxes are okay with me, as long as I get a tighter, dedicated healthcare system out of it. Just saying...

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

Originally Posted By: Prometheus

Originally Posted By: thedoctor

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

universal healthcare is a good thing. completely privatized medicine is about money, government run healthcare has more of an obligation to help the poor live.

No, I'm talking about how those dollars are spent. If you think a government run universal healthcare system is going to be more generous than privatized healthcare, you're sadly mistaken. Not to mention that you'd have a number of doctors who will refuse to see patients on government care and only those with private insurance or just cold hard cash. That isn't conjecture, it's a fact as many doctors now in America and even dentists in England are doing just that.

Originally Posted By: Pro

Bush is a Cocaine Addict! Bush Lied About his Military Record! Karl Rove is Guilty!

Yep. Broken.

Pro, on another thread, you claim to want some sort of meaningful dialogue about Obama.

However, the best you're coming up with there are slogans. Meanwhile, on this thread, you keep attacking Bush, who isn't even running...even after you've admitted the allegations about Obama's relationships with Wright and Ayers are suspicous and/or troubling:

Originally Posted By: Pro

I would agree about the pastor, I'm not certain it surprises me. It wasn't so much that the pastor was anti-American, but that he's anti-WHITE-American. You'll find that type of resentful racism in many black churches and/or groups. I'm not stereotyping, you understand. It's simply what it is. Should Obama have gotten out if he didn't agree with it? Absolutely. Am I convinced he carries a racial chip on his shoulder? ***** Having a relationship with Bill Ayers is very radical, I would agree. And, although neither has confirmed their "relationship" with each other, I will go ahead and give the Right the benefit of the doubt on this and say that they're probably friends.

And, when the fact you had to retreat to Bush-bashing is pointed out, you retreat to calling other posters liars, even though the record is clear that you were, in fact, the one who started posting the irrelevant anti-Bush (aka "Bush hate") rhetoric.

As for your more substantive point:

Originally Posted By: Pro

Bill Ayers never killed anyone. He blew up a statue quite a few times. But, he never took a life.

No one called him a murderer.

However, the fact he was lucky enough not to kill someone through his crimes doesn't make him less of a terrorist. Furthermore, as noted above, he's one of the few prominent violent radicals from that era who hasn't renounced his past actions.

I would also note that "at least his bombs didn't kill anybody" is not exactly the best justification for why you think someone is moral.

In fact, this begs the question: if you and Ray are correct, and Ayers is such a harmless, right-minded, fellow (who was completely justified in committing multiple reckless felonies that endangered anyone who happened to come near his work), why is Obama now acting so guilty about their relationship?

Originally Posted By: the G-man

No one called him a murderer.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

However, Ayers took it a lot farther when he started trying to blow up innocent people.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

he blew up a statue dedicated to a riot. they rebuilt the statue and he blew it up again. no attempts on innocent lives, no murder.
just more G-lies.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Pro and Ray, for all their bluster, probably realize this. That's why they're sputtering about George W. Bush and whatnot.

bush is still president last time i checked. the wars he started are still ongoing. the many thousands are still dead. his lies and pretty much criminal acts are still being unspooled and people are still taking the fall for him. this is all current events. we're talking about a man who is trying to get the job bush holds.
the same way republicans used clinton (who's lies didn't kill hundreds of thousands or violate the constitution) as a warcry in 2000, you still like to attack gore using the same repeated misquote and misrepresentation of the facts from a 1999 quote.

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

he blew up a statue dedicated to a riot. they rebuilt the statue and he blew it up again. no attempts on innocent lives, no murder.

Wrong.

According to both the Wall Street Journal and New York Times, Ayers and his cohorts set off a bomb at the Pentagon and blew up a room there.

Again, that doesn't make him a murderer. However, if someone had been unlucky enough to be there when the bomb went off, Ayers would, in fact, be guilty of murder.

In fact, his then-girlfriend was actually killed in a mishap with one of the group's bombs in another incident. Ayers wasn't involved with that incident. However, it points out just how reckless and potentially deadly Ayers' activities were.

As such, the terrorist label certainly remains appropriate, even if he was lucky enough not to kill anyone.

I'd reserve the label "terrorist" for someone who actually injures or kills innocent civilians.

Like, you know, Mr. Bush and company.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Originally Posted By: Pro

Bush is a Cocaine Addict! Bush Lied About his Military Record! Karl Rove is Guilty!

Yep. Broken.

Why do you keep coming back to this, G? I've already responded to this being exactly what you do in every thread (including and especially this one), but you ignore that response in favor of just saying "broken" over and over? If you can't take your own medicine, please just say so. Otherwise, I'm not the one who appears "broken" here.

In fact, I would say the guy who creates an avatar just to attack or slander Obama is the one who is filled with 'broken'. Are you that desperate? (It's a funny avatar, though, I'll give you that).

Quote:

Pro, on another thread, you claim to want some sort of meaningful dialogue about Obama.

However, the best you're coming up with there are slogans. Meanwhile, on this thread, you keep attacking Bush, who isn't even running...

See my point above, and in previous posts. I'm just pointing out some fun facts about George Bush, and making some G-conjecture about Karl Rove. Again and again, if you don't enjoy your own tactics given back to you, then you should just admit I'm making your upset and we'll let it go. Otherwise, what's your beef?

Quote:

even after you've admitted the allegations about Obama's relationships with Wright and Ayers are suspicous and/or troubling:

Originally Posted By: Pro

I like how you edited out this line to try and support your point: "Am I convinced that Obama is anti-American because of the church/pastor? No. Again, I think it's a racial motive, versus a political/idealogical motive."

Pretty dishonest there, counselor. How many people need to point out your manipulative nature before you consider the error of your ways?

Quote:

You stated, verbatim, that I was posting "I hate Bush". Nowhere did I post that in this thread. Thus, you lied. Simple. Fact. The End.

Also, at no time have I posted "anti-Bush/Bush hate" in this thread. Now, I've changed the title of these posts (like you do) to state some facts about GW (he did do cocaine, right?) and to play the G-Card with fun conjecture about Rove. So, again, you're incorrect.

Meanwhile, all I've been doing is pointing out your slanted opinions that you try and post as "facts", along with your slanted-Right website that you quote to seem founded in truth. When, in fact as I pointed out, you're doing nothing but spreading your normal one-sided, hate-filled propaganda. And, when I point that out, it just makes you angry, so you come back with "broken" and all the rest of your tired cliches.

Anything else?

Quote:

As for your more substantive point:

Originally Posted By: Pro

Bill Ayers never killed anyone. He blew up a statue quite a few times. But, he never took a life.

No one called him a murderer.

You didn't have to. You implied it with the normal Republican fear-mongering of "he tried to blow up innocent Americans", etc., etc. Please don't insult my intelligence by trying to weasel out of it. It's one your old tricks that you use all the time. I think we're all used to it by now.

Quote:

However, the fact he was lucky enough not to kill someone through his crimes doesn't make him less of a terrorist.

I'm sorry, was it "luck", or was it the fact that he never targeted any living beings, but an inert, lifeless statue? Sounds like you're conjecturing to me.

Quote:

Furthermore, as noted above, he's one of the few prominent violent radicals from that era who hasn't renounced his past actions.

At no point have I disagreed with this. And you keep offering it as if it's supposed to prove something. I have no problem with him blowing up statues. Our Founding Fathers blew up a lot more than statues, and they're the greatest Americans to ever live. So, I find this an arbitrary point.

Quote:

I would also note that "at least his bombs didn't kill anybody" is not exactly the best justification for why you think someone is moral.

That's your opinion. You have a right to it, even if I disagree.

Quote:

In fact, this begs the question: if you and Ray are correct, and Ayers is such a harmless, right-minded, fellow (who was completely justified in committing multiple reckless felonies that endangered anyone who happened to come near his work), why is Obama now acting so guilty about their relationship?

Wow, a question no one can answer truthfully, since none of us are Obama, but...as with all of your slanted propaganda...fully loaded with implied guilt and condemnation. As a guess, perhaps it's because he knows the far Right is worried that he's this close to winning the Presidency and they'll do ANYthing to stop that? Maybe it's because fear-mongering and lying are the Republican tactics that have served them forever?

Those are just gueses, mind you. I'm certain you'll have some "factual" answer for us...

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

he blew up a statue dedicated to a riot. they rebuilt the statue and he blew it up again. no attempts on innocent lives, no murder.

If, if, if, if, if....can we use alternate realities as sources of arguments now? Let me know, if so. I've got a doozy of a reality where the Republican party collapsed under its own corruption back during Nixon's era...

Quote:

In fact, his then-girlfriend was actually killed in a mishap with one of the group's bombs in another incident. Ayers wasn't involved with that incident. However, it points out just how reckless and potentially deadly Ayers' activities were.

And certainly points out nothing about Ayers himself, or his relationship with Obama....which is the point of all of this, right?

Quote:

As such, the terrorist label certainly remains appropriate, even if he was lucky enough not to kill anyone.

Again, you imply "luck" as if you understand the full motivation and plans of Ayers. I like how well you know this man, G. In fact...you seem to know him a little too well. You must be friends! Wait...are YOU an Innocent-American-Killing-Terrorist-Muslim-Baby-Raper?!!!

As for the "label" (which I love how the Right are always quick to slap onto people or groups they don't agree with), I usually call those who casually kill innocents "terrorists", and those that destroy public property in a political demonstration back in the 1960's as "activists"...

Originally Posted By: thedoctor

Originally Posted By: Prometheus

Originally Posted By: thedoctor

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

universal healthcare is a good thing. completely privatized medicine is about money, government run healthcare has more of an obligation to help the poor live.

A perfectly valid possibility. But, until you travel into the future and know for certain, I can only accept your opinion as informed and valid. But, still, an opinion.

Do I think UHC is the answer? Not really. Thing is, I don't know there is a perfect answer. But, if one system is failing, then I'm open to change and trying something new and different...

Originally Posted By: Prometheus

A perfectly valid possibility. But, until you travel into the future and know for certain, I can only accept your opinion as informed and valid. But, still, an opinion.

I honestly don't know what to say about that.

I guess that until you travel into the future and know for certain, I say that Obama is going to suicide bomb the White House with a dirty bomb nuke thereby killing the millions of innocent men, women, children, and their puppies and kittens with the initial blast and the horrible slow death of radiation poisoning afterwards. Now, Pro, the only way you're going to convince me otherwise is by traveling into the future.

No need to be facetious, Doc. I was trying to respect your opinion, and be cordial with you. You have no concrete fact to back up your opinion. Just personal conjecture based on limited examples. You say it could be bad, I say it could be good. Either way, we're both guessing. Sorry if I don't bow down to your obvious superiority on the subject...

Doc, however, is basing his conjecture on concrete examples of past performance. Past performance may not be a perfect predictor of future success but it does tend to be more reliable than, say, wishful thinking.

Originally Posted By: Pro

I would say the guy who creates an avatar just to attack or slander Obama is the one who is filled with 'broken'. Are you that desperate? (It's a funny avatar, though, I'll give you that)

You answered your own question. It's a funny avatar (thank you for noticing). No more, no less. And, if it's critical of anyone, its the people who are so enamored of Obama that they can't respond, listen to or read criticism of the man without going nuts.

Originally Posted By: Prometheus

At least my conjecture is based on facts. I can point to Walter Reed, the ambulance company in nearby Alabama (the name escapes me at the moment) that was in the news recently due to it shutting down because it wasn't receiving money from Medicaid and Medicare on time, or the article that Lothar posted a while back about how British dentists were leaving the government controlled system because they weren't making enough money and only taking cash or private insurance patients. What are you presenting to bolster your opinion? Pro, we've been friends for a while; so you understand that I don't take any of this too seriously. You should also understand that I'm going to give you shit when you make a response that is essentially just 'nuh-uh!'. It was weak and beneath both of our intelligences because all it really says is that facts are useless. I do not believe your concept of gravity, Pro. You must travel to the future to prove to me that you're right. Seriously, guy, if you're going to participate, at least put some effort into it.

Give Pro a break, doc. He's still smarting over that whole "wanting Halle Berry back as Catwoman" debacle. $;\)$

i know you dont like catchphrases Pro but you really sound like a Obamassiahite.

G-Man : I responded to your posts, and all you can do is take Halle Berry shots at me?

Doc : Dammit, I'm still at work so I don't have time to respond completely to your points. But, let's just say that while I concede that relative examples help to support your points, I still do not assume that it's a foregone certainty that it will play out exactly as you say. And I would think that for every bad example you choose to provide, there are numerous examples where UHC works in other countries. I am not saying I'm one-hundred-percent right, and you're completely wrong. But, I'm not going to go dig up twenty examples to support my position. If you want me to concede your point on this based solely on that fact, then I absolutely do. However, I still stand by my opinion on the subject and will need a lot more thorough examples of how the system doesn't work at all. As for taking it seriously or not, I hope you should know me well enough to know that I take very little on these boards seriously. Most especially NOT this forum...

BASAMS : I hope not. I'm trying to be very clear in all my posts that I am not defending Obama, but trying to point out G-Man's slanted tricks on the subject. That's all.

All in all, Obama is not the man I thought or hoped he was. At least, it's becoming very clear that there's more politician to him than I originally believed. And I don't agree with all of his policies. Even still, I'm willing to give the man the benefit of the doubt and not completely dismiss him based off (what I think are) trivial attacks from the Right. This is, of course, just my opinion...

Its almost like g-man wants to argue no matter what you say.

Originally Posted By: Prometheus

Dammit, I'm still at work so I don't have time to respond completely to your points. But, let's just say that while I concede that relative examples help to support your points, I still do not assume that it's a foregone certainty that it will play out exactly as you say. And I would think that for every bad example you choose to provide, there are numerous examples where UHC works in other countries. I am not saying I'm one-hundred-percent right, and you're completely wrong. But, I'm not going to go dig up twenty examples to support my position. If you want me to concede your point on this based solely on that fact, then I absolutely do. However, I still stand by my opinion on the subject and will need a lot more thorough examples of how the system doesn't work at all. As for taking it seriously or not, I hope you should know me well enough to know that I take very little on these boards seriously. Most especially NOT this forum...

If you can't respond to my points or won't, then don't. Just don't give me some weak ass bullshit 'you can't timetravel' write-off instead. I mean, you can come up with much better bullshit write-offs.

the fact that pro and i seem to be on the same page here is even more proof that Tennant is a superior Doctor over Eccleston (doctor's avatar).

Pro:I never try to sway anyone, I only post my opinions based on gut instinct, I am seldom wrong about people based on gut. I've rarely voted the wrong person based on gut (GW second term was wrong), but in this election my gut tells me Obama is no good, and my brain tells me McCain has a healthy record of good decision making, and leadership skills needed for the Presidency. GW wasnt a leader he was a loner who was in the lead. Obama is not a leader he is someone who sways whichever way the tide goes.

In the Presidency you need a leader, political views are less important the President is going to have to compromise or be put in a corner (see GW's last 2 years), the secret is getting someone who can lead people to compromise. Obama is and will always be polarizing just by his uppity nature, McCain has always been seen by the left and right as someone that can reach out to get something done.

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

Obama is and will always be polarizing just by his uppity nature, McCain has always been seen by the left and right as someone that can reach out to get something done.

Yeah, I'm actually disappointed in Obama for that reason.

When he first hit the scene he looked like a guy that was willing to compromise and reach out to the Republicans.

I still like his take on affirmative action. And I actually think he's less polarizing than Hillary.

But the more you find out about his actual views, he's really out there.

Quote:

I've rarely voted the wrong person based on gut (GW second term was wrong)

I might be willing to agree, but given that Kerry spent the past four years making a fool out of himself, I can't.

Too bad the Democrats stabbed Lieberman in the back. They might have the White House right now.

not to mention the fact that Obama is a closet Muslim.

Praise Allah!

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

maybe if i thought the comments made by wright were out of line or wrong i would care.

"God DAMN America!"

(What if Ray's an atheist?)

Originally Posted By: Pariah

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

maybe if i thought the comments made by wright were out of line or wrong i would care.

"God DAMN America!"

so? he was talking about the national sins. is it really so outrageous that a preacher mention sins and then damnation? is this just more of the conservative idea that to criticize or insult aspects of America or it's history are the same thing as being an enemy of the country?

As noted many times before, there's a difference between constructive criticism and constant, mindless, bashing.

People like Rev. Wright (and, sadly, Ray) will claim to love America but can never bring themselves to defend it. They only attack it.

It's almost like an abusive relationship.

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

Wow. I guess love is blind.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

I defend it all the time. I just defend things you don't like so you ignore that. I could take every "Ray hates America" line you say in response to criticism of Bush or America's immoral acts and throw them right back at you for your attacks (and the other conservatives here) on President Clinton, President Carter, President Roosevelt, etc. And your attacks on the spririt of humanitarianism shown by the existence of social programs.
Every time I praise those social programs, i'm praising America. Everytime I "attack" Bush for his questionable actions, I'm defending America. Every time I talk about what's wrong with America, I am defending America.
Every time you support a man who has made this country a laughing stock, you are attacking America by saying that's the best we can do. Every time you attack someone for not supporting you and wrap yourself in the flag, then you are attacking America by saying it's as bad as you are. Every time you and your party make an election about cheating and manipulation, you are attacking America by helping people unworthy of office get elected.
Why do you hate America, G-man?

Originally Posted By: rex

Wow. I guess love is blind.

for you, it'll probably have to be. but i've never had a problem getting sighted girls to fuck me, like your mom for instance.

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

Every time I praise those social programs, i'm praising America. Everytime I "attack" Bush for his questionable actions, I'm defending America. Every time I talk about what's wrong with America, I am defending America.

I'm sure you're defending an America, but it doesn't seem to be the one that actually exists. maybe in imaginary liberal america (pronounced marxist hippie fun land) your actions are pretty damn patriotic. in the real world, however, it's the same sort of America-bashing we've already got pretentious eurotrash for.

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

Originally Posted By: rex

Wow. I guess love is blind.

for you, it'll probably have to be. but i've never had a problem getting sighted girls to fuck me, like your mom for instance.

A mom joke. Welcome to me six months ago. Glad you guys finally caught up. Did you shut the the airport for some comedy classes?

Son of Mxy content User BLACK PERSON
7500+ posts Wed Aug 20 2008 01:58 AM Reading a post
Forum: Politics and Current Events
Thread: Barack Hussein Obama in '08?

Now that SoM is black he feels he has to keep up with Obama's actions. It's a solidarity thing.

Originally Posted By: Captain Sammitch

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

Ray actually expressed his feelings pretty profoundly and fairly. And all you have in return is to insult him and question his patriotism? Who are you to decide if he's right or wrong? What makes your beliefs and political edicts superior to his? What you're saying is that if anyone questions or is critical of the federal government, then they're not patriotic, "true" Americans. So, then, I should lump you in with the Nazis (pronounced fascist dictatorial holocaust land) because you obey and praise the Federal Administration without question?

Double-post! And Time!

Spoken like a true Canadian, Pro.

Ummm...okay?

Originally Posted By: Prometheus

Originally Posted By: Captain Sammitch

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

x sandy. someone wasn't paying attention to the context. I realize marxist hippie fun land probably got under your skin, but I wasn't questioning adler's patriotism (the level of which, I feel, is pretty self-evident) so much as I was questioning how the constructive part of his criticism pertained in any way to the actual United States as opposed to the idealized imaginary United States he so enjoys comparing everything to. call a spade a spade, I say. if he's really so adamant about his political convictions, he shouldn't be so ashamed of them that he has to try and write off his open dissent as some kind of bass-ackwards patriotism.

Originally Posted By: Captain Sammitch

Originally Posted By: Prometheus

Originally Posted By: Captain Sammitch

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

call a spade a spade.

That's rassict!

the hell are you on, dude?

Originally Posted By: Captain Sammitch

x sandy.

Don't jump on the bandwagon. Surprise me for once.

Quote:

someone wasn't paying attention to the context. I realize marxist hippie fun land probably got under your skin,

Nice try, Phil. Should I retort by saying the Nazi comment got under yours?

Quote:

but I wasn't questioning adler's patriotism (the level of which, I feel, is pretty self-evident)

No, you were attempting to define patriotism as a singular ideology that you happen to agree with, and he does not.

Quote:

so much as I was questioning how the constructive part of his criticism pertained in any way to the actual United States as opposed to the idealized imaginary United States he so enjoys comparing everything to.

So, then what you're saying is because Ray finds flaw in how the Feds run the nation, but doesn't offer an exact, and perfect solution to said criticisms that you agree with, then he's wrong for criticizing at all?

Quote:

call a spade a spade, I say. if he's really so adamant about his political convictions, he shouldn't be so ashamed of them that he has to try and write off his open dissent as some kind of bass-ackwards patriotism.

Newsflash chief: Open dissent is American patriotism. From origin to civil war to civil rights to protests, America is nothing but open dissent. Thus, you obviously didn't get my point...

Originally Posted By: Captain Sammitch

I realize marxist hippie fun land probably got under your skin...

That's Canada's official motto, you know.

http://goldenpages.ie/search/Barack_Obama/honesty.html

Another Controversial Obama Magazine Cover

Quote:

Brodswald, New Hampringshire - In a move that can only be described as "tacky", the popular women's magazine Ladies' Home Journal has chosen to feature a caricature of presidential candidate Barack Obama and his wife Michelle on the cover of the September issue. Thousands of people in waiting rooms and grocery store check-out lanes across the nation were stunned by the otherwise sensible magazine's apparent lack of taste.

Regular readers were put off by this domestic magazine's foray into the realm of political tomfoolery. "When I picked up this month's issue, all I wanted was some tips on how to get those horrible smudges off of the end table," bemoaned one reader, Thelma Thurgood, 46, who wishes to remain anonymous. "But instead I find this filth! I mean, look at all the things wrong with it! Barack's American flag lapel pin is too low, and Michelle isn't wearing a proper Islamic headdress!" Outrageous though the spectacle may be, Thurgood later noted that she absolutely must find out who does Michelle's hair.

Obama's spokesman issued the following statement in regard to the magazine cover: "We feel that some corrections are in order for this... display Ladies' Home Journal has shown us. First of all, there are some inaccuracies with the words "Save money at the gas pump" emblazoned on Obama. If Obama is elected, you will not have to lower your gas prices. We is lower them for you. This is the change that you can believe in and hope for that will can bring to you as you hope for it. Change."

Despite the the fact that this magazine cover is an abomination[1] before god and man, some citizens seem curiously unbothered by this image. "I'll tell you what," one correspondent told us what, "that Obama got what was coming to him. Maybe some day America will have a Muslim elected president, but I hope to never live to see the day that happens. No sirree, you're not gonna have a Muslim government forcing our children to go to school and making us pray five times a day to however many gods they have, least not on my watch." Our correspondent took off for a trip to to 'lanta, where he plans to defend the city from the Russian invasion of Georgia just like his pa defended it from Sherman during the war.[2]

Pariah nerdy Moderator Triteness kicks us in the nads.
15000+ posts Wed Aug 20 2008 09:51 PM Reading a post
Forum: Politics and Current Events
Thread: Barack Hussein Obama in '08?

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

Another Controversial Obama Magazine Cover

Quote:

Originally Posted By: BSAMS

...one reader, Thelma Thurgood, 46, who wishes to remain anonymous...

Obama: Rev. Wright a 'wonderful man':

In a recently resurfaced television interview from 1995, Barack Obama describes Rev. Jeremiah Wright as a "wonderful man" who "represents the best of what the black Church has to offer."

"Wright, who is my pastor, and he is a wonderful man…He's a pastor of a large congregation in Chicago, and one of the interesting things that I discover in my journey to discover what my identity is and who my father is, is also discovering my own faith, which is not necessarily a traditional faith. I don’t come out of an institutionalized religious setting, but what becomes important to me as I work with churches in the South Side of Chicago and low income neighborhoods is to realize that all of the stories and songs of the Church, the hope that is embodied in the Church, the sense of liberation that is embodied in the historically African American Church, is really something that moves me deeply, and I think is probably the main pillar around which a lot of inner city communities are going to be built, and Rev. Wright, my pastor who I speak about in the chapter in the book, I think represents the best of what the black Church has to offer."

To be fair to Obama, I'm sure it wasn't until the past year that he realized Wright was a racist.

http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/

There are my two favorite quotes from the comment section that's asking the question why troops support Obama.

QUOTE
Michael from Greenfield, Wi.

As a Vietnam era ex-Marine veteran with a son who is in the Army and was wounded in Iraq in 2003, I would vever give a penny to John McCain. I personally do not know any other veterans who are donating to McCain either.
Jack. Veterans hate war, wrong wars, and the people who talk so cavalier about waging it. Usually those that never served during war, or never served at all are the ones who talk so loosely about war. The veterans that I knew when I was in that liked war, were either stupid, crazy, homicidal, or all of the above. Where does that leave McCain.

QUOTE
David, Tampa, Fl August 15th, 2008 2:45 pm ET

Jack, the reason is the lower ranks, guys with their butts on the line doing the dirty work, want to return home quickly. They will support that canidate that will extract them from hams ways they hope. Higher ranking officers, who spend most of their time brown-nosing for their next promotion and are in the rear areas and pertty much out of harms way, support those they beleive will increase their lot in life. Respectfully a Viet Nam era Vet.

So far everytime I've posted this at a message boards the Republicans have gone into utter denial. I guess it's a blow to the partisan ego that historically combat vets have donated to other combat vets but now they're not.

Some vets do. Some vets don't. I know vets who are supporting McCain. As much as both sides like to corral people into categories, the fact is that those people are individuals with their own opinions and morals.

Originally Posted By: thedoctor

Well no shit. Nobodies saying all the vets are donating to Obama. However, most of the vets who are overseas right now are donating to him which is unprecedented.

To be fair, most vets of other like 'nam and Korea are donating to McCain.

I'd already read that a lot of the Iraq vets were Obama supporters. Contrary to your prediction in another thread, I'm not terribly surprised or upset by that.

They're younger, and often minorities, both of which are part of Obama's core constituency.

Sure, I'd prefer they realize that McCain will be better for their long-term interests, but I'm not going to attack them for making a choice I disagree with. They're the ones who fight for the right to vote, after all.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

That's right, write off the opinions of the people who are actually there cause they are young and minorities

.

I don't suppose it's possible they support Obama cause they actually don't like this war and feel in the long-term it's better that America not be war mongers?

I don't suppose it's possible they support Obama cause of how horribly fucked up this war has been?

I don't suppose they support Obama cause they're pissed off cause they had to fight while the Iraq politicians took a two month vacation.

I don't suppose they support Obama cause there were no WMD's in Iraq.

I don't suppose they support Obama cause this whole war has destabalized the middle east in the "long-term".

I don't suppose they support Obama cause the govt. managed to get oil trucks into Iraq before they could send the troops supplies and armor.

I don't suppose they support Obama cause McCain has flip flopped going from Bush's main Republican adversary to following in his foot steps.

I don't suppose they support Obama cause they have to live with the idea of killing people for a war that at BEST is precarious.

No, of course not, it's cause they are "young and minorities"

Things are pretty fucked up in America right now and McCain like all Republicans is too busy trying to save face to make any change. At least with Obama there's a chance he'll do something. I'm not as naive as you, G-man. I realize that Obama's talk might be for show but I'd rather be dissapointed with him than vote for a guy I know won't do shit to help. And maybe the troops agree.

So, when these same people supported George W. Bush four years ago, what was your reason for that?

All I'm saying is that soldiers are no different than anyone else. They vote the way they do for a lot of reasons, some of which I might agree with, some of which I might not.

But, unlike you, I'm not going to assume they're some sort of uniform voting bloc or attack them when I disagree with their choice.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

I think Teddy Roosevelt was the one who said "you don't change horses midstream". That's my big reason. Presidents have never been outed at 4 years in a time of war. Besides, 2004 was alot different. The Iraq war was only in it's infancy of controversy and since then you have other fuck ups like Katrina, Guantanamo, CIA leaks, high gas prices, a fucked up economy, and other factors that have blemished the Republicans.

But you're are backpeddling. You limited the reason for troops to vote for Obama to being minorities and youth. So if anyone is insulting someone for having a differing opinion. Cause I KNOW I never did.

Originally Posted By: Wank and Cry

Originally Posted By: the G-man

I think Teddy Roosevelt was the one who said "you don't change horses midstream". That's my big reason. Presidents have never been outed at 4 years in a time of war. Besides, 2004 was a_lot different. The Iraq war was only in it's infancy of controversy and since then you have other fuck ups like Katrina, Guantanamo, CIA leaks, high gas prices, a fucked up economy, and other factors that have blemished the Republicans.

But you~~'re~~ are backpeddling. You limited the reason for troops to vote for Obama to being minorities and youth. So if anyone is insulting someone for having a differing opinion [fragment]. [Be]cause I KNOW I never did.

Originally Posted By: Captain Sammitch

Originally Posted By: Wank and Cry

Originally Posted By: the G-man

I think Teddy Roosevelt was the one who said "you don't change horses midstream". That's my big reason. Presidents have never been outed at 4 years in a time of war. Besides, 2004 was a_lot different. The Iraq war was only in it's infancy of controversy and since then you have other fuck ups like Katrina, Guantanamo, CIA leaks, high gas prices, a fucked up economy, and other factors that have blemished the Republicans.

But you~~'re~~ are backpeddling. You limited the reason for troops to vote for Obama to being minorities and youth. So if anyone is insulting someone for having a differing opinion [fragment]. [Be]cause I KNOW I never did.

Thanks for the corrections, Captain Smuggish. In return, let me help you out before you knock up another imaginary/bought/tranvestite "girl"friend.

I'll have to catch that later. I'm busy reading this!

Originally Posted By: Wank & Cry

YES, my first fan. I'd be honored if you weren't such a redundant, unimaginative, and pathetic snob.

Originally Posted By: Wank and Cry

Originally Posted By: Captain Sammitch

Originally Posted By: Wank and Cry

You're no fun.

Originally Posted By: Wank and Cry (UNEDITED!!!)

Originally Posted By: Captain Sammitch

Originally Posted By: Wank and Cry

You're no fun.

Originally Posted By: Captain Sammitch

Originally Posted By: Wank and Cry (UNEDITED!!!)

Originally Posted By: Captain Sammitch

Originally Posted By: Wank and Cry

You're no fun.

...

Ha

Ha ha ha

Originally Posted By: Wank and Cry

Originally Posted By: Captain Sammitch

Originally Posted By: Wank and Cry (UNEDITED!!!)

Originally Posted By: Captain Sammitch

Originally Posted By: Wank and Cry

You're no fun.

Wank and Cry User Feared by the RKMB morons
3000+ posts 08/21/08 02:53 PM Logging out

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080821/pl_nm/usa_politics_mccain_threat_dc

Quote:

A suburban Denver campaign office of U.S. presidential candidate John McCain was evacuated on Thursday, and several people went to a hospital, after receiving an envelope containing a threatening letter and an unidentified white powder, a campaign spokesman said.

The letter arrived in the mail in the afternoon, and the campaign immediately notified local and federal law enforcement authorities, said Jeff Sadosky, a spokesman for the campaign in suburban Washington, D.C.

McCain, 71, a Republican senator from Arizona, was taking the day off from the campaign, spending the day at his home in Sedona, Arizona.

Sadosky added, "We are taking all necessary precautions," which he said included an evacuation of the office in Centennial, Colorado, outside Denver, where dozens of people work.

He said the composition of the powder found in the envelope was not immediately known, and that he did not know to whom the parcel was addressed.

Five to 10 people who were in the office went to a nearby hospital, where "they are currently being seen by health-care professionals," Sadosky said.

Five people died in 2001 after anthrax powder was mailed to U.S. congressional offices and media outlets in the weeks following the September 11 attacks.

A U.S. Secret Service spokesman, Malcolm Wiley, said the envelope sent to the McCain campaign office was opened by a campaign staffer there, and that an FBI hazardous materials team was dispatched to the scene, along with Secret Service personnel and local authorities.

A police spokeswoman in Denver said she had no immediate information about the incident.

The Democratic National Convention is due to open in Denver on Monday.

I'd look at whatsername...grieving mom person that camped out at Bush's ranch...before I'd look at Obama...

You mean the angry hippie chick thats using her sons death to further her own anti-american agenda? Her name is cindy sheenan.

Originally Posted By: Prometheus

I'd look at whatsername...grieving mom person that camped out at Bush's ranch...before I'd look at Obama...

She's running against the Dems, plus she doesn't have a closet Muslim background or association wit known terrorists like Obama. It's like what Lenin said... you look for the person who will benefit....

I am the walrus?

rex ass-kicky User breaker of the insurgency
15000+ posts Fri Aug 22 2008 02:08 AM Viewing list of forums

Originally Posted By: the "Who's Online" obsessor

rex ass-kicky User breaker of the insurgency
15000+ posts Fri Aug 22 2008 02:08 AM Viewing list of forums

Originally Posted By: the "Who's Online" obsessor

rex ass-kicky User breaker of the insurgency
15000+ posts Fri Aug 22 2008 02:08 AM Viewing list of forums

Originally Posted By: the "Who's Online" obsessor

rex ass-kicky User breaker of the insurgency
15000+ posts Fri Aug 22 2008 02:08 AM Viewing list of forums

Originally Posted By: the "Who's Online" obsessor

rex ass-kicky User breaker of the insurgency
15000+ posts Fri Aug 22 2008 02:08 AM Viewing list of forums

rex ass-kicky User breaker of the insurgency
15000+ posts Fri Aug 22 2008 02:10 AM Viewing list of forums

Originally Posted By: the "Who's Online" obsessor

rex ass-kicky User breaker of the insurgency
15000+ posts Fri Aug 22 2008 02:10 AM Viewing list of forums

Originally Posted By: the "Who's Online" obsessor

rex ass-kicky User breaker of the insurgency
15000+ posts Fri Aug 22 2008 02:10 AM Viewing list of forums

Originally Posted By: the "Who's Online" obsessor

rex ass-kicky User breaker of the insurgency
15000+ posts Fri Aug 22 2008 02:10 AM Viewing list of forums

Originally Posted By: the "Who's Online" obsessor

rex ass-kicky User breaker of the insurgency
15000+ posts Fri Aug 22 2008 02:10 AM Viewing list of forums

Originally Posted By: the "Who's Online" obsessor

rex ass-kicky User breaker of the insurgency
15000+ posts Fri Aug 22 2008 02:10 AM Viewing list of forums

Originally Posted By: the "Who's Online" obsessor

rex ass-kicky User breaker of the insurgency
15000+ posts Fri Aug 22 2008 02:10 AM Viewing list of forums

Originally Posted By: the "Who's Online" obsessor

rex ass-kicky User breaker of the insurgency
15000+ posts Fri Aug 22 2008 02:10 AM Viewing list of forums

Originally Posted By: the "Who's Online" obsessor

rex ass-kicky User breaker of the insurgency
15000+ posts Fri Aug 22 2008 02:10 AM Viewing list of forums

Originally Posted By: the "Who's Online" obsessor

rex ass-kicky User breaker of the insurgency
15000+ posts Fri Aug 22 2008 02:10 AM Viewing list of forums

Originally Posted By: the "Who's Online" obsessor

rex ass-kicky User breaker of the insurgency
15000+ posts Fri Aug 22 2008 02:10 AM Viewing list of forums

Originally Posted By: the "Who's Online" obsessor

[quote=the "Who's Online" obsessor]rex ass-kicky User breaker of the insurgency
15000+ posts Fri Aug 22 2008 02:10 AM Viewing list of forums

[/quote]

Originally Posted By: the "Who's Online" obsessor

[quote=the "Who's Online" obsessor][quote=the "Who's Online" obsessor]rex ass-kicky User breaker of the insurgency
15000+ posts Fri Aug 22 2008 02:10 AM Viewing list of forums

[/quote] [/quote]

Originally Posted By: the "Who's Online" obsessor

[quote=the "Who's Online" obsessor][quote=the "Who's Online" obsessor][quote=the "Who's Online" obsessor]rex ass-kicky User breaker of the insurgency
15000+ posts Fri Aug 22 2008 02:10 AM Viewing list of forums

[/quote] [/quote] [/quote]

rex ass-kicky User breaker of the insurgency
15000+ posts Fri Aug 22 2008 02:22 AM Reading a post
Forum: Politics and Current Events
Thread: Barack Hussein Obama in '08?

Originally Posted By: the "Who's Online" obsessor

rex ass-kicky User breaker of the insurgency
15000+ posts Fri Aug 22 2008 02:22 AM Reading a post
Forum: Politics and Current Events
Thread: Barack Hussein Obama in '08?

Originally Posted By: the "Who's Online" obsessor

rex ass-kicky User breaker of the insurgency
15000+ posts Fri Aug 22 2008 02:22 AM Reading a post
Forum: Politics and Current Events
Thread: Barack Hussein Obama in '08?

Originally Posted By: the "Who's Online" obsessor

rex ass-kicky User breaker of the insurgency
15000+ posts Fri Aug 22 2008 02:22 AM Reading a post
Forum: Politics and Current Events
Thread: Barack Hussein Obama in '08?

Originally Posted By: rex

You mean the angry hippie chick thats using her sons death to further her own anti-american agenda? Her name is cindy sheenan.

Yeah, that's the one. I'd buy her doing it. Obama has no need to do it. He'll end up winning anyway...

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

I am the walrus?

That fucking bitch...

Originally Posted By: Prometheus

Originally Posted By: rex

You mean the angry hippie chick thats using her sons death to further her own anti-american agenda? Her name is cindy sheenan.

Yeah, that's the one. I'd buy her doing it. Obama has no need to do it. He'll end up winning anyway...

There were flyers here in Eugene about protesting the democratic convention and doing other anarchistic stuff. I don't know what happened of it but they wanted to get a couple buses full of degenerates to cause chaos and bang on drums and shit all over the place during the convention.

If this was from one of them I wouldn't be surprised at all.

This ad is running in VA and it is pissing Obama's team off big time:

Originally Posted By: the G-man

This ad is running in VA and it is pissing Obama's team off big time[/url]:

WOW. That is way more powerful than the swift boat/willie horton ads and we saw how well those worked. This should be playing in every state every half hour.

theyre playing it in Ohio several times a day.

You knoe the sad thing is with the passing of Tim Russert no one will likely make Obama answer the question of why he is friends with a known terrorist. It will likely be swept under the rug by the mainstream media.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

This ad is running in VA and it is pissing Obama's team off big time:

what a horrible distortion of the facts. another proud republican attack ad. another couple of voters who will vote based on a lie. another little bit of democracy devalued.
why do you hate America so much and want to bring down it's core values?

ray be careful, you can smother in the sand. dont stay down long.

it's a distortion of the facts to the point of being indirect lies. it's so bad that john mccain won't put his name on it. but like the swiftboaters 4 years ago it'll help the republicans.

Which of the following allegations is false?

Ayers was a leader of the Weather Underground.
The Weather Underground was a domestic Terrorist Group
Ayers and his group bombed the Pentagon and other sites
Ayers later expressed the wish that he had set more bombs
Obama is a friend and colleague of Ayers and has publicly praised him

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Which of the following allegations is false?

Ayers was a leader of the Weather Underground.
The Weather Underground was a domestic Terrorist Group
Ayers and his group bombed the Pentagon and other sites
Ayers later expressed the wish that he had set more bombs
Obama is a friend and colleague of Ayers and has publicly praised him

i think ray thinks flight 93 hit the capitol.

it implies terrorist actions against major targets by ayers. it fails to mention that he blew up a statue.
it implies a link of more than just friendship but collusion.

the real question is if it's so straightforward and honest why isn't mccain's name on it, why does this dummy group have to take specific credit?
it's a distortion of the facts and you know it.

so the group he founded didnt kill policeman? he didnt bomb the capitol? he didnt say he wish they had did more?

:terroristrolleyes:

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

it implies terrorist actions against major targets by ayers. it fails to mention that he blew up a statue

We already went over this. Ayers didn't just blow up a statute. He actually did bomb the Pentagon, and the room he set the bomb in just happened to be vacant when the bomb went off.

Quote:

he real question is if it's so straightforward and honest why isn't mccain's name on it

So, by that "logic," you'll discount every allegation against McCain made by MediaMatters, MoveOn.org, the New York Times, etc., simply because Obama's name isn't on it?

Sh'yeah. Right.

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/barone/2008/08/22/obama-needs-to-explain-his-ties-to-william-ayers.html

nice article with a lot of good questions(also alot of blah blah blah crap in the middle)

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

it's a distortion of the facts to the point of being indirect lies.

You didn't seem to mind when Michael Moore did it.

ray is the liberal version of wondy.

heh

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

it took me a second to get that.

Ray for get for one second that this man is the Dem candidate for President. Try and look at this with unbiased eyes. Obama needs to do what he half assed did with Wright and condemn this person and get the fuck away from him. (not that it would be genuine) This is huge why didn't hilary use this?

She did try to use it, but she couldn't really hit it too hard because of her own radical past:

Hillary is blind to her own roots in the sixties. In one college speech she spoke of ecstatic transcendence; in another, she said, "Our social indictment has broadened. Where once we exposed the quality of life in the world of the South and the ghettos, now we condemn the quality of work in factories and corporations. Where once we assaulted the exploitation of man, now we decry the destruction of nature as well. How much long can we let corporations run us?"

She was in Chicago for three nights during the 1968 street confrontations. She chaired the 1970 Yale law school meeting where students voted to join a national student strike again an "unconscionable expansion of a war that should never have been waged." She was involved in the New Haven defense of Bobby Seale during his murder trial in 1970, as the lead scheduler of student monitors. She surely agreed with Yale president Kingman Brewster that a black revolutionary couldn't get a fair trial in America.

Most significantly in terms of her recent attacks on Barack, after Yale law school, Hillary went to work for the left-wing Bay Area law firm of Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein, which specialized in Black Panthers and West Coast labor leaders prosecuted for being communists. Two of the firm's partners, according to Treuhaft, were communists and the two others "tolerated communists".

a third partner has been linked to the production of Dirty Dancing 2.

Havana Nights? Well, that proves it.

Obama's Islamist problem

The effort to minimize any grounds for fearing Obama has an abiding, if covert, attachment to Islam has prompted him to risk offending Muslims in order to avoid off-message controversies and photo ops.

It is, therefore, curious in the extreme that he is giving a prominent role at next week's Democratic convention to a leader of an organization identified by the Department of Justice as a Muslim Brotherhood front organization and an unindicted co-conspirator in a terrorism financing conspiracy.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

This ad is running in VA and it is pissing Obama's team off big time:

He's so pissed off that he did a reply ad claiming, basically, "it's not my fault, I was eight years old":

Barack Obama: I’m Barack Obama and I approved this message.

ANNCR: With all our problems, why is John McCain talking about the sixties, trying to link Barack Obama to radical Bill Ayers?

McCain knows Obama denounced Ayers’ crimes, committed when Obama was just eight years old.

Let’s talk about standing up for America today.

John McCain wants to spend $10 Billion a month in Iraq, tax breaks for corporations that ship jobs overseas, selling out American workers.

John McCain, just more of the same.

A McCain spokesman fired back: “The fact that Barack Obama chose to launch his political career at the home of an unrepentant terrorist raises more questions about his judgment than any ad ever could. And the fact that he’s launching his own convention by defending his long association with a man who says he didn’t bomb enough U.S. targets tells us more about Barack Obama than any of tonight’s speeches will.”

wow i guess it would be alright to be friends with Pol Pot since most of that happened when I was eight.

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

wow i guess it would be alright to be friends with Pol Pot since most of that happened when I was eight.

how many statues did pol pot blow up?

this guy is not the mass murdering terrorist you make him out to be. He wasn't a rapist, I don't think anyone even died. And his actions weren't motivated by racism, greed, hatred. He was acting in response to what he saw as an unjust government.
Obama was 8, had nothing to do with anything this guy did. And either way why shouldn't Obama be friends with him? Is he still setting bombs? Saying he wished he'd done more is a far cry from action. Have you ever said you wanted to punch someone? Should we arrest you for assault? It sounds like basically Obama is friends with a guy who holds some radical (by some people's standards)beliefs. You've never had a friend who felt something different than you, or felt a little harsher? Has Obama endorsed the actions, or is he just friends with the man?

And George W. Bush has family who supported Hitler. He appointed people who worked with Saddam Hussein, and helped train bin Laden. They believed it was the right thing to do and that led to thousands of deaths, I don't think Ayers killed anyone. Where's the moral indignation over that?
And where are the angry conservatives bitching about the statue Bush destroyed in Iraq?

Bush had a statue destroyed in Iraq, and Ayers bombed the US Capitol. nice comparison, it's views like that that will win it for McCain.

the far left hasnt realized most of America is in the middle, we dont view blowing up statues in Washington and advocating the overthrow of our govt the same as going to war with a country that has vowed to destroy us.

do you really think the average american believes it's the same thing?

The far left will never accept that the rest of the country isn't as anti-American as they.

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

You've never had a friend who felt something different than you, or felt a little harsher?

Yeah, who among us hasn't been close friends and political associates with unrepentant terrorist bombers?

i mean seriously does anyone actually believe it's the same thing to attack your own country? and does anyone think that if a guy did it when you were eight that it's okay to be buds with him now?

Seriously, the far left in places like San Francisco think our country is, at best, no better than any other nation and, at worst, the greatest threat to the world there is.

As a result, those type of people really believe that attacking our own country is no worse than attacking a foreign dictator.

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

Bush had a statue destroyed in Iraq, and Ayers bombed the US Capitol. nice comparison, it's views like that that will win it for McCain.

you say he "bombed the capitol" like he planted a bomb at some famous site and caused untold deaths.
I just rechecked his bio. He blew up a statue, twice. It caused property damage but killed NO ONE. He went underground before any charges were filed, charges were filed and then dropped and he came out of hiding and lived a respectable life.
Last time I checked in America we had this thing called "innocent until proven guilty."
We also have free speech, free association, and generally people should be allowed to change and evolve over the course of their lives. Ayers was 25 when he blew up the statue, that was 40 years ago and 30something years before he met and befriended Obama.

Quote:

the far left hasnt realized most of America is in the middle, we dont view blowing up statues in Washington and advocating the overthrow of our govt the same as going to war with a country that has vowed to destroy us.

Iraq was no threat to us, they didn't attack us. I think most people would actually be way more offended by a current war that is costing thousands of American lives, a war started on lies, a war started by people who helped the enemy establish themselves, than they would about a statue being blown up 40 years ago.
Did you even read the information about this guy? It's kind of funny. He blew up a statue, they rebuilt it, and then he blew it up again. He didn't blow up a police station, he blew up a statue. It's less terrorism than it is "college prank gone too far."

yeah i guess we can tell all that to the dead policemen's wives.

"Kill all the rich people. ... Bring the revolution home. Kill your parents."

-Bill Ayers

tell me that isnt just a little harsher than what you believe ray.

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

Bush had a statue destroyed in Iraq, and Ayers bombed the US Capitol. nice comparison, it's views like that that will win it for McCain.

Quote:

but not far enough according to Obama's future secretary of war.

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

Did you even read the information about this guy? It's kind of funny. He blew up a statue, they rebuilt it, and then he blew it up again. He didn't blow up a police station, he blew up a statue. It's less terrorism than it is "college prank gone too far."

Ray, did you read the information about Ayers? According to the New York Times:

He writes that he participated in the bombings of New York City Police Headquarters in 1970, of the Capitol building in 1971, the Pentagon in 1972.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Seriously, the far left in places like San Francisco think our country is, at best, no better than any other nation and, at worst, the greatest threat to the world there is.

I think the far left see this country as heavily flawed and believe it can be better. I think the far left wonder why so much is spent on wars that make the warmakers richer while our schools go to shit. I think the far left is annoyed that people care more about iphones and their comfort than about the environment and the air we all breathe.
i think the far right believes that everything is perfect as long as they get what they want. as long as you have your creature comforts and don't have to pay too much for them then you're happy. fuck the rest of the world.

I would rather America actually was number 1, instead of just saying we are. I would rather America have the best in healthcare, education, quality of life, and was seen the world over as a beacon of honesty and integrity.
But you're fine with being hated globally as long as you feel like you're top dog.

Quote:

As a result, those type of people really believe that attacking our own country is no worse than attacking a foreign dictator.

"attacking our own country?" He blew up a statue. He did not attack anyone or kill anyone. He made a statement. Was it wrong? It was vandalism and probably cost a bit to repair the damage. But it's a far cry from illegally invading another country and killing hundreds of thousands because someone in totally different country killed some Americans.
Technically millions of people set off bombs in the name of "freedom" on July 4th. Only on July 4th has a higher mortality rate than Ayers.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

Ray, did you read the information about Ayers? According to the New York Times:

He writes that he participated in the bombings of New York City Police Headquarters in 1970, of the Capitol building in 1971, the Pentagon in 1972.

I don't read links that you post. I googled him and I'm not seeing anything credible about that aside from fox news mentions.
But again, did anyone die? And does participation mean he helped make the bombs, planted the bombs, or said "yeah that would be neat" when the idea was brought up.

The point really isn't about myers at all. It's about Obama. You want to attack him for the actions his friends took when he was a kid. But I'm mentioning Bush's friends and the bad things they've done. If you attack Obama for who he is friends with, then you have to also condemn Bush for who his friends are. And actually I'm taking it a step farther by pointing out that these people with bad deeds were given power and positions by Bush. If Obama appoints Ayers to some powerful post, then I'll be angry.

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

I googled him and I'm not seeing anything credible about that aside from fox news mentions.

I posted a link to the New York Times, not Fox.

Quote:

But again, did anyone die?

The latest "Rayfact": attempted murder is now legal.

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

i forget that ray is opposed to representative government, ray id our elevted government officials decide to train Obama to fight a Russian invasion and years later he uses that training against us it isnt training a terrorist to fight the US. if our elected government decides it is wise to supply arms and money to Saddam to fight a terrorist nation and he later ivades an ally of ours it is not a terrorist act.

if you blow up a bomb in the capitol building, and you blow up a polic station, and you preach to kids to kill their rich parents, that is terrorism. how do you perceive these as the same? im beggining to think you are one of those people that believe Obama is the messiah.

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

...government officials decide to train Obama to fight a Russian invasion....

If only Obama WOULD be willing to fight a Russian invasion.

S'alright. Ted Kennedy once did the same thing.

Will Barack Obama's first act as President be to declare martial law and throw out the first amendment?

Quote:

Obama seeks to silence critics

Barack Obama is striking back fiercely and swiftly to stamp out an ad that links him to a 1960s radical, eager to demonstrate a far more aggressive response to attacks than John Kerry did when faced with the 2004 "Swift Boat" campaign.

Obama not only aired a response ad to the spot linking him to William Ayers, but he sought to block stations the commercial by warning station managers and asking the Justice Department to intervene. The campaign also planned to compel advertisers to pressure stations that continue to air the anti-Obama commercial.

It's the type of going-for-the-jugular approach to politics many Democrats complain that Kerry lacked and that Republicans exploit.

Obama's target is an ad by the conservative American Issues Project, a nonprofit group that questions Obama's ties to Ayers, a founder of the Weather Underground organization that took credit for a series of bombings, including nonfatal explosions at the Pentagon and U.S. Capitol four decades ago.

The lone financier of the anti-Obama ad, Texas billionaire Harold Simmons, was also one of the main funders of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth who targeted Kerry. Simmons, a McCain fundraiser, contributed nearly $2.9 million to the American Issues Project, according to documents filed by the group with the Federal Election Commission.

Fox News and CNN have declined to air the anti-Obama ad. But by Monday afternoon, the ad had run about 150 times in local markets in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia and Michigan, according to Evan Tracey, head of TNS Media Intelligence/Campaign Media Analysis Group, an ad tracking firm.

Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor said Obama supporters have inundated stations that are airing the ad, many of them owned by Sinclair Communications, with 93,000 e-mails. He called the ad false, despicable and outrageous.

"Other stations that follow Sinclair's lead should expect a similar response from people who don't want the political discourse cheapened with these false, negative attacks," Vietor said.

Sinclair offices were closed late Monday and officials there could not be immediately contacted.

"It seems they protest a bit too much," American Issues Project spokesman Christian Pinkston said. "They're going all of these routes — through threats, intimation — to try to thwart the First Amendment here because they don't have an argument on merit."

Ayers is now a professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago. He and Obama live in Chicago's Hyde Park neighborhood and served together on the board of the Woods Fund, a Chicago-based charity that develops community groups to help the poor. Obama left the board in December 2002.

Obama also was the first chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a school reform group of which Ayers was a founder. Ayers also held a meet-the-candidate event at his home for Obama when Obama first ran for office in the mid-1990s.

Obama has denounced Ayers' past activities.

"Barack Obama is friends with Ayers, defending him as, quote, 'Respectable' and 'Mainstream,'" the group's ad states. "Obama's political career was launched in Ayers' home. And the two served together on a left-wing board. Why would Barack Obama be friends with someone who bombed the Capitol and is proud of it? Do you know enough to elect Barack Obama?"

In a letter to station managers, Obama campaign lawyer Robert Bauer wrote: "Your station is committed to operating in the public interest, an objective that cannot be satisfied by accepting for compensation material of such malicious falsity."

Bauer also wrote to Deputy Assistant Attorney General John C. Keeney, noting that the ad is a "knowing and willful attempt to evade the strictures of federal election law."

The campaign's aggressive tactics could draw more attention to a subject the campaign wants to go away. On Tuesday, the University of Illinois at Chicago will make available records of Obama's service on the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. The group was set up to improve the city's schools. The documents could shed further light on whether Obama and Ayers had a relationship.

The American Issues Project is a 501(c)4 nonprofit corporation. It is permitted by law to air a political ad provided that the majority of its spending is nonpolitical. It cannot accept money from corporations and it must identify the donors that finance its ads in reports to the Federal Election Commission. Pinkston said the group has set aside money to carry out non-election related work to meet the legal requirements. It filed a report identifying Simmons as its sole donor for the ad last week.

In the Obama campaign's own response ad, an announcer states: "With all our problems, why is John McCain talking about the 60s, trying to link Barack Obama to radical Bill Ayers. McCain knows Obama denounced Ayers' crimes, committed when Obama was just 8 years old."

The McCain campaign cannot coordinate efforts with outside groups. But the campaign took advantage of being the target of the response ad.

"The fact that Barack Obama chose to launch his political career at the home of an unrepentant terrorist raises more questions about Senator Obama's judgment than any TV ad ever could," said McCain spokesman Brian Rogers.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

I googled him and I'm not seeing anything credible about that aside from fox news mentions.

I posted a link to the New York Times, not Fox.

As I said in the part you cut out, I don't trust anything you link. Maybe if you didn't post blogs as facts so often.

Quote:

But again, did anyone die?

The latest "Rayfact": attempted murder is now legal.

I asked if anyone died. Attempted murder means no one did. Take your pills, grandpa.
I never said what he did was legal, just that he didn't kill anyone. And the charges were dropped, so he was never convicted.

Again, what does this have to do with Obama? He was friends with the guy 30 years after the fact, by that time this guy was just some married proffessor who's politics were all theories and lectures, not actions. Obama can be friends with the man and still disagree with some of his views and the actions he took as a youth.
Unlike Bush-who is the current president and therefore relevant to a conversation about candidates-Obama has not appointed a man with questionable past actions to any position of power.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

I posted a link to the New York Times, not Fox.

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

...I don't trust anything you link. Maybe if you didn't post blogs as facts so often.

I very rarely post from blogs and, when I do, I typically point that out. In either event, I noted in the body of my post (in boldface, even) that it was an article from the NY Times.

You then wrote that the only source you could find was Fox.

My point stands.

Got anything better than an inaccurate attack on my source?

Quote:

I never said what he did was legal, just that he didn't kill anyone.

You tried to excuse his actions, which were clearly dangerous to others, by saying that no one died. By your own logic, then, attempted murder is excusable because no one actually dies.

Quote:

And the charges were dropped, so he was never convicted.

According to the Chicaco Sun-Times the charges were dropped because of legal technicality, after Ayers spent years as a fugitive, not because he didn't commit the crimes.

CBS TV:

at least four people are under arrest in connection with a possible plot to kill Barack Obama at his Thursday night acceptance speech in Denver. All are being held on either drug or weapons charges.

CBS4 Investigator Brian Maass reported one of the suspects told authorities they were "going to shoot Obama from a high vantage point using a ... rifle … sighted at 750 yards."

Law enforcement sources tell Maass that one of the suspects "was directly asked if they had come to Denver to kill Obama. He responded in the affirmative."

The story began emerging Sunday morning when Aurora police arrested 28-year-old Tharin Gartrell. He was driving a rented pickup truck in an erratic manner according to sources.

Sources told CBS4 police found two high-powered, scoped rifles in the car along with camouflage clothing, walkie-talkies, a bulletproof vest, a spotting scope, licenses in the names of other people and methamphetamine. One of the rifles is listed as stolen from Kansas.

Subsequently authorities went to the Cherry Creek Hotel to contact an associate of Gartrell's. But that man, who was wanted on numerous warrants, jumped out of a sixth floor hotel window. Law enforcement sources say the man broke an ankle in the fall and was captured moments later. Sources say he was wearing a ring with a swastika, and is thought to have ties to white supremacist organizations.

A third man -- an associate of Gartrell and the hotel jumper was also arrested. He told authorities that the two men "planned to kill Barack Obama at his acceptance speech."

That man, along with a woman, are also under arrest.

The Secret Service, FBI, ATF and the joint terrorism task force are all investigating the alleged plot.

The U.S. Attorney in Denver has scheduled a news conference for Tuesday afternoon.

Good work by law enforcement in stopping these punks. I hope they get the book thrown at them.

However, I would note that-under Ray's "William Ayers" standard, since they didn't actually succeed in killing anybody, it's basically a "college prank."

Ray, seriously, I think you should befriend these people. Sure, they are evil domestic terrorists. However, as you have pointed out, that doesn't mean you can't be friends with them.

in 30 years if I happen to meet these people and they seem like people who are interesting and have changed from the way they are now, then I would befriend them.

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

in 30 years if I happen to meet these people and they seem like people who are interesting and have changed from the way they are now, then I would befriend them.

Just like Jesus would.

Jesus was a dirty hippie. And he was fictional.

Matter-eater Man argumentative User Fair Play!
5000+ posts Mon Aug 25 2008 10:57 PM Reading a post
Forum: Politics and Current Events
Thread: Barack Hussein Obama in '08?

Matter-eater Man argumentative User Fair Play!
5000+ posts Mon Aug 25 2008 10:59 PM Making a new reply
Forum: Politics and Current Events
Thread: Re: Plot to Kill Obama?

If ties to terrorism are a problem, then why aren't you schmucks agitating for mass impeachment of everyone in the Bush administration?

nice point, virtual moonbat.

The Racism Excuse: Liberals blame Americans for Obama's fall in the polls.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

The Racism Excuse: Liberals blame Americans for Obama's fall in the polls.

I, for one, blame the Germans.

I, for one, blame the Republican party of circa 1865-1876 (aka The Great great grandfathers of the liberal/progressive movement).

http://www.ryangarns.com/archives/article_072708.php

Quote:

By Barack Obama

My fellow Earthlings, I speak to you today not as a presidential candidate, but as a citizen of the world who also happens to be running for President.

I know I don't look like other Americans who have run for President. Although I do have Lyndon Johnson's ears. And John F. Kennedy's teeth. Some say I have William Taft's nose. I'm black, that's the point I'm making.

My mother was born in war-torn Wichita, Kansas where she was forced into a life of bitterness because of her personality. My father, a Kenyan, was born with a wooden leg. To earn his keep, he herded diabetic goats in six feet of snow with nothing but a pair of salad spoons. I, myself, was born in a manger with bad plumbing during the tumultuous Philadelphia Phillies losing streak of 1961. So, you see, I know all too well about hardship.

I know all too well that making your way in the world today takes everything you've got. I know all too well that taking a break from all your worries sure would help a lot. And I know all too well that sometimes, yes, sometimes you want to go where everybody knows your name. But when I look across the landscape of America, provided I can find a good view, I can see fresh hope of a better future. A future without anger or resentment or disagreement or individualism.

I know my country has not perfected itself. We have yet to find a cure for sadness. Our citizens are forced to spend their hard earned money on things like food and clothing. Men still find it hard to say those three little words. And despite access to hundreds of channels, there's still nothing good on TV.

But I also know that when the world stands together as one, no one can oppose us. By definition, no one will be left. Should someone choose not to stand together with us, we must stand firm and say, "No, that won't work. May we stand with you instead?" After we stand with them, we shall say, "Ha! Fooled you! You're really standing with us again." That's the kind of nuanced, geopolitical thinking the Free World needs to adopt to meet the challenges of the future.

I truly believe we can overcome our hardships. We have seen it time and again in a series of random historical events I shall now rattle off for cheap applause. We have seen it in South Africa where people defeated apartheid. We have seen it at Valley Forge where Washington led his troops and defeated the British. We have seen it in the frozen tundra where Green Bay defeated Dallas with 13 seconds remaining in regulation. Yes, humanity can overcome if we stand as one.

From Kiev to Cape Town, from Jerusalem to Sheboygan, from Michigan to Nevada with a stopover in Denver, From Russia with Love, From Here To Eternity, we shall stand as one.

We shall come together as young and old, whites and blacks, Christians and Muslims, Yankees and Red Sox, Microsoft and Apple, Proctor and Gamble, Tango and Cash -- we shall stand as one!

Thank you, Iran. You've been wonderful.

"Whoever the next president is, is going to have to know what he or she wants to do beyond a tactical move. In other words, there is a tactic and a strategy. Putting a cap on troops is a tactic, cutting funding is a tactic, making judgment about surging is a tactic, but at the end of the day how are America's interests going to be preserved, enhanced or diminished by whatever we leave behind. ... Let me put it this way, you didn't hear any one of them get in this (war) debate at all until they announced for president. I don't recall hearing a word from Barack about a plan or a tactic."

-Joe Biden

Obama's speech is about to start. I can't help but think what a big mistake he made by picking Biden.

Originally Posted By: The New Adventures of Old PJP

Obama's speech is about to start.

Praise Allah!

FINALLY!!! Barack has come back to DENVER!!!

Surprise! He's wearing a flag pin. . . .but I thought that was a "symbol of false patriotism"?

it doesn't look like an american flag

Originally Posted By: The New Adventures of Old PJP

it doesn't look like an american flag

Perhaps the French flag?

here's a closeup:

Of course. My bad.

Praise Allah.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

I liked this because it was the John Mccain of old. He's been a bit of a douche in the campaign, no doubt because of the Roveites influencing his ambition for the office.
Hopefully this plus Obama's comments about disagreement over policy not being the same as personally disliking someone will lead to an honest campaign and a debate based on policy and plans.

Unfortunately there are the people like you who will follow Mccain with personal attacks and accusations about Obama.
Like:

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Of course. My bad.

Praise Allah.

Mccain actually admonished one of his supporters for this. I just wonder if you really support Mccain, or are just voting for the republican. Because if the guy you're supporting, the guy you want to be the leader of the country, abhores such attacks on Obama why would you continue on that tact? It seems if anything these kinds of attacks could be Mccain's undoing. If the left says "John Mccain is a great man, but he voted with Bush 90% of the time and we need a change not a third Bush term" and the right is saying "Obama is a terrorist muslim." Then undecideds might be more inclined to go for the more positive approach.

Either way, I feel very good about Obama after that speech. He was very clear in what he planned, had an interesting jabs at Mccain that essentially answered the main criticisms that will be used against him, and he made a very strong argument for Mccain's record being very much in line with Bush.
I think Mccain will have a more trying time next week. Bush is really the issue in this campaign, he has 28% approval. So while Obama had Clinton (high job approval and the Lewinsky stuff is a bit forgotten) Mccain has to walk a very fine line with Bush/Cheney. He has to let them into the convention and have them speak as part of the party line politics, but since those two are so unpopular he can't really praise their work. And where Obama can talk about change, the fine line for Mccain means if he talks too much about new ideas he'll alienate the Bushites and make people wonder why he didn't get that change in his time in the Senate (Obama had an interesting point about how Mccain has done nothing to limit foreign oil in 26 years, why would he start now), but Mccain also can't say too much about "stay the course" in terms of Bush's policies because that's not going to sell him.

Guess we'll have to just wait and see.

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Funny you should bring that up. The day after McCain ran that ad, and the same day his VP pick was announced, here's what Obama's campaign said about Sarah Palin:

Barack Obama's campaign is blasting John McCain for putting "the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency."

The scathing description of Sarah Palin, from Obama spokesman Bill Burton, comes as Democrats scramble to gather a response to a selection that nobody in the political world expected.

"Governor Palin shares John McCain's commitment to overturning Roe v. Wade, the agenda of Big Oil and continuing George Bush's failed economic policies — that's not the change we need, it's just more of the same," added Burton.

Furthermore, as I recall, McCain called Biden to congratulate him on being nominated for VP.

I guess we know who's the class act in this campaign.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Funny you should bring that up. The day after McCain ran that ad, and the same day his VP pick was announced, here's what Obama's campaign said about Sarah Palin:

Barack Obama's campaign is blasting John McCain for putting "the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency."

The scathing description of Sarah Palin, from Obama spokesman Bill Burton, comes as Democrats scramble to gather a response to a selection that nobody in the political world expected.

"Governor Palin shares John McCain's commitment to overturning Roe v. Wade, the agenda of Big Oil and continuing George Bush's failed economic policies — that's not the change we need, it's just more of the same," added Burton.

Furthermore, as I recall, McCain called Biden to congratulate him on being nominated for VP.

I guess we know who's the class act in this campaign.

that's valid to bring up, just like it is valid to question Obama's limited experience (which is why Obama picked Biden). They didn't call her a secret muslim terrorist.
I like how you talk about "class acts" while editing my post and removing the criticism of your actions.

I'm not running, ray...and the real issue was-as you presented it-McCain's actions vis a vis Obama and vice versa.

Finally, stop bitching about me "editing your post".

I made it a point to insert "****" in the place of the deleted material, which every one knows is done to indicated that quoted material was deleted precisely because I knew you'd whine about it otherwise.

[quote=the G-man]I'm not running, ray...and the real issue was-as you presented it-McCain's actions vis a vis Obama and vice versa.

Quote:

Finally, stop bitching about me "editing your post".
I made it a point to insert "****" in the place of the deleted material, which every one knows is done to indicated that quoted material was deleted precisely because I knew you'd whine about it otherwise.

yes, and those stars were the bulk of my post and my thoughts on the actual election. those were actually neutral ones too, an analysis of things. you obviously have no interest in an actual political discussion because you chose to only respond to the segment that would start another flame war. i thought i made a good point about Mccain having a harder time next week because he has to walk a fine line with bush.
this is like the third time this week that i've devoted time to putting down some thoughts to spark an interesting discussion, and you've just continued the fighting. i honestly think that you only come here to do that. most of us here reveal bits about ourselves, who we are, and have some points of real conversation, but you keep to being "g-man" the guy who starts shit.

Ray, seriously, you keep bringing up this idea that McCain=Bush, or some variation thereof. I've already told you-and others have already told you-why we disagree with that.

As I recall, in fact, we had that discussion yesterday...again.

How many times do you really want me to respond to that argument?

The question of whether or not Obama or McCain would take some sort of "high road" was your new point and the one I responded to.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Ray, seriously, you keep bringing up this idea that McCain=Bush, or some variation thereof. I've already told you-and others have already told you-why we disagree with that.

but that wasn't what i was talking about. i was comparing the rather breezy Dem convention to the difficulty Mccain will have next week. bush has low approval ratings, horrifically low. the bulk of voters don't want more of the same. but those supporters are the republican base that Mccain will need to keep happy. So I was commenting on Mccain's problems. He will need to both distinguish himself from Bush while not really putting down bush's term. that's a very fine line. and while Obama was able to talk about the problems and offer solutions, Mccain will essentially have to sell people on things not being that bad.
It's very tricky. that's not an opinionated argument about him or his policies (though i do think someone who votes with bush 90% of the time is not someone i want), it's my analysis of the situation.

Quote:

As I recall, in fact, we had that discussion yesterday...again.

how many times have you brought up "god damn america" or called him a secret muslim?
are we only allowed to beat the dead horse with the obama attacks?

Quote:

How many times do you really want me to respond to that argument?

i made an argument about his record and similarities to bush yesterday, today i'm saying that perception and bush's unpopularity will require finesse from Mccain. He has to make everyone happy, Obama just has to make people unhappy with bush happy.
and how many times have we talked about ayers, wright, muslimism? seriously. if i have to respond to your repeated arguments, you have no right to complain.

Quote:

The question of whether or not Obama or McCain would take some sort of "high road" was your new point and the one I responded to.

i think i need to find a new arch-rival, this just isn't working out. there's no algonquin roundtable here, just an old man who comes to vent his closeted rage at a bunch of comic book readers. i think my new arch-rival will be bsams. at least his insults are clever and he will be challenging to debate. you're just grumpy and kind of dishonest about it all. it's a message board, there's nothing at stake here. yet you seem to play dirty and cheat and avoid the conversation as if it was life or death.
people call me a liberal and attack me frequently here, but i try to be honest and respond with frankness because it's the internet and i have nothing to lose by just being straightforward.

And, ray, I'm trying to be honest with you. I think the McCain=Bush argument, and the variations you've posted thereon, are something of a canard, for the reasons I've posted already.

While there will certainly be more attempts to argue McCain=Bush as a result of the convention, the fact of the matter is that Bush will be there opening night and then, as is typical for an outgoing incumbent, fade from view.

McCain will speak the last night.

In between you will have Sarah Palin (and others) speaking and people will be paying attention to her.

I seriously don't see it as that big of an issue, any more than the idea that Ted Kennedy speaking at the DNC somehow implied Obama was going to drown an intern in his car during a drunken driving incident.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

you're not reading what i am typing. i'm not arguing whether bush is mccain, i'm talking about the perception that mccain will have to deal with. i'm talking about the fine line he'll have to walk to please the base who still support bush, the unhappy republicans, and the undecideds. i'm not arguing whether he is the same as bush or not. i'm talking about how delicate it'll be for him.
learn to fucking read, old man. seriously.

Quote:

I seriously don't see it as that big of an issue, any more than the idea that Ted Kennedy speaking at the DNC somehow implied Obama was going to drown an intern in his car during a drunken driving incident.

anyone else i would just roll my eyes and be done with it. but you made such a stink when tony snow got sick and died about how mean people were to a sick man. kennedy is an old man who just had brain surgery and is so committed to his beliefs and his job that he gave a big speech in his frail state.
then you bitched today about me talking about something 2 days in a row.
you bring up an accident from 30 something years ago that you have repeatedly mentioned here.
i know you want to be like reagan, but the emulation should've stopped before you hit the alzheimers.

Um, ray, read what I wrote again. I was saying it would be ridiculous to make that comparison. And, back when Kennedy was diagnosed with cancer I made it a point of saying that I didn't wish that on him just because of mistakes he might have made in the past.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Furthermore, as I recall, McCain called Biden to congratulate him on being nominated for VP.

I guess we know who's the class act in this campaign.

According to NBC news, Obama and Biden both called to congratulate Palin. That's fairly classy as well.

and Mary Jo Kopechne wasn't an intern. she was a 29 year old woman who helped set up campaign headquarters. And Kennedy has said he wasn't drunk that night (though his Irishness makes that suspect). The real controversy is that she survived in an air pocket and he failed to get help in time. However looking at the events of the night you could argue his near death experience and having to swim across a dangerous chanel to get to his hotel coupled with the fact he mistakenly thought she had died exonerate him of true wrongdoing. He himself says his failure to call for help or report the accident for several hours were inexcusable, but to me it looks like post traumatic shock.

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

and Mary Jo Kopechne wasn't an intern...

Well, then, she deserved to die.

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

plus if Obama was eight when it happened it's a victimless crime, I saw a commercial today that said so.

I'm pretty Obama was about when the Manson murders occurred. I guess we should let ol' Charlie out of the hole 'bout now.

he only drove the car g-man.

Ray should be along any second now to tell us that the Tate-Libianca incident was just a college prank.

It was like Animal House, with a little SAW.....

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Ray should be along any second now to tell us that the Tate-Libianca incident was just a college prank.

he might still be looking for a youtube clip to back that up.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

and Mary Jo Kopechne wasn't an intern...

Well, then, she deserved to die.

try finishing the sentences, g-man. i was pointing out that she was way above an intern. just correcting your error.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Ray should be along any second now to tell us that the Tate-Libianca incident was just a college prank.

you're seriously comparing a car accident to a multiple murder?
that's just sick. i put forth a valid argument that someone who's car went off the road and into the water, who escaped the car and believed the passenger was killed, then went through pitch black terrain and swam across a channel (and nearly drowned) might have had post traumatic shock.
the mistake was in not calling for help, something he himself later admitted. but it does sound like trauma. he had a near death experience and got confused. it happens, people who suffer trauma sometimes blank it out and go about a normal routine until their brain processes it and they react.
If you actually look at the story, it does seem like that. He got back to his hotel after nearly dying twice and went to his room. The key in my mind to calling it trauma is that he came downstairs a few times and seemed almost blank like he was trying to figure out the situation.
Was he drinking? I don't know. I've heard that he has denied being drunk, but that seems suspect. However people do have car accidents, and he's hardly the first guy to drive home after a party not realizing how drunk he is.
A DUI is serious, enough that I think that kind of judgment should rightfully disqualify him for president (of course you voted for bush so you disagree), but at worst he was negligent, and at best he was suffering the trauma of nearly drowning twice.
To compare that to multiple murder, including that of a pregnant woman is sick. I'm getting so sick of this place, it's one thing to joke, but there's a nasty undercurrent to the partisanness. Even PJP who normally is a good guy becomes an ass here. And I've really tried to have serious conversations lately but I'm seeing that's impossible. If I dare to open my mouth (or fingers) and type out any defense of a democrat you attack. you attack whomod for the crime of being liberal, you mock the insurgents for the crime of being liberal. And then you smear any liberal's name all over the board, trying to turn us into punchlines instead of actually making a good counter-argument.
I may mock people here, but generally with reason. I mock g-man because he's an asshole, I mock wondy because he's a racist, I mock pariah because he's a little uptight, and I mock rex because he's rex and mocking him is part of the user agreement. But I don't go viciously after PJP and bsams, who have attacked my side non-stop.
It's a real shame that you guys are so intent on turning this place into a rightwing circle jerk. You make it very unpleasant to post here, and your constant hit jobs on liberals only put us on the defensive if we post here at all.

maybe you should quit posting here then.

I'm not trying to give you a hard time Ray. I think you are a great guy! I just think you are allowing all the years that have passed to give a free pass to a spoiled Kennedy that cared more about his political future than a drowning girl.

Originally Posted By: Captain Sammitch

maybe you should quit posting here then.

Ray is a good guy!

I'm sure to you he is, peejus.

It's going to be a long 64 days if we are at each others throats already.

Ray, you'd probably get less shit if you weren't being so pedantic.

The fact of the matter is that the woman died as a direct result of, at best, Kennedy's negligent behavior.

Who cares, other than you, what her official job title was?

You also get shit because you draw some pretty stupid parallels.

Yeah, maybe both Bush and Kennedy drove drunk. But only one of those people drove drunk and let a woman die because of it. That makes, by any fair analysis, Kennedy's behavior worse than Bush's in this particular area.

Originally Posted By: The New Adventures of Old PJP

i'm not giving him a free pass. i'm 26, i wasn't around then. for me this story is about 10 years old, because that's when i first looked into it.
i'm just arguing some of the facts, and now i apparently have to defend it because it's being compared to multiple murder. as i said, it's negligence and rightfully kept him from the presidency.

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

Originally Posted By: The New Adventures of Old PJP

fair enough.....will leave it at that. I'm not sure what you n G are arguing about but I will stay out of it. besides it is almost the time of night where we need to change his diaper.....leave him be.

The only comparison anyone was making between Chappaquiddick and a multiple murder was how foolish it was to argue that a dangerous crime isn't relevant to the present if it occurred when you (or Obama) were very young.

The left (including you) keeps trying to argue that Obama can pal around with a terrorist as long as that terrorist committed his crimes when Obama was a kid, even if that terrorist still believes in what he did.

We're saying it reflects poorly on his judgement and that your defense is wrongheaded.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

stabbing a pregnant woman and her friends is different than pulling yourself out of a car crash and fleeing the scene through the dark night. at worst kennedy is guilty of DUI and negligence. and kennedy has paid for that by being rightfully locked out of the presidency. considering his family, that's a big thing. unless you're implying he knew she was still alive in an air pocket and purposefully left her there to die.
and what does Obama have to do with that car accident?
in all honesty, this goes too far. i was away for a few hours and coming back to this is just so ridiculous. you didn't even do the clever thing and find the many quotes about bush's DUI that i've made. instead you all chose to attack me and basically say I'm condoning murder. That I actually find offensive. But it's what you guys do. You don't like Obama so you call him a muslim terrorist, you imply that because he is friends with some college proffessor (which is the person he met and got to know, not the young ayers who was in the underground) then he is a terrorist, you say because a man he's known 20 years gave a speech about race on a day Obama wasn't there that Obama hates America.
You attack whomod and me and any liberal for posting views you don't like. you try and turn them into jokes for the crime of being liberal. You don't do point by point debate to make your point, you attack the poster for daring to see things the way they do. And then when people call you on it, you just cherry pick the quoting so that you can make them seem irrational.

I'm posting with my shirt off

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

...in all honesty, this goes too far...You don't like Obama so you call him a muslim terrorist, you imply that because he is friends with some college proffessor (which is the person he met and got to know, not the young ayers who was in the underground) then he is a terrorist, you say because a man he's known 20 years gave a speech about race on a day Obama wasn't there that Obama hates America.
You attack whomod and me and any liberal for posting views you don't like. you try and turn them into jokes for the crime of being liberal. You don't do point by point debate to make your point, you attack the poster for daring to see things the way they do. And then when people call you on it, you just cherry pick the quoting so that you can make them seem irrational.

Originally Posted By: The New Adventures of Old PJP

Judging by the way many Dems reacted here on the boards and on the talk shows today I believe McCain hit a Home Run with Palin. They are shitting themselves trying to figure out how to deal with this....

I like Ray.

Yeah, I pick on Ray but I like the guy. That's why I quoted what you wrote. He's obviously not himself right now about this and, rather than pick on him further, I'm just going to let it slide for a while and chalk today's meltdown to being flummoxed by the Palin choice.

I miss the 80s.

Yeah, Reagan was in the White House.

It was a great time.......Footloose changed my life.

That's when you developed your strangely inappropriate crush on Kevin Bacon?

pretty much

Originally Posted By: The New Adventures of Old PJP

I'm posting with my shirt off

me too!

Let's hear it for the boy.

WRIGHT'S CRUDE MICHELLE OBAMA CRACK

The Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama's fiery ex-pastor, re-emerged yesterday with a crude reference about race and sex in the White House.

"This ordinary boy [Obama] just might be the first president in the history of the United States to have a black woman sleeping at 1600 Pennsylvania legally," Wright said, referring to Michelle Obama, in a sermon at the Wheeler Avenue Baptist Church in Houston.

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/obama_modifies_yes_we_can_message

Quote:

COLUMBIA, SC—In a nationally televised speech Friday, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama altered his vision of a unified America to exclude Dayton, OH loser Nate Walsh.

According to Obama, the 32-year-old Walsh, who has lived with his parents intermittently since receiving his associate's degree in 2001 and still does not have a credit card in his own name, no longer figures into the senator's long-term plan of rallying Americans from all walks of life around a common, higher purpose.

"People of South Carolina, people of the world, this is our time, this is our moment," Obama said before 72,000 supporters at the University of South Carolina's Williams-Brice Stadium. "That is, unless you live in apartment 3L at 1254 Holden St., you watched Money Train on TBS last night at 3 a.m., and your name is Nate

"I have always said that the change we seek will not come easy, that it will not come without its share of sacrifice and struggle," Obama continued. "And the last thing we need is dead weight like Nate Walsh adding another 20 or 30 years to the process."

The speech, entitled "A More Perfect Union Minus Nate Walsh," was 26 minutes long and contained the words "change" 12 times, "hope" 16 times, and "Nate," in conjunction with the phrase "with the exception of," 34 times.

Although Obama remained vague on issues such as health care and foreign policy, the Illinois senator was praised for finally publicly addressing the issue of Nate Walsh. Obama took a hard-line stance on Walsh, calling the part-time driving-range employee the lone aspect of America he doesn't believe in, a citizen who can languish in the past for all he cares, and "on top of everything else, kind of a jerk."

"When I began this campaign, my mission was to help this nation share my vision for one America—not a black America, or a white America, or a Latino or Asian America," Obama said. "But now what I see, what I envision, is a Nate-free America. And once we get rid of that guy, there is nothing we can't accomplish. Nothing we can't achieve."

According to campaign strategist David Axelrod, Walsh's failure to remember his mother's birthday five years in a row, along with the fact that for the entire month of July he washed his hair with a bar of soap because he was too lazy to purchase shampoo, are examples of the kind of hopelessness Obama is trying to avoid.

"I am reminded of an instance early last year when Nate told his sister, Elizabeth, that he was going to start going to the gym three times a week after work," Obama said. "I was rooting for Nate. I thought that this time things would be different. That this time Nate would be capable of change. But it was just like 1997, 1999, 2000, and 2002 all over again. He went to the gym twice and quit."

"What a loser," Obama added.

In the hours following the speech, members of the McCain camp scrambled to respond to Obama's views on Walsh. In a statement last night, McCain applauded Obama's position on the loser, but criticized him for not offering any real solutions to the Nate Walsh problem. McCain went on to promise that, if elected, he would rid the world of Walsh within his first 48 hours in office without raising taxes.

Perhaps the most stirring moment of Obama's speech came at its conclusion, when he reasserted his call for change on the part of everyone except Walsh, whom he urged to just change the channel to the Golden Girls marathon on Lifetime like he knows he wants to.

"People of America, not Nate, we have the ability to heal this nation," Obama said. "Yes we can, Nate excluded, seize our future. Yes we can, with the exception of Nate and his stupid cargo shorts that he never washes, turn the page to a new tomorrow. I am confident that where we—and by 'we' I mean everyone but Nate—are met with cynicism and doubt and fear and those who tell us that we can't, we—again, not Nate—will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of the American people in six simple words: Yes we can, except Nate Walsh."

Added Obama: "God bless the people of South Carolina, God bless America, and fuck you, Nate."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/realclearpolitic...EoLYu5en6Ss0NUE

Quote:

There was a fair bit of talk about Bill Clinton's speech Wednesday night to the Democratic convention, and Peggy Noonan even went so far as to declare that "The Master Has Arrived." But she is wrong. When it comes to political oratory, the master arrived last night at Invesco Field. Bill Clinton can give a glib speech, but there has always been something missing from his delivery. Try as he might--and he really did try--he was never able to convincingly fake sincerity. Barack Obama can fake sincerity, and that, more than the words of a speech or the pageantry that precedes it, is the key to his power as a speaker.

His speech last night was brilliant and perfect. It is too bad that the whole thing was a lie, which depended on the smoothness and apparent sincerity of Senator Obama's delivery to lull the listener into a state of credulity and prevent him from asking too many questions.

Here's an example that is small but revealing. Obama led with the best sales pitch he has to offer: that he is not George Bush. But of course, Obama is running against John McCain, not Bush. So he attempted to justify the substitution by claiming that "John McCain has voted with George Bush ninety percent of the time." This statistic has been used throughout the Democratic convention, but it makes no sense. Bush is not a member of Congress and casts no votes there--so how can you compare his voting record to that of McCain?

But don't examine this folly; ask only what it accomplishes. It allows Obama to run against an unpopular president who will not defend himself because he is not actually in the race.

When it came to making the positive case for himself, Obama's first goal was to address the public's concerns about his background, particularly his patriotism and how much he identifies with American values. So he drew, not from his own biography, but from that of his family.

[I]n the faces of those young veterans who come back from Iraq and Afghanistan, I see my grandfather, who signed up after Pearl Harbor, marched in Patton's Army, and was rewarded by a grateful nation with the chance to go to college on the GI Bill.

In the face of that young student who sleeps just three hours before working the night shift, I think about my mom, who raised my sister and me on her own while she worked and earned her degree; who once turned to food stamps but was still able to send us to the best schools in the country with the help of student loans and scholarships....

And when I hear a woman talk about the difficulties of starting her own business, I think about my grandmother, who worked her way up from the secretarial pool to middle-management, despite years of being passed over for promotions because she was a woman. She's the one who taught me about hard work....

I don't know what kind of lives John McCain thinks that celebrities lead, but this has been mine. These are my heroes. Theirs are the stories that shaped me.

In addition to identifying himself with the lower-income, blue-collar types who have so far refused to vote for him, Obama is also painting himself as someone with uncontroversial, traditional American values, someone who believes in fighting for your country and improving your life through hard work and perseverance.

This is supposed to make us forget that Barack Obama launched his political career under the spiritual guidance of a pastor who delivered far-left tirades calling on God to damn America--and he launched his first campaign under the patronage of a former domestic terrorist. Theirs are the stories that also shaped Barack Obama--but he wants to write Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers out of his biography.

Worse, he wants us to stop asking questions about this sort of thing.

These are the policies I will pursue. And in the weeks ahead, I look forward to debating them with John McCain. But what I will not do is suggest that the Senator takes his positions for political purposes. Because one of the things that we have to change in our politics is the idea that people cannot disagree without challenging each other's character and patriotism. The times are too serious, the stakes are too high for this same partisan playbook. So let us agree that patriotism has no party. I love this country, and so do you, and so does John McCain.

It's awfully generous of Obama to refrain from questioning the patriotism of a war hero. The real purpose of this statement, of course, is not to protect McCain but to protect Obama. Its purpose is to declare off-limits any further questions or discussion about his past association with Wright, Ayers, and all of the other shady characters from Obama's past.

On another area where he is particularly weak, foreign policy, Obama decided that the best defense is a strident offense. He projected a righteous self-confidence intended to make his viewers forget his opposition to the surge and his weak and stumbling response to the Russian invasion of Georgia. In this section, note again the gap between rhetoric and reality--and the willing suspension of critical thought that he requires of his listener.

For example, here is what he has to say on Afghanistan.

When John McCain said we could just "muddle through" in Afghanistan, I argued for more resources and more troops to finish the fight against the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11, and made clear that we must take out Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants if we have them in our sights. John McCain likes to say that he'll follow bin Laden to the Gates of Hell--but he won't even go to the cave where he lives.

Obama criticizes McCain for allegedly going soft on al-Qaeda--it's a good thing he's not going to question anyone's patriotism--yet all Obama can offer is precisely the policies we are already pursuing: more money and troop for Afghanistan and one-at-a-time special forces strikes against al-Qaeda leaders "if we have them in our sights," which we have been doing for years. What Obama is presenting as a tough and visionary new policy is his support for the Bush administration's status quo. Does he really think that no one will notice?

His statement on Iraq is an even more brazen evasion. He boasts that "today, as my call for a time frame to remove our troops from Iraq has been echoed by the Iraqi government and even the Bush administration,...John McCain stands alone in his stubborn refusal to end a misguided war." But all of the current discussion about drawing down troops from Iraq is possible only because of the success of the surge--which John McCain advocated and Barack Obama opposed. He is presenting the success of a military buildup as vindication for a policy of military retreat.

Perhaps his worst line, however, is this one: "You can't truly stand up for Georgia when you've strained our oldest alliances." This is a reference to NATO--which has been conspicuously useless in the Georgian conflict, refusing even a symbolic resolution to suspend military cooperation with Russia. This statement is evidence that Obama is not even paying attention to world events. But he expects the viewer to be carried forward by the certainty and stridency of his tone. He asserts with an air of conviction, "don't tell me that Democrats won't defend this country"--but he depends on the air of conviction, not any actual evidence, to sway the listener.

Addressing criticisms that he offers soaring rhetoric with no specifics, Obama replies "So let me spell out exactly what...'change' would mean if I am president." But what he presents is mostly a list of aspirations, such as "Change means a tax code that doesn't reward the lobbyists who wrote it, but the American workers and small businesses who deserve it." Or: "for the sake of our economy, our security, and the future of our planet, I will set a clear goal as president: in ten years, we will finally end our dependence on oil from the Middle East." How is that to be achieved? Is it even possible to achieve it? Obama offers no answer.

Obama's list of specifics continues in this vein, promising everything to everyone in a way that would make the Clintons blush--but with such an earnest sincerity of delivery that it somehow doesn't seem like pandering.

In foreign policy, he promises the miraculous: "I will rebuild our military to meet future conflicts. But I will also renew the tough, direct diplomacy that can prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons and curb Russian aggression. I will build new partnerships to defeat the threats of the 21st century: terrorism and nuclear proliferation; poverty and genocide; climate change and disease." He's going to defeat terrorism with "partnerships"; face down Russian and Iranian aggression with diplomacy; and while he's at it, he will end poverty, disease, and changes in the weather. All of these promises are equally implausible.

As to domestic issues, here is what he promises on energy policy:

I will tap our natural gas reserves, invest in clean coal technology, and find ways to safely harness nuclear power. I'll help our auto companies re-tool, so that the fuel-efficient cars of the future are built right here in America. I'll make it easier for the American people to afford these new cars. And I'll invest 150 billion dollars over the next decade in affordable, renewable sources of energy--wind power and solar power and the next generation of biofuels; an investment that will lead to new industries and five million new jobs that pay well and can't ever be outsourced.

Five million new jobs that pay well and can't ever be outsourced! He'll just snap his fingers and the laws of economics will bend to his will.

Oh yes, and he will "cut taxes for 95% of all working families," but he'll "pay for every dime." How? "I will also go through the federal budget, line by line, eliminating programs that no longer work and making the ones we do need work better and cost less--because we cannot meet twenty-first century challenges with a twentieth century bureaucracy." Does anyone remember the Grace Commission in the 1980s or Al Gore's task force in the 1990s? Eliminating "waste, fraud, and abuse" is a perennial promise made by politicians, but it will never produce significant results, because you can't pare down a $3 trillion federal budget by squeezing out dimes.

But the biggest contradiction papered over in Obama's speech is not about Obama's background, his record, or his policies. It is an ideological contradiction. The theme of his speech is "The American Promise." Here is how he defines it.

What is that promise? It's a promise that says each of us has the freedom to make of our own lives what we will, but that we also have the obligation to treat each other with dignity and respect.

It's a promise that says the market should reward drive and innovation and generate growth, but that businesses should live up to their responsibilities to create American jobs, look out for American workers, and play by the rules of the road.

Ours is a promise that says government cannot solve all our problems, but what it should do is that which we cannot do for ourselves--protect us from harm and provide every child a decent education; keep our water clean and our toys safe; invest in new schools and new roads and new science and technology....

That's the promise of America--the idea that we are responsible for ourselves, but that we also rise or fall as one nation; the fundamental belief that I am my brother's keeper; I am my sister's keeper.

So we'll be free to run our own lives--except that we are also required to be our brothers' keepers. We will have a free market--except for the vast network of regulations needed to force businesses to live up to a long list of "responsibilities." We will take responsibility for solving our own problems--except those relating to roads, education, health care, water, toys, science, and so on and on.

In essence, Obama is declaring simultaneous loyalty to individualism and to collectivism, to independence and to dependence, to free markets and to state control.

If you wonder which half of this self-contradictory agenda will win out, Obama doesn't leave you in suspense. He criticizes McCain because "For over two decades, he's subscribed to that old, discredited Republican philosophy--give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else." The references to "two decades" and to "trickle-down economics"--a derogatory term for Ronald Reagan's pro-free-market policies--make his meaning clear. It is the free market that he wants us to regard as "discredited."

What he wants us to forget is what was actually discredited two decades ago by the collapse of the Soviet Union. What was discredited was socialism, not capitalism.

That is what makes this the most dangerous election in many years. It has been almost half a century since the left's ideas have had such an intelligent, charismatic, and appealing advocate. He is now preparing to lead the left's effort to reconstitute itself in the first serious way since the Fall of Communism. He must be defeated.

Obama's acceptance speech is likely to be effective, and we should expect him to have a solid "bounce" in the polls now that the convention is over. But there is a way to defeat Obama. His whole campaign is a beautifully presented illusion, and the way to defeat it is to keep hammering on the difference between illusion and reality. Because the more grandiose the illusion, the more thoroughly it will be rejected when it is revealed as a lie.

Quote:

Barack Obama is an immensely talented man whose talents have been largely devoted to crafting, and chronicling, his own life. Not things. Not ideas. Not institutions. But himself.

Nothing wrong or even terribly odd about that, except that he is laying claim to the job of crafting the coming history of the United States. A leap of such audacity is odd. The air of unease at the Democratic convention this week was not just a result of the Clinton psychodrama. The deeper anxiety was that the party was nominating a man of many gifts but precious few accomplishments -- bearing even fewer witnesses.

When John Kerry was introduced at his convention four years ago, an honor guard of a dozen mates from his Vietnam days surrounded him on the podium attesting to his character and readiness to lead. Such personal testimonials are the norm. The roster of fellow soldiers or fellow senators who could from personal experience vouch for John McCain is rather long. At a less partisan date in the calendar, that roster might even include Democrats Russ Feingold and Edward Kennedy, with whom John McCain has worked to fashion important legislation.

Eerily missing at the Democratic convention this year were people of stature who were seriously involved at some point in Obama's life standing up to say: I know Barack Obama. I've been with Barack Obama. We've toiled/endured together. You can trust him. I do.

Hillary Clinton could have said something like that. She and Obama had, after all, engaged in a historic, utterly compelling contest for the nomination. During her convention speech, you kept waiting for her to offer just one line of testimony: I have come to know this man, to admire this man, to see his character, his courage, his wisdom, his judgment. Whatever. Anything.

Instead, nothing. She of course endorsed him. But the endorsement was entirely programmatic: We're all Democrats. He's a Democrat. He believes what you believe. So we must elect him -- I am currently unavailable -- to get Democratic things done. God bless America.

Clinton's withholding the "I've come to know this man" was vindictive and supremely self-serving -- but jarring, too, because you realize that if she didn't do it, no one else would. Not because of any inherent deficiency in Obama's character. But simply as a reflection of a young life with a biography remarkably thin by the standard of presidential candidates.

Who was there to speak about the real Barack Obama? His wife. She could tell you about Barack the father, the husband, the family man in a winning and perfectly sincere way. But that only takes you so far. It doesn't take you to the public man, the national leader.

Who is to testify to that? Hillary's husband on night three did aver that Obama is "ready to lead." However, he offered not a shred of evidence, let alone personal experience with Obama. And although he pulled it off charmingly, everyone knew that, having been suggesting precisely the opposite for months, he meant not a word of it.

Obama's vice presidential selection, Joe Biden, naturally advertised his patron's virtues, such as the fact that he had "reached across party lines to ... keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists." But securing loose nukes is as bipartisan as motherhood and as uncontroversial as apple pie. The measure was so minimal that it passed by voice vote and received near zero media coverage.

Thought experiment. Assume John McCain had retired from politics. Would he have testified to Obama's political courage in reaching across the aisle to work with him on ethics reform, a collaboration Obama boasted about in the Saddleback debate? "In fact," reports the Annenberg Political Fact Check, "the two worked together for barely a week, after which McCain accused Obama of 'partisan posturing'" -- and launched a volcanic missive charging him with double cross.

So where are the colleagues? The buddies? The political or spiritual soul mates? His most important spiritual adviser and mentor was Jeremiah Wright. But he's out. Then there's William Ayers, with whom he served on a board. He's out. Where are the others?

The oddity of this convention is that its central figure is the ultimate self-made man, a dazzling mysterious Gatsby. The palpable apprehension is that the anointed is a stranger -- a deeply engaging, elegant, brilliant stranger with whom the Democrats had a torrid affair. Having slowly woken up, they see the ring and wonder who exactly they married last night.

http://goldenpages.ie/search/Barack_Obama/honesty.html

he really is the Great Gatsby.

Now I know why Obama's campaign is all over Palin's daughter having a baby, I read this from a CNN interview earlier this year when talking about birth control:

Quote:

it should also include other, you know, information about contraception because, look, I've got two daughters, 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals.

But if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby.

wow, punished with a baby. no wonder he wanted to cut off funding for life support babies that didnt die during abortions. he considers it punishment to have a child, real moral guy there.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/13068

Quote:

Barack Obama’s post-Democratic National Convention bounce in the polls appears to be slightly smaller than the norm of past conventions, and it's gradually depreciating.

The Gallup daily tracking poll has found that since the conclusion of the convention, Obama has risen 4 percentage points in the polls, to lead McCain 49 percent to 43 percent today. That's a slightly smaller uptick in the polls than the 5- to 6-point bounce earned by a typical party nominee, by Gallup’s measure, since 1964. Obama and McCain were evenly split at 45 percentage points apiece prior to the Democratic convention, according to Gallup.

That outcome comes despite Obama’s speech before more than 80,000 people at Invesco Field in Denver on Thursday night, a political event that was also seen by about 40 million television viewers. It also comes as the Republican convention quietly got under way in St. Paul, and the national media gaze focuses southward to Hurricane Gustav.

Daily tracking polls by Gallup and Rasmussen Reports demonstrate that Obama has taken his greatest lead since July, if not the general election. But while Obama’s support remains significantly stronger than weeks ago, it appears that the post-convention bounce he earned may have already peaked.

On Saturday, Gallup reported Obama was ahead by 8 percentage points. By Monday, that lead had shrunk to 5 points. Rasmussen pegs Obama’s standing as relatively stable in recent days, with a 49 percent to 46 percent lead over McCain when “leaners” are included, a small but statistically insignificant improvement for McCain of 1 percentage point since Saturday.

CBS News reported Monday that Obama is now ahead in its poll, 48 to 40 percent, a 3-point uptick in Obama’s standing compared to its poll prior to the Democratic convention. Obama’s 3-point bounce exceeds that of John F. Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee in 2004 who did not rise in the polls following his convention. But Obama’s bounce is less than a third of what Al Gore received in 2000 and Bill Clinton received in 1992. Even Bob Dole, following the 1996 Republican convention, received a 4-point bounce in the polls, 1 point more than Obama.

But any Obama bounce, if it is sustained, could be said to be a victory for Democrats. In the days since Obama gave his address, the news cycles have been captured by the unveiling of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as John McCain's running mate, the opening of the Republican convention and the threat posed by Hurricane Gustav.

There have been only three previous back-to-back conventions, most recently in 1956. The effect of the GOP convention on the polls will not be known for days.

A CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll and a Zogby Interactive flash poll, both completed over the weekend, have found the presidential race is in a dead heat. According to both polls, Obama attained no statistically significant convention bounce.

Whether Obama is ahead or tied with McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee will now come into the Republican convention with his best opportunity yet to break through his own ceiling and take a lead in the presidential race.

The Obama 'Experience': Democratic nominee argues that running a political campaign makes him more qualified to manage than Republican VP nominee Alaskan Gov. Sarah Palin.

Ohhhhkay. So, by that logic, McCain is still more experienced since he has run TWO presidential campaigns.

Keep digging, Barack.

Jeez, Ralph Nader and Jesse Jackson should be supreme rulers of the planet by that logic....

How lacking in experience are you when you need to site campaigning as your major qualification for Presidency.

I like how Obama is setting himself up to run against Bush and/or Palin because the guy he is actually running against is supremely qualified...

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

Jeez, Ralph Nader and Jesse Jackson should be supreme rulers of the planet by that logic....

Not to mention Lyndon LaRouche.

i suppose Bill Ayers campaign of violence could be considered a plus for him as well!

I supposed running a terrorist group does count as "executive experience."

i think of it more as being frat president

-ray adler mortem obire

that is one crazy toga party at the end!

"Mind if we dance wit yo dates?"

If I were you I would be.......

...leaving! What an excellent idea!

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

Originally Posted By: the G-man

GOD DAMN AMERICA!!!

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

Originally Posted By: The New Adventures of Old PJP

GOD DAMN AMERICA!!!

Obama is going on the O'Reilly factor tomorrow night. Huge risk/reward in my opinion. This is a pretty big deal considering O'Reilly will not allow him to spin his nonsense and garbage. However, if he does well it will make him look real good and maybe do what McCain did to him last week and steal some of McCain's thunder.

Don't be so sure about O'Reilly. He practically went down on Hillary to get her on the show. Like most of these "tough" talk show hosts, he has a tendency to start throwing softballs when it's a sought after guest.

yeah I guess you're right. I hope he crucifies him.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0908/Obama_campaign_whacks_Romney_fake_outrage.html

Quote:

Mitt Romney, in his prepared remarks, takes a veiled shot at Michelle Obama's line earlier this year that she was, for the first time, proud to be American.

"Just like you, there has never been a day when I was not proud to be an American," Romney will say, according to remarks released by the GOP.

The line prompted instant outrage from Obama's campaign.

“Barack Obama has said that families are ‘off-limits,’ and we thought that John McCain agreed. But tonight, John McCain’s handpicked attack dog, Mitt Romney, exposed the fake outrage that the Republicans have been peddling all week as the blatant hypocrisy that it is," Obama adviser Anita Dunn said in a statement. "The McCain team’s disgusting attack on Barack Obama's wife shows they would rather generate false outrage to distract from their own problems than talk about the issues facing the American people. Mitt Romney’s attack on a candidate’s wife is as pathetic as his failed presidential campaign."

In fact, there have been occasional jibes at both wives, with state party organizations in particular whacking away at Cindy and Michelle. But the Democratic convention was free, I think, even of jokes about private planes, beer money and Miss Buffalo Chip, at least from the podium.

Romney's jibe, while it doesn't name her, does seem aimed at Michelle.

Somehow Barack Obama's campaign has made it politically incorrect to state you are proud of America. His anti-american crusade is almost complete.

????

He didn't tear Michelle Obama down, didn't mention her by name. He said (or will say) one line that in context mentions her own words but doesn't say anything wrong, or apply anything improper. As an individual, completely aside from his politics, Obama seems to be an individual completely incapable of handling any sort of criticism. Honestly if he doesn't want her criticized he needs to keep her off the campaign and tell her to shut the hell up for the next several months.

I always thought it was the height of hypocrisy to have her actively campaigning and then say that she wasn't part of the discussion, almost like a safe zone for him. She can do a hatchet job and not face any revue of her words and actions. Her speech at the DNC convention is the traditional spouse speech, but besides that she has been an active campaign participant.

To me, it's an easy rule: if a candidate's family campaigns for him or her, anything stupid he or she says/does as part of the campaign is fair game, just like any other campaign staffer. But anything that's unrelated to the campaign and personal is off limits.

Right, if the GOP wanted to attack Michelle for all the millions she's taken in as a board member for a hospital for the poor that would be in bad taste, but disputing her words on the campaign stump should be fair game.

$\:damn\:$ Palin drew blood last night.

The liberal sites are all arguing that "Jesus was a community organizer. Pontius Pilate was a governor

Dude, you're linking to a google search. You're reached a new low.

Yeah, that was painful in its rayishness. However, I couldn't think of any other way to show that it was the "stupid desperate leftist talking point du jour" without linking to the google search.

dirty googler

Can someone please introduce these Republicans to the 1960's, 70's, 80's, 90's and the new century? Please?

Quote:

Barack Obama
Georgia GOP Congressman Calls Obama 'Uppity'

Lynn Westmoreland, left, during a 2003 vote on the Georgia flag at the Capitol in Atlanta. (AP/Gregory Smith)

By Jonathan Weisman

Rep. Lynn Westmoreland, a conservative Republican from Georgia, let slip today what critics have been saying is the subtext of many of the attacks on Barack Obama: He's "uppity."

According to The Hill, a Capitol Hill newspaper, Westmoreland was discussing Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's acceptance speech outside the House chamber today when he veered into his thoughts on Michelle and Barack Obama.

"Just from what little I've seen of her and Mister Obama, Senator Obama, they're a member of an elitist class individual that thinks that they're uppity," Westmoreland said.

When a reporter sought clarification on the racially loaded word, Westmoreland replied, "Uppity, yeah."

Lynn Westmoreland, left, during a 2003 vote on the Georgia flag at the Capitol in Atlanta. (AP/Gregory Smith)

For weeks, commentators and critics have asserted that the McCain campaign's efforts to portray Obama as a vacuous celebrity smacked of historical efforts to describe African Americans seeking equality as "uppity" or not knowing "their place." The McCain campaign has heatedly denied any such thing, and has accused Obama of having "played the race card" for saying that Republicans would mock him as an outsider. Westmoreland's comments could rekindle the debate.

Westmoreland briefly gained some national attention when he sponsored legislation to post the Ten Commandments in the House and Senate chambers. Asked by Stephen Colbert in 2006 to name all ten, Westmoreland stumbled. "Um, don't murder, don't lie, don't steal," he offered, before confessing, "I can't name them."

The Republicans. The Party for 1955!

Seriously? An entire article just because someone called obama h christ "uppity"?

At least it wasn't the enquirer.

What does whomod have to say about Biden's previous comments about Obama and convenience store clerks?

so wataminute? Obama is uppity and this guy calls him out for it, and whomod has a problem with it? I forgot, whomod hates free speech.

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

so wataminute? Obama is uppity and this guy calls him out for it, and whomod has a problem with it? I forgot, whomod hates free speech.

And you apparently by your own admission hate "uppity" black people.

So when's the next Klan rally?

Originally Posted By: whomod

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

so wataminute? Obama is uppity and this guy calls him out for it, and whomod has a problem with it? I forgot, whomod hates free speech.

And you apparently by your own admission hate "uppity" black people.

So when's the next Klan rally?

waitaminute i hate uppity black people? where was that? are you going to be okay? this Palin thing really got to you didnt it?

Originally Posted By: whomod

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

so wataminute? Obama is uppity and this guy calls him out for it, and whomod has a problem with it? I forgot, whomod hates free speech.

And you apparently by your own admission hate "uppity" black people.

So when's the next Klan rally?

Are these the same black people that were shot for leaving new orleans?

Obama Denies Saudi Connection

Barack Obama's campaign is flatly denying a story told by former Manhattan Borough President Percy Sutton, who cast an ex-Black Panther turned Muslim businessman and lecturer as a key Obama mentor

Sutton, now in his late 80s and mostly off the public stage, told NY1's Dominic Carter that he was asked to write a letter of recommendation to Harvard Law School on Obama's behalf by a man named Khalid al-Mansour of Texas, "the principle adviser to one of the world's richest men" who was also "raising money for [Obama]."

Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt told Politico that "Obama did not know and does not know Khalid al-Mansour."

The person to whom Sutton was apparently referring, al-Mansour, is a former Black Panther and an adviser to Saudi royalty who has produced, as Amanda Carpenter noted, some YouTube clips that would light up cable television if he's actually been close to Obama. He's also been quoted backing the Palestinian side in the Middle East conflict, though he has not been quoted supporting violence there.

If you were whomod you would have started off saying......It keeps getting better and better!

And followed it with a YouTube clip of Olbermann and several dancing nanas

while jerking off to a picture of Lenin.

while being fucked in the ass by Nancy Grace wearing a dildo!

http://www.gallup.com/poll/110047/Gallup-Daily-Obamas-Lead-Shrinks-Points.aspx

Quote:

Barack Obama's advantage over John McCain has been shrinking since the start of the Republican National Convention, and is now down to just two percentage points -- 47% to 45% -- too close to call. This is according to Gallup Poll Daily tracking from Wednesday through Friday, Sept. 3-5.

Obama had led McCain by as much as eight percentage points in recent days, both during and immediately after the Democratic National Convention in Denver. Those results reflected a convention bounce for Obama of four percentage points in his support among registered voters (from 45% to 49%). It appears that McCain is now enjoying a rebound bounce coming out of the Republican National Convention in St. Paul that is nullifying some of Obama's gains. (To view the complete trend since March 7, 2008, click here.)

The interviewing for today's report partially reflects public opinion following the highlights of the Republican National Convention on Wednesday and Thursday nights when McCain and his running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, made their acceptance speeches. This includes a strong night for McCain in Friday's interviewing, the first full night of interviewing following his acceptance speech.

The first Gallup Poll Daily tracking report based on interviewing conducted entirely after McCain's speech (from Friday through Sunday) will be published on Monday. The test for McCain will be whether he can do more than return the race to the absolute tie seen at the beginning of the convention period, and actually lead Obama by a significant margin for the first time since late April/early May. -- Lydia Saad

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080905/ap_on_go_ot/capitol_armed_man;_ylt=AnJ3uvVGbP_dSrZBHgBY_5GyFz4D

Quote:

Capitol Police arrested a man Friday after they found a grenade and several weapons in his car several blocks from the Capitol building.

Christopher Shelton Timmons, 27, of Orange, Va., was charged with carrying a deadly weapon and possessing unregistered firearms and ammunition, said Capitol Police spokeswoman Sgt. Kimberly Schneider.

Timmons was detained after he stopped to ask a police officer for directions and the officer saw a rifle case in the car.

A search of the car, a Jeep Cherokee, turned up a rifle, a live grenade, a pistol, ammunition, magazines with ammunition in them and several other "items of concern," Schneider said.

Police closed nearby streets for several hours while conducting the search. The incident occurred near the Library of Congress southeast of the Capitol.

The FBI, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and District of Columbia police assisted in the investigation.

I heard this has since been cleared up, apparently this guy was just in the neighborhood to pick up Bill Ayers after a meeting with Obama....

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

...Capitol Police arrested a man Friday after they found a grenade and several weapons in his car several blocks from the Capitol building....

Well...classes DID just start up again at Georgetown and GWU...

TOGA! TOGA! TOGA!

whoopsy!

"Holy Freudian Slip, Batman!"

George should have let him keep digging his own hole....

Not if he wanted to keep his job. He already got in deep shit with his Democrat masters for having the balls to ask Obama about William Ayers last April.

The NY Times reports that the Obama campaign is having trouble meeting its fundraising goals after its decision not to accept public financing.

So now Obama is embracing outside 527 groups (ie, groups like MoveOn and the SwiftBoat vets).

You might recall, when Obama broke his pledge to accept public financing, his excuse was that the system was broken, and that he needed money to fight Republican outside groups that were out to slime him.

Now it turns out that he won't take public money and he will be relying on outside groups.

A new kind of politics, indeed.

Over at ABC, I see that Bill Ayers has released a new statement in comic strip form.

The only concession/apology he makes for being a terrorist is now saying that "I don't think violent resistence is necessarily the answer."

Strangely enough, he forgot to remind us that blowing up buildings and risking lives is just a college prank.

well "warnings were always called in", g-man, cut the guy a fucking break! i'm sure if he was a dirty terrorist that didn't call in threats to terrorize law abiding Americans Obama wouldn't have been best friends with him!

it's sort of like having a loud kegger at your frat, letting the neighbors know ahead of time there will be some noise.....

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

well "warnings were always called in", g-man...

Well, according to the far left, Bush got a warning about 9/11. So I guess, by the far left's own logic and claims, Osama Bin Laden isn't a terrorist either.

how can Bin Laden be responsible for those crimes, Barack Obama was only 40 at the time Bin Laden committed them!

Obama Repeatedly Quotes Cartoonist While on Campaign Trail:

Obama's 'lipstick on a pig' comment grabbed all the headlines, but a line he delivered just before that has critics wondering if his speechwriter is a cartoonist.

On Tuesday, for the third time in four days, Obama borrowed a lengthy bubble quote from Washington Post cartoonist Tom Toles. He did not acknowledge the origin of the quote the first time he used it and credited the cartoon only after the Post contacted the Obama campaign to ask about the first use.

Asked about the lifting of Toles’ line, Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt said that the candidate did not initially know the source of the line, which he had gotten from a friend.

“This came to Senator Obama from a friend who didn’t indicate where he had gotten it from, but the questions it raises certainly continue to ring true,”

Toles told FOXNews.com that after the first use, Post editors got in touch with the campaign and Obama made sure to credit Toles when he used the line on Monday. But in Tuesday’s speech, he again used the line without referencing the cartoon.

Obama kicked ass on the Service Forum last night......McCain did as well. This coupled with how well he did on O'Reilly will help him. I still am troubled with some major inconsistencies with Obama. He'll say one thing to the liberal groups (like I'm going to drastically cut the military) and other things to the rest of us (like how he will keep the military strong and try to grow it). That is just one of many examples. Where as with McCain he says the same thing every time to whoever he is speaking with.

Well, if you don't lie about things or say whatever you think an audience wants to hear, it's not a problem keeping your stories and/or positions straight.

McCains biggest liability on the campaign trail is the thing I like best about him, his honesty. Unfortunately it seems most people like candidates to tell them what they want to hear and dont care whether it is true.

His new ad mocking McCain for not using a computer? Turns out that McCain can't use a keyboard because of the relentless beatings he received from the Viet Cong in service to our country:

From the Boston Globe (March 4, 2000): McCain's severe war injuries prevent him from combing his hair, typing on a keyboard, or tying his shoes. Friends marvel at McCain's encyclopedic knowledge of sports. He's an avid fan - Ted Williams is his hero - but he can't raise his arm above his shoulder to throw a baseball.

Seriously. As the above link points out, this has been known for eight years and the guy at National Review who broke the story was able to find this out in about five minutes with Google.

What the fuck was Obama thinking?

well he did send Joe Biden out to mock a paraplegic in Florida....

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/obamas_fading_celebrity.html

Quote:

The Democrats are in a panic. In a presidential race that is impossible to lose, they are behind. Obama devotees are frantically giving advice. Tom Friedman tells him to "start slamming down some phones." Camille Paglia suggests, "be boring!"

Meanwhile, a posse of Democratic lawyers, mainstream reporters, lefty bloggers and various other Obamaphiles are scouring the vast tundra of Alaska for something, anything, to bring down Sarah Palin: her daughter's pregnancy, her ex-brother-in-law problem, her $60 per diem, and now her religion. (CNN reports -- news flash! -- that she apparently has never spoken in tongues.) Not since Henry II asked if no one would rid him of his turbulent priest, have so many so urgently volunteered for duty.

But Palin is not just a problem for Obama. She is also a symptom of what ails him. Before Palin, Obama was the ultimate celebrity candidate. For no presidential nominee in living memory had the gap between adulation and achievement been so great. Which is why McCain's Paris Hilton ads struck such a nerve. Obama's meteoric rise was based not on issues -- there was not a dime's worth of difference between him and Hillary on issues -- but on narrative, on eloquence, on charisma.

The unease at the Denver convention, the feeling of buyer's remorse, was the Democrats' realization that the arc of Obama's celebrity had peaked -- and had now entered a period of its steepest decline. That Palin could so instantly steal the celebrity spotlight is a reflection of that decline.

It was inevitable. Obama had managed to stay aloft for four full years. But no one can levitate forever.

Five speeches map Obama's trajectory.

Obama burst into celebrityhood with his brilliant and moving 2004 Democratic convention speech (#1). It turned an obscure state senator into a national figure and legitimate presidential candidate.

His next and highest moment (#2) was the night of his Iowa caucus victory when he gave an equally stirring speech of the highest tones that dazzled a national audience just tuning in.

The problem is that Obama began believing in his own magical powers -- the chants, the swoons, the "we are the ones" self-infatuation. Like Ronald Reagan, he was leading a movement, but one entirely driven by personality. Reagan's revolution was rooted in concrete political ideas (supply-side economics, welfare-state deregulation, national strength) that transcended one man. For Obama's movement, the man is the transcendence.

Which gave the Obama campaign a cult-like tinge. With every primary and every repetition of the high-flown, self-referential rhetoric, the campaign's insubstantiality became clear. By the time it was repeated yet again on the night of the last primary (#3), the tropes were tired and flat. To top himself, Obama had to reach. Hence his triumphal declaration that history would note that night, his victory, his ascension, as "the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal."

Clang. But Obama heard only the cheers of the invited crowd. Not yet seeing how the pseudo-messianism was wearing thin, he did Berlin (#4) and finally jumped the shark. That grandiloquent proclamation of universalist puffery popped the bubble. The grandiosity had become bizarre.

From there it was but a short step to Paris Hilton. Finally, the Obama people understood. Which is why the next data point (#5) is so different. Obama's Denver acceptance speech was deliberately pedestrian, State-of-the-Union-ish, programmatic and only briefly (that lovely coda recalling the March on Washington) lyrical.

The problem, however, was that Obama had announced the Invesco Field setting for the speech during the pre-Berlin flush of hubris. They were stuck with the Greek columns, the circus atmosphere, the rock star fireworks farewell -- as opposed to the warmer, traditional, balloon-filled convention-hall hug-a-thon. The incongruity between text and context was apparent. Obama was trying to make himself ordinary -- and serious -- but could hardly remember how.

One star fades, another is born. The very next morning McCain picks Sarah Palin and a new celebrity is launched. And in the celebrity game, novelty is trump. With her narrative, her persona, her charisma carrying the McCain campaign to places it has never been and by all logic has no right to be, she's pulling an Obama.

But her job is easier. She only has to remain airborne for seven more weeks. Obama maintained altitude for an astonishing four years. In politics, as in all games, however, it's the finish that counts.

You know, there's a certain irony in Obama mocking McCain for allegedly being computer illiterate when his own staff wasn't smart enough to Google the reason why McCain doesn't use one.

that Obama is one disrespectful prick.

Well, you need to remember, for the past twelve months or more he's had millions of leftists and scores of syncophantic "objective" journalists tell him that he's the second coming of Jesus H. Christ (Jesus Hussein Christ?). That's bound to build up anybody's ego to bizarre proportions.

Apparently, the assholes over at DailyKos have figured out that this is very damaging and are running all over the web arguing that "Stephen Hawking uses a computer" as if that somehow means that McCain should put himself in physical pain to do the same thing. The big difference is, of course, that Hawking needs to the computer to communicate, while McCain can accomplish his day to day tasks without doing so.

Why don't you go argue with them over there, or are you too chicken?

How do you know I don't?

Because you're bringing their shit over here. We have enough ray adlers here to spew their commie bullshit.

What the fuck are you talking about? Mentioning what assholes do on another site is not the same as inviting them over here.

as if this place needs more assholes.

Insert obligatory Rob is gay joke here.

No, I'm just saying that there is enough different opinions here that you don't need to bring other ones to this board.

rex your hatred of G-man is clouding your sense of reason. He was just trying to make a point and it was a valid one.

also, quit fucking socks.

SOCK FUKER!

FUKER OF SOCKS!

Originally Posted By: The New Adventures of Old PJP

rex your hatred of G-man is clouding your sense of reason. He was just trying to make a point and it was a valid one.

No, its not a hatred of g-man I just don't like it when someone tried to argue something they don't believe in just for the sake of arguing.

You're becoming a caricature of yourself.

I'm a douchebag forever and always.

yes

Owner of A Lonely Sock.

That's clever.

Barack rhymes with sock....

Originally Posted By: rex

That's clever.

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2008/09/14/2008-09-14_barack_obamas_big_blunder.html

Quote:

With top Dems fearing Barack Obama is in a hole, the Obama campaign has made a weird decision. It's going to dig that hole deeper, harder and faster.

No more Mr. Nice Guy, Obama vows. He's going to really start hitting John McCain now. He's going to make voters understand that McCain equals four more years of George Bush.

It's a weird decision because Obama has been doing exactly that for four months. The problem is not that Obama hasn't hit McCain hard enough or linked him to Bush often enough. The problem is that he hasn't done anything else.

How about a new idea? How about putting some meat on the bony promise of "change"?

And what happened to that post-partisan uniter who took the country by storm during the early primaries by offering an optimistic vision for America? Why not bring him back?

Apparently that Obama has left the building. He's been replaced with a party man who sees the other side as evil and beneath contempt. Consider these bitter words from campaign boss David Plouffe that outlines the Obama plan for the stretch run.

"John McCain has shown that he is willing to go into the gutter to win this election," Plouffe wrote in a memo circulated Friday. "His campaign has become nothing but a series of smears, lies and cynical attempts to distract from the issues that matter to the American people."

That rant might be comfort food for the nervous base, but will likely alarm independents who already aren't sure about Obama. By further scaring them with scorched-earth partisanship, the Obama team will only cede to McCain the label of the real independent.

Indeed, even as Sarah Palin has rallied the GOP base, McCain himself has ramped up efforts to secure his brand as a maverick willing to cross party lines. Obama's response appears to be surrender of the high ground.

The decision to stick with a mostly-nasty approach should finally end the myth that the Obama campaign is a flawless machine. It had an extraordinarily appealing candidate, a message of change to an unhappy nation and made brilliant tactical decisions that defeated the Clintons.

But that was last season. Since then, it has frittered away four months and, even before Palin rocked the race, Obama was coasting as the presumptive President. He secured his base in Europe, but neglected West Virginia, where Clinton beat him by 40 points. Poll-wise, he remains where he was when Clinton quit in June.

Now faced with an energized and disciplined opponent, Team Obama is doubling-down on an approach that failed to seal the deal despite a beatable McCain, a favorable environment and a fawning media.

The decision is extra odd given what seemed a growing consensus before the Democratic convention that Obama needed to better connect with middle-class voters. That consensus was that hammering home an economic message of hope and help was the answer and the plan, supporters said then.

But Obama didn't do it in his acceptance speech, and he hasn't done it since. Lately he's been so startled by Palin that he took to attacking her himself instead of leaving it to others.

His tax plan is one area where Obama has failed to press an economic advantage. He says his plan, while raising levies on high earners, would mean a tax cut for 95% of the working class. If true, that's a helluva plan. Yet Obama himself has done little to explain the details and how much individuals would benefit at different income levels.

There was even more ominous language in the Plouffe memo. After throwing in the name of Karl Rove, which is boob bait for Bush haters, Plouffe promised to summon the furies of the liberal press to expose McCain and Palin. "We trust that the obvious conflicts between their rhetoric and records, their promises and their plans will not go unreported in the last 53 days of this campaign," Plouffe wrote.

Ah, yes, the press. I guess that means more Charlie Gibsons of the world looking down with disgust at Palin as though she was soiling his shoes. Even The New York Times allowed that Gibson, in his ABC interview, came off as "supercilious," which is a fancy way of saying arrogant.

By all means, more arrogance toward the heartland. Just what Obama needs.

a lot of this is what i've been saying all along, the McCain is Bush tactics just come off as petty. John McCain is a known person by the people of the US, he is known as a Maverick and has been a well known thorn in Bush's side. a couple months of attacks wont change that. If Obama wants a shot at this he needs to define who he is, and what he is going to do and show some proof from his past that he can and is willing to achieve change, and what that change is. making silly McCain is Bush comments works with the wacko lefties like whomod, but they were going to vote for Obamassiah anyways.

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

Running McCain as Bush's third term doesn't really work for me either, pretty much for the reasons you've stated. It's less sound bytie but I think Obama does better when he spends time on specific policies that McCain & Bush share.

like cutting taxes?

keeping America safe?

fighting the terrorists in their backyard?

Creating hurricanes with the White House's magic weather machine to destroy low income areas of the country?

their Muslim beliefs?

oh wait, i meant to post this in the Obama/Farrakhan similarities thread!

The thing is: a few months ago there was some sort of poll or study about what views the American people actually hold and it turned out that most Americans are closer politically and policywise to McCain than Obama.

except whomod.

Yeah that tax cut wasn't really at my level or most people for that matter & the war in Iraq cost way to much in lives lost & money due to Bush.

War is Hell. Someday when we have world peace you'll understand.

Originally Posted By: The New Adventures of Old PJP

War is Hell. Someday when we have world peace you'll understand.

Yes war is hell but that doesn't excuse or change the mistakes this President made that made it worse.

world peace would be pretty fucking dull if you ask me.

Bush totally mismanaged the war, John McCain called for an increase in troops from the beginning, if McCain's advice had been followed from the beginning this thing would be old news.

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

Bush totally mismanaged the war, John McCain called for an increase in troops from the beginning, if McCain's advice had been followed from the beginning this thing would be old news.

And now comes the news that Obama had meetings with Iraqi officials to prolong the war for political gain.

Tell me again why the Black Carter is the candidate of the peaceniks?

http://www.barackbook.com/

well I think a lot of us owe Barack Hussein Obama an apology, many have said he has never sponsored any major legislation, but I found this on the Illionois state government website:

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/legisnet90/summary/900SR0110.html

it's a 90th General Assembly Summary of SR0110, it's sponsored by Barack himself, the subject of the bill?

Quote:

Short description:
11/1/97-ISLAMIC COMMUNITY DAY

Synopsis of Bill as introduced:
Declares November 1, 1997 to be South Shore Islamic Community
Center Day.

nope, not a closet Muslim....

But...but...Sarah Palin is a...Christian.
Sincerely,
the radical left

i think Barack should talk more about this Islamic Community Day, maybe make it a major part of his campaign, yknow to bring us together to heal and stuff....

Actually, I remember reading a few months ago that Obama won't allow himself to be photographed with Muslims at campaign events because he doesn't want people to make the association. Not very inclusive, if you ask me.

well he might as well add racism, to his sexism...

Originally Posted By: the G-man

There was an incident a while back where voluteers removed two women wearing the muslim head wrap thing but I think he publicly apologized to the two for that happening. His policy is to be inclusive & really the retards out there who are going work the whole "he's secretly a muslim" thing are going to do that no matter what anyway.

Do you know that if Romney was the GOP nominee I wouldn't be licking his boots and making excuses for him nor would I be voting for him.

I'm just trying to hold a mirror up to your face MEM. It's pretty wild watching you toe the dem party line even though you never really liked Obama or the dirty tactics he used to beat your choice or the fact that he should have put your choice on the dem ticket and didn't.

Originally Posted By: The New Adventures of Old PJP

You may have noticed I'm not making up things about McCain or Palin. And if it was Hillary or someone else on the ticket it would be just a different set of wild accusations that you guys would be getting all self-rightous about.

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

You repeated lies others have told about palin. Its the same thing.

Geez, Obama's Muslim connections keep piling up: Obama's Pakistan Connection

Obama's background just gets curiouser and curiouser. I am still stumped as to how Dr. Al-Mansour came to mentor Barack Hussein Obama before he attended Harvard. How did Obama come to know Dr. Khalid al Mansour, Senior Advisor, HRH Prince Al-Waleed Bin Talal, and where did Obama get the money for his long strange trip? For a "poor, starving, student" Obama sure had/has a collection of rich, wealthy and politically connected muslims all over the world.

Originally Posted By: rex

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

You repeated lies others have told about palin. Its the same thing.

Really, where?

You were posting about her alleged book banning, as I recall. That has been debunked.

To be fair, however, I think you dropped it after the allegation was disproven.

The book banning thing for one. It never happened. It was lies from the whomodian crowd.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

You were posting about her alleged book banning, as I recall. That has been debunked.

To be fair, however, I think you dropped it after the allegation was disproven.

Actually, and sadly, I stand corrected. I see, over the McCain thread, you're still repeating that canard.

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Originally Posted By: The New Adventures of Old PJP

Don't make this about me. I'm trying to tell you that you hated this guy just 2 months ago. I'm asking you how you can just snap your fingers and support someone you had so much disgust for.

I was so against Romney I would have voted for Obama. Honest.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

You were posting about her alleged book banning, as I recall. That has been debunked.

To be fair, however, I think you dropped it after the allegation was disproven.

Actually, and sadly, I stand corrected. I see, over the McCain thread, you're still repeating that canard.

Then I must be in cahoots with the McCain campaign...

Quote:

GOP campaign downplays Palin book-banning inquiry

WASILLA, Alaska (AP) — The McCain campaign is defending Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's much-criticized inquiry into banning books at her hometown library, saying her questions were only hypothetical.

Shortly after taking office in 1996 as mayor of Wasilla, a city of about 7,000 people, Palin asked the city's head librarian about banning books. Later, the librarian was notified by Palin that she was being fired, although Palin backed off under pressure.

Palin alleged attempt at book-banning has been a matter of intense interest since Republican presidential nominee John McCain named her as his running mate last month.

Taylor Griffin, a spokesman for the McCain campaign, said Thursday that Palin asked the head librarian, Mary Ellen Emmons, on three occasions how she would react to attempts at banning books. He said the questions, in the fall of 1996, were hypothetical and entirely appropriate. He said a patron had asked the library to remove a title the year before and the mayor wanted to understand how such disputes were handled.

Records on the city's Web site, however, do not show any books were challenged in Wasilla in the 10 years before Palin took office.

I remember MEM telling us a year ago that he'd support McCain over Obama and me telling MEM that he'd turn on McCain because he (MEM) was too tied to the DNC.

Maybe I'm wrong and MEM is just trying to correct what he sees as misstatements about Obama. However, it sure looks like I was correct that he'd turn.

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Then I must be in cahoots with the McCain campaign...

You are implying, if not outright alleging, that Palin tried to get books banned and fired the librarian when she refused. However, the article you cited does not allege any of that. It simply notes that Palin asked a hypothetical question and never banned any books. Furthermore, as noted before, there is no evidence that the librarian was fired because of Palin's desire to ban books.

You're repeating a smear even after it was disproven.

totally. I think it was only about 3 months ago he was saying he would not support him.

Originally Posted By: The New Adventures of Old PJP

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Originally Posted By: The New Adventures of Old PJP

If it was a personality contest I would vote for McCain but there are also some policy differences that pretty much hands the vote to Obama as long as I think he's smart & capable enough to be president. And I've repeatedly said even when Hillary was in the race that the "he's secretly a muslim" was a bunch of crap. Why would it stop being crap now?

I'm pretty sure you didn't think Obama was smart and capable enough to be president until approximately the same week McCain got the nomination.

what are some policy differences?

by the way did you know as governor Palin was solely responsible for killing a bill that would have banned gay marriage. she said that she had no right to make that a law....it was unconstitutional.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Then I must be in cahoots with the McCain campaign...

Nope. I just said Palin fired the librarian & that she had to rehire her. That's a matter of public record.

And how does her hypothetically asking a librarian 3 times if she would be willing to remove books make sense? Supposedly she says she wanted to know the procedure. If that were the case wouldn't anyone simply ask what the procedure was instead of repeatedly asking a librarian if she would remove books if Palin asked it of her?

Originally Posted By: The New Adventures of Old PJP

That won't mean anything to MEM. Remember when it was pointed out that his beloved Bill Clinton was the one who signed the anti-gay "Defense of Marriage Act" into law? MEM deluded himself into thinking Clinton did that to save MEM from the Republicans.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Originally Posted By: The New Adventures of Old PJP

Actually I give her credit if she did that as I did McCain when he didn't follow Bush & the rest of the GOP on trying to ammend the constitution. But that still doesn't change the fact that she asked a librarian if she would be willing to remove books if Palin asked her. Her defense that it was just a hypothetical that she needed to ask 3 times makes sense how?

oy vey

MEM, seriously, this comes off as you just casting about for a flimsy excuse for why you suddenly support Obama and dislike McCain.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

MEM, seriously, this comes off as you just casting about for a flimsy excuse for why you suddenly support Obama and dislike McCain.

I think I've praised McCain more than criticised him. That's quite different than disliking him as you accuse.

And I still like McCain. He's the guy who would kick your ass off the stage if you tried to pull your Obama crap in front of him.

I'll rephrase, then.

MEM, seriously, this comes off as you just casting about for a flimsy excuse for why you suddenly support Obama and no longer support McCain.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

I'll rephrase, then.

MEM, seriously, this comes off as you just casting about for a flimsy excuse for why you suddenly support Obama and no longer support McCain.

The policy differences are significant enough where Obama is going to be my likely choice. As to you calling it flimsy, that kind of falls into taking you seriously & Rex is right about that.

National Review:

Chicago Talk Radio Host Milt Rosenberg had ... David Freddoso, author of The Case Against Barack Obama, his show tonight.

Rosenberg's producer emails to say that they're again trying to silence Freddoso, just like they did when Stanly Kurtz was on recently:

'Tonight, we have David Freddoso on our show discussing his new book. As we speak, thousands of Obama supporters are flooding our phone lines and e-mail boxes, just as they did for our show with Stanley Kurtz. An Obama Action Wire was sent out tonight to intimidate us into taking Freddoso off the air.'

Originally Posted By: the G-man

National Review:

Chicago Talk Radio Host Milt Rosenberg had ... David Freddoso, author of The Case Against Barack Obama, his show tonight.

Rosenberg's producer emails to say that they're again trying to silence Freddoso, just like they did when Stanly Kurtz was on recently:

'Tonight, we have David Freddoso on our show discussing his new book. As we speak, thousands of Obama supporters are flooding our phone lines and e-mail boxes, just as they did for our show with Stanley Kurtz. An Obama Action Wire was sent out tonight to intimidate us into taking Freddoso off the air.'

How is Obama urging people to call into a call in radio show censorship?

Heh. At first glance, I assumed this article was about Obama: Professional organizer to share secrets

Obama in 2007: Sex Ed for Kindergarteners 'Right Thing to Do'

If nothing else, they have this in common: They both have friends that bombed the Pentagon.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/17/clinton-blindsided-palin/

Clinton backed out of a UN rally organized by Jewish groups because Palin was going to be there.

Couple things.....she is a fucking idiot for backing out......this is not a partisan evernt........she is clearly pissed that another woman has a shot of becoming President before her (one that is younger and prettier by the way).......and why the fuck do Jews continue to support Democrats?

here is the CNN story to be fair and balanced

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/17/clinton-cancels-appearance-over-palin/

Yeah this just goes to show which side tends to be more partisan, especially after the reports showing that McCain is much more likely to work in a nonpartisan manner than Obama.

BAM OUTDOES JOHN IN NEGATIVE ADS: Barack Obama has aired substantially more negative TV ads than John McCain following the political conventions, a study released yesterday found.

not surprising, when you have no ideas, attack.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080918/ap_on_el_pr/michelle_obama;_ylt=AsstovmcYorEBBK_CyT4zuqs0NUE

Quote:

Michelle Obama asked voters Thursday to make their choice on the issues, not because, "I like that guy" or, "she's cute."

Might she be talking about Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin?

"I'm talking about me," she said with a smile.

Barack Obama's wife, however, is not on the ticket in the presidential election. Palin is.

Michelle Obama is part of a concerted effort involving her husband, his running mate, Sen. Joe Biden, and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton to neutralize the appeal that Palin has brought to John McCain's ticket for some female voters. They are doing so unmistakably but gingerly, so as to not appear sexist or invite another lipstick-on-a-pig tempest.

another cheap shot to diminish a woman's achievements by calling her "cute", more disgusting sexism on the Obama ticket's part...

Associated Press reports that Obama is advising his supporters to get nasty:

"I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors. I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face," he said.

A "new kind of politician" indeed.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,424464,00.html

socialist bastards.

Zogby: Obama Holds Lead Among Arab American Vote.

Wow. There's a shock.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Zogby: Obama Holds Lead Among Arab American Vote.

Wow. There's a shock.

So? McCain probably does well with racists.

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Zogby: Obama Holds Lead Among Arab American Vote.

Wow. There's a shock.

So? McCain probably does well with racists.

Which of those two demographics is more likely to threaten the US' security?

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

So? McCain probably does well with racists.

Obama is doing well with racists as well.

Sorry, Pariah, but your answer is incorrect. rex wins the points and control of the board. Please chose the next category, rex.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080918165054.unpdmtq4&show_article=1

Quote:

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Thursday he was ready to debate the men running for US president when he visits New York for the UN General Assembly, and dismissed Western threats of more sanctions over Tehran's nuclear drive.

The outspoken president, who caused a storm of controversy during a visit last year, said: "I am ready for a debate with the US presidential candidates over global issues in the presence of the media at the UN headquarters.

"I have no plans in my schedule to meet with US politicians," he told a press conference.

"Last year, I said I was ready to meet with (President George W.) Bush. But now he is at the end of his term and (a meeting) will not impact our relations and future."

The campaign of Republican candidate John McCain has castigated Democrat rival Barack Obama for offering to negotiate with the leaders of US foes like Iran and Syria if he is elected, and has adopted a hawkish foreign policy.

Obama has said UN sanctions and diplomacy over Tehran's nuclear programme must be made to bite.

Turning to that key point of tension between the two countries, Ahmadinejad said Iran has no fear of threatened new international sanctions over its refusal to halt controversial nuclear work.

"Those who want to impose sanctions are demonstrating their helplessness," he said.

His comments came ahead of a meeting on Friday of six world powers that have offered Iran incentives to freeze uranium enrichment, the process at the heart of Western fears it is seeking atomic weapons.

The White House warned Iran on Monday that it faces possible new sanctions after a new report by the UN atomic watchdog that Tehran had not halted enrichment and was still stalling a UN investigation into its nuclear work.

"Let them impose sanctions against us ... The more they impose sanctions, the more we thank God," Ahmadinejad said. "A country that owns nuclear energy, stem cells, aerospace industries ... does not need these countries."

Iran, which insists that its nuclear programme is geared solely towards energy generation, is already under three sets of UN sanctions over its refusal to freeze enrichment.

The process makes nuclear fuel but in highly extended form can produce the fissile core of an atomic bomb.

Ahmadinejad's visit to New York for last year's UN General Assembly meeting stirred controversy when the outspoken president dismissed talk of war against Iran as "propaganda" and combatively took on US critics who accuse him of denying the Holocaust and of backing terrorism.

He insisted that the Islamic republic had every right to pursue a civilian nuclear programme and said "we are a peace-loving nation."

In a tense exchange at New York's Columbia University, he drew jeers from students for stating that his country had no homosexuals.

Barack has his chance at a no preconditions meeting...
10 bucks says Barack wont meet with him since it would be political suicide during the election.....

Originally Posted By: thedoctor

Sorry, Pariah, but your answer is incorrect. rex wins the points and control of the board. Please chose the next category, rex.

$\:\($

You guys have nothing but stupid attacks on Obama.

It's sad really.

Originally Posted By: whomod

You guys have nothing but stupid attacks on Obama.

It's sad really.

Yes, it is sad that you don't see him for who he really is.

Originally Posted By: rex

Originally Posted By: whomod

You guys have nothing but stupid attacks on Obama.

It's sad really.

Yes, it is sad that you don't see him for who he really is.

black?

RACIST!

yeah, I mean if that's the only reason you have to vote for a guy, we've gotta wonder about your priorities.

Originally Posted By: whomod

You guys have nothing but stupid attacks on Obama. It's sad really.

...says the guy that can be routinely counted on to show us pictures of Republicans as Nazis, chimps, etc.

Originally Posted By: whomod

no YOU are!

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

That is the greatest dog ever!

Man's best friend, and America's best friend!

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

knowing english should be a requirement of Presidential candidates:

Heh. Under his supporters' own standards he must be senile.

that's racist.....somehow.... i'm sure....

Serious question for all the obama supporters.

If (that's a really big if) he is elected, who will be the focus of all your blinding hatred?

Today Obama spoke at an arena in Green Bay Wisconsin that was barely half full. Last week McCain spoke their and it was not only full but they had to turn people away.

Originally Posted By: rex

Serious question for all the obama supporters.

If (that's a really big if) he is elected, who will be the focus of all your blinding hatred?

You should give lessons to us poor liberals so we can be as charming & happy as you great Americans. $;\)$ If you include lattes, we will come.

Originally Posted By: PJP

Today Obama spoke at an arena in Green Bay Wisconsin that was barely half full. Last week McCain spoke their and it was not only full but they had to turn people away.

i think the curtain has been pulled back on the wizard....

same exact arena..... traditionally a democratic area too.

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Originally Posted By: rex

Serious question for all the obama supporters.

If (that's a really big if) he is elected, who will be the focus of all your blinding hatred?

You should give lessons to us poor liberals so we can be as charming & happy as you great Americans. $;\)$ If you include lattes, we will come.

Please don't lump people that lean to the right in the same group as rex.

rex leans to the right, but only because his sock drawer isnt on the left....

I went to a bonfire cookout Saturday night, there was about 100 people there, blue collar factory workers, truck drivers ect, I was surprised at how many who were Democrats were saying they would be voting for McCain, the attack ads on him were a major point most citing his service to the country, but the most telling was the trust issue, none of them knew where Obama really stands on any issues, they know where he says he stands, but he doesn't have a record.

now to the whomodians this inst a big deal, theyll chock it up to religious zealots or something but this wanst a highly religious crowd, the fact that this was close to PA should scare the lefties as most of the electoral maps are giving Obama PA, if he loses it, it's a game changer.

I hear ya!

Originally Posted By: PJP

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Originally Posted By: rex

Serious question for all the obama supporters.

If (that's a really big if) he is elected, who will be the focus of all your blinding hatred?

You should give lessons to us poor liberals so we can be as charming & happy as you great Americans. $;\)$ If you include lattes, we will come.

Please don't lump people that lean to the right in the same group as rex.

Pardon, must be the blinding hatred I feel for all of you.

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

Bitter and/or racist I would predict.

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Originally Posted By: PJP

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Originally Posted By: rex

Serious question for all the obama supporters.

If (that's a really big if) he is elected, who will be the focus of all your blinding hatred?

You should give lessons to us poor liberals so we can be as charming & happy as you great Americans. $;\)$ If you include lattes, we will come.

Please don't lump people that lean to the right in the same group as rex.

Pardon, must be the blinding hatred I feel for all of you.

heh.....we know you better than that MEM!

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

Bitter and/or racist I would predict.

Predict? Don't you just know these things?

Is Obama Another Dukakis: Why is Obama so vapid, hesitant, and gutless?

The above article is from (liberal) Slate Magazine and written by (liberal) Christopher Hitchens.

I thought Sammitch would appreciate it, if nothing else.

Originally Posted By: PJP

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Originally Posted By: PJP

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Originally Posted By: rex

Serious question for all the obama supporters.

If (that's a really big if) he is elected, who will be the focus of all your blinding hatred?

You should give lessons to us poor liberals so we can be as charming & happy as you great Americans. $;\)$ If you include lattes, we will come.

Please don't lump people that lean to the right in the same group as rex.

Pardon, must be the blinding hatred I feel for all of you.

heh.....we know you better than that MEM!

No really! Gggrrrrr motherfucker

OK maybe not

Originally Posted By: the G-man

heh. like I said, the way the moonbats are flailing and failing lately, I may have to start calling him black mcgovern after the election instead.

Mcgovern was the guy who didn't vet his VP very well if I remember correctly.

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Mcgovern was the guy who didn't vet his VP very well if I remember correctly.

To man in wheelchair: "Stand up, let everyone see ya"
-Joe Biden

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Mcgovern was the guy who didn't vet his VP very well if I remember correctly.

To man in wheelchair: "Stand up, let everyone see ya"
-Joe Biden

Gaffes happen. I give as much substance to McCain's gaffes as I do Biden's. The cool thing about Biden is that he doesn't have to cling so tight to a script that we get more of the real Biden. Plus he's not trying to evade an ethics investigation

Pariah nerdy Moderator Triteness kicks us in the nads.
15000+ posts Mon Sep 22 2008 11:32 PM Reading a post
Forum: Politics and Current Events
Thread: Barack Hussein Obama in '08?

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

The cool thing about Biden is that he doesn't have to cling so tight to a script that we get more of the real Biden.

Too bad we can't say the same about Obama.

You know, maybe it's not too late.

The way the DNC and their shills in the media keep comparing Palin's experience to Obama's they almost seem to be thinking that Biden was running for the top job.

Maybe there's still time to flip the ticket.

Any truth to the rumors that Biden might step down,and let Hilliary step in???

You should stop listening to mem.

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

The cool thing about Biden is that he doesn't have to cling so tight to a script that we get more of the real Biden. Plus he's not trying to evade an ethics investigation

You mean like Hillary (and Bill) spent 8+ years doing?

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

The cool thing about Biden is that he doesn't have to cling so tight to a script that we get more of the real Biden. Plus he's not trying to evade an ethics investigation

You mean like Hillary (and Bill) spent 8+ years doing?

and Vince Foster him too.

oh wait.

Originally Posted By: PJP

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

The cool thing about Biden is that he doesn't have to cling so tight to a script that we get more of the real Biden. Plus he's not trying to evade an ethics investigation

You mean like Hillary (and Bill) spent 8+ years doing?

and Vince Foster him too.

oh wait.

They were investigated over & over again. One fishing expedition to the next. Palin can't even do one that began with a large GOP majority voting that it should be investigated.

And PJP I wish I could hand you & all the others who voted for Bush the bill he ran up during his 8 fucking years in office. You earned it.

So, your point is that Palin should be subject to a fishing expedition because Hillary was earlier?

Wow. Payback's not just any bitch...

that was my point too.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

So, your point is that Palin should be subject to a fishing expedition because Hillary was earlier?

Wow. Payback's not just any bitch...

No I don't think Palin should be subject to a fishing expedition. This investigation as noted however was supported by a bipartison vote with a republican majority. It was started before she was selected to be on the ticket. How could this be considered a fishing expedition?

Besides the fact that the guy who ended up running it is an open Obama supporter?

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Besides the fact that the guy who ended up running it is an open Obama supporter?

That doesn't mean he can't do his job right. Remember I had no problem with a Republican investigating Rove & Libby so it's not me just being a partisan.

Also it should be know surprise that there are some GOP still sore at her for cleaning up the party in Alaska.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0...da.html?showall

Quote:

In an interview with CNN's Larry King airing tonight, Bill Clinton offered a slightly unusual reason for postponing his campaigning for Obama: The Jewish high holidays of Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, which he's not known to observe.

"When [the Clinton Global Initiative] is over, and after the Jewish holidays, which follow close on it, I intend to go to Florida, to Ohio, to northeast Pennsylvania, and to Nevada at a minimum," he said. "I may do events in Arkansas depending on what the Democratic Party does down there. And I've agreed to do some fundraising for them in California and New York."

"Are you kind of feeling Jewish that you're waiting until after the Jewish holidays?" King asked, according to a CNN transcript.

"No. But I think it would be -- if we're trying to win in Florida, it may be that," Clinton began, before discussing his real Florida target: "You know, they think that because of who I am and where my politic[al] base has traditionally been, they may want me to go sort of hustle up what Lawton Chiles used to call the 'cracker vote' there."

"But Senator Obama also has a big stake in doing well in the Jewish community in Florida, where Hillary did very well and where I did very well. And I just think respecting the holidays is a good thing to do," he said.

britneyspearsatemyshorts annoyed Moderator Co-owner of the RKMBs, & Patriot
15000+ posts Wed Sep 24 2008 04:11 PM Making a new reply
Forum: Politics and Current Events
Thread: Re: Obama Another Dukakis?

PJP annoyed Moderator My Dog Supports John McCain
15000+ posts Wed Sep 24 2008 04:12 PM Reading a post
Forum: Politics and Current Events
Thread: Barack Hussein Obama in '08?

you're right!

PJP annoyed Moderator My Dog Supports John McCain
15000+ posts Wed Sep 24 2008 04:14 PM Reading a post
Forum: Politics and Current Events
Thread: Barack Hussein Obama in '08?

puy

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122212856075765367.html

Quote:

Despite having authored two autobiographies, Barack Obama has never written about his most important executive experience. From 1995 to 1999, he led an education foundation called the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC), and remained on the board until 2001. The group poured more than $100 million into the hands of community organizers and radical education activists.
[Obama and Ayers] AP

Bill Ayers.

The CAC was the brainchild of Bill Ayers, a founder of the Weather Underground in the 1960s. Among other feats, Mr. Ayers and his cohorts bombed the Pentagon, and he has never expressed regret for his actions. Barack Obama's first run for the Illinois State Senate was launched at a 1995 gathering at Mr. Ayers's home.

The Obama campaign has struggled to downplay that association. Last April, Sen. Obama dismissed Mr. Ayers as just "a guy who lives in my neighborhood," and "not somebody who I exchange ideas with on a regular basis." Yet documents in the CAC archives make clear that Mr. Ayers and Mr. Obama were partners in the CAC. Those archives are housed in the Richard J. Daley Library at the University of Illinois at Chicago and I've recently spent days looking through them.

The Chicago Annenberg Challenge was created ostensibly to improve Chicago's public schools. The funding came from a national education initiative by Ambassador Walter Annenberg. In early 1995, Mr. Obama was appointed the first chairman of the board, which handled fiscal matters. Mr. Ayers co-chaired the foundation's other key body, the "Collaborative," which shaped education policy.

The CAC's basic functioning has long been known, because its annual reports, evaluations and some board minutes were public. But the Daley archive contains additional board minutes, the Collaborative minutes, and documentation on the groups that CAC funded and rejected. The Daley archives show that Mr. Obama and Mr. Ayers worked as a team to advance the CAC agenda.

One unsettled question is how Mr. Obama, a former community organizer fresh out of law school, could vault to the top of a new foundation? In response to my questions, the Obama campaign issued a statement saying that Mr. Ayers had nothing to do with Obama's "recruitment" to the board. The statement says Deborah Leff and Patricia Albjerg Graham (presidents of other foundations) recruited him. Yet the archives show that, along with Ms. Leff and Ms. Graham, Mr. Ayers was one of a working group of five who assembled the initial board in 1994. Mr. Ayers founded CAC and was its guiding spirit. No one would have been appointed the CAC chairman without his approval.

The CAC's agenda flowed from Mr. Ayers's educational philosophy, which called for infusing students and their parents with a radical political commitment, and which downplayed achievement tests in favor of activism. In the mid-1960s, Mr. Ayers taught at a radical alternative school, and served as a community organizer in Cleveland's ghetto.

In works like "City Kids, City Teachers" and "Teaching the Personal and the Political," Mr. Ayers wrote that teachers should be community organizers dedicated to provoking resistance to American racism and oppression. His preferred alternative? "I'm a radical, Leftist, small 'c' communist," Mr. Ayers said in an interview in Ron Chepesiuk's, "Sixties Radicals," at about the same time Mr. Ayers was forming CAC.

CAC translated Mr. Ayers's radicalism into practice. Instead of funding schools directly, it required schools to affiliate with "external partners," which actually got the money. Proposals from groups focused on math/science achievement were turned down. Instead CAC disbursed money through various far-left community organizers, such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (or Acorn).

Mr. Obama once conducted "leadership training" seminars with Acorn, and Acorn members also served as volunteers in Mr. Obama's early campaigns. External partners like the South Shore African Village Collaborative and the Dual Language Exchange focused more on political consciousness, Afrocentricity and bilingualism than traditional education. CAC's in-house evaluators comprehensively studied the effects of its grants on the test scores of Chicago public-school students. They found no evidence of educational improvement.

CAC also funded programs designed to promote "leadership" among parents. Ostensibly this was to enable parents to advocate on behalf of their children's education. In practice, it meant funding Mr. Obama's alma mater, the Developing Communities Project, to recruit parents to its overall political agenda. CAC records show that board member Arnold Weber was concerned that parents "organized" by community groups might be viewed by school principals "as a political threat." Mr. Obama arranged meetings with the Collaborative to smooth out Mr. Weber's objections.

The Daley documents show that Mr. Ayers sat as an ex-officio member of the board Mr. Obama chaired through CAC's first year. He also served on the board's governance committee with Mr. Obama, and worked with him to craft CAC bylaws. Mr. Ayers made presentations to board meetings chaired by Mr. Obama. Mr. Ayers spoke for the Collaborative before the board. Likewise, Mr. Obama periodically spoke for the board at meetings of the Collaborative.

The Obama campaign notes that Mr. Ayers attended only six board meetings, and stresses that the Collaborative lost its "operational role" at CAC after the first year. Yet the Collaborative was demoted to a strictly advisory role largely because of ethical concerns, since the projects of Collaborative members were receiving grants. CAC's own evaluators noted that project accountability was hampered by the board's reluctance to break away from grant decisions made in 1995. So even after Mr. Ayers's formal sway declined, the board largely adhered to the grant program he had put in place.

Mr. Ayers's defenders claim that he has redeemed himself with public-spirited education work. That claim is hard to swallow if you understand that he views his education work as an effort to stoke resistance to an oppressive American system. He likes to stress that he learned of his first teaching job while in jail for a draft-board sit-in. For Mr. Ayers, teaching and his 1960s radicalism are two sides of the same coin.

Mr. Ayers is the founder of the "small schools" movement (heavily funded by CAC), in which individual schools built around specific political themes push students to "confront issues of inequity, war, and violence." He believes teacher education programs should serve as "sites of resistance" to an oppressive system. (His teacher-training programs were also CAC funded.) The point, says Mr. Ayers in his "Teaching Toward Freedom," is to "teach against oppression," against America's history of evil and racism, thereby forcing social transformation.

The Obama campaign has cried foul when Bill Ayers comes up, claiming "guilt by association." Yet the issue here isn't guilt by association; it's guilt by participation. As CAC chairman, Mr. Obama was lending moral and financial support to Mr. Ayers and his radical circle. That is a story even if Mr. Ayers had never planted a single bomb 40 years ago.

whoopsy!

Barack's brother did a nice interview with the foreign press, I thought I'd pass it along:

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/poli...r_10099079.html

Quote:

I have heard that brotherhood is every man’s life and that blood is thicker than any known liquid. However, yesterday I trashed those suppositions when I met George Hussein Obama, the long lost brother of Senator Barack Obama who is eyeing the US presidency.

Senator Obama a wealthy American with roots in Kenya and even relatives here in Kenya should in-act be ashamed of ever attempting to become US president. It is disgraceful for what I encountered from the meeting with George Obama is way off from brotherhood and blood.

George Obama, a 26 year old man lives in Huruma estate in a dingy he calls a house. In fact its not a dingy but a single room with a foul stench of stale cigarette and fresh pot smoke. I was short of words; I was shocked and repulsive at the environment a brother to a man who might one day become the most powerful man in the world lives. Huruma is sprawling slum laden estate. Flies, dirty as they are, fly allover, women and children everywhere, dirty and unkempt wander here. Small enterprises and all sorts of bars, video watching rooms and dirty food joints are strewn along the streets.

I set off at around 2pm local time, I know no one here, except my friend Jack who was my right hand man. We were armed since the place is famous with crime. Here you find qualified muggers, gun-slinging criminals and teenagers, so if you are a simpleton, you won’t get out of this place in one piece.

Jack and I were at pains, we knew no one, so Jack devised a plan B, we were to pose as researchers doing research on micro-enterprises. It worked; first we talked to one carpenter, Oloo. The reason for approaching Oloo was that, we need someone who is from the Obama community. They are known as Luo’s. Oloo was cooperative. However, he gave us the wrong directions and we found ourselves hitting the road in slums and desolate households. Tire of meandering around in a dangerous place, we cautiously approached a firewood seller, Bryan.

“Hello boss!” Jack sauntered.

“Hello“, Bryan answered

“How’s work here…we are looking for guys like you who are doing business here…” I began, “We are doing research on micro-enterprises in Huruma”

So Bryan gave us a story, “Here, people live desperately, we buy water and food. Everything is expensive here but we try.. People don’t use gas or kerosene, they use charcoal and firewood, that’s why I am selling firewood“, he told us.

“I hear Barack Obama’s brother lives here too. What does he do…?”

Bryan was reserved and a it distant though he told us a little. “Yes, I have heard of him. But I here he moved out after the media guys began tracking him almost every hour. He left this place for a more decent place. The media people said he was living in a slum and it was bad for his brother’s candidacy, so he moved out…”

“Do you have an idea where he used to live?” I asked jokingly

“Hmmm..!!i here he was living at Buffalo, he has friends there I guess…” Bryan said dismissively.

“Well Bryan, thanks for your time, we hope we can find Mr. Obama, so he can tell us if he too is a business man“, I summed up the interview and told Jack we get lost.

We talked to cobblers, carpenters and chemists; no one gave us the right direction until we found an old man who sells water here. We talked about our project very convincingly until he believed it. He showed some fellas seated in a group. “One of them is the owner of the barber shop you see there, he knows a lot, since he knows so many criminals and people here, am sure he could be of help“.

Its Jack who approached the gang, they were cooperative and we tipped them handsomely. The guy gave Jack a detailed description of George Obama, “he lives in Huruma near St Francis Hospital!”

Again we hit the road, there was no where to refuel here, but we had covered miles walking to and fro and deep inside the slum. I checked the time and found out it was hitting 5.30pm, the wee hours of the evening and the most dangerous for strangers here. We parked the car in a petrol station and began our walk again.

We found the hospital, a humble establishment for saving lives. We asked around, one man, a pistol tucked on his jeans showed us where we could locate Obama. We tried, but no one was home. We saw a little girl; she too showed us the same neighborhood. Along this neighborhood, they are selling fish, on the side of streets. The fish stinks, and hordes of flies are flying over the fish…just disgusting, horrid and completely repulsive!!!

I saw all sorts of foods being sold the same way, flies and just in such a horrid state. I didn’t want believe a big name like Obama can be here. We met one Rastafarian, we tipped him and he told us Obama is one of his clients. He peddles bhang/pot, he led us to George Obama’s den.

Obama, is a tall, slim and kind of reserved young man. He asked us what we wanted. It told him curtly. He said he can’t speak without being paid. I looked at Jack and he was perspiring.

“How much?“, I asked

“$1000!“, Came the hoarse and rude shock of a reply

“Let’s get the hell out of here!!” I told Jack..

“Wait!!” The Rasta man shot back “I will negotiate”

The Rasta man went with Obama and they negotiated and came back 15 minutes later. We were offered $200 for 5 minutes, period!!

I agreed and paid half and promised to pay the rest after the interview. He led us to the dingy, pot smoke filled room.

Inside we found four other people, two women one almost naked and two young men. All were enjoying a quiet smoke of pot. In fact we had just interrupted Gearoge Obama from what appeared to be an orgy and a pot session.

Obama said he supports his brothers presidency. He confessed that he barely communicates with him but hopes to meet him soon. Also that, he doest get any kind of support from the multimillionaire Barrack Obama.

George was emphatic that he is used to Huruma life which he called ghetto life. He is into drugs and all sorts of vices, one of his bodyguards, (the two men we found in the room) said he has tried all drugs you can mention. He eats whats found there and that he has been earning from the tons of journalists coming to see him. He boasted at a time when he said that he turned away a CNN crew which was offering him $1500 which is equivalent to kshs 100, 000.

It was incredible and we did our five minutes as we got intoxicated with the foul smoke of pot and cigarette. The George Obama associates were enjoying it and also drank some cheap gin and coke.

We left in rush, choking but shocked, is it really a brother to a man contending for the American presidency?

USA Today: big fires are getting bigger, small fires are getting smaller

MoveOn.org pressures Congress to stop fighting fire and bring firemen home

Reid: The war on fire is lost

Pelosi: The number of fires has gone up since we started fighting fire

Kerry: If you don't do well in school you'll get stuck fighting fire in California

NY Times: Fighting fire creates even more fires

LA Times drops term "wild" describing fire, uses "undocumented" fire instead

Originally Posted By: rex

I'd laugh but it's pretty damn obvious that Obama means that.

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

Barack's brother did a nice interview with the foreign press, I thought I'd pass it along:

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/poli...r_10099079.html

Quote:

Obama can't even keep own his brother out of poverty and people think he's going to help the American people?

Wow. This guy is positively Orwellian:

On Tuesday (September 23), CBS affiliate KMOV reported that Obama had enlisted a number of Missouri law enforcement officials, including local sheriffs and prosecutors, “to target anyone who lies or runs a misleading television ad [against Obama] during the presidential campaign."
[H]is campaign “also sent ‘threatening’ letters to several news agencies in Pennsylvania and Ohio demanding they stop airing ads exposing Obama's gun stance.
“Obama’s lawyers twice demanded the Department of Justice investigate and prosecute the American Issues Project, its officers, board of directors, and donors,” for running ads critical of Obama’s ties to “unrepentant domestic terrorist William Ayers.”
Obama himself has also urged tough measures against people who fail to back him, telling a group of supporters in Nevada recently to “argue with and…get in [the] face(s)” of Republican and independent voters.

In other words:

Originally Posted By: G-Man

WAAAAA!!!

Obama isn't letting us swift boat him lie we did John Kerry in 2004.

It's NOT FAIR. Without smears, fear tactics, slander, and innuendo, we might have to run on our actual record.

Democrats aern't supposed to fight back!!!!

WAAAA!!!

I think we should all take note of the fact that whomod now claims to believe that lying about political figures should be punished by jail.

We all recall, vividly, that whomod manufactured a story (and even faked an AP article) about President Bush ordering the National Guard to shoot black people leaving New Orleans.

Under his own standard, therefore, whomod should face criminal prosecution.

As such, I would ask that whomod turn himself in to the authorities. He can probably call the same cops he contacted to have rex arrested. They would most like appreciate the actual bust, as opposed to investigating 'rex stardust.'

that debate broke whomod again, didnt it?

compared to his usual level of brokenness? possibly.

Again?

Show me when he's been 'fixed'

well shortly after he was comitted to the hospital by the police for making insane calls about a guy named "rex" threatening his daughter named "whomod's daughter" he seemed to do ak for awhile, i can only assume he is off his meds again....

Good point, BSAMS.

But, in any event, back to the Obamessiah....

Over at National Review, Mark Steyn sums this all up perfectly: "For all the entirely false rumors about Mayor Palin banning books from the Wasilla library, the only candidate using agencies of the state to suppress views with which he disagrees remains Barack Obama."

Missouri Governor Matt Blunt responds:

St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch, St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce, Jefferson County Sheriff Glenn Boyer, and Obama and the leader of his Missouri campaign Senator Claire McCaskill have attached the stench of police state tactics to the Obama-Biden campaign.

What Senator Obama and his helpers are doing is scandalous beyond words, the party that claims to be the party of Thomas Jefferson is abusing the justice system and offices of public trust to silence political criticism with threats of prosecution and criminal punishment... Enlisting Missouri law enforcement to intimidate people and kill free debate is reminiscent of the Sedition Acts - not a free society.

the Missouri Gov. better watch out Barrack might send Bil Ayers out that way!

Yeah, the Gov. might find his home the victim of a fraternity prank.

if it was during the 60's it would be activism.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

As an aside, if obama is elected President, will you finally get off your ass and decry the totalitarian powers given to him by the Patriot Act?

Just curious.....

Originally Posted By: whomod

As an aside, if obama is elected President, will you finally get off your ass and decry the totalitarian powers given to him by the Patriot Act?

Just curious.....

Will he use those powers to fight terror or merely to continue to censor his opponents?

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Originally Posted By: whomod

As an aside, if obama is elected President, will you finally get off your ass and decry the totalitarian powers given to him by the Patriot Act?

Just curious.....

Will he use those powers to fight terror or merely to continue to censor his opponents?

Who did he censor or are you just making things up again? The Stalin comparison is a gross exageration & one that would apply to McCain also ...

Quote:

But a review of McCain’s own truth squads shows he has a district attorney from New Mexico and the South Carolina attorney general ready to respond to misleading ads from Obama and Democrats in their respective states.
...

news-leader.com

Originally Posted By: whomod

Originally Posted By: the G-man

As an aside, if obama is elected President, will you finally get off your ass and decry the totalitarian powers given to him by the Patriot Act?

Just curious.....

why would he need to wiretap terrorists when he launched his political career in the home of one? couldnt he just call Bill Ayers up and ask him what the latest plan is?

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

[...But a review of McCain’s own truth squads shows he has a district attorney from New Mexico and the South Carolina attorney general ready to respond to misleading ads from Obama and Democrats in their respective states...

Did McCain ask the DoJ to investigate his critics the way Obama did?

Are the attorneys supporting McCain going on television and claiming that negative ads violate the law the way that the Obama supporters did?

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Where exactly did the Obama people do what you alleged?

Quote:

Despite having law enforcement officials on the truth squad, none of them have publicly said they will invoke their official powers to enforce facts about Obama’s record.

The controversy was sparked by a KMOV televion report featuring St. Louis County Attorney Bob McCulloch and St. Louis City Attorney Jennifer Joyce saying they would respond to paid advertising twisting Obama’s record (the story was picked up by influential right-wing blogger Matt Drudge).

They never said they would invoke their powers, but Republicans say just attaching their law enforcement titles to their names for political reasons gives off a perception of a police state.
...

Do you have anything to back up your allegations?

Though having eyes they do not see.
Though having ears they do not hear, or understand.

It's "funny," but the reporter who originally broke the Missouri story is now backtracking slightly. You'd almost think, oh, I dunno...a "truth squad" got to him.

As for the fact that Obama asked the Department of Justice to investigate other critics, that's been reported in various places, including the Politico:

Sen. Barack Obama has launched an all-out effort to block a Republican billionaire’s efforts to tie him to domestic and foreign terrorists in a wave of negative television ads.

Obama’s campaign has written the Department of Justice demanding a criminal investigation of the “American Issues Project,” the vehicle through which Dallas investor Harold Simmons is financing the advertisements. The Obama campaign — and tens of thousands of supporters — also is pressuring television networks and affiliates to reject the ads. The effort has met with some success: CNN and Fox News are not airing the attacks.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Sen. Barack Obama has launched an all-out effort to block a Republican billionaire’s efforts to tie him to domestic and foreign terrorists in a wave of negative television ads.

Obama’s campaign has written the Department of Justice demanding a criminal investigation of the “American Issues Project,” the vehicle through which Dallas investor Harold Simmons is financing the advertisements. The Obama campaign — and tens of thousands of supporters — also is pressuring television networks and affiliates to reject the ads. The effort has met with some success: CNN and Fox News are not airing the attacks.

Thanks G-man, the Stalin comparison is still way over-exagerated. Obama is also well within his rights as an American to fight the ad legally. As noted both candidates have similar people on their "truth squads". While I think the ad is garbage politics it does look like it's legal though & Obama probably would have been smarter not trying to fight it via the DOJ. On the other hand Obama supporters also have the freedom to call tv stations airing the ads.

Do you really want a precedent set where politicians can threaten critics with criminal prosecution for "lying"?

Michael Moore and half of Air America could end up in a prison on that theory.

But, more realistically, the average citizen could feel a 'chilling effect' where he or she just decides its easier to keep their mouth shut than risk the wrath of the federal government for speaking their opinion.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Do you really want a precedent set where politicians can threaten critics with criminal prosecution for "lying"?

...

Maybe you should ask McCain...

Quote:

McCain Camp Knocks Down Enquirer's Palin Rumor
(CBS)From CBS News' John Bentley:

(ST. PAUL, MINN.) – John McCain’s campaign threatened legal action against the National Enquirer today for running a story about McCain’s running mate, Sarah Palin, allegedly having an affair with her husband’s business partner.

“The smearing of the Palin family must end. The allegations contained on the cover of the National Enquirer insinuating that Gov. Palin had an extramarital affair are categorically false. It is a vicious lie,” said McCain senior adviser Steve Schmidt.

“The efforts of the media and tabloids to destroy this fine and accomplished public servant are a disgrace. The American people will reject it.”
...

CBS News

witness the retarded moral equivalency that made mem famous.

how is there ANY similarity between legitimate depiction of a candidate's true political convictions - and correspondingly their likely actions once elected - and slanderous gossip about someone's personal life?

I don't know about America, but in many European countries we have all these slander and libel laws. Laws intended to ensure that people can defend themselves against what they consider untruthful articles, newsstories, etc.

However. If you knowingly and intentionally put yourself "out there" for election to a political office or simply gather for yourself a lot of press you lose the protection of these laws.
Technically you're still protected but you're unlikely to win a case because you yourself chose to open yourself to public scrutiny and criticism.

That aside I still think that americans are making this more about the person than the issues.

Originally Posted By: Chant

That's not particularly different than the US law in this area. And that's why Obama's actions against his critics are particularly invidious. He he trying to 'rewrite' longstanding US law on free speech to stifle his critics.

Records Reveal Baracks' Ties to Radical:

While Barack Obama has long downplayed his connection to Bill Ayers, a co-founder of the violent Weather Underground radical group, new documents show the two worked much more closely together in starting an educational foundation than has been previously known.

Recently released board-meeting minutes for the Chicago Annenberg Challenge show the two were present together at least six times in 1995 as the foundation's members discussed how to organize and operate the project, which was Ayers' brainchild.

Obama has always acknowledged he and Ayers both worked at the foundation, but has insisted they never had more than a passing acquaintance.

Oopsie. No wonder he has to threatent people bringing this up.

Originally Posted By: Captain Sammitch

witness the retarded moral equivalency that made mem famous.

G-man's arguement is one of principle, that even lies are worth free speach protection. I already know you feel that your entitled to say whatever you want but that's not what the arguement is. G-man was talking about candidates & what a chilling effect it would have on free speach if they threatened legal action. I presented an example where McCain has done precisely that.

As noted above, there's a difference-legal, political and even moral-between discussing a civil lawsuit for money damages and threatening a criminal prosecution.

no you didnt.

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

no you didnt.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

As noted above, there's a difference-legal, political and even moral-between discussing a civil lawsuit for money damages and threatening a criminal prosecution.

If someone has slandered or libeled you take them to court, if your are trying to oppress someone who is speaking against you, threaten them with jail.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

As noted above, there's a difference-legal, political and even moral-between discussing a civil lawsuit for money damages and threatening a criminal prosecution.

Hmmn, perhaps at this point I should ask if there are any further exceptions you have on this if there are say any other instances McCain has tried to regulate what a campaign can or cannot do. $;\)$

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Originally Posted By: the G-man

As noted above, there's a difference-legal, political and even moral-between discussing a civil lawsuit for money damages and threatening a criminal prosecution.

Hmmn, perhaps at this point I should ask if there are any further exceptions you have on this if there are say any other instances McCain has tried to regulate what a campaign can or cannot do. $;\)$

you should ask why Obama isnt suing them for libel/slander. i'll tell you why, even though you dont want to believe it, because if he did he would have to prove in court that these are lies, which of course they arent. it's easier to suppress free speech with fear monger tactics than through lawful channels.

I've never been a fan of McCain's campaign finance reform proposals and I've said so consistently over the years. Still, an across the board ban is not the same thing as trying to jail your critics.

Originally Posted By: whomod

Still playing politics in the face of economic disaster.

Leading conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer pretty much threw in 'the white flag of surrender' this morning. He did a little slash and burn first, trying to mislead his readers into thinking that Obama has only been working at the federal level for 19 months - cute, but a lie - but still, even Krauthammer had to then concede that Obama is probably going to win. Now, don't get your hopes too high - we can still lose this. But the fact that people like Krauthammer are already publicly lamenting McCain's loss, one month before the election, is a very good sign. It means Republicans are pretty much convinced it's over. And that's golden.

So agree that Obama has very questionable associations with terrorists and racists? Or did you miss that and just portray the column the way youd like?

we already told you this yesterday comrade whomod. congrats and be gentle to us.

my garage door sticks sometimes in the summer you have to give it a little push....please tell whatever homeless family Furer Obama is sending to live there that bit of info.

you act like if FDR wasn't a Democrat, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton wearn't Democrats or that we've NEVER EVER had a Democrat in office before and you act as if a "Democrat" winning an election means that communism is taking over.

if it says anything it's that you guys have fallen hook line and sinker to all the crap the extreme right shovels to the point where you think Democrats truly are some enemy presence.

I know i know, it's in jest.... But really, some part of you believes this nonsense.

I don't have a problem with Democrats.....of all they guys on the list only Carter was a horrible President. It's Obama I have a problem with comrade......he is a fascist who plans to redistribute wealth....seize power from the people .....and stop all those who get in his way. I know this will mean jail for me and my family but I must go there with a clear conscience.

oh and in the summer my upstairs gets extremely hot because of poor insulation in the attic. They will have to keep the AC on at 72.

I voted for the Dem Governor last time in the Ohio election, I hope that the Great Leader will commute some of my sentence.

It's really sad that a man as young as Obama is going senile, forgetting things he's done and said, how many states are in the nation, unable to complete sentences. whomod told me that things like that are old age and losing one's mind when McCain does it, so it must be true with Obama as well. It has to be. whomod would never hold a Republican up to a completely different standard than a Democrat.

The Obama SS is training

Originally Posted By: PJP

The Obama SS is training

Quote:

There are elections in America now. Along came a black citizen of Kenyan African origins, a Muslim, who had studied in an Islamic school in Indonesia. His name is Obama. All the people in the Arab and Islamic world and in Africa applauded this man. They welcomed him and prayed for him and for his success, and they may have even been involved in legitimate contribution campaigns to enable him to win the American presidency. But we were taken by surprise when our African Kenyan brother, who is an American national, made statements that shocked all his supporters in the Arab world, in Africa, and in the Islamic world. We hope that this is merely an elections “clearance sale,” as they say in Egypt – in other words, merely an elections lie. As you know, this is the farce of elections – a person lies and lies to people, just so that they will vote for him, and afterwards, when they say to him: :”You promised this and that,” he says: “No, this was just elections propaganda.” This is the farce of democracy for you. He says: “This was propaganda, and you thought I was being serious. I was fooling you to get your votes.”

It's not an endorsement from Bill Ayers but it's nice.

Considering that McCain's last desperate strategy is to appease the likes of bsams and launch into smears against Obama, the kind that bsams embraces, it's sure refreshing to see that Obama is already ahead of the game and has a response ready.

i was expecting the McCain smears to start around Monday but I'm told they started running ads trying to link Obama with Ayers, yesterday.

Personally i think that given the fact that the economy is front and center right now in peoples minds, the attempt to try to shift the conversation to superfluous smears that have NOTHING to do with the day to day concerns of Americans, is going to backfire on McCain. I'm guessing it's going to be seen as a last ditch attempt to distract people from what's going on in the economy and will look unbecoming of a guy running on his personal "honor".

George Will made an excellent point this morning on ABC's THIS WEEK. Americans are about to get a mailing that is going to do wonders for Obama's campaign. They're going to be getting their quarterly statements from their 401ks and their pension plans. And it ain't going to be pretty. John McCain wants to change the subject away from the economy. He wants to pull the plug on the number one discussion, the number one issue of importance to every American, because he doesn't know much about economics. And Sarah Palin? Yeah. Imagine Sarah Palin being in charge of your 401k.

Originally Posted By: whomod

Considering that McCain's last desperate strategy is to appease the likes of bsms and launch into smears against Obama,

What the hell is a bsms?

Originally Posted By: rex

Originally Posted By: whomod

Considering that McCain's last desperate strategy is to appease the likes of bsms and launch into smears against Obama,

What the hell is a bsms?

It's called a typo, you fucking dipshit.

they're common on the inernet.

Originally Posted By: whomod

Originally Posted By: rex

Originally Posted By: whomod

Considering that McCain's last desperate strategy is to appease the likes of bsms and launch into smears against Obama,

What the hell is a bsms?

It's called a typo, you fucking dipshit.

I'm not the one who can't spell.

I'm also not the one who's voting for a black guy so I don't get beat up by the people I handout welfare checks to.

John McCain doesn't have to appease me, I'm a patriot.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23643866-5013948,00.html

Quote:

POLITICAL campaigning necessarily produces a wide gap between words and deeds. This is the price of bringing together a broad coalition with disparate interests. All effective politicians are at times authentically insincere or sincerely inauthentic. Exaggeration, embellishment, overstatement, doubletalk, deception and lies presented as metaphorical truths are the order of the day.

So, of course, Barack Obama is no different. He exaggerates the credit he deserves for a limited piece of ethics-reform legislation. He embellishes when he presents himself as having had a consistent record on the Iraq war when in fact he's done a fair amount of zigzagging.

He engages in doubletalk when, on free trade and Iraq, he tells the yokels one thing and the policy people another. He overstates when he presents his minimal accomplishments in the Illinois Senate as proof of his stature. He engages in systematic deception when he says he doesn't take money from lobbyists.

He presents a lie as metaphorical truth when he says it was the 1965 bloody Sunday attacks on peaceful civil rights protesters in Selma, Alabama, that inspired his parents to marry. (They had been married for years already.)

All of this is unappealing, but also unexceptional. What makes it different is that there's not just a gap but a chasm between his actions and his professed principles, which would normally kill a candidacy. And because his deeds are so few, the disparity is all the more salient.

Obama, far more than the others, is the "judge me by what I say and not what I do" candidate. He wants to be the conscience of the country without necessarily having one himself.

The disparity between Obama's rhetoric of transcendence and his conventional Chicago racial and patronage politics is a leitmotiv of his political career. In New York, politicians (Al Sharpton excepted) are usually forced to pay at least passing tribute to universal principles and the ideal of clean government.

But Chicago, until recently a city of Lithuanians, blacks and Poles governed by Irishmen on the patronage model of the Italian Christian Democrats, is the city of political and cultural tribalism.

Blacks adapted to the tribalism and the corrupt patronage politics that accompanied it. Historically, one of the ironies of Chicago politics is that the clean-government candidates have been the most racist, while those most open to black aspirations have been the most corrupt. When the young Jesse Jackson received his first audience with then mayor Richard Daley Sr - impervious to the universalism of the civil rights movement in its glory - offered him a job as a toll-taker. Jackson thought the offer demeaning but in time adapted.

In Chicago, racial reform has meant that the incumbent mayor, Richard M. Daley, has been cutting blacks in on the loot. Louis Farrakhan, Jackson, Jeremiah Wright and Obama are all, in part, the expression of that politics. It hasn't always worked for Chicago, which, under the pressure of increasing taxes to pay for bloated government, is losing its middle class. But it has served the city's political class admirably.

For all his Camelot-like rhetoric, Obama is a product, in significant measure, of the political culture that Chicago Tribune columnist John Kass described: "We've had our chief of detectives sent to prison for running the Outfit's (the mob's) jewellery-heist ring. And we've had white guys with Outfit connections get $100 million in affirmative action contracts from their drinking buddy, Mayor Richard Daley ... That's the Chicago way."

At no point did Obama, the would-be saviour of US politics, challenge this corruption, except for face-saving gestures as a legislator. He was, in his own Harvard law way, a product of it.

Why, you may ask, did the operators of Chicago's political machine support Obama? Part of the answer was given long ago by the then boss of Chicago, Jake Arvey.

When asked why he made Adlai Stevenson - a man, as with Obama, more famous for speeches than for accomplishments - his party's gubernatorial candidate in 1948, Arvey is said to have replied that he needed to "perfume the ticket".

Obama first played a perfuming role as a state senator. His mentor, Emil Jones, the machine-made president of the Senate, allowed him to sponsor a minor ethics bill. In return, Obama made sure to send plenty of pork to Jones's district. When asked about pork-barrel spending, Jones famously replied: "Some call it pork; I call it steak."

Obama repaid the generosity. When he had a chance to back clean Democratic candidates for president of the Cook County board of supervisors and Illinois governor, he stayed with the allies of the Outfit. The gubernatorial candidate he backed, Rod Blagojevich, is under federal investigation, in part because of his relationship with Tony Rezko, the man who helped Obama buy his house.

The Chicago way has delivered politically for Obama even this year. Ninety per cent of his popular-vote lead over Hillary Clinton comes from Illinois, and two-thirds of that 90 per cent comes just from Cook County.

Some of this advantage came from the efforts of Obama's political ally, the flame-throwing reverend James Meeks, a political force in his own right. Meeks, who mocks black moderates as "niggers", is an Illinois state senator, the pastor of a mega-church and a strong supporter of Jackson's powerful political operation, which has put its vote-pulling muscle squarely behind the Obama campaign. It was only with Obama's remark about bitter, white, working-class, small-town voters that we saw his difficulties appealing beyond the machine's reach. He won his US Senate race in 2004 not only because his opponents self-destructed but also because of the machine's ability to deliver votes.

In Pennsylvania, he has lacked such assistance and the campaigning has not gone nearly so well. First, Obama pretended to be a tenpin bowler and scored a 37. Then, appearing before a supposedly closed San Francisco audience, he complained that small-town Pennsylvanians "cling to guns or religion or antipathy towards people who aren't like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment, as a way to explain their frustrations". This is the man who belongs to a church built on bitterness, rancour and conspiratorial fear. During the Wright affair, Obama not only repeatedly lied about what he knew and when but violated the spirit of the civil rights movement in its mid-1960s glory.

When, as a young man, I was on the periphery of the movement, there was an unwritten rule that if people told racist jokes or speakers engaged in defamatory rhetoric, you needed to register your immediate disapproval by confronting the speaker or ostentatiously walking out.

Wright's "black theology" is essentially a Christianised version of Malcolm X's ideology of hate.

But for 20 years, Obama, who had planned to run for mayor of Chicago, kept silent about the close, if at times competitive, relationship between Wright, whose 8000-member mega-church gave him his political base, and Farrakhan. His ambition overrode his moral integrity.

As part of his "black value system", Wright attacked whites for their "middle classism", materialism, and "greed in a world of need". Obama sounded similar notes in his recent address at the Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art in New York, in which he laid the blame for the sub-prime mortgage crisis on those who had "embraced an ethic of greed, corner cutting and inside dealing".

But that's exactly what Obama did in buying his luxurious house. Given the choice of purchasing a less expensive home or getting into bed with his fundraiser-cum-slumlord-cum-fixer Rezko, Obama chose the latter. Then again, the oppressed of Trinity United Church of Christ are building Wright a $US1.6 million ($1.7million), 960sqm home complete with four-car garage, whirlpool and butler's pantry. This house, which backs on to a golf course, is to sit in Tinley Park, a gated community in southwest Chicago that is 93 per cent white.

The Obamas' charitable giving is consistent with Wright's talking Left while living Right. Obama and his wife are quite well off. They had an estimated income of $US1.2 million from 2000 to 2004. But the man who preaches compassion and mutuality gave all of 1 per cent of that income to charity during those years. Most of that went to Wright's church.

There is a similar chasm when it comes to Obama's claim to post-partisanship. His achievements in reaching out to moderate voters are largely proleptic. But words are not deeds and, although Obama has few concrete achievements to his name, his voting record hardly suggests an ability to rise above Left v Right.

In the Illinois Senate, he made a specialty of voting present, but after his first two years in the US Senate, National Journal's analysis of rollcall votes found that he was more liberal than 86 per cent of his colleagues. His voting record has only moved further Left since then. The liberal Americans for Democratic Action gives him a 97.5 per cent rating, while National Journal ranks him the most liberal member of the Senate. By comparison, Clinton, who occasionally votes with the Republicans, ranks 16th.

Obama is such a down-the-line partisan that, according to Congressional Quarterly, in the past two years he has voted with the Democrats more often than did the party's majority leader, Harry Reid.

Likewise, for all his talk of post-racialism, Obama has played, with the contrivance of the press, traditional South Side Chicago racial politics. The day after his surprise loss in New Hampshire, and in anticipation of the South Carolina primary, with its heavily black electorate, South Side congressman Jesse Jackson Jr - Obama's national co-chairman - appeared on MSNBC to argue, in a prepared statement, that Clinton's teary moment on the campaign trail reflected her deep-seated racism.

"Those tears," said Jackson, "have to be analysed ... They have to be looked at very, very carefully in light of Katrina, in light of other things that Mrs Clinton did not cry for, particularly as we head to South Carolina, where 45 per cent of African-Americans will participate in the Democratic contest ... We saw tears in response to her appearance, so that her appearance brought her to tears, but not hurricane Katrina, not other issues."

In other words, whites who are at odds with, or who haven't delivered for, Chicago politicians can be obliquely accused of racism on the flimsiest basis, but pillars of local black politics such as Wright, with his exclusivist racial theology, are beyond criticism.

Liberals love Obama's talk of taking on powerful financial interests. But here , too, he is rather slippery. In his Cooper Union speech, he denounced in no uncertain terms the "special interests" of people on Wall Street (who are well represented among his campaign donors).

He, of course, had an opportunity to push for repealing the privileged tax treatment of private equity firms when that question was before Charles Grassley's Senate subcommittee - but he simply made a pro-forma statement in favour of doing so and disappeared.

Nationally, as in Chicago, Obama the self-styled reformer never crosses swords with any of his putative foes. To pick another example, he has attacked "predatory" sub-prime lenders while taking roughly $US1.3 million in contributions from companies in that line of business.

Obama is the internationalist opposed to free trade. He is the friend of race-baiters who thinks Don Imus deserved to be fired. He is the proponent of courage in the face of powerful interests who lacked the courage to break with Wright (until Wednesday). He is the man who would lead our efforts against terrorism yet was friendly with Bill Ayers, the unrepentant 1960s terrorist. He is the post-racialist supporter of affirmative action. He is the enemy of Big Oil who takes money from executives at Exxon-Mobil, Shell and British Petroleum.

Obama has, in a sense, represented a new version of the invisible man, a candidate whose colour obscures his failings.

But so far, the wild discrepancy between Obama's words and his deeds, and between his enormous ambitions and his minimal accomplishments, doesn't seem to have fazed his core supporters, who apparently suffer from a severe case of cognitive dissonance. Like cultists who rededicate themselves when the cult's prophecies have been falsified, his fans redouble their delusions in the face of his obvious hypocrisy.

That is because Obama, in the imagination of many of his fans in the public and the press, is both a deduction from what was - the failures of the Bush administration and the scandals of the Clintons - and an expression of what should be.

The ideal, the aspiration, is so rhetorically appealing that it has been assumed to be true. They remind one of Woodrow Wilson's answer when asked if his plan for a League of Nations was practicable: "If it won't work, it must be made to work."

Chicago [url=Obama grant being probed]Sun-Times[/url]:

A $100,000 state grant for a botanic garden in Englewood that then-state Sen. Barack Obama awarded in 2001 to a group headed by a onetime campaign volunteer is now under investigation by the Illinois attorney general amid new questions, prompted by Chicago Sun-Times reports, about whether the money might have been misspent.

The garden was never built. And now state records obtained by the Sun-Times show $65,000 of the grant money went to the wife of Kenny B. Smith, the Obama 2000 congressional campaign volunteer who heads the Chicago Better Housing Association, which was in charge of the project for the blighted South Side neighborhood.

Smith wrote another $20,000 in grant-related checks to K.D. Contractors, a construction company that his wife, Karen D. Smith, created five months after work on the garden was supposed to have begun, records show. K.D. is no longer in business.

What's the big deal? It's just a little public corruption. It isn't like he tried to get a crooked cop who tasered a kid off the street or anything.

Originally Posted By: rex

I'm also not the one who's voting for a black guy so I don't get beat up by the people I handout welfare checks to.

Ok Rex.. I'll play.

Who do I hand out welfare checks to?

Black people?

Politico: Obama to pre-empt McCain assault by launching ads calling McCain 'erratic'

Ooooohhhhh.... maverick temper gonna go boom!

Quote:

Branding his opponent as “erratic in a crisis,” Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) is preempting plans by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) to portray him as having sinister connections to controversial Chicagoans.

Obama officials call it political jujitsu – turning the attacks back on the attacker.

McCain officials had said early in the weekend that they plan to begin advertising after Tuesday’s debate that will tie Obama to convicted money launderer Tony Rezko and former Weathermen radical William Ayers.

But Obama isn’t waiting to respond. His campaign is going up Monday on national cable stations with a scathing ad saying: “Three quarters of a million jobs lost this year. Our financial system in turmoil. And John McCain? Erratic in a crisis. Out of touch on the economy. No wonder his campaign wants to change the subject.

“Turn the page on the financial crisis by launching dishonorable, dishonest ‘assaults’ against Barack Obama. Struggling families can't turn the page on this economy, and we can't afford another president who is this out of touch.”

Then Obama says: “I'm Barack Obama and I approved this message.”
.....

“We think the McCain campaign made a huge error by telling the press that their strategy was to distract from the most important issue facing voters,” a senior Obama official said. “Every attack going forward will be easy to characterize for what it is – an attempt to distract from the Bush-McCain economic record."

This is rather brilliant by Obama. Every time McCain launches a negative ad, a negative attack, that has nothing to do with the economy, Obama can then see "see, I told you so - the man has no interest in talking about the economic crisis." This is going to be fun.

How exactly does pointing out Obama's involvement with ACORN qualify McCain as not having an interest in the economy's downturn? Considering they're the ones who motivated the rise in approval of sub-prime mortgages, according to the social status of people who needed them, I'd say the matter of Obama's associations are highly significant in regards to his economic credibility.

Originally Posted By: whomod

Originally Posted By: rex

I'm also not the one who's voting for a black guy so I don't get beat up by the people I handout welfare checks to.

Ok Rex.. I'll play.

Who do I hand out welfare checks to?

Black people?

Do I have to spell it out for you? I would but we all know how you are at spelling.

Originally Posted By: rex

Originally Posted By: whomod

Originally Posted By: rex

I'm also not the one who's voting for a black guy so I don't get beat up by the people I handout welfare checks to.

Ok Rex.. I'll play.

Who do I hand out welfare checks to?

Black people?

Do I have to spell it out for you? I would but we all know how you are at spelling.

Yes. you do.
Spell it out for me.

What's wrong with black people?

What'll happen with black people if Obama wins?

Do you hate black people?

broken

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,433701,00.html

American Author of Anti-Obama Book Detained in Kenya
Tuesday, October 07, 2008

NAIROBI, Kenya — The American author of a book critical of Barack Obama is being detained in Kenya while his immigration status is checked, a senior immigration official said Tuesday.

Jerome Corsi, who wrote "The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality," was being held at immigration headquarters in Nairobi after police picked him up from his hotel Tuesday, said Carlos Maluta, a senior immigration official in charge of investigations.

"We still haven't decided what to do with him," Maluta told The Associated Press.

He said Corsi did not have a temporary work permit needed to conduct business in Kenya.

Obama is wildly popular in Kenya. His father, whom he barely knew, was a Kenyan economist.

Corsi's book claims the Illinois senator is a dangerous, radical candidate for president and includes innuendoes and false rumors — that he was raised a Muslim, attended a radical, black church and is secretly seething with "black rage."

Obama is a Christian who attended Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, and his campaign picks apart the book's claims on the Obama campaign's rumor-fighting Web site, FightTheSmears.com.

According to a press release announcing Corsi's visit, he arrived last week at the invitation of Christian missionaries concerned about the rise of Islam. Corsi was planning to file daily dispatches all week, the statement said.

Obama's Kenyan uncle, Said Obama, said he was unaware of Corsi's detention.

I have long noticed Obama's black rage. It is more evident in his scum cunt wife Michelle but he has shown it too. I suspect if McCain kicks his ass tonight at the debate we will be seeing it more.

I know whomod likes to say it is a race thing and we are fearful of a black president but I can assure you if this was J C Watts running or Michael Steele or Colin Powell I and everyone else would not be saying these things.

Oh and just in case you didn't know this already whomod. Blacks hate hispanics.

Originally Posted By: PJP

Quote:

...false rumors — that he was raised a Muslim, attended a radical, black church and is secretly seething with "black rage."

How is that he attended a radical, black church a "false rumor."

Did Corsi fabricate Rev. Wright?

A USA airplane was forced to land in Iran after violating Iranian airspace. No details are available.....it just happened.

I guess we know what they will be talking about tonight.

Why doesn't the press just save us all the trouble and tell us that Obama won the debate now, so we can all watch "the Shield" instead?

Originally Posted By: PJP

A USA airplane was forced to land in Iran after violating Iranian airspace. No details are available.....it just happened.

Iran knows that Obama has it in the bag and they are ready for start kicking around Black Carter just like they did the original thirty years ago.

the Pentagon is denying the reports coming out of Iran so who knows.

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

with Obama there is a 17 yr relationship of Rezko helping out Obama. He even helped Obama buy a home. They were friends & neighbors.

Prosecutors Seek to Delay Sentencing of Tony Rezko:

Federal prosecutors moved Monday to delay indefinitely the sentencing of convicted fundraiser Antoin "Tony" Rezko, sending their strongest hint yet that he is ready to spill his political secrets.

The filing asks for a postponement while prosecutors and defense attorneys "engage in discussions that could affect their sentencing postures."

Speculation has simmered for weeks that the key fundraiser for Gov. Rod Blagojevich and Sen. Barack Obama was whispering what he knows about corruption in Illinois government to federal prosecutors in hopes of getting a lighter sentence.

Honestly. It's sort of sad when the best you have against Obama is some guy that used to be a domestic terrorist almost a half century ago that later went legit and became a college professor and sat on a charity board with Obama discussing ...um charity work and on the other side you have some guy who helped the Obama's buy a house who also happened to be involved in unsavory business practices on the side that really have absolutely NOTHING to do with Barack Obama buying a house.

All this crap that the right keeps peddling doesn't get any traction because the media already looked at it and pretty much unanimously, (well except for the usual suspects on the far right) concluded there was no there, there.

I think you were hiding two years ago and not posting here but I had no problem condemning Republicans or Democrats who were in bed with Abramoff.

Maybe this is nothing but you must admit that, if a Republican had a criminal financier assisting him in purchasing a home (or in the case of AK Senator Ted Stevens, remodeling one), especially in this time of rampant white collar corruption, you'd be at least wondering if there was a quid pro quo.

Hey G,

which year was it that the Dems were supposed take something like 12 seats in the Senate and like 20 or 30 in the House and they ended up losing seats in both even though the polls showed them winning easily......was it 2004 or 2006?

I remember pissing in my pants laughing watching Terry McCauliffe try and spin his way out of that one.

2002, actually, if I recall correctly.

Originally Posted By: whomod

Honestly. It's sort of sad when the best you have against Obama is some guy that used to be a domestic terrorist

Oh shit, Pro is going to call off the wedding with you now!

Quote:

The non-partisan National Journal scores senators each year on the totality of their economic, defense and foreign policy votes to rate how “liberal” they are.

Sen. Barack Obama has the highest score of all of the 100 senators. 1

Joe Biden is the eighth-highest scorer.

To put it in perspective, both Obama and Biden scored far higher than the only self-described Socialist in the Senate, Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who had the 12th- highest score. 2

On practically every issue, Obama and Biden have political objectives that are radical and repugnant to most Americans.

Obama voted against a bill that would permit juries to consider the death penalty for gang members who murder to advance the gang’s interest. 3

Both Obama and Biden have voted against making English our official language. 4

At a campaign event in Georgia, Obama told the crowd that “instead of worrying about whether immigrants can learn English — they’ll learn English — you need to make sure your child can speak Spanish.” 5

Many people think some gun control is appropriate, but Obama believes in total gun control: He doesn’t think you should own a gun at all.

When a questionnaire from the Independent Voters of Illinois asked Obama if he would “ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns,” he responded “yes.”

Obama told John Lott Jr., a senior research scientist at the University of Maryland, “I don’t believe that people should be able to own guns.” 6

As to same-sex marriages, Biden said during the Oct. 2 vice presidential debate: “Look, in an Obama-Biden administration, there will be absolutely no distinction from a constitutional standpoint or a legal standpoint between a same-sex and a heterosexual couple.

“We do support making sure that committed couples in a same-sex marriage are guaranteed the same constitutional benefits as it relates to their property rights, their rights of visitation, their rights to insurance, their rights of ownership as heterosexual couples do.” 7

And Obama published a letter on his Web site earlier this year, stating: “I support the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) — a position I have held since before arriving in the U.S. Senate.

“While some say we should repeal only part of the law, I believe we should get rid of that statute altogether.

“Federal law should not discriminate in any way against gay and lesbian couples, which is precisely what DOMA does. I have also called for us to repeal ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ and I have worked to improve the Uniting American Families Act so we can afford same-sex couples the same rights and obligations as married couples in our immigration system.” 8

Sen. Obama’s repeal of DOMA would strip away the states’ ability to choose whether or not to recognize same-sex marriage ceremonies held in another state.

His repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” would take away the military’s ability to consider the impact a person’s homosexual status or activities has on their military service.

And his last suggestion would grant even a temporary immigrant in the U.S. the ability to bring in their homosexual partner under the “Family Unity Program.” 9

When he was in the Illinois State Senate, Obama voted against the “Induced Infant Liability Act” requiring medical care for babies who survive an abortion. The bill came up twice in the Judiciary Committee on which he served. CBS News reported Obama voted “present” in 2001 and “no” in 2002. 10

Why would Obama not allow abortion survivors to be given medical attention?

This is what he said during the Illinois State Senate debate in March 2001: “It would essentially bar abortions because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child and if this was a child then this would be an anti-abortion statute.” 11

If only they knew, the vast majority of Americans would consider Obama and Biden far too radical for their tastes.

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

Quote:

The non-partisan National Journal

that "non partisan" National Journal ranking is a joke. Funny how the most liberal" Senator always happens to be the guy running for President on the Democratic side.

The methodology used to determine that has already been scrutinized and come under ridicule.

From TIME:

Quote:

The more interesting question, though, is, Does this “most liberal” ranking actually mean anything? And the answer, once you look at the National Journal’s methodology, is not really. I say this only because I got an email from Dave Meyer, a researcher here in DC, who is one of the many usually-unnamed people who toil behind the scenes in Washington brokering in information. Here is what Meyer wrote:

Quote:

I actually browsed through the scorecard National Journal used to determine the ranking. There are precisely two scored votes where Obama took the liberal position and Clinton took the conservative. The first was Joe Lieberman's S.Amdt. 30 to S.Amdt. 3 to S.1 The Amendment was "To establish a Senate Office of Public Integrity." Here's the roll call of the 27-71 vote. Joining Obama on the "liberal" side -- meaning the side in support of Joe Lieberman's amendment -- were Republicans Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe Chuck Grassley, and John McCain.

The second was Jeff Bingaman's S.Amdt. 1267 to S.Amdt.1150 to S.1348, the Immigration Reform bill. The Amendment was "To remove the requirement that Y-1 nonimmigrant visa holders leave the United States before they are able to renew their visa." Here's the roll call of the 41-57 vote (60 votes needed to pass, so it failed by 19). Joining Obama on the "liberal' side were Richard Shelby, Chuck Hagel, and Tom Coburn.

So there you have it. Obama is more liberal than Clinton because he voted with John McCain, the most likely Republican nominee, and Tom Coburn, one of the Senate's most conservative members. Ain’t political rankings a wonderful thing.

They claim that Obama and Clinton only differed on 10 votes, but somehow Obama comes in first and Clinton is #16. Fuzzy math, I tell ya. In fact, looking at the voting chart the NJ uses to draw their conclusions, it's obvious that there are a few senators who are clearly more liberal than Obama. In fact every Democratic Senator has a more liberal voting record than Obama, except Baucus, Biden, Pryor, Dodd (due to absenses on crucial votes), Landrieu and Ben Nelson -- but since when do right wing journalists let those pesky facts get in the way?

Let us not forget that in 2004, they claimed that...you guessed it, John Kerry and John Edwards were the most liberal senators. What a coincidence!

maybe because they were? no way!

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

maybe because they were? no way!

enough with your racist attacks.

We don't want to give big business golden parachutes, we just want to bail them out of their failed business decisions.

obama h christ

He's a fucking idiot. Why can't people see that?

they will he is getting his ass kicked tonight.

If Biden thought his nuts were sore wait till Obama wakes up in the morning....

he is visibly shaken.

I should have made popcorn for this.

I hope he doesn't get to mad and try to cut McCain.

The Obama Youth SS will be waiting for him out back.

I hope they checked his shoes before the debate.

whomod prolly just decked his wife.

they have the dentist on speed dial!

whomod is in for a rude awakening when Glorious Leader Obama and his feminazi supporters suspend the constitution for accused wife beaters and make it a federal hate crime.

Seriously. I remember debating some "Womyn's Studies" Cornell Professor nearly fifteen years ago, who was advocating that rape suspects be denied constitutional rights "because of the nature of the crime and the lack of power of the victim." She and her supporters believed that rape defendants shouldn't have the same right to cross examine witnesses and the same right to the statute of limitations as other types of criminals.

Those of the type of people that Obama and Pelosi represent. If there is an Obama Presidency and a filibuster proof Democrat majority expect all sorts of "crimes" to be invented and all sorts of rights to be subrogated to advance a political agenda. Also expect the same people who brayed about the rights of foreign terrorists to be remarkably silent about the rights of American citizens.

(And note: I'm not saying that rapists or wife beaters shouldn't be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I'm simply saying that we can't start taking away the rights of criminal suspects-as opposed to enemy combatants- simply because it advances a political agenda).

the G-man ass-kicky User Palin Maniac
15000+ posts Wed Oct 08 2008 12:51 AM Reading a post
Forum: Politics and Current Events
Thread: Barack Hussein Obama in '08?

the G-man ass-kicky User Palin Maniac
15000+ posts Wed Oct 08 2008 12:53 AM Reading a post
Forum: Politics and Current Events
Thread: Barack Hussein Obama in '08?

Pariah nerdy Moderator Triteness kicks us in the nads.
15000+ posts Wed Oct 08 2008 01:59 AM Reading a post
Forum: Politics and Current Events
Thread: Barack Hussein Obama in '08?

News is starting to brew in the blogosphere (so continue to take it for what it is worth) that Corsi, the author who was detained and deported from Kenya for investigating Obama, has obtained emails between Obama and Fidel Castro Odinga, eldest son of Kenyan Prime Minister Raila Odinga.

These emails allegedly detail that Obama was advising Odinga on how to run his campaign so that Odinga can institute Sharia law in Kenya.

Supposedly, Corsi has the physical emails and will be on Hannity and Colmes on Friday or Monday to give Hannity copies of everything.

Kenya, you migth recalls, is the country where Glorious Leader Obama was photographed dressed in traditional Muslim garb.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

So it's true.

Given the fact that McCain failed utterly to convince anyone that he has any clue what to do with this economic crisis, you guys now plan to try to smear your way into the White House.

And you wonder why everyone is turning against you guys. The Republican Party has become an embarrassment full of slimy creeps and racists that smear and smear anyone that gets in their way.

do you even care to look into this to see if it's true?

Of course he doesn't.

Obama is having a rally near here next week, I should get some friends and start a protest "Freedom Of Religion For Kenyans!"....

Make sure to have bail money. The truth squad will accuse you of inciting racial hatred.

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

do you even care to look into this to see if it's true?

Well if it was sourced better than a an aside in some post in a far right blog, then perhaps we'd take it a bit more serious.

et me know when TIME breaks the scandal...

Time has been starting to ask a lot more questions about Ayers this week.

Originally Posted By: whomod

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

do you even care to look into this to see if it's true?

Well if it was sourced better than a an aside in some post in a far right blog, then perhaps we'd take it a bit more serious.

et me know when TIME breaks the scandal...

so if a left magazine breaks it youll have concern. by then it could be too late. CNN just figured out Obama and Ayers were buddies yesterday.

Originally Posted By: whomod

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

do you even care to look into this to see if it's true?

Well if it was sourced better than a an aside in some post in a far right blog, then perhaps we'd take it a bit more serious.

et me know when the national enquirer breaks the scandal...

Space Alien Endorses Obama:

"I was against Sharia Law before I was for it."

-BHB

Originally Posted By: PJP

Time has been starting to ask a lot more questions about Ayers this week.

Uh huh. and what was the answer?

Because every news source I read this week asked the question and then concluded that there was no there, there.

Quote:

Because every news source I read this week....

How many supermarket tabloids are you up to at this point?

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Quote:

Because every news source I read this week....

How many supermarket tabloids are you up to at this point?

Wow. A juvenile response worthy of that disturbed shut-in troll from Eugene.

You're slipping G-Man.... $\:\($

Get it together, man!

I thought people like you loved places like eugene?

Originally Posted By: whomod

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Quote:

Because every news source I read this week....

How many supermarket tabloids are you up to at this point?

Wow. A juvenile response worthy of that disturbed shut-in troll from Eugene.

You're slipping G-Man.... $\:\($

Get it together, man!

Wow. I thought that was a pretty mild, and obvious joke on my part and you took a great deal of umbrage at it.

Almost as if it hit a little too close to home. $;\)$

Well it'd be obvious if it was Rex.

Since it seems that's the extent of his political thought processes.

But even if I disagree with you at least I acknowledge that you do argue your beliefs well.

Actually, by your argument, if it were rex wouldn't it be less likely to have been a mild joke?

Originally Posted By: whomod

Well it'd be obvious if it was Rex.

Since it seems that's the extent of his political thought processes.

But even if I disagree with you at least I acknowledge that you do argue your beliefs well.

As opposed to your extremely intellectual youtube, blog and picture spamming?

Like I've said before, whomod and g-man are basically the same person.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Actually, by your argument, if it were rex wouldn't it be less likely to have been a mild joke?

Yes. Because Rex is a frustrated virgin. He doesn't do subtlety well with all that pent up sexual tension.

If you say so, oh wise one.

Quite honestly I don't know why either of these guys would even want to be President right now.

In McCain's case he probably thinks of it as a duty. In Obama's case he probably sees it as a chance to become the new messiah and smite his enemies.

I hope James Franco does a good job portraying me.

I would ask for Stephen Colbert to play me, but I fear that Glorious Leader Obama might not realize that Colbert is only playing a conservative and smite him too.

Wednesday Oct. 29 6 days before the elction Obama has purchased a half hour time slot on CBS to air the most expensive politcial commercial ever. It will start at 8pm.

http://washtimes.com/news/2008/oct/10/obama-sought-to-sway-iraqis-on-bush-deal/

Obama apparently thinks he is already President. We need more of this shit to come out.

Meet the man who paid for Obama's Harvard education:

Black Muslim lawyer Khalid Abdullah Tariq al-Mansour recently made news when it was revealed that he was a patron of Barack Obama and recommended him for admission to Harvard Law School in 1988.

Back in the 1960s, al-Mansour, whose “slave name” was then Don Warden, was deeply involved in Bay Area racial politics as founder of a group called the African American Association. A close personal adviser to Huey Newton and Bobby Seale, al-Mansour helped the pair establish the Black Panther Party but later broke with them when they entered coalitions with white radical groups.

After becoming a Muslim, al-Mansour found not only an ideological justification for his racism but also a political purpose. That was, in the words of a memorandum produced by the Muslim Brotherhood and seized by the FBI as part of its probe of the Holy Land Foundation, to “eliminate and destroy the Western civilization from within.”

“Barack Osama” absentee ballot sent to voters in Rensselaer County

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama’s last name is spelled “Osama” on hundreds of absentee ballots mailed out this week to voters in Rensselaer County.

The misspelling, which elections officials on both sides of the aisle insist was simply a typo, is causing embarrassment for the county.

”No question this is an honest mistake innocently done,” said Edward McDonough, the Democratic commissioner. ”We catch almost everything.”

”This was a typo,” said Republican Commissioner Larry Bugbee. ”We have three different staff members who proof these things and somehow the typo got by us.”

it should have said scumbag fuck faced douche bag socialist hitler wanna be stalin gonna be asshole.

but that might not fit.

Louis Farrakhan called Obama the Messiah today. And he was serious.

Jailed Obama Fundraiser Spills the Beans: Tony Rezko helped launch Barack Obama's political career. But the secrets he might be telling federal prosecutors could send the careers of politicians crashing and burning.

Originally Posted By: PJP

Louis Farrakhan called Obama the Messiah today. And he was serious.

he's a little late, whomod has been preaching this for months....

Some Futurists hold that sometime prior to the expected return of Jesus, there will be a period of "great tribulation"[40] during which the Antichrist (Barack Hussein Obama), indwelt and controlled by Satan, will attempt to win supporters with false peace, supernatural signs. He will silence all that defy him by refusing to "receive his mark" on their right hands or forehead. This "mark" will be required to legally partake in the end-time economic system.[41] Some Futurists believe that the Antichrist will be assassinated half way through the Tribulation, being revived and indwelt by Satan. The Antichrist will continue on for three and a half years following this "deadly wound".[42]

Originally Posted By: PJP

Ok...

Here's my question to you.

If this were so and you actually believed it, as a Christian, wouldn't this be cause for celebration? That would mean that the rapture is almost upon us and the long wait for Christ's second coming is finally over.

But no, this is what I find so distasteful about every time ANYONE, right or left tries to use the anti-christ tactic is that they try to use it to SCARE people and to try to derail this so called anti-Christ. Which to me sounds like if they have no faith that they themselves are "saved". If Barack Obama is the anti-Christ, then that IMO would be MORE incentive for Christians to vote FOR him rather than to try to actively stop God's plan.

Or in other words, you right wingers sure are getting desperate..

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Oh look the GOP propaganda mouthpiece has an exclusive designed to make obama look bad a few weeks before the election.

I'm shocked, SHOCKED!!! I tell you!

Quote:

But based on the known facts, charges so far and testimony at Rezko's trial, there's no indication there'll be an October surprise that could hurt the Democratic presidential nominee -- even though Rezko says prosecutors are pressing him for dirt about Obama.

Now that to me was the real revelation there. After the whole US attorney scandal and the politicization of the Justice Dept, we now learn that Federal prosecutors are specifically trying to get him to spill dirt on Obama. Sort of like how in '06 they were pressing hard for any dirt on Democrats to hurt them in the midterms and even fired US attorneys who wouldn't play ball or didn't find any, at least on the Democratic side.

It'll be interesting if this story gets any traction because this sure sounds like the US attorney scandal all over again.

Originally Posted By: whomod

It'll be interesting if this story gets any traction in the liberal press.

Originally Posted By: whomod

Originally Posted By: PJP

Ok...

Hitler anyone?

Originally Posted By: whomod

I think a lot of people believe in the Bible and God's word, but know their life isn't right and want to put off judgment as long as they can. I think there is another school of thought that while they themselves might be saved many of their loved ones are not and they fear their loss. But if Obama is the anti-Christ then it is God's plan and no one can stop it, it fulfilling his prophesy. The fact that people recognize he is or may be is also told in the Bible, it is also told that people will ignore the warning.

Time to get a grip on all that hatred whomod.

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20081012/COL05/810120347/1004/col

Quote:

Congress got drunk on lobbyist moonshine, ran the economy into a tree, and taxpayers got stuck with the bills. The skid marks point directly to a presidential candidate.

Was it John McCain or Barack Obama?

Both. McCain and Obama were involved in separate crashes 20 years apart, with the same result - we sweep up the broken glass.

In 1987, McCain and four other senators in the Keating Five were asked by Charlie Keating, a well-known son of Cincinnati, to intervene with bank regulators who were going after his Lincoln Savings & Loan.

Keating was convicted of 73 counts of fraud and served nearly five years in prison before all but two counts were overturned. He became the face of the S&L mess of the late 1980s. And his close friend was McCain. The McCains visited Keating's vacation home in the Bahamas, and Cindy McCain invested in a shopping center with Keating.

"The Keating scandal is eerily similar to today's credit crisis," with "cozy relationships between the financial industry and Congress," says a new 13-minute video from Obama, "Keating Economics: John McCain and the Making of a Financial Scandal."

Yes, eerily similar. But this time the tracks lead to Obama's cozy relationships. Let's compare:

The Keating Five senators took big donations from Keating, then intervened to block regulations on his bank. They were Democrats Dennis DeConcini of Arizona, John Glenn of Ohio, Donald Riegle of Michigan, Alan Cranston of California; and Republican McCain.

In the 2008 crisis, senators took big donations from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, then blocked reforms that could have prevented trillions in bad debt at the government-backed mortgage buyers.

My nominations for the Fannie Mae Five: Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, No. 1 for taking donations from Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, and who also got special low-interest loans from Fannie Mae's biggest customer; Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., who served on the House Banking Committee overseeing Fannie Mae while his partner was a Fannie Mae executive creating high-risk loans that caused the crash; Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae CEO who made $90 million in five years before he was caught cooking the books; Jim Johnson, Fannie Mae CEO, paid $20 million in one year; and Obama, second in Fannie/Freddie cash after only four years in the Senate.

Raines and Johnson are VIP Democrats and supporters of Obama. Raines said he advised Obama on housing, then denied it. Johnson was so close to Obama, he was chosen to pick a vice president, then dumped because of his scandals.

The S&L crash was caused when lobbyists persuaded Congress to make it easier for S&Ls to take on risky loans.

The latest crash was caused when Congress forced banks to make bad loans to boost homeownership for the poor. When Republicans tried to head off the crisis, Raines insisted that Fannie Mae's shady loans were "riskless." Frank denied there was a problem. Members of the Congressional Black Caucus attacked the regulators for "lynching" Raines.

In 1991, McCain was exonerated by the Senate Ethics Committee, but rebuked for bad judgment. Special prosecutor Bob Bennett said, "I investigated John McCain for a year and a half ... and if there is one thing I am absolutely confident of, it is John McCain is an honest man."

I followed the Keating Five in Arizona and met four of them. Two years ago I interviewed Keating, and asked him about McCain.

"This is a guy I was as close to as anyone," he said, still angry at McCain. When McCain refused to tell the regulators to back off, "I called him a wimp in his office - that was true," Keating said. It killed their friendship and ended McCain's involvement.

Obama says McCain played a "central role" in the Keating Five. And Obama may have a central role in the latest crash. But the press is not asking about his links to Raines, Johnson and the Fannie Mae mess, or his work as a community organizer for ACORN, the radical left-wing group that pressured banks to make bad loans. Obama is still close to ACORN and gave them $800,000 from campaign funds. ACORN is accused of voter fraud in a dozen states, including Ohio.

"ACORN is at the base of the whole mess," wrote National Review's Stanley Kurtz, who has been digging into the story. "And Barack Obama cut his teeth as an organizer and politician backing up ACORN's economic madness every step of the way."

Call it guilt by association or corruption. There's not evidence that McCain or Obama intervened directly. But their cozy relationships are eerily similar.

It's the same story: Congress got drunk and wrecked the economy - and the skid marks point to a presidential candidate.

But there's a difference: The media cops who did thousands of stories about McCain and the Keating Five are taking a detour to avoid Obama.

I see a lot of references by McCain supporters that Acorn pressured banks to give out bad loans. The banks still had a choice though & I don't see where Acorn had any hand in those bad loans being mixed in with good ones & getting the triple A rating. Shouldn't you really be blaming the banks?

Any wrong do-ing should be investigated of course but at least some of this looks purely politically motivated accusations from the behind in the polls GOP.

What accusations are coming from the democrats?

they've accused McCain of unfairness for being honest.

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

they've accused McCain of unfairness for being honest.

Originally Posted By: John McCain

No, ma'am. He's a decent, family man, a citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues, and that's what this campaign is all about.

Who's they, I applaud McCain for his honesty.

the fundamental issues like being friends with terrorists.

obama accused mccain of actually loving america and not hating it.

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

did you know that Acorn officials used to go to the bank president's homes and neighborhoods and do things to embarass them if they didn't do what Acorn asked?

do you know who trained these officials?

that is correct my blind friend Hussein Obama.

oh and the GOP has been trying to bring Acorn to justice since 2006 but the media wants no part of it. Now the FBI is getting involved at least.

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

the fundamental issues like being friends with terrorists.

McCain says Obama is decent. Was he being dishonest?

Despite what you america haters think, there is a difference between a war hero and a terrorist.

Originally Posted By: PJP

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Proof to back your accusations?

Another McCain quote about Obama...

Quote:

I have to tell you, he is a decent person and a person that you do not have to be scared of as president of the United States.

too bad that, according to some people in here, what mccain says can't be trusted.

Originally Posted By: Captain Sammitch

too bad that, according to some people in here, what mccain says can't be trusted.

So you'll be voting for Obama $;\)$

I see someone's brought his best material tonight.

Did you feel that your post deserved much more than that?

you should change your user title to whomod's parrot.

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

the fundamental issues like being friends with terrorists.

McCain says Obama is decent. Was he being dishonest?

No, he was being too polite to another politician, a common McCain flaw. He also thought that Ted Kennedy was a decent man too.

Originally Posted By: PJP

you should change your user title to whomod's parrot.

My opinions are my own PJP. I still like & respect McCain. Your actually a lot like Whomod when it comes to saying things against whoever your not voting for. Although he doesn't go as far as to referring to Palin as a cunt like you would if she was a democrat.

or Romney a conservative asshole.

MEM is a little like that SNL parody of Joe Biden who kept saying how much he 'loved' McCain but would then launch into a lengthy tirade about how McCain was pure evil.

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Originally Posted By: PJP

you should change your user title to whomod's parrot.

your opinions are not your own when for years you sang McCain's praises and bashed Obama every chance you got.

Heh. Just like the real Joe Biden

Originally Posted By: the G-man

MEM is a little like that SNL parody of Joe Biden who kept saying how much he 'loved' McCain but would then launch into a lengthy tirade about how McCain was pure evil.

Originally Posted By: PJP

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Originally Posted By: PJP

you should change your user title to whomod's parrot.

your opinions are not your own when for years you sang McCain's praises and bashed Obama every chance you got.

You say whatever whacked out thing you can make up about Obama & you want to point at the little bit of criticism that I've levelled at McCain $\:lol\:$

Dude, seriously if McCain wins it won't be so bad in my book. You on the other hand sound like your about ready to riot in the street if Obama wins.

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Originally Posted By: PJP

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Originally Posted By: PJP

you should change your user title to whomod's parrot.

your opinions are not your own when for years you sang McCain's praises and bashed Obama every chance you got.

I would never dare riot and be unruly. I would not want to be sent to a work camp. I will wait until he passes the Wealth Redistribution Act for that.

Matter-eater Man argumentative User Fair Play!
5000+ posts Sun Oct 12 2008 11:10 PM Making a new reply
Forum: Politics and Current Events
Thread: Re: Obama in 08

Originally Posted By: PJP

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Originally Posted By: PJP

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Originally Posted By: PJP

you should change your user title to whomod's parrot.

your opinions are not your own when for years you sang McCain's praises and bashed Obama every chance you got.

I would never dare riot and be unruly. I would not want to be sent to a work camp. I will wait until he passes the Wealth Redistribution Act for that.

Any more of Bush economics & you won't have to worry about anyone touching your little pile of money.

Matter-eater Man argumentative User Fair Play!
5000+ posts Sun Oct 12 2008 11:13 PM Reading a post
Forum: Politics and Current Events
Thread: Barack Hussein Obama in '08?

the G-man ass-kicky Moderator Palin Maniac
15000+ posts Sun Oct 12 2008 11:13 PM Reading a post
Forum: Politics and Current Events
Thread: Barack Hussein Obama in '08?

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Any more of Bush economics & you won't have to worry about anyone touching your little pile of money.

I guess its good that he won't be president for much longer.

Or are you referring to mcbush?

It's more trickle down theory Rex.

If you are Jewish and you are going to vote for Obama you should read this first.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/10142008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/the_o_jesse_knows_133450.htm

Once he's done fixing our "problems" with Israel I would assume the gays would be next.

Is anyone else getting the banner ad for "theliberalstore.com"? It's selling a bumper sticker that advocates Vice President Cheney be tortured.

And libs claim that Republicans are the ones inciting violence and hatred.

he's white. it's okay.

Don't worry! It's just water-boarding. It's not "really" torture, or shooting someone in the face...

then we agree.

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

I'm white, I'm a "victim" of the liberal minority conspiracy!

weak.

There will be no weakness allowed under the regime of Glorious Leader Obama. Work makes one free.

I took 2 huge Obamas today.

Not me, but I had broccoli for dinner so I'll probably take a huge, smelly, Obama in the morning.

Is there any other kind?

There's a whomod. It reminds you of an Obama but it's loose and gassy, with a lot of noise.

$\:lol\:$

Today at work this woman who has been a fervent(read whacko) Obama supporter told me she changed he mind and was going to vote for McCain. I asked her why and she said she was talking to her aunt last night and found out that when Obama was sworn in as Governor he refused to use an American bible, but asked to use a Muslim bible.

I started to correct her and let her know there isn't a American bible, nor was Obama ever Governor of anything, and if he had sworn on the Koran it would have made the news by now. But I got to thinking about the Obama supporters that make fun of McCain's arms that were hurt in the war. The way they lie to people that he is 4 more years of GW, and all the other crap, and I decided, nah let her believe it, it's a vote for McCain.

$\:lol\:$

$\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$

some of the fringier folks in my denomination really honestly buy into the whole obama is the antiChrist spiel. part of me wants to politely suggest that they may be blowing things slightly out of proportion. but then I run into a gaggle of hardcore obamatards or walk by a bulletin board plastered with obama propaganda on the way to class and I figure hey, I may as well let the folks at church keep doing what they're doing.

$\:lol\:$

You do realize, however, that whomod will be linking to your post over at Daily Kos and using it as "proof positive" that evil racist neocons are spreading malicious lies about Obama to steal the election?

He'll then organize a raid and go hide.

I think tomorrow I may tell people that I have heard the when he was Governor he swore on a Muslim bible, I wont be lying I did hear that.

$\:lol\:$

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

Originally Posted By: Captain Sammitch

If you are serious, then you are both genuinely admitting that you are using outright lies to get a vote for The Right. I cannot believe either of you is that immoral...

You want outright lies? Watch an Obama campaign speech.

it's funny that someone that advocates domestic terrorism, wants to talk morals...

$\:lol\:$

Quote:

CBS News' Michelle Levi reports that a PAC called Our Country Deserves Better is now running an ad that is essentially a compilation of most of the character and association attacks made against Barack Obama throughout the year.

The ad, "Obama's Wrong Values," began running Sunday night in Reno, Nevada and has since expanded across the state. The group plans to air the spot in Colorado starting tomorrow and run it in Michigan – where McCain has pulled his advertising – by the end of the week.

According to a PAC spokesman, the group has already spent just under $100,000 in Nevada and Colorado to run the spot. The group said its budget in Michigan is "$500,000 or higher." It said it has plans to expand to Ohio and Pennsylvania, adding that its funding comes largely from a large number of small donors.

The anti-Obama group says it is kicking off a two week "Stop Obama Tour," which will include rallies, starting tomorrow.

According to its web site, the group has one objective: "to defeat Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential election."

They promise they "won’t be subtle or vague - America’s future is at stake, and it’s time someone stood up to Barack Obama and told the American people why this man cannot, and must not, serve as our next Commander-in-Chief."

The 30 second spot opens with a narrator saying "Barack Obama seems to have different values from most Americans." As he says this, the Democratic nominee is spotlighted without his hand on his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance.

"His supporters put up Cuban flags with the murderous leftist Che Guevara in Obama's campaign offices," the narrator continues. "Obama's campaign received $33,000 in illegal donations from Palestinians living in the Middle East. A top official of the terrorist group Hamas endorsed Obama's campaign. And who can forget these hateful sermons from Obama's pastor of over 20 years."

At this point, Rev. Jeremiah Wright is shown saying "God Damn America."

Originally Posted By: Lucius Prometheus Vorenus

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

Originally Posted By: Captain Sammitch

If you are serious, then you are both genuinely admitting that you are using outright lies to get a vote for The Right. I cannot believe either of you is that immoral...

quoting yourself? The Promod project is almost complete and ready to be put into service.

I'm pretty sure that Promod is merely awaiting the signal from Glorious Leader Obama.

Originally Posted By: Lucius Prometheus Vorenus

If you are serious, then you are both genuinely admitting that you are using outright lies to get a vote for The Right. I cannot believe either of you is that immoral...

*PROMOD ERROR*

Originally Posted By: Lucius Prometheus Vorenus

If you are serious, then you are both genuinely admitting that you are using outright lies to get a vote for The Right. I cannot believe either of you is that immoral...

$\:lol\:$

I am going to take an Obama soon the coffee is kicking in.

More proof Obama hates America:

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ap-worldseries-obama&prov=ap&type=lgns

Quote:

NEW YORK (AP)—Major League Baseball has agreed to push back the start time of a potential World Series Game 6 by eight minutes to allow Democrat Barack Obama to purchase a half-hour of air time on the Fox network.

Baseball spokesman Pat Courtney said Thursday that the game time would now be set for 8:35 p.m.

The Obama presidential campaign said Oct. 9 that it had bought the 8-8:30 p.m slot on CBS and NBC.

“Fox will accommodate Senator Obama’s desire to communicate with voters in this long-form format,” network spokesman Lou D’Ermilio said in a statement. “We are pleased that Major League Baseball has agreed to delay the first pitch of World Series Game 6 for a few minutes in order for Fox to carry his program on Oct. 29.

The World Series? What's next? Mom and Apple Pie?

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

More proof Obama hates America:

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ap-worldseries-obama&prov=ap&type=lgns

Quote:

The World Series? What's next? Mom and Apple Pie?

Man, you guys really do have NOTHING.

You should know, you are the expert on nothing.

Originally Posted By: whomod

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

More proof Obama hates America:

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ap-worldseries-obama&prov=ap&type=lgns

Quote:

The World Series? What's next? Mom and Apple Pie?

Man, you guys really do have NOTHING.

Well when Obama becomes President and he cancels the World Series, your life will be complete.

Whomod is probably one of those sissies who thinks all sports should be banned because they are competitive.

Not true, he wanted wife beating added to the Olympics!

He said the olympics are fine since they celebrate first and second place losers.

Originally Posted By: rex

Whomod is probably one of those sissies who thinks all sports should be banned because they are competitive.

Did you play sports in school?

yes

The story about Obama swearing on the Muslim Bible was all over work today.

I did take Promod's advice and stand up for truth. A lady said she wasn't voting because McCain is old and if he dies in office Obama would be put in anyways, I took time to explain the line of succession and the fact that it would be the VP next in line, not the opponent from the last election, she seemed relieved and said then she would vote.

I didn't get time to talk to the Muslim Bible discussion people.

Originally Posted By: Lucius Prometheus Vorenus

Originally Posted By: rex

Whomod is probably one of those sissies who thinks all sports should be banned because they are competitive.

Did you play sports in school?

Did you?

Originally Posted By: rex

yes

....okay, and? What did you play?

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

Originally Posted By: Lucius Prometheus Vorenus

Originally Posted By: rex

Whomod is probably one of those sissies who thinks all sports should be banned because they are competitive.

Did you play sports in school?

Did you?

Yep. Three years of basketball, four in baseball, three in volleyball. I tried football for about a year, but I'm seriously not made for it. I'm fast, just not big enough. I know you did some amateur wrestling, didn't you? Did you start in school?

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

I did take Promod's advice and stand up for truth. A lady said she wasn't voting because McCain is old and if he dies in office Obama would be put in anyways, I took time to explain the line of succession and the fact that it would be the VP next in line, not the opponent from the last election, she seemed relieved and said then she would vote.

Very good, I'm proud of you!

But, that woman was an idiot if she thought Obama would get in because McCain died....

Quote:

I didn't get time to talk to the Muslim Bible discussion people.

Baby-steps, basams. Baby-steps. I'm certain you'll get to them... $;\)$

I'll try, work is busy till the 3rd week of Nov. I may have to wait till then.

Originally Posted By: Lucius Prometheus Vorenus

Originally Posted By: rex

yes

....okay, and? What did you play?

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

Originally Posted By: Lucius Prometheus Vorenus

Originally Posted By: rex

Whomod is probably one of those sissies who thinks all sports should be banned because they are competitive.

Did you play sports in school?

Did you?

Originally Posted By: Lucius Prometheus Vorenus

Originally Posted By: rex

yes

....okay, and? What did you play?

Basketball, soccer and baseball.

and your mom!

his mom was a club sport though.

Originally Posted By: Lucius Prometheus Vorenus

I know you did some amateur wrestling, didn't you? Did you start in school?

I never played sports in High School, I live in a small town, the rich kids played HS sports, the poor kids went to the pool hall. I never wrestled professionally until I was 27.

are you a good pool player? I suck but my cousin is a hustler.

I used to be good at hustling pool, we would go from town to town in the summer playing 9 ball. I made $ 250 once in a bar and nearly got beat to death when as we were leaving my friend said lets find some more losers to hustle and he was overheard.

heh.

I can't shoot pool for shit anymore, or bowl I think too many steel chairs to the head have screwed up my aim.

Twenty-seven? Fuck, I was so out-of-shape by the time I was twenty-five (cigarettes) I couldn't imagine starting a new sport that late. Did it begin as one of those backyard deals where you hit each other with lawn furniture?

"cigarettes"

Originally Posted By: rex

Originally Posted By: Lucius Prometheus Vorenus

Originally Posted By: rex

yes

....okay, and? What did you play?

Basketball, soccer and baseball.

Nice! What position in basketball? Baseball?

You played soccer? YOU? Don't you know that's a European sport?

Quote:

and your mom!

Well-played. $\:lol\:$

Originally Posted By: Lucius Prometheus Vorenus

No I did that as a kid, we didn't hit each other with things. To us that was crap. It wasn't until I wrestled professionally a year that I realized the art was in hardcore wrestling. Everyone knows wrestling is fixed, but the emotions that you bring out in a crowd when your doing something that looks totally dangerous is a high. You can;t fake steel, barbwire, kendo sticks, and thumbtacks, and I think people appreciate the show you put on more.

Originally Posted By: Luci

Nice! What position in basketball? Baseball?

You played soccer? YOU? Don't you know that's a European sport?

Outfield in baseball, center in basketball and don't care or remember in soccer.

I played sports mainly because my dad wanted me to. I always hated soccer. fucking soccer moms always yelling at everyone and taking it was too serious.

Socker.

No silly, I play that now, not back then.

whoopsy!

You think that as current favourite (poll wise, I know he is not everyone's personal favourite ;)) for President of the US Obama shouldn't research growth in other parts of the world and it's likely economic, cultural and political effects?

The Chicago Tribune endorsed Obama today. The Trib is a conservative leaning newspaper than endorsed McCain in the primaries. Obama is the 1st Democrat EVER endorsed by the Tribune for President in it's 161 year history.

Quote:

Tribune endorsement: Barack Obama for president

This endorsement makes some history for the Chicago Tribune. This is the first time the newspaper has endorsed the Democratic Party's nominee for president....

The Republican Party, the party of limited government, has lost its way. The government ran a $237 billion surplus in 2000, the year before Bush took office -- and recorded a $455 billion deficit in 2008. The Republicans lost control of the U.S. House and Senate in 2006 because, as we said at the time, they gave the nation rampant spending and Capitol Hill corruption. They abandoned their principles. They paid the price.

We might have counted on John McCain to correct his party's course. We like McCain. We endorsed him in the Republican primary in Illinois. In part because of his persuasion and resolve, the U.S. stands to win an unconditional victory in Iraq.

It is, though, hard to figure John McCain these days. He argued that President Bush's tax cuts were fiscally irresponsible, but he now supports them. He promises a balanced budget by the end of his first term, but his tax cut plan would add an estimated $4.2 trillion in debt over 10 years. He has responded to the economic crisis with an angry, populist message and a misguided, $300 billion proposal to buy up bad mortgages.

McCain failed in his most important executive decision. Give him credit for choosing a female running mate--but he passed up any number of supremely qualified Republican women who could have served. Having called Obama not ready to lead, McCain chose Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. His campaign has tried to stage-manage Palin's exposure to the public. But it's clear she is not prepared to step in at a moment's notice and serve as president. McCain put his campaign before his country....

Obama is deeply grounded in the best aspirations of this country, and we need to return to those aspirations. He has had the character and the will to achieve great things despite the obstacles that he faced as an unprivileged black man in the U.S.

He has risen with his honor, grace and civility intact. He has the intelligence to understand the grave economic and national security risks that face us, to listen to good advice and make careful decisions.

When Obama said at the 2004 Democratic Convention that we weren't a nation of red states and blue states, he spoke of union the way Abraham Lincoln did.

It may have seemed audacious for Obama to start his campaign in Springfield, invoking Lincoln. We think, given the opportunity to hold this nation's most powerful office, he will prove it wasn't so audacious after all. We are proud to add Barack Obama's name to Lincoln's in the list of people the Tribune has endorsed for president of the United States.

So a conservative leaning paper that has NEVER endorsed a Republican is for Obama? Good grief! BTW, wasn't one of the editors on this paper also "palling around with terrorists?" as the smear merchants on the right allege?

Originally Posted By: Captain Sammitch

That's OK, you do realize that you're pretty typical of the right wing and the gOP today. A bunch of lying weasely punks that try to deceive and mislead (and scare) to win what you can't win on ideas.

Originally Posted By: whomod

typical of the right wing

lying weasely punks

deceive and mislead

can't win on ideas.

Originally Posted By: whomod

Quote:

It's over! Put em in a body bag!

MARK IT ZERO!

you racist piece of crap.....

Powell Backs Obama: Former secretary of state puts support behind Democratic presidential candidate during 'Meet the Press' appearance.

Can't really say I'm surprised. Despite his republican party enrollment, Powell's always been a big believer in affirmative action.

He's also probably smart enough to see the writing on the wall and doesn't want to be subject to retaliation and censorship under the Obama regime.

It's sad to see a once great man like Powell use race in his decision making process.

Powell's getting old. Maybe whomod will tell us that he's gone "senile," like McCain.

Or maybe he'll remind us that Powell "sold his soul" and "lost all credibility" when he "lied us into Iraq."

While Powell mentioned that a lot of the crazy shit that has become McCain's main theme in the last couple of weeks (Ayers, Ayers & more Ayers) helped him to decide to publicly endorse Obama, he wouldn't have done so if he hadn't thought Obama wasn't up to the job. For those not fighting in Iraq this endorsement probably doesn't mean so much but it might for many of the troops.

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Indeed.

I was doing a google search for candidates Powell has endorsed in the past. I can't find any inexperienced, very liberal, white candidates he has endorsed?

I wish Adler was here he is a good googler.

There's nothing in Powell's reasoning for endorsing The One that wouldn't have led him to endorse Kerry or Gore in the previous elections. Indeed, if anything, given that Gore and Kerry are both more experienced that our Messiah, Powell should have endorsed them, and not President-elect Obama.

Obviously, therefore, Gen. Powell has sensed the changing political winds and realized that, if he didn't want to be declared a traitor to his race under the coming "anti-Tom" laws, he had better get on board the Jubilee Train before it was too late.

I, for one, praise Comrade Powell for coming to this conclusion sooner, rather than later.

Praise the Light. Praise Allah.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081020/ap_on_el_pr/obama

Quote:

WASHINGTON – Colin Powell will have a role as a top presidential adviser in an Obama administration, the Democratic White House hopeful said Monday.

"He will have a role as one of my advisers," Barack Obama said on NBC's "Today" in an interview aired Monday, a day after Powell, a four-star general and President Bush's former secretary of state, endorsed him.

"Whether he wants to take a formal role, whether that's a good fit for him, is something we'd have to discuss," Obama said.

Well the endorsement is becoming a little clearer now, apparently there is a informal deal in place for an endorsement for a job.

change we can believe in!

Powell is just being smart, that's all. Better to be in with the new administration than subject to a war crimes trial for lying to the UN.

It seems all the bigots are falling in line to this talking point about Powell only endorsing Obama because he's black. Even though Powell clearly answered that question on Meet The Press yesterday in advance.

I've already heard Pat Buchanan and Rush Limbaugh utter that charge. And now the other bigots here at the RKMB'S

Sour grapes.

Originally Posted By: the G-man of Zur-En-Arrh

Powell is just being smart, that's all. Better to be in with the new administration than subject to a war crimes trial for lying to the UN.

Now this can't be G-Man. Because if it was, then he just admitted that the Bush administration committed war crimes.

I have changed my ways, Komrade whomod. I do not wish to suffer the coming purge.

This one hurts.

Lifelong conservative Republican Ken Adelman to vote for Obama, blasts McCain and Palin

Quote:

Why so, since my views align a lot more with McCain’s than with Obama’s? And since I truly dread the notion of a Democratic president, Democratic House, and hugely Democratic Senate?

Primarily for two reasons, those of temperament and of judgment.

When the economic crisis broke, I found John McCain bouncing all over the place. In those first few crisis days, he was impetuous, inconsistent, and imprudent; ending up just plain weird. Having worked with Ronald Reagan for seven years, and been with him in his critical three summits with Gorbachev, I’ve concluded that that’s no way a president can act under pressure.

Second is judgment. The most important decision John McCain made in his long campaign was deciding on a running mate.

That decision showed appalling lack of judgment. Not only is Sarah Palin not close to being acceptable in high office—I would not have hired her for even a mid-level post in the arms-control agency. But that selection contradicted McCain’s main two, and best two, themes for his campaign—Country First, and experience counts. Neither can he credibly claim, post-Palin pick.

Countdown to the gOp being comprised of nothing but the bigots and loonies, 15 days and counting...

Its good to see the rest of the HIVE MIND!!!!!!! fall into place.

Yes, rex. Join us in the hive mind. It's so peaceful and warm in here.

Praise Allah. Praise Obama. Death to the capitalist lackey dogs!

Originally Posted By: whomod

This one hurts.

Lifelong conservative Republican Ken Adelman to vote for Obama, blasts McCain and Palin

Quote:

Countdown to the gOp being comprised of nothing but the bigots and loonies, 15 days and counting...

Now this one is funny. It shows that 1) those attack ads are working with conservative leaning voters. They HATE Obama! BUT 2) that they don't care, they're still voting for him anyway! $\:lol\:$

Quote:

Voting for Obama anyway

I just got an astounding e-mail from a Republican consultant I know well. He's a guy who's always thought Obama had a "glass jaw," and was always among those agitating for hitting Obama harder.

Recently, he conducted a focus group in an upper-Midwestern state, showing them the kind of ad he thought would work: A no-holds-barred attack, cut for an independent group, which hasn't aired.

I'm just going to reprint his amazed e-mail about the focus group:

Quote:

Reagan Dems and Independents. Call them blue-collar plus. Slightly more Target than Walmart.

Yes, the spot worked. Yes, they believed the charges against Obama. Yes, they actually think he's too liberal, consorts with bad people and WON'T BE A GOOD PRESIDENT...but they STILL don't give a f***. They said right out, "He won't do anything better than McCain" but they're STILL voting for Obama.

The two most unreal moments of my professional life of watching focus groups:

54 year-old white male, voted Kerry '04, Bush '00, Dole '96, hunter, NASCAR fan...hard for Obama said: "I'm gonna hate him the minute I vote for him. He's gonna be a bad president. But I won't ever vote for another god-damn Republican. I want the government to take over all of Wall Street and bankers and the car companies and Wal-Mart run this county like we used to when Reagan was President."

The next was a woman, late 50s, Democrat but strongly pro-life. Loved B. and H. Clinton, loved Bush in 2000. "Well, I don't know much about this terrorist group Barack used to be in with that Weather guy but I'm sick of paying for health insurance at work and that's why I'm supporting Barack."

I felt like I was taking crazy pills. I sat on the other side of the glass and realized...this really is the Apocalypse. The Seventh Seal is broken and its time for eight years of pure, delicious crazy....

Good job there. Maybe you guys need to ramp it up to 4 minutes of hate rather than just 2.

Exactly. Why antagonize Obama at this late date by voting against him. Praise The ONE!

Quote:

"Mark my words. It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."

Biden said this Saturday, WTF?

I like Joe Biden, I really do. I think he's a decent man and he took on a lot in his younger days, raising two kids after his wife died while running for office as a single dad.

But, god love him, the guy loves to put his foot in his mouth. If he was a Republican, the press would wonder if he were senile or retarded.

Powell Looks for Forgiveness and a Hug from the Left by Endorsing Obama
By Tommy DeSeno
Attorney/Writer

Four out of five Secretaries of State surveyed recommend John McCain to those who will vote.

That’s right. Henry Kissenger, James Baker, Lawrence Eagleburger and Alexander Haig have all endorsed the Republican nominee. But like the one dentist out of five who recommends sugary gum, Colin Powell has endorsed Barack Obama.

That’s the only secretary of state endorsement the media wants to talk about, like it’s some “Republican on Republican crime.”

Powell has essentially endorsed the guy from the other team. But beware the effect of “that’s your own man saying so” in politics. Because which player is on what team isn’t always so clear.

Powell never fully committed to the Republican team, even while Republicans recognized his talents and made him National Security Adviser, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and secretary of state.

After the first Gulf War, when there was talk of Powell running for President, he was coy about which party he’d use to do it. His finger was in the political wind.

On liberal issues, Powell has been a fan of that weird civil right involving killing baby humans. He supports affirmative action, some gun control and won’t support a constitutional ban on burning the flag in protest of America here on her soil. He now complains Republicans are “too far right.” Where are we supposed to be, Colin?

So was Powell really a teammate of Republicans (despite having given McCain the maximum campaign donation allowed by law)?

I’ll admit though there are Republican positions Powell has supported…

Like the Iraq invasion. Since 2003 those on the left have painted Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz and anyone else at the top as more horrid than those who attacked us on 9/11.

If your motto is “Bush lied, people died,” surely you recognize the voice of Powell. He appeared at the UN to sell the invasion based on WMDs to the UN and the world.

So where now is the rage of the left, who even tried to have Rumsfeld indicted as a war criminal in several European countries? Will the left forgive and forget what they once saw as Powell’s crimes against humanity in exchange for a mere endorsement? Oh, that’s right, the left forgave Bill Ayers. Forgiving Powell should be a cinch.

What is really behind this endorsement is Powell looking for forgiveness and a hug from the left. This is what he said nearly a year ago about what he will look for in a candidate:

“A vision that reaches out to the rest of the world and starts to restore confidence in America. And starts to restore favorable ratings to America, frankly. We’ve lost a lot in recent years.”

If you agree (or care) that our standing in the world has been lessened by the Iraq invasion as Powell says, then it’s fair to say it’s Powell’s fault. Repair that and Powell gets to wake up tomorrow as a different person.

So the Obama endorsement is Powell’s personal mea culpa to the left for the Iraq invasion, without regard to whether Obama will be good or bad for America here at home.

Yeah, PJP, you guys run with Lawrence Eagleburger and Henry Kissinger! you do that! $\:lol\:$

It's amazing how frothing at the mouth and base racist a lot of people on the right have gotten over Powell fucking you guys. $\:lol\:$ I thought you guys would vote for him for President! What happened to his stellar bona fides from you all? $\:lol\:$

Originally Posted By: the G-man of Zur-En-Arrh

It won't be Powell because you already have on moderate with National Security/military credibility on the ticket, namely, McCain.

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

I would love to have Colin Powell as President.

That sounds like you think he has what it takes to lead and make good descisions, eh? $\:lol\:$

Originally Posted By: PJP

1) It sounds like you think Colin Powell has good judgement and leadership qualities. Except of course if he picks a Democrat, eh?

and 2) the gOp is all about divide and conquer. Division is in your parties lifeblood. Figures you'd beleive that blacks and hispanics are at each others throats. Pretty much everyone black and hispanic I talk two recognize that this is just a ploy to divide us.

Originally Posted By: Pariah

I sincerely doubt that any of us would be this scared of Alan Keyes or Colin Powell making it into Presidency.

Feel the Powell Love-In!! I guess you're only scared if Powell picks a Democrat with his great judgement that 4 Administrations have relied upon. Then suddenly he's just another black man.

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

Also to give Jason a little lesson in the Presidency, the President chooses the advisers, cabinet. So if inexperinced Obama say picks Bill Ayers as secretary of Defense, he will be Biden's Sec if something happens to Barack. But if John McCain picks Colin Powell he would be Palin's sec of defense. Now the names are examples but the picks will be based on the judgments of the President not the VP.

Or Obamas! $\:lol\:$

Originally Posted By: PJP

I'm not a Romney fan. I rather see a moderate conservative than a hard line conservative. He is going to get my vote no matter what but I just hope it isn't Romney. I'd love to see Powell.

And you saw Powell! $\:lol\:$ Endorse obama and give a blistering critique of todays Republican Party and the McCain campaign! Hows them apples?He sounded almost um.. what's the word? ... "whomodian"! $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

This would all have been over by now had they listened to people like Powell and McCain.

yeah you stupid fuck. Why aern't you listening to Powell??

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

If it were Colin Powell or J.C. Watts, I'd be cheering a black candidate, qwho is aligned with the rest of America, not harboring clear resentment for it.

$\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$
$\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$
$\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$
$\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$
$\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$
$\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$

the only ones not aligned with America, it is now painfully apparent are you fringe loony right wingers that make up almost 100% of todays gOP.

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

I have a problem with THAT African American being elected.

I would gladly welcome Colin Powell, J.C. Watts or some other highly qualified black/African American nominee who doesn't have the evasive voting record and double-talk of Obama, have the 20-year history with Rev. Wright that Obama has, doesn't have the closeted muslim past and liberal-rooted anti-Americanism that Obama has, doesn't have the weakness and naivete in foreign diplomacy that Obama has.

But of course, any logical argument against Obama's candidacy is, of course, "racism", right?

But of course the 1st place the radical right mouthpieces went after the Powell endorsment was towards race. You don't have a problem with Powell because he's not a racist? But isn't that what the right is now accusing him of, despite his detailed reasoning given?

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

The only thing is, as I've said many times, Colin Powell was selected by a majority of Americans as the candidate they would have chosen over anyone else in 1992, 1996, and 2000. And there are any number of other highly successful black politicians. The notion that the American public would allow these other black office-holders to rise as far as they have, and then deny the presidency to a guy based on skin-color, is just wild conspiracy.

It's a clever spin by Obama to appeal to black racists, who want to perpetuate race politics, perpetual victimhood, and racial quotas forever. And these liberal policies are, in truth, the most condescending racism of all, despite cloaking this mindset in handouts given under the name of "social justice".

Vindictive prejudicial stereotyping of whites for objectively criticizing Obama.
Slapping false racist labels on non-supporters, to hide the Obama campaign's own racism and blaxploitation. It is truly Whomodian.

[quote=Wonder Boy]

Regarding Powell "praising" Obama, he praised Obama's tactics in a particular instance, not Obama's overall candidacy. Pat Buchanan (in your Olbermann Youtube clips, and pretty much weekly on other programs) has praised aspects of Obama as well, I wouldn't call that an endorsement either. It's just political commentary on aspects of the candidates.

Powell in the same above clip also praised Hillary and McCain, and the wide range of diametrically opposed political beliefs expressed in this election, in what Powell praised as the astonishingly peaceful election process we have, when opinions are so divergent, as compared to the volatile process in other nations.
Most of all, Powell praised our uniquely open election process in which all three candidates were a part of, rather than praising or "endorsing" Obama or anyone else.

Like virtually everything else you link here, you spun that clip as something it was not.

$\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$
$\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$
$\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$
$\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$
$\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$
$\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$

Um.. FAIL! How am I spinning Powell not endorsing Obama now? Well to be fair, Wonder Boy has suggested that Powell is a traitor, in the past.

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

Well again, the only people now trying to make it abut race are Limbaugh, George Will, PJP, and a great many other right wingers out there. They can't fathom the idea that perhaps Powell meant what he said in his interview on Sunday as to why he endorsed Obama.

Powell I think would make a good President, as I said before I would rather have a guy out for personal gain(Powell), than a closet Muslim with terrorist ties(Obama). Just because Powell endorsed Obama based on race and a cozy appointment doesn't make him the devil, it just makes him a little less above it all.

Quote:

Feel the Powell Love-In!! I guess you're only scared if Powell picks a Democrat with his great judgement that 4 Administrations have relied upon. Then suddenly he's just another black man.

Do you honestly believe that Colin Powell, as president, would enact the same policies as Obama?

Powell has lost a lot of my respect for shilling to the DEMs, but that doesn't mean his views all of a sudden terrify me like Obama's do.

I understand he felt pressure from the African American community, and according to Obama they have some sort of understanding that he will get an appointment for his endorsement. That's old school politics which is much better than palling around with terrorists.

I would still vote for Colin Powell as President but he is not running.

I would also vote for Bill Richardson for President and he is a Dem.

You are so fucking dense whomod. Plus the article I posted was not necessarily mean towards Powell. it just tried to offer some insight on why he did what he did. he never was a die hard Republican..... incidentally his son is supporting McCain.

Powell is a great guy and I like him. i don't see you saying that about Joe Lieberman.

whomod is still grappling with the idea that you can support a politician without blindly agreeing with everything that politician says/does.

I would be surprised if Whomod agrees with everything that Obama does, much like many conservatives on this board do with McCain. Where's the criticism that was displayed before McCain won the primary? It got replaced with criticism aimed at Obama.

What?

Originally Posted By: PJP

What?

Essentially your behaving like Whomod except you support McCain instead of Obama.

I disagree with that. I still don't feel well and just don't feel like arguing with you. You are a nice person but very wrong about Obama. I'll leave it at that. Maybe the week after the election we can pick this up again.

Mem is showing the typical fan boy mentality. Anything he agrees with is "fair play" but say something he doesn't agree with and he calls you a liar and sticks his head in the sand.

Originally Posted By: rex

Mem is showing the typical fan boy mentality. Anything he agrees with is "fair play" but say something he doesn't agree with and he calls you a liar and sticks his head in the sand.

I wasn't calling anyone a liar Rex. I was just pointing out that both sides are in campaign mode.

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

That's the stupidest thing you could say. Seriously, you just shot yourself in the foot.

To my knowledge, neither BSAMS nor PJP ever disliked McCain. And even when I started pushing for McCain out of fear of Obama becoming president, I have never let up on how much of a fucking idiot he is. I'm not sure if G-man feels as strongly about McCain's assholery as I do, but I imagine he's not supporting McCain so much as he's against Obama--Of course, that was before he realized the futility of trying to fight the inevitable rise of the Obamaocracy.

You are the one who's pulled a 180 on Hillary in favor of putting Obama on a pedestal.

Originally Posted By: Pariah

...

You are the one who's pulled a 180 on Hillary in favor of putting Obama on a pedestal.

I still have problems with Obama Pariah & think Hillary would make a better President. How have I put Obama on a pedestal?

How haven't you?

Originally Posted By: Pariah

How haven't you?

Well I've repeatedly said that I still like McCain. I don't have pages & pages of posts trying to tear McCain down. Most of the criticism I've had for Obama still hasn't changed. Where's the pedestal Pariah?

well 6 months ago you praised McCain and blasted Obama. The minute he got the nom you followed. Which is fair since you are a dem and usually vote dem but you did say some nasty things about Obama. I never said anything Nasty about McCain and he was always my second choice after Rudy.

Originally Posted By: PJP

Even there I still wasn't for changing Obama's religion for him to help get my candidate more votes. There is no high road there PJP.

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

I wasn't talking about McCain. I was talking about Obama. The fact that you avoid talking about Obama just proves you're full of shit.

Originally Posted By: Pariah

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

I wasn't talking about McCain. I was talking about Obama. The fact that you avoid talking about Obama just proves you're full of shit.

I fail to see how not criticising Obama enough to suit someone who's voting McCain is putting Obama on a pedestal. A bit of an exageration on your part IMHO but all part of the campaign fever that I original was talking about.

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Originally Posted By: Pariah

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

I wasn't talking about McCain. I was talking about Obama. The fact that you avoid talking about Obama just proves you're full of shit.

Yet again, you avoid talking about the specificity of your paradigm switch in regards to Obama.

Originally Posted By: Pariah

...

Yet again, you avoid talking about the specificity of your paradigm switch in regards to Obama.

I thought we were talking about your exageration about me putting Obama on a pedestal?

I said that many criticisms I have of Obama are still there. I've consistently said that changing his religion for him was a bunch of crap even when Hillary was in the game. Hardly a 180 degree change that you call it.

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

I thought we were talking about your exageration about me putting Obama on a pedestal?

I'm sure that's what you're inferring, but what I'm saying is that you're being evasive.

Quote:

I said that many criticisms I have of Obama are still there.

Of which you're being very selective about stating.

Originally Posted By: Pariah

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

I thought we were talking about your exageration about me putting Obama on a pedestal?

I'm sure that's what you're inferring, but what I'm saying is that you're being evasive.

Actually you brought it up & instead of defending it you moved on presumably because you & I know it's an exageration.

Quote:

I said that many criticisms I have of Obama are still there.

Of which you're being very selective about stating. [/quote]

I'm not sure what the problem is there Pariah, unless you feel I haven't criticised Obama in the past & I think it's recognized that I have.

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Actually you brought it up & instead of defending it you moved on presumably because you & I know it's an exageration.

You inferring exaggeration means I'm inferring exaggeration?

Quote:

I'm not sure what the problem is there Pariah, unless you feel I haven't criticised Obama in the past & I think it's recognized that I have.

Of course you have. And now you're tucking it under the carpet.

Originally Posted By: Pariah

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Actually you brought it up & instead of defending it you moved on presumably because you & I know it's an exageration.

You inferring exaggeration means I'm inferring exaggeration?

I don't see it as inferring but just recognizing it for what it is.

Quote:

I'm not sure what the problem is there Pariah, unless you feel I haven't criticised Obama in the past & I think it's recognized that I have.

Of course you have. And now you're tucking it under the carpet.

Odd I just said I still had criticisms of Obama & you consider it tucking it under the carpet. Seems we're moving towards more exageration on your part.

I supported McCain for years, what are you on? I've never really seen anything to criticize him on, he's a moderate like myself, give and take.

If you take away the associations with terrorist, closet Muslim beliefs, terrorist appeasement policies, 20 years of bigot church attendance, killing of babies and antisemitism, I may very well have voted for Obama myself.

So in other words, you have him on a pedestal?

$\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$

$\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/10/21/Obama_camp_to_charge_for_Nov_4_access/UPI-79741224638560/

Quote:

CHICAGO, Oct. 21 (UPI) -- Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama's campaign is charging news organizations if they want to cover the senator's election-night gala in Chicago.

In a memo sent Tuesday, the Obama campaign says media credentials will cost $715 to $1,815, depending on whether electrical and phone lines are needed and whether an indoor or outdoor seat is requested for the event in Grant Park, Crain's Chicago Business reported Tuesday.

The campaign said free admission is available for the "general media" area, which will not have access to top campaign officials.

"Please note that the general media area is outdoors, unassigned and may have obstructed views ... standing room only," the memo said.

Senior campaign officials will be available only in the "press file" tent, for which an additional admission fee of $935 per person is being charged.

An Obama spokesman said that the fees will only pay the costs of such things as building risers with a view of the stage.

...this is a preview of his Press Tax he plans to implement as Glorious Leader....

Of course, this won't bother the center-left media at all. They'll just view it as yet another willing donation to the coffers of the Benevolent Adjudicator in his war against the voices that must be silenced.

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

I don't see it as inferring but just recognizing it for what it is.

How can you recognize the way things are when you're inferring such erroneous ideas?

Quote:

Odd I just said I still had criticisms of Obama & you consider it tucking it under the carpet. Seems we're moving towards more exaggeration on your part.

Once again, you fail another opportunity to strengthen the argument that you're still critical of Obama.

PARIAH! Off topic forum. Now. Your woman is back.

Originally Posted By: Pariah

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

I don't see it as inferring but just recognizing it for what it is.

How can you recognize the way things are when you're inferring such erroneous ideas?
...

Perhaps you should explain your charge that I put Obama on a pedestal then? Do any of the McCain posse put their guy on a pedestal? Do you feel there are any liberals on this board that don't put Obama on a pedestal?

I think there are many liberals here who are silent because they dont agree with Obama.

Here is a candidate that wont release his birth records, his college papers(Which Bush, Gore, McCain and Kerry have all done when running for Pres.), his whole life is a secret. If you have nothing to hide, then open up.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/10/obama-money.html

Quote:

Having hauled in a record $208,333 every hour of every day last month -- $150 million in all -- plus a few more unreported millions so far this month, Barack Obama is worried that he might come up short in the political money war with the John McCain-Sarah Palin ticket.

Just to relieve himself of that $150 million before the polls open, Obama will have to spend $12.5 million a day.

An Official Obama-Biden car magnet

But he needs some more.

And, according to an e-mail plea to supporters, tonight's the absolute deadline to donate $10 more and receive your special edition Official Obama-Biden car magnet.

Having now collected more than $605 million altogether, the freshman senator shows no concern over the appearance of buying the presidency. Imagine for a moment the national political conversation that could be going on now if rich Republicans had raked in that much loot for one campaign.

Obama's team is so well-funded and well-organized it has spread its political web into one-time red states, forcing McCain to defend them with his measly $84.1 million in federal funds.

Obama aides privately profess profound concern that additional financial resources from the Republican National Committee could make the GOP ticket competitive in the closing days. And the Cincinatti Bengals are a real Super Bowl threat this year.

"The race is deadlocked in a number of crucial battleground states," the urgent e-mail proclaims, "including Ohio, Missouri and Indiana. And we're neck-and-neck in Florida, North Carolina and Nevada.

"We have to make our final, tough decisions about where to fight and how strong we can make our team. And those choices will depend on the financial resources we have."

And, hey, if there's a few hundred million dollars left over in the campaign coffers on Nov. 5, win or lose, maybe Obama would like to put it toward the immense federal budget deficits that our colleague Stephen Braun warns this morning will confront the hopes and current plans of either an Obama or McCain White House come Jan. 21.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,443913,00.html

OPEC Cuts Oil Production in Move to Boost Prices
Friday, October 24, 2008

Take that, OPEC.

The international oil cartel agreed Friday to cut daily production by 1.5 million barrels in a move to drive up prices on the international market — and, at the gas pump.

But, crude oil futures went in the other direction, falling 5 percent Friday in London trading on speculation that demand will continue to fall.

Oil fell sharply in morning trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange, with light sweet crude priced for December delivery at $64.40.

Hardline OPEC members Iran and Venezuela had been pushing members to slice production by 2 million barrels a day, with Iran's oil minister declaring, "The era of cheap oil is finished." When asked before Friday's meeting what price Iran would want for its oil, Gholam Hossein Nozari boasted, "The more the better."

OPEC, meanwhile, cited lower demand and market surpluses as reason for reducing output.

"The financial crisis is already having a noticeable impact on the world economy, dampening the demand for energy...and oil in particular," OPEC said in a press release after the decision was announced. "This slowdown in oil demand is serving to exacerbate the situation in a market which has been oversupplied with crude for some time."

It also noted that the collapse in oil prices — which have fallen over 55 percent since their mid-July peaks — may jeopardize oil projects and threaten supply growth in the medium term.

Iran is a traditional OPEC hardliner on prices and production and is the second largest producer within the organization. Saudi Arabia leads OPEC production, and was expected to lobby ministers for a smaller cut than proposed by Iran and Venezuela.

Iran has taken a liking to astronomical oil prices, using its newfound wealth to fuel its nuclear program in defiance of the U.S. and the global community.

Sam Gault, president of Gault Inc., a fifth-generation, family-owned oil business in Westport, Conn., said the Saudis still control OPEC's actions.

"Its really going to come down to whether Saudi Arabia wants to cut production, because they're the ones that can afford to cut production," Gault told FOXNews.com. "A lot of times the different members of OPEC wind up cheating on their quotas."

Analysts at JBC Energy in Vienna, Austria, said that the oil cartel is likely to request non-OPEC producers, including Russia, to cooperate with them "in order to hinder the price slide."

"Behind the scenes negotiations (with Russia) are going on and a well-publicized joint cut is still possible," the analysts wrote in a report Thursday.

Over the last four weeks, gasoline demand fell 4.3 percent from the same period last year,a ccording to industry analysts. Distillate fuel demand was down 5.8 percent, and jet fuel demand was down 9.2 percent.

FOXNews.com's Jennifer Lawinski, the Associated Press, Wall Street Journal and Reuters contributed to this report.

This will hurt Obama's campaign contributions.

He might actually have to work for the job, rather than have it handed to him.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/10132008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/an_obama_panic__133374.htm

Quote:

Barack Obama has re mained cool and confident amid the financial melt down, even as John McCain at times has been embarrassing, lurching from one proposal to the next. But while the polls are reflecting Obama's steady hand, the markets haven't. In fact, they're getting worse by the day as Obama's lead widens.

See Gasparino Talk About Obama's Economics on CNBC.

Most investors know the devil is in the details - and the details of Obama's economic plans are anything but reassuring.

Of course, the market turmoil is first a reflection of grim reality - the bursting of the housing bubble and the billions upon billions in writedowns and losses that have forced upon the hugely leveraged financial firms companies that had cranked big profits during the bubble years.

The resulting credit crunch is hitting Main Street harder than ever before. The country is headed for recession; the only question is: Just how low can the markets and economy go?

It could be a lot lower - it all depends on the policies of the next president.

And, as it looks increasingly likely that Obama will be that man, the markets are casting a vote of "no confidence."

To be fair, McCain hardly instills confidence among the Wall Streeters I speak to. Why has his campaign spent the last week focusing on Obama's friendship with former terrorist William Ayers - when it should be hitting Obama's blind loyalty to policies that bring together the worst elements of Herbert Hoover and Jimmy Carter?

Recently, Obama said he wants to expedite loans to small businesses, so he seems to have a clue that they produce much of the country's job growth. Yet his income-tax hike on upper brackets will hit vast numbers of small businesses - they'd face the highest rates they've seen in decades.

Overall, his plan includes some of the most lethal tax increases imaginable, including a jump in the capital-gains rate. He'd expand government spending massively, with everything from new public-works projects to increases in foreign aid to a surge in Afghanistan - plus hand out a token $500 welfare check that he calls a tax cut to everyone else.

Capital Gains affect everyone. If Uschi ever decides to sell her house Obama will take more of what she makes regardless of her income. That is just one of many ways his plans will cripple the economy.

quality of life, quality of education, quality of government. you get what you pay for. there's a reason why America is falling behind in education, employment, and crime.
Canada and Europe are surpassing us quickly with socialized ideas. so we can cling to the free market idealogy and let the gap between rich and poor increase and be happy that we got a few hundred extra bucks to buy some useless crap or we can have a better country and compete in the world.

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

quality of life, quality of education, quality of government. you get what you pay for. there's a reason why America is falling behind in education, employment, and crime.

So your solution is to elect a President that is weak on crime, wants to tax business out of hiring new employees, and that siphons education funds into crooked voter registration groups?

no, and that's why i'm voting for Obama.

Youre voting for Obama because you want a candidate that is weak on crime, wants to tax business out of hiring new employees, and that siphons education funds into crooked voter registration groups?

he's not "weak on crime." certainly not weaker than mccain who helped crimes happen with the keating five (or technically the other 4).
he wants to tax businesses that make a good sized profit. not tax them into oblivion, just a fair share. people below a certain level will either be unaffected or helped out and people making a lot of money will be taxed fairly on their income. that's part of being a member of society. and when that fair share is used to help others then the country as a whole benefits. i really hope you're not referencing joe the unlicensed tax evading "plumber" who is nowhere near able to buy his business.
crooked voter registration groups?

if i said that about the republicans you would call me paranoid.

Quote:

he wants to tax businesses that make a good sized profit. not tax them into oblivion, just a fair share.

So you think if a company is taxed an extra $50k, the owner will say to his wife, "Honey we have to make due with a little less this year." Or do you think they will slow raises, reduce 401k contributions, slow hiring, ect to make sure that they still live the same lifestyle theyve been living?

now be honest Ray, not partisan.

It's predictable and sad that the only tactics you guys on the right have is terrorism. Always trying to terrorize Americans into capitulating to your demands to rule America as you all think is your god given right.

Quote:

Republican former Mass. governor endorses Obama
By Holly Ramer
Associated Press Writer / October 24, 2008

CONCORD, N.H.—Former Massachusetts Gov. William Weld, a Republican, endorsed Democrat Barack Obama for president on Friday, citing the senator's good judgment, "deep sense of calm" and "first-class political temperament."

Weld said he's never endorsed a Democrat for president before, but in the last six weeks or so, it became "close to a no-brainer." Obama has a history of bringing Democrats, Republicans and independents together and is the best choice at a time when America's standing in the world is at a low point, he said.

"It's not often you get a guy with his combination of qualities, chief among which I would say is the deep sense of calm he displays, and I think that's a product of his equally deep intelligence," he said in a phone interview.

He insisted his endorsement was based on an assessment of Obama's strengths, not Republican John McCain's weaknesses.

"John McCain is a very good guy," he said. "I do think the Republican Party has been playing on an increasingly small field in the last couple of elections."

Weld joined other prominent Republicans endorsing Obama over McCain in the campaign's final weeks, including former Secretary of State Colin Powell, former Minnesota Gov. Arne Carlson and Scott McClellan, former press secretary to President Bush.

Weld announced his support at a news conference at Obama's campaign office in Salem. Last year, he came to New Hampshire to campaign for another former Massachusetts governor, Republican Mitt Romney, who ended his bid for the presidential nomination in February.

Weld was governor of Massachusetts from 1991 to 1997. Before that, he was U.S. attorney for Massachusetts under President Reagan and later led the criminal division of the U.S. Justice Department.

Narrow field. Is one way of saying it. Playing to an extremist right wing base to the detriment of everyone else is the best way to phrase it.Which is the same thing Powell said. It's amazing eh? Just how many moderate Republicans are endorsing in your words "a terrorist". Especially Colin Powell. Tell me exactly how Al qaeda recruited him, ok? Was William Ayers or ACORN involved? $\:lol\:$

We all know why Powell endorsed him.

Quote:

Former Bush aide voting for Obama
Posted: 09:45 PM ET

From Extra
CNN

Watch McCllellan on D.L. Hughley Breaks the News.

(CNN) — Scott McClellan, the former White House press secretary who sharply criticized President Bush in his memoir last spring, told CNN Thursday he's voting for Barack Obama.

"From the very beginning I have said I am going to support the candidate that has the best chance for changing the way Washington works and getting things done and I will be voting for Barack Obama and clapping," McClellan told new CNN Host D.L. Hughley

McClellan, a onetime Bush loyalist whose scathing critique of the president sent shock waves across Washington last spring, has long hinted he was leaning toward the Illinois senator.

"It's a message that is very similar to the one that Gov. Bush ran on in 2000," McClellan said in May about Obama's campaign.

McClellan isn't the first member of Bush's inner circle to express support for Obama. In 2007, former Bush strategist Matt Dowd also said he had become disillusioned with the president and said Obama was the only candidate that appealed to him.

The full interview will air on D.L. Hugley's new show, D.L. Hughley Breaks the News, Saturday at 10 p.m. ET. Hughley is also a guest of Larry King Live Friday at 9 p.m. ET.

$\:lol\:$

osama Bin laden and William Ayers muSt have their giant Republican brainwaSHING MACHINE GOING ON AT FULL POWER NOW, EH?

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

We all know why Powell endorsed him.

Tell me...

and call Powell a liar while you're at it since he gave a long and detailed indictment of McCain as to why he's voting Obama.

But of course you didn't hear any of that huh?

You were looking at something else....

Originally Posted By: whomod

....call Powell a liar ....

Um, the way that you guys did when told the UN that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction?

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

Quote:

he wants to tax businesses that make a good sized profit. not tax them into oblivion, just a fair share.

which is why minimum wage and health benefits are important to safeguard workers. you only say an extra 50k, but that much tax means high profits and paying a fair share.
if the employee is denied a raise because of the taxes then they can either show how valuable they are by going to a new job that will pay them better leaving the boss with the lesser employees who will accept lower wages until he is ready to pay fairer wages.

Mccain basically wants to give breaks to corporations making billions of dollars in hopes that they'll do the right thing and hire people and give raises when realistically they'll give those jobs to Indians in India and give themselves nice annual bonuses.

It's different now g-man! he is following the Obamassiah!

Originally Posted By: the G-man of Zur-En-Arrh

Originally Posted By: whomod

....call Powell a liar ....

Um, the way that you guys did when told the UN that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction?

Powell has shown some integrity and redemption when he admitted that he made a mistake.

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

Quote:

he wants to tax businesses that make a good sized profit. not tax them into oblivion, just a fair share.

um it wont be one employer that pays more, it will be all of them, they will all slow raises, slow hiring, decrease 401k. the owner is not going to cancel his vacation. how can you be so obtuse?

Originally Posted By: the G-man of Zur-En-Arrh

Originally Posted By: whomod

....call Powell a liar ....

Um, the way that you guys did when told the UN that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction?

Well that was a lie. and Powell himself said so.

next.

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

Originally Posted By: the G-man of Zur-En-Arrh

Originally Posted By: whomod

....call Powell a liar ....

Um, the way that you guys did when told the UN that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction?

Powell has shown some integrity and redemption when he admitted that he made a mistake.

So Bush and Cheney haven't earned it for admitting they made mistakes? That's right Bush endorsed McCain!

Originally Posted By: whomod

Originally Posted By: the G-man of Zur-En-Arrh

Originally Posted By: whomod

....call Powell a liar ....

Um, the way that you guys did when told the UN that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction?

Well that was a lie. and Powell himself said so.

next.

So Powell is a liar.

your argument is that employers are assholes so we shouldn't tax them in the hopes that they'll be nice.

And your argument is that people are losing jobs so we should make it more expensive for employers to hire them?

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

your argument is that employers are assholes so we shouldn't tax them in the hopes that they'll be nice.

No yours is they are greedy and don't pass along the money, so if we take more they'll decide to take a cut. Genius!

bsams, did you drive on a road at any point in your life?
ever need the police?
ever need the fire department?
ever go to a public park?
or a national park?
ever needed medical aid when you didn't have insurance?
ever use public transportation and pay only $1.50 when the actual cost to ride should be two to four times as much?
go to public school or community/state college?
ever gotten a vaccine?
take a book out of the library?

if you answered yes to any of those questions then you have no right to bitch about taxes. that's what they pay for. and since you've said you get a few hundrer more back thanks to the tax cuts then you obviously don't make $250,000 a year. under Obama's plan you won't be effected.

Originally Posted By: the G-man of Zur-En-Arrh

And your argument is that people are losing jobs so we should make it more expensive for employers to hire them?

how exactly can a company maintain profits with a depleted workforce? employers will always hire the employees they need. successful businesses pay something back to society which helps others rise up and helps society as a whole.
the real tax money will come from undoing bush's cuts for the wealthiest 1% who pay nowhere near their fair share.
john mccain in 2000 agreed that people need to pay something back.

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

your argument is that employers are assholes so we shouldn't tax them in the hopes that they'll be nice.

No yours is they are greedy and don't pass along the money, so if we take more they'll decide to take a cut. Genius!

no, you're the one who said that an employer would choose a vacation over paying a fair wage.

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

I'm not complaining about taxes, I'm talking about making an already tight job market worse. If you raise business costs across the board, there will be cost cutting across the board.

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

Originally Posted By: the G-man of Zur-En-Arrh

And your argument is that people are losing jobs so we should make it more expensive for employers to hire them?

how exactly can a company maintain profits with a depleted workforce?

Exactly! Increasing costs and forcing cuts by employers will eventually destroy all economic activity in the US! We agree!

The Stink in Farts Controls Blood Pressure

Quote:

A smelly rotten-egg gas in farts controls blood pressure in mice, a new study finds.

The unpleasant aroma of the gas, called hydrogen sulfide (H2S), can be a little too familiar, as it is expelled by bacteria living in the human colon and eventually makes its way, well, out.

The new research found that cells lining mice's blood vessels naturally make the gas and this action can help keep the rodents' blood pressure low by relaxing the blood vessels to prevent hypertension (high blood pressure). This gas is "no doubt" produced in cells lining human blood vessels too, the researchers said.

"Now that we know hydrogen sulfide's role in regulating blood pressure, it may be possible to design drug therapies that enhance its formation as an alternative to the current methods of treatment for hypertension," said Johns Hopkins neuroscientist Solomon H. Snyder, M.D., a co-author of the study detailed in the Oct. 24th issue of the journal Science.

Snyder and his colleagues compared normal mice to mice that were missing a gene for an enzyme known as CSE, long suspected as being responsible for making hydrogen sulfide. As they measured hydrogen sulfide levels taken from tissues of the CSE-deficient mice, the scientists found that the gas was depleted in the cardiovascular systems of the altered mice. By contrast, normal mice had higher levels of the gas, thereby showing that hydrogen sulfide is naturally made by mammalian tissues using CSE.

Next, the mice were subjected to higher blood pressures comparable to serious hypertension in humans. Scientists had them respond to a chemical called methacholine that relaxes normal blood vessels. The blood vessels of the CSE-lacking mice hardly relaxed, indicating that hydrogen sulfide is a huge contender for regulating blood pressure.

Hydrogen sulfide is the most recently discovered member of a family of gasotransmitters, small molecules inside our bodies with important physiological functions.

This study is the first to reveal that the CSE enzyme that triggers hydrogen sulfide is activated itself in the same way as other enzymes when they trigger their respective gasotransmitter, such as a nitric oxide-forming enzyme that also regulates blood pressure, Dr. Snyder said.

Because gasotransmitters are common in mammals all over the evolutionary tree, these findings on the importance of hydrogen sulfide are thought to have broad applications to human diseases, such as diabetes and neurodegenerative diseases.

The research was supported by grants from the U.S. Public Health Service and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research as well as a Research Scientist Award.

Well it looks like Obama is even influencing scientists now. Higher taxes are good for America, as well as stinky farts.

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

Originally Posted By: the G-man of Zur-En-Arrh

And your argument is that people are losing jobs so we should make it more expensive for employers to hire them?

how exactly can a company maintain profits with a depleted workforce?

Exactly! Increasing costs and forcing cuts by employers will eventually destroy all economic activity in the US! We agree!

because Canada and England are wastelands not surpassing us.

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

Originally Posted By: the G-man of Zur-En-Arrh

And your argument is that people are losing jobs so we should make it more expensive for employers to hire them?

Other than moving jobs overseas or automating processes to eliminate costs?

Quote:

the real tax money will come from undoing bush's cuts for the wealthiest 1% who pay nowhere near their fair share.

That's not actually true, but you're entitled to your opinion I guess.

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

I'll take your tired fear tactics and raise them with some American pop culture icons.

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/cc65ed650d

Embed it, mod:

<object width="464" height="388" classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000"><param name="movie" value="http://www2.funnyordie.com/public/flash/fodplayer.swf?5320a921" /><param name="flashvars" value="key=cc65ed650d" /><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /><embed width="464" height="388" flashvars="key=cc65ed650d" allowfullscreen="true" quality="high" src="http://www2.funnyordie.com/public/flash/fodplayer.swf?5320a921" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"></embed></object><div style="text-align:center;width: 464px;">See more <a href="http://www.funnyordie.com/ron_howard">Ron Howard</a> videos at Funny or Die</div>

That has got to be the BEST CAMPAIGN AD EVER!!!!

Wow. How can McCain compete with America's dad and The Fonz??!!

Ever get the feeling history itself is against you?

Quote:

See more Ron Howard videos at Funny or Die

How very retarded. Thank you.

Originally Posted By: whomod

http://www.funnyordie.com/

Originally Posted By: Pariah

Quote:

See more Ron Howard videos at Funny or Die

How very retarded. Thank you.

this was pretty funny. and occasionally embarrassing. but still, pretty funny overall. there wasn't much message in it, though, other than a funny few moments that show beloved characters (and actors?) that want to vote a certain way. if the goal was to get someone to vote for obama, they didn't offer any reasoning other than they are also probably voting for obama... which i think is a sizable missed opportunity.

Originally Posted By: the G-man of Zur-En-Arrh

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

Originally Posted By: the G-man of Zur-En-Arrh

And your argument is that people are losing jobs so we should make it more expensive for employers to hire them?

Other than moving jobs overseas or automating processes to eliminate costs?

which they do anyway. only with the bush/mccain tax plan the companies make higher profits for cutting jobs and there's not enough funding for the job placement programs to help the terminated employees.

Quote:

the real tax money will come from undoing bush's cuts for the wealthiest 1% who pay nowhere near their fair share.

Quote:

That's not actually true, but you're entitled to your opinion I guess.

cheerleaders like you have helped support bush while he ran up the record debt and deficit and your "government is evil, let's deregulate" rhetoric has helped create the current financial mess.
and let's not forget Iraq.

but, yeah, question my judgement.

Originally Posted By: whomod

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

I'll take your tired fear tactics and raise them with some American pop culture icons.

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/cc65ed650d

Embed it, mod:

That has got to be the BEST CAMPAIGN AD EVER!!!!

Wow. How can McCain compete with America's dad and The Fonz??!!

Ever get the feeling history itself is against you?

Done and done!

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/10/24/joe.html?sid=101

Quote:

"State and local officials are investigating if state and law-enforcement computer systems were illegally accessed when they were tapped for personal information about "Joe the Plumber."

Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher became part of the national political lexicon Oct. 15 when Republican presidential candidate John McCain mentioned him frequently during his final debate with Democrat Barack Obama.

The 34-year-old from the Toledo suburb of Holland is held out by McCain as an example of an American who would be harmed by Obama's tax proposals.

Public records requested by The Dispatch disclose that information on Wurzelbacher's driver's license or his sport-utility vehicle was pulled from the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles database three times shortly after the debate.

Information on Wurzelbacher was accessed by accounts assigned to the office of Ohio Attorney General Nancy H. Rogers, the Cuyahoga County Child Support Enforcement Agency and the Toledo Police Department.

It has not been determined who checked on Wurzelbacher, or why. Direct access to driver's license and vehicle registration information from BMV computers is restricted to legitimate law enforcement and government business.

Paul Lindsay, Ohio spokesman for the McCain campaign, spoke out against this abuse. "It's outrageous to see how quickly Barack Obama's allies would abuse government power in an attempt to smear a private citizen who dared to ask a legitimate question," he said.

Isaac Baker, Obama's Ohio spokesman, denounced Lindsay's statement as charges of desperation from a campaign running out of time. "Invasions of privacy should not be tolerated. If these records were accessed inappropriately, it had nothing to do with our campaign and should be investigated fully," he said.

The attorney general's office is investigating if the access of Wuzelbacher's BMV information through the office's Ohio Law Enforcement Gateway computer system was unauthorized, said spokeswoman Jennifer Brindisi.

"We're trying to pinpoint where it came from," she said. The investigation could become "criminal in nature," she said. Brindisi would not identify the account that pulled the information on Oct. 16.

Records show it was a "test account" assigned to the information technology section of the attorney general's office, said Department of Public Safety spokesman Thomas Hunter.

Brindisi later said investigators have confirmed that Wurzelbacher's information was not accessed within the attorney general's office. She declined to provide details. The office's test accounts are shared with and used by other law enforcement-related agencies, she said.

On Oct. 17, BMV information on Wurzelbacher was obtained through an account used by the Cuyahoga County Child Support Enforcement Agency in Cleveland, records show.

Mary Denihan, spokeswoman for the county agency, said the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services contacted the agency today and requested an investigation of the access to Wurzelbacher's information. Cuyahoga County court records do not show any child-support cases involving Wurzelbacher.

The State Highway Patrol, which administers the Law Enforcement Automated Data System in Ohio, asked Toledo police to explain why it pulled BMV information on Wurzelbacher within 48 hours of the debate, Hunter said.

The LEADS system also can be used to check for warrants and criminal histories, but such checks would not be reflected on the records obtained by The Dispatch.

Sgt. Tim Campbell, a Toledo police spokesman, said he could not provide any information because the department only had learned of the State Highway Patrol inquiry today.

Imagine when Obama has access to all the government computers. See you in Montana PJP....

A local Orlando TV station interviewed Joe Biden recently(yesterday?), this anchor nails Biden on Obama's socialist views, Biden gives the standard cookie cutter answers, but she knocks him out of the water. I read that today Obama's campaign has blacklisted the station:

It's nice to see true journalism again.

Biden Grilling Too Well Done? Obama campaign pulls the plug on all interviews with Florida TV station after Biden is asked critical questions.

The Obamacrats can't handle their VP nominee getting anything but softball questions so they put him in hiding.

Originally Posted By: the G-man of Zur-En-Arrh

The only interview that was cancelled was one with Biden's wife. Unlike Palen, Biden's wife isn't on the ticket.

Sorry MEM but all interviews were canceled. But for the sake of argument, why was Biden's wife scheduled to do an interview if she wasn't part of the campaign?

Anonymous 10/26/08 10:30 AM Reading a post
Forum: Politics and Current Events
Thread: Barack Hussein Obama in '08?

Welcome back Jason!

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Originally Posted By: the G-man of Zur-En-Arrh

The only interview that was cancelled was one with Biden's wife. Unlike Palen, Biden's wife isn't on the ticket.

It is pathetic that you would defend that. Wake up.

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

Sorry MEM but all interviews were canceled. But for the sake of argument, why was Biden's wife scheduled to do an interview if she wasn't part of the campaign?

Reread what I said BSAMS. I said she wasn't part of the ticket. It would be like saying Palin's husband isn't part of the ticket.

It was also the only cancellation. What other interviews that were scheduled were cancelled.

Originally Posted By: PJP

[quote=Matter-eater Man]It is pathetic that you would defend that. Wake up.

Should Obama's campaign handle Biden's wife more like McCain's campaign handles Palin & simply not have hardly any interviews? Please do clarify.

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Originally Posted By: PJP

[quote=Matter-eater Man]It is pathetic that you would defend that. Wake up.

Should Obama's campaign handle Biden's wife more like McCain's campaign handles Palin & simply not have hardly any interviews? Please do clarify.

Did you see the clip? Biden was pissed off that somebody would dare ask him anything other than softball type questions. At least when Barack went on O'Reilly he took all the questions very well and handled himself very well. I hope I'm wrong but these guys look like they are going to stifle any opposition or criticism.

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Everyone from the Obama campaign has been forbidden to do interviews with the station.

Learn to read.

Originally Posted By: Pariah

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Everyone from the Obama campaign has been forbidden to do interviews with the station.

I can't read.

My point was that no other interviews were cancelled contary to what has been claimed.

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

My point was that no other interviews were cancelled contary to what has been claimed.

All possible future interviews have been canceled. That's what being blacklisted means.

Police: Up to 100,000 at Obama rally

Obama also gets yet another endorsment. This time from the Des Moines Register:

Quote:

Register editorial board endorses Obama for President

McCain has run erratic, disappointing campaign....

[I]t's as if McCain has lost his way, forfeiting principle for gain of a few points in the polls. He put on hold his long-sought quest for comprehensive immigration reform. Though widely regarded as a man of honor, he has overseen a campaign premised on purposeful distortions about Obama and his record.

Worst of all, in grasping for political edge in his choice of a running mate, he burdened his ticket and potentially the country with an individual utterly unqualified to ascend to the presidency. Before choosing Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, McCain emphasized the importance of experience and sound judgment in fighting terrorism and confronting a restive Russia and a rising China. He has also questioned Obama's readiness to be commander in chief. Then he picked a running mate who clearly isn't ready.

somewhere in the back of that crowd, a guy wearing a tinfoil hat can barely be heard yelling "but he's a terrorist!!!"

Plus the new Obama Ad:

Hitler used to get crowds like that.

that is true!

So do most crappy bands.

I guess that means we have to vote for whatever crappy band is getting the largest crowds.

Originally Posted By: whomod

Police: Up to 100,000 at Obama rally

Obama also gets yet another endorsment. This time from the Des Moines Register:

Quote:

somewhere in the back of that crowd, a guy wearing a tinfoil hat can barely be heard yelling "but he's a terrorist!!!"

Originally Posted By: rex

Hitler used to get crowds like that.

that'll work as well...

The Anchorage Daily News, the largest paper in Sarah Palin's state, endorsed Barack Obama for President:

Quote:

Gov. Palin's nomination clearly alters the landscape for Alaskans as we survey this race for the presidency -- but it does not overwhelm all other judgment. The election, after all is said and done, is not about Sarah Palin, and our sober view is that her running mate, Sen. John McCain, is the wrong choice for president at this critical time for our nation.

Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic nominee, brings far more promise to the office. In a time of grave economic crisis, he displays thoughtful analysis, enlists wise counsel and operates with a cool, steady hand. The same cannot be said of Sen. McCain.

The final paragragh, from those who know Palin best is the real kicker:

Quote:

Yet despite her formidable gifts, few who have worked closely with the governor would argue she is truly ready to assume command of the most important, powerful nation on earth. To step in and juggle the demands of an economic meltdown, two deadly wars and a deteriorating climate crisis would stretch the governor beyond her range. Like picking Sen. McCain for president, putting her one 72-year-old heartbeat from the leadership of the free world is just too risky at this time.

A newspaper endorsing the democrat nominee? I just can't believe it.

Interesting article over at ABC news. One of their columnists writes about he's disgusted with how deep in the tank his co-workers are for Obama and speculates that the "old" media (ex: newspapers, network news) are pulling for Obama in large part because they believe that he'll regulate "new" media and make it easier for the mainstream press to avoid having to compete.

So, we have the "free" press pulling for candidate who will gut the First Amendment. Amazing.

I was thinking that Isreal would be scared if Obama wins because more than likely Iran is going to try something right awya probably before spring of 09. And Obama will not get involved.....I gurantee it. He'll use some bullshit excuse saying are military is too spent because of Bush and he'll watch Israel burn and then call for both sides to show restraint.

The positive is though that Israel who listens to the USA right now when we tell them not to invade Iran or other middle east countries will no longer listen to us and probably nuke Iran and fuck anyone else up that gets in their way. Basically if America votes Obama in they will be responsible for WWIII.

Obama will use the UN as his alibi, he will want to seek permission from the security council which everyone not brainwashed by Obama knows will drag out a negotiation led by Russia. Our only hope is Israel retaliates with overwhelming force. The bad side is we lose protection from God once we turn our backs on them. But if your a closet Muslim, I guess it wouldn't matter.

Europe is 98%anti-semitic they hate Jews. They will never allow the UN to go in there.

Originally Posted By: PJP

A lot of people think this scenario, or something quite like it, is what Biden meant when he said that Obama would be "tested" and that people would be upset by what he did.

I actually wish Brad Lee were here and that Darknight613 guy so we could here what they have to say on this subject.

If you guys could stop being anonymous for a few minutes please reply.

Not you Pro.

Originally Posted By: PJP

Europe is 98%anti-semitic they hate Jews. They will never allow the UN to go in there.

sounds like Chicago.

They probably have their heads in the sand and think Obama's magic brand of appeasement will save the day.

yes we can!

I wonder how much of the Jewish vote he will actually get on Nov. 4. I hope there is a way to tell for real and not what they say. I mean guys like Steven Spielberg are so far to the left they are only Jewish now because it's trendy in Hollywood. They don't give a shit about Israel. But I could see a guy Like Adam Sandler voting for McCain since he is so proud of his Jewish Heritage. Just two examples. The everyday ordinary Jews I think will take a long hard look at Hussein and say uh no thank you.

My accountant asks that I not comment.

sometimes I'm astounded that the democrat party hasn't collapsed under the weight of its own internal tension. they're expecting that jews and muslims, blacks and hispanics (at least the ones who will actually vote for them) will not only get along with each other but also with all the feminists, gays, and hippies.

It's not that hard. Keep them segregated and keep throwing money at them. It's always worked in the past.

Yes but don't ever let them get too independent.....you must keep them dependent on the government and the state.

Look at how they treat Sarah Palin.

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

Look at how they treat Sarah Palin.

Who's they? I've treated her far better than what many on this board would have if she were a democrat. She would have been slapped with the femanazi label & called a cunt. Me, I want to hear what she has to say but sadly the McCain campaign doesn't feel she's ready & won't allow her.

she was on every network this week....I know the most high profile ones were Brian Williams NBC and Greta and Hannity on Fox.

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

Look at how they treat Sarah Palin.

The far left is they. You aren't the far left for sure, though you turn a blind eye to their atrocities against America now that your moderate candidate has been railroaded by them.

Palin speaks everyday, her ideas are a matter of record, go ahead and believe the Olberman's of the world who say she is muzzled and don;t read her speeches or watch her talk on TV.

Originally Posted By: BASAMS The Plumber

It's nice to see true journalism again.

Biden rambled as usual. He was too afraid to address Obama's redistribution policies and ended up resorting to a reactionary tactic that has the temerity to try and spin Marxism on Bush.

'Bush is the one who's been redistributing money upward.'

That's one hell of a gaffe. Probably wouldn't have happened if he wasn't so dead set on replying to whatever she said with, "failed Bush policies." This is especially sad since he's allowed himself to tag along with a man who thinks there's nothing wrong with the idea that money can trickle upward.

only in Obamabizzaro world is allowing someone to keep their money, redistributing.....

Originally Posted By: Captain Sammitch

And this is why you guys are so far behind. This is exactly how you guys view America. Everyone needs to be at each others throats and divided. Obama's message since he emerged on the national stage 4 years ago has been one of unity and common purpouse, not of this division that you speak of and the gOp exploits election after election.

Originally Posted By: whomod

Obama's message since he emerged on the national stage 4 years ago has been one of unity and common purpouse..

...and if you don't support him you're "racist" and must be silenced.

well there's that.

Originally Posted By: whomod

Originally Posted By: Captain Sammitch

kool-aid man's empty rhetoric aside, I've seen enough of each of these people groups with my own eyes to know that policy can't be made to dictate reality. and away from the carefully-edited rose-colored (pinko-colored?) world the lefty media would love for you to buy into, my own eyes tell me that no matter who gets into the white house, those groups and plenty of other groups are still gonna be at odds for a long time to come. face it - you can't legislate human nature. far behind? in the words of my (still dead) friend heath, 'I'm just ahead of the curve!'

I seem to recall one or two other charismatic leaders over the years who espoused "unity" and "national purpose" and who also complained about the "constraints" on government....

I think they were called fascists...

Originally Posted By: Captain Sammitch

Originally Posted By: whomod

Originally Posted By: Captain Sammitch

You've "seen"?? What's the matter, actual interaction with "these groups" too scary for you?

STFU with your 'observations' from afar. Ever look into a McCain crowd as opposed to an Obama crowd? Or a RNC crowd as opposed to a DNC one. The differences are pretty stark. Obama and DNC crowds look like America. McCain and RNC crowds look like a suburban Rhode Island Presbyterian congregation.

Where exactly do you live anyways? you know I live in l.A. which next to New York is probably the most multicultural city on the face of the Earth. So we here don't make bullshit divisive observations from a safe distance. We live multiculturalism and diversity every single day. It's amazing how fearful you right wingers are of the changing nation and how you still cling o the divide and conquer philosophy which pretty much most people have rejected in embracing Obama.

Originally Posted By: whomod

Obama and DNC crowds look like America. McCain and RNC crowds look like a suburban Rhode Island Presbyterian congregation.

So we should have ten percent of the population stand out more?

Originally Posted By: whomod

You've "seen"?? What's the matter, actual interaction with "these groups" too scary for you?

He "interacted" with Mocha as we all know...

yes, but he can't make her come.

they say size does matter..

Rhode Island is part of America.

Originally Posted By: whomod

yes, but he can't make her come.

they say size does matter..

Q; Why do women fake orgasms?

A: Because they think men care.

Originally Posted By: whomod

I live in l.A. which next to New York is probably the most multicultural city on the face of the Earth. So we here don't make bullshit divisive observations from a safe distance. We live multiculturalism and diversity every single day.

Yeah, and there's NOOOOO racial or ethnic tension in Los Angeles.....

whomod was only 8 years old when that happened.

I was 8 years old when everything happened.

-K. Velo

That reminds me: since Obama was only about eight years old when King was assassinated, does that mean he would be friends with James Earl Ray?

I thought Obama was conceived during a King speech? What was his lie again?

I thought Obama transcended time?

Morris Day?

Originally Posted By: the G-man of Zur-En-Arrh

Originally Posted By: whomod

Yeah, and there's NOOOOO racial or ethnic tension in Los Angeles.....

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/DvqiElZI43k&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/DvqiElZI43k&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Ok... can I post an old video of the Berlin Wall to show how divided Germany is then?

But honestly, what's your guys' obsession with racial division? It seems you don't want it to be otherwise. Because if there were racial unity, well, Republicans would be fucked.

From yesterdays L.A. Times:

Quote:

Latino voters could provide the margin of victory for Obama in Nevada, Colorado and New Mexico -- states that went for President Bush in 2004 and that account for 19 electoral votes. If either candidate sweeps the big states of Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida, he could win without these Western states. But if the bigger states are split, each candidate would probably need the Western states for an electoral college victory.

The importance of those states was underscored Saturday, when the McCain and Obama campaigns made stops in New Mexico and Nevada.

The William C. Velasquez Institute, a nonpartisan public policy center in Los Angeles, analyzed polling data from the three Western states and Florida. It found that Latino voters provided no advantage to either side in Florida despite long-standing support for the Republican Party by Cuban Americans.

In the Western states, the Latino vote is growing in size and as a percentage of the total, and it is favoring the Democratic Party more than in previous years.

Latinos make up 32.4% of registered voters in New Mexico, 11.4% in Nevada and 9.9% in Colorado. The institute examined data from eight polling firms and found that Obama's lead over McCain in Nevada would be 42.4% to 40.7% without Latino voters -- a difference that's within the margin of error. Include Latino voters, however, and Obama's lead grows to 50%, versus 43% for McCain.

That only tells part of the story, according to Antonio Gonzalez, president of the institute. In the last presidential election, 60% of Latinos in Nevada voted for Democratic candidate John F. Kerry and 40% for Bush. This time, polls show a 7- to 10-point increase for Obama.

So if people reject your desperate desire to divide and conquer along racial (as well as social and religious) lines, you guys are fucked.

Good. Republicans have divided this country for far too long already.

Originally Posted By: whomod

You've "seen"?? What's the matter, actual interaction with "these groups" too scary for you?

if you weren't so obsessed with the sound of your own voice, you would have known (since it's pretty easy to find on these boards) that I grew up in a lower middle-class family in a pretty rough part of cleveland, in a mostly puerto rican neighborhood, and just about every major ethnic group in this country is represented in my immediate and extended family. my spanish is probably better than yours, and I sure as fuck have a better handle on black culture than your sorry ass. but I'm not here to get into a pissing contest with you - you embarrass yourself more than enough without my help.

how exactly do you 'live' multiculturalism in a way that I don't? did olbermann introduce some kinda new segment I'm not aware of? get your head outta your ass and get the fuck out of my presence if that pathetic shit is the best you can manage.

also, quit beating your wife.

notice that the most racist thing on these boards is whomod's repeated assumption that some of us don't understand his or other cultures based on nothing more than the level of melanin we have. except that pjp is orange. and jla and g-man have never posted photos of themselves. so basically he's assuming we're all white and assuming we consequently don't 'get it'.

g-man has cowardly posted pictures of himself. He blurred out his face but he is white.

...and my wife is of Asian, Afro-Caribbean and European descent...which, by the way, makes my kids mixed race too.

my wife is a hottie and I am an ogre, this makes my kids mixed as well.

Originally Posted By: BASAMS The Plumber

my wife is a hottie and I am an ogre, this makes my kids mixed as well.

Didn't Alan Moore write a mini-series about just that?

$\:lol\:$

Well, that's the end of Amazon.com.

I hope they keep good tax records.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/27/AR2008102702374.html

Quote:

WASHINGTON -- Democrat Barack Obama's "closing argument" speech Monday included a sweeping accusation against GOP rival John McCain: "Senator McCain still has not been able to tell the American people a single major thing he'd do differently from George Bush when it comes to the economy."

But the charge is debatable _ McCain has several ideas that are different than Bush's policy, which he touched on as recently as a Sunday interview on NBC's "Meet the Press."

"Do I respect President Bush? Of course I respect him," McCain said. "But I pointed out we were on the wrong track in a whole lot of ways, including a $10 trillion deficit, including saying we got to rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and propose legislation to try to fix it before that triggered the housing collapse, including today when I'm saying they should be going out and buying up these mortgages and giving people mortgages that they can afford rather than bailing out the banks."

The Obama campaign says the key word of Obama's statement is "major," and the differences that McCain points to are minor details. Here are some of what McCain's campaign sees as his biggest disagreements with Bush on economic policy:

_ McCain wants to use half of the $700 billion financial rescue package that Bush signed into law to buy up troubled mortgages at full face value and then negotiate easier loan terms.

_ McCain has called for the resignation of Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Christopher Cox because he has "betrayed the public's trust." Bush appointed Cox in 2005 and has stood by him.

_ On taxes, McCain is calling for a 10 percent cut in the corporate tax rate and doubling of the child exemption beyond the tax cuts that Bush has already passed.

_ McCain has proposed sweeping changes to the health care system, replacing existing income tax breaks for worker's health coverage with refundable tax credits of up to $5,000. Bush had proposed replacing income tax breaks with a standard deduction for health insurance, but it was not as large a proposal as McCain's and it died in Congress.

_ McCain differs with Bush in several ways over energy policy, points that his campaign argues would have a big impact on the economy. Among them: McCain supports a mandatory cap-and-trade approach to cutting greenhouse gases, which allows industries to either reduce their pollution or to purchase credits from companies exceeding pollution targets.

_ McCain wants to eliminate taxes on unemployment benefits.

Originally Posted By: whomod

yes, but he can't make her come.

how often does sonia get off when you give her the strawberry shortcake? or do you just do that to teach her a lesson whenever she uses her teeth too much?

Quote:

they say size does matter..

so it's because you're frustrated over having a small penis? gotcha.

UNITY, HOPE. ONE AMERICA.

hope and change! $\:lol\:$

msnbc!

$\:lol\:$

Yes, i forgot you prefer division and fear.

No,then I would like msnbc.

Originally Posted By: whomod

hope and change! hope and change!

Originally Posted By: whomod

UNITY, HOPE. ONE AMERICA

Which America is bitter and clings to guns and religion?

Originally Posted By: Captain Sammitch

Now that was an EPIC beatdown. No way whomod ignores it and goes for the YouTube clip to deflect from this post.

Originally Posted By: whomod

UNITY, HOPE. ONE AMERICA.

Nevermind.

Originally Posted By: BASAMS The Plumber

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/27/AR2008102702374.html

Quote:

Damn liberal media!

That article is fine......but do you not think there is not a liberal slant over all in the media?

No more than the conservative slant...

how can you say that? even die hard liberals on TV are finally openly admitting this.

Perfectly fine for them to do so. Myself, I see no more liberal slant than I do conservative slant. It all depends on what you're watching or listening to, who's doing to commentating, and who owns the company that is producing it. FOX is Right, CNN is Left. And it goes on and on...

yes but it's not proportionate. if you thrown in talk radio which is more conservative it still is probably around 70% liberal to 30% conservative and most people don't listen to talk radio.

Originally Posted By: Lucius Prometheus Vorenus

Okay, let's assume your opinion of Fox and CNN are correct, but ABC, NBC and CBS are all center-liberal and, because they are broadcast networks, each one of them alone has more viewers than either Fox or CNN. And, of course, you have MSNBC which is openly trying to be the liberal new channel, with Olbermann, Matthews and Maddow.

So Pappas is correct. The liberal to conservative ratio in the media is way tilted to the Democrat Party.

Since when does a Black person need an excuse to not go to work?

Originally Posted By: the G-man of Zur-En-Arrh

but ABC, NBC and CBS are all center-liberal

Since when? According to whom? How so?

come on Pro.

I could say the same to you. Except I would substitute your name with "Pro".

Wild accusations are fun. There's a lot of that on these boards. But, don't try to pass them off as facts just because you agree with them...

Originally Posted By: the G-man of Zur-En-Arrh

Originally Posted By: Lucius Prometheus Vorenus

Man, the gOp sure has become a party of whiners lately.

Maybe Government should step in and rectify this. Now that's irony! Or maybe, as I think, the media isn't liberal at all, it's just that the gOp has tilted so far to the right that anything not sounding like outright hate talk radio sounds "liberal" and "unfair" to them.

You know, things like needing PROOF that Obama doesn't have a birth certificate, that he's a Muslim, that' he's best friends with Bill Ayers.. Stuff like that that right wingers KNOW is true but the "liberal media" just won't report! Because of "bias" of course....

Originally Posted By: whomod

gOp

party of whiners

tilted so far to the right

outright hate talk radio

right wingers

"liberal media"

Originally Posted By: whomod

...that' he's best friends with Bill Ayers.. Stuff like that that right wingers KNOW is true but the "liberal media" just won't report! Because of "bias" of course....

Obama Affinity to Marxists Dates Back to College Days: Barack Obama shrugs off charges of socialism, but noted in his own memoir that he carefully chose Marxist professors as friends in college.

Originally Posted By: Lucius Prometheus Vorenus

But, don't try to pass them off as facts just because you agree with them...

http://www.rkmbs.com/...t/1#Post1020830

Originally Posted By: Lucius Prometheus Vorenus

I just thought you were being PJP. I couldn't tell what you were trying to say, except that I think you meant that you didn't agree with the [b]facts[/] pointed out in the article

$\:lol\:$

the media, as a whole, leans to the left because liberal perspectives are, as a whole, more compelling / more dramatic. it is a business based decision, and an obvious one. newspapers and news broadcasts aren't out to report the news, they're out for sales and ratings.

its not a political conspiracy, and i don't think its some anti-right wing attack, it's simply smarter business.

Originally Posted By: Lucius Prometheus Vorenus

Since when? According to whom? How so?

Commonsense.

Choosing to handicap your own argument by pleading ignorance is the way of the dark side.

Originally Posted By: Rob Kamphausen

If that's the case then why does FOX get higher ratings than CBS, NBC, and CNN all the time?

What's so sad about this is that, even after saturating the airwaves with as much leftist media as possible, NBC, et al still find it hard to compete. Even Fox's own network has a slew of left-leaning shows and they still do fine.

Originally Posted By: Pariah

If that's the case then why does FOX get higher ratings than CBS, NBC, and CNN all the time?

fox has a strong ratings base because it leans in the opposite direction of most other outlets. it is a variabled option, with much of the rest telling similar stories. again, a business decision, and not some anti-left wing attack.

Quote:

Obama's faith is widely mistaken in Kentucky

RANKFORT — Public misconception is widespread in Kentucky about Barack Obama's faith, a Herald-Leader/WKYT Kentucky Poll shows.

Despite heavy national media attention about Obama's faith, more than half of likely Republican voters — 54 percent — and one of every four Democrats in the state do not know that the Democratic presidential nominee is a Christian, the poll found.

The poll showed that 14 percent of likely Kentucky voters — 28 percent of Republicans, 4 percent of Democrats and 11 percent of independents — think Obama adheres to the Muslim faith.

"With all the media attention to the fact that Obama is a Christian, it is shocking and sad to hear that any Kentuckian or anyone thinks he is a Muslim," said Mahmoud Shalash, imam of the Islamic Center of Lexington.

"I am concerned that some people are spreading this rumor for political purposes, trying to exploit the anti-Islamic sentiment in this country that ties Muslims with terrorists," Shalash said. "I don't blame the ignorant bigots as much as the educated people who try to perpetrate this."

ahem... bsams..

Colin Powell on Meet the Press last Sunday:

Quote:

"Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer is no. That's not America. Is there something wrong with a seven-year-old Muslim American kid believing he or she could be president? Yet I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion that [Obama] is a Muslim and might have an association with terrorists. This is not the way we should be doing it in America."

nothing prejudicial about that post whatsoever!

Actually, as noted earlier, Fox doesn't get higher ratings than the networks. The networks get higher ratings because they don't have to rely on basic cable subscribers for viewers.

If he was open about his Muslim faith i wouldnt have any problem with it, bit why the need to hide it?

Originally Posted By: BASAMS The Plumber

If he was open about his Muslim faith i wouldnt have any problem with it, bit why the need to hide it?

So tell me how Jeremiah Wright, your other favourite Obama topic is secretly Obama's Muslim cleric.

With all the conflicting smears, it must be hell trying to keep both narratives going. On one hand, Obama is a secret Muslim, on the other hand, he's attended a militant Baptist church for 20 years.

I guess it's just a matter of which smear you think is working better for you. right now though, it appears you guys are striking out. Like I've said before, it may have something to do with the frantic, ever changing nature of the smears. It makes it hard to take ANY of them seriously. And all it does is make Obama look better in the way he handles them.

If obama wasn't such a shady douche he wouldn't have most of these problems.

Originally Posted By: whomod

your other favourite Obama topic

conflicting smears

you guys are striking out

frantic

make Obama look better

you broke him so bad this time he's spelling things in an unAmerican way!!! $\:lol\:$

Originally Posted By: Captain Sammitch

Originally Posted By: whomod

your other favourite Obama topic

conflicting smears

you guys are striking out

frantic

make Obama look better

you broke him so bad this time he's spelling things in an unAmerican way!!! $\:lol\:$

Originally Posted By: BASAMS The Plumber

Originally Posted By: Lucius Prometheus Vorenus

But, don't try to pass them off as facts just because you agree with them...

http://www.rkmbs.com/...t/1#Post1020830

Originally Posted By: Lucius Prometheus Vorenus

I just thought you were being PJP. I couldn't tell what you were trying to say, except that I think you meant that you didn't agree with the [b]facts[/] pointed out in the article

$\:lol\:$

First of all, it's called UBB Code. Look into it.

Second, the only thing you quoting me did was highlight my points. Thanks, I guess...

Originally Posted By: Pariah

Originally Posted By: Lucius Prometheus Vorenus

Since when? According to whom? How so?

Commonsense.

Choosing to handicap your own argument by pleading ignorance is the way of the dark side.

Common sense is a subjective term, not universal (save 'fire-is-hot', of course). I'll stick with reality, my friend...

Originally Posted By: Pariah

If that's the case then why does FOX get higher ratings than CBS, NBC, and CNN all the time?

Because fictional entertainment on the level of professional wrestling is always more fun than the actual news. Thus, FOX gets more ratings...

Originally Posted By: Lucius Prometheus Vorenus

Common sense is a subjective term, not universal (save 'fire-is-hot', of course).

You just contradicted yourself in a single sentence. There are no exceptions that prove the rule. Sorry.

Common sense is reality.

Originally Posted By: Lucius Prometheus Vorenus

Because fictional entertainment on the level of professional wrestling is always more fun than the actual news. Thus, FOX gets more ratings...

Originally Posted By: Lucius Prometheus Vorenus

Since when? According to whom? How so?

Poor poor Promod.

Not being afraid to report both good and bad news apparently means everything someone says is fictional.

I'm sure Fox would apologize to you for not only reporting what would be most advantageous as their peers do.

Originally Posted By: Promod

First of all, it's called UBB Code. Look into it...

Wow. That's almost as clever a rejoinder as correcting someone's spelling or grammar.

Originally Posted By: whomod

Originally Posted By: BASAMS The Plumber

If he was open about his Muslim faith i wouldnt have any problem with it, bit why the need to hide it?

This proves you're a dumbass. If your keeping your Islamic beliefs quiet, you aren't going to attend a Mosque. How insane are you?

“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”
~Ronald Reagan, 40th president of U.S.

Originally Posted By: the G-man of Zur-En-Arrh

Originally Posted By: Lucius Prometheus Vorenus

Originally Posted By: the G-man of Zur-En-Arrh

A broken image? Has wanky hacked your account?

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1031943.html

Originally Posted By: whomod

Originally Posted By: Captain Sammitch

Originally Posted By: whomod

your other favourite Obama topic

conflicting smears

you guys are striking out

frantic

make Obama look better

you broke him so bad this time he's spelling things in an unAmerican way!!! $\:lol\:$

Originally Posted By: Glacier16

$\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081029/NEWS09/810290381

Quote:

A records clerk in the Toledo police investigative services bureau will face departmental charges of gross misconduct because a state database was used to access information about the Springfield Township man known worldwide as "Joe the Plumber."

The clerk, Julie McConnell, will be the subject of a disciplinary hearing, likely to be scheduled next week, Chief Mike Navarre said yesterday.

Ms. McConnell was hired by the police department in April, 1995, and is a member of Local 7, American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees.

An internal investigation began when Toledo police received a call from the Ohio Highway Patrol, asking why information on Samuel "Joe the Plumber" Wurzelbacher was pulled. The chief said Ms. McConnell looked up the information at the request of a local television reporter to confirm Mr. Wurzelbacher's address.

The reporter was interviewed as part of the investigation.

Such information, though found on public records, was accessed through the Law Enforcement Automated Data System, often called LEADS.

"You can't use that database unless it was for law enforcement purposes," Chief Navarre said. "If a crime was committed and she was looking up the address or the name of a victim or witness, that would be OK."

This poor soul will likely have to take the fall for the Obama campaign...

And she should be fired, no doubt. She was wrong to do what she did...

she likely will, but Joe The Plumber doesn't get the privacy Obama's campaign ripped from him back.

I actually think from what I am hearing she is innocent. Yes she did something bad but she was kind of fooled into doing it by the reporter. She'll be reprimanded for sure but I need to find out more about her before I call for her firing. Sounds like a one time poor lapse in judgement.......just like Obama with Fleger and Wright and Kalidi and Ayers and ......well that was more than one time.

Maybe if she was only 8 years old when that newspaper was created she will have an out...

Originally Posted By: Lucius Prometheus Vorenus

And she should be fired, no doubt. She was wrong to do what she did...

Promod's throwing her under the bus. Obama would be proud.

Originally Posted By: BASAMS The Plumber

she likely will, but Joe The Plumber doesn't get the privacy Obama's campaign ripped from him back.

Obama's campaign didn't do anything to this guy. Why are you jumping to such extreme conclusions?

Originally Posted By: the G-man of Zur-En-Arrh

Originally Posted By: Lucius Prometheus Vorenus

And she should be fired, no doubt. She was wrong to do what she did...

Promod's throwing her under the bus. Obama would be proud.

Jeezus you've gone around the bend, G-Man. You really have. If we disagree (which is 99% of the time) you freak out, and rant, and make up nicknames for me, and try to find ways to personally insult me...whatever. But, if we happen to agree on anything, you still do your best to try and insult or belittle me. Do I threaten you that much? Is your life that miserable? Are you that insecure?

calm down man, it's just a message board.

I like the way Promod's accusing me of "freaking out" and "ranting" while he posts the following:

Quote:

Not to mention this one post:

Quote:

You're such a drama queen. Stop playing stupid. You know exactly what I'm talking about. All your silly little childish propaganda (he's a terrorist, he's a Muslim, he's a Socialist, etc., etc)...

You can almost hear the spittle hitting the monitor.

the Obamamerical must not have went well....

Maybe we should cut Promod some slack. His mentor hasn't posted here today. He's probably having trouble keeping up without whomod feeding him video clips and blog posts.

the polls are getting close again and whomod is scared. promod too.

Originally Posted By: Lucius Prometheus Vorenus

Originally Posted By: BASAMS The Plumber

she likely will, but Joe The Plumber doesn't get the privacy Obama's campaign ripped from him back.

Obama's campaign didn't do anything to this guy. Why are you jumping to such extreme conclusions?

Originally Posted By: the G-man of Zur-En-Arrh

Originally Posted By: Lucius Prometheus Vorenus

And she should be fired, no doubt. She was wrong to do what she did...

Promod's throwing her under the bus. Obama would be proud.

A while back when G-man was using the portal page to get at me you said something about how he's got to go overboard & atack on a personal level if he feels he's cornered. Can't remember your post exactly but I think it probably applys here.

Originally Posted By: BASAMS The Plumber

calm down man, it's just a message board.

Originally Posted By: the G-man of Zur-En-Arrh

I like the way Promod's accusing me of "freaking out" and "ranting" while he posts the following:

Quote:

Not to mention this one post:

Quote:

You're such a drama queen. Stop playing stupid. You know exactly what I'm talking about. All your silly little childish propaganda (he's a terrorist, he's a Muslim, he's a Socialist, etc., etc)...

You can almost hear the spittle hitting the monitor.

Originally Posted By: BASAMS The Plumber

the Obamamerical must not have went well....

Originally Posted By: the G-man of Zur-En-Arrh

Maybe we should cut Promod some slack. His mentor hasn't posted here today. He's probably having trouble keeping up without whomod feeding him video clips and blog posts.

Originally Posted By: PJP

the polls are getting close again and whomod is scared. promod too.

Five posts to my one? I own each of you. Thank you for proving it. $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$

so you're voting for McCain!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081030/ap_on_el_ge/fact_check_obama_ad

Quote:

WASHINGTON – Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama was less than upfront in his half-hour commercial Wednesday night about the costs of his programs and the crushing budget pressures he would face in office.

Obama's assertion that "I've offered spending cuts above and beyond" the expense of his promises is accepted only by his partisans. His vow to save money by "eliminating programs that don't work" masks his failure throughout the campaign to specify what those programs are — beyond the withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

A sampling of what voters heard in the ad, and what he didn't tell them:

THE SPIN: "That's why my health care plan includes improving information technology, requires coverage for preventive care and pre-existing conditions and lowers health care costs for the typical family by $2,500 a year."

THE FACTS: His plan does not lower premiums by $2,500, or any set amount. Obama hopes that by spending $50 billion over five years on electronic medical records and by improving access to proven disease management programs, among other steps, consumers will end up saving money. He uses an optimistic analysis to suggest cost reductions in national health care spending could amount to the equivalent of $2,500 for a family of four. Many economists are skeptical those savings can be achieved, but even if they are, it's not a certainty that every dollar would be passed on to consumers in the form of lower premiums.

___

THE SPIN: "I also believe every American has a right to affordable health care."

THE FACTS: That belief should not be confused with a guarantee of health coverage for all. He makes no such promise. Obama hinted as much in the ad when he said about the problem of the uninsured: "I want to start doing something about it." He would mandate coverage for children but not adults. His program is aimed at making insurance more affordable by offering the choice of government-subsidized coverage similar to that in a plan for federal employees and other steps, including requiring larger employers to share costs of insuring workers.

___

THE SPIN: "I've offered spending cuts above and beyond their cost."

THE FACTS: Independent analysts say both Obama and Republican John McCain would deepen the deficit. The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates Obama's policy proposals would add a net $428 billion to the deficit over four years — and that analysis accepts the savings he claims from spending cuts. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, whose other findings have been quoted approvingly by the Obama campaign, says: "Both John McCain and Barack Obama have proposed tax plans that would substantially increase the national debt over the next 10 years." The analysis goes on to say: "Neither candidate's plan would significantly increase economic growth unless offset by spending cuts or tax increases that the campaigns have not specified."

___

THE SPIN: "Here's what I'll do. Cut taxes for every working family making less than $200,000 a year. Give businesses a tax credit for every new employee that they hire right here in the U.S. over the next two years and eliminate tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas. Help homeowners who are making a good faith effort to pay their mortgages, by freezing foreclosures for 90 days. And just like after 9-11, we'll provide low-cost loans to help small businesses pay their workers and keep their doors open. "

THE FACTS: His proposals — the tax cuts, the low-cost loans, the $15 billion a year he promises for alternative energy, and more — cost money, and the country could be facing a record $1 trillion deficit next year. Indeed, Obama recently acknowledged — although not in his commercial — that: "The next president will have to scale back his agenda and some of his proposals."

If that is all the lies he told in a half hour, he is improving.....

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article5042571.ece

Quote:

Barack Obama has lived one version of the American dream that has taken him to the steps of the White House. But a few miles from where the Democratic presidential candidate studied at Harvard, his Kenyan aunt and uncle, immigrants living in modest circumstances in Boston, have a contrasting American story.

Zeituni Onyango, the aunt so affectionately described in Obama's best-selling memoir "Dreams fFrom My Father," lives in a disabled-access flat on a rundown public housing estate in South Boston.

A second relative believed to be the long-lost "Uncle Omar" described in the book was beaten by armed robbers with a "sawed-off rifle" while working in a corner shop in the Dorchester area of the city. He was later evicted from his one-bedroom apartment for failing to pay $2,324.20 in bills, according to the Boston Housing Court.

The press has repeatedly rehearsed Obama's extraordinary odyssey, but the other side of the family's American experience has only been revealed in parts. Just across town from where Obama made history as the first black president of the Harvard Law Review, some of his closest blood relatives have confronted the harshness of immigrant life in America.

In his book Obama writes that "Uncle Omar" had gone missing after moving to Boston in the 1960s a quarter-century before Obama first visited his family in Kenya. Aunt Zeituni is now also living in Boston, and recently made a $260 campaign contribution to her nephew's presidential bid from a work address in the city.

Speaking outside her home in Flaherty Way, South Boston, on Tuesday, Onyango, 56, confirmed she was the "Auntie Zeituni" in Obama's memoir. She declined to answer most other questions about her relationship with the presidential contender until after the November 4 election.

"I can't talk about it, I just pray for him, that's all," she said, adding: "After the 4th, I can talk to anyone."

geez if he's willing to spend a few trillion of other peoples money, you'd think he could spend just a little of his millions on his poor aunt...

If he treats his family like that I can only imagine what he is going to do to the country.

Bill Clinton: Obama Got Lots of Help on Economic Crisis Response
Bill Clinton says at a rally that Barack Obama called a round of advisers during the height of the economic crisis and said, "tell me what ... to do."

FOXNews.com

Thursday, October 30, 2008

Barack Obama speaks with Bill Clinton at a rally in Kissimmee, Fla., Wednesday. (AP Photo)

Barack Obama cultivated the image of a cool and collected leader during the height of the economic crisis last month, when lawmakers on Capitol Hill scrambled to draft a workable bailout package after a meltdown on Wall Street.

And when John McCain suspended his campaign to dive head first into the fray, Obama's campaign accused the Republican of being "unsteady."

But to hear Bill Clinton tell it, the Democratic nominee didn't quite have a handle on the situation himself.

"I haven't cleared this with him and he may even be mad at me for saying this so close to the election, but I know what else he said to his economic advisers (during the crisis)," Clinton told the crowd at a Wednesday night rally with Obama in Florida. "He said, 'Tell me what the right thing to do is. What's the right thing for America? Don't tell me what's popular. You tell me what's right -- I'll figure out how to sell it.'"

Clinton said when the crisis broke, Obama called his own advisers as well as those of the former two-term president, Hillary Clinton, Warren Buffet and others.

"He called those people. You know why? Because he knew it was complicated and before he said anything he wanted to understand," Clinton said. "That's what a president does in a crisis."

The seeming praise may come off as a backhanded compliment, especially since Obama repeatedly accuses McCain of admitting he doesn't know much about the economy. McCain's campaign said Clinton's remark shows Obama was uncertain when Wall Street seemed to be on the verge of crumbling.

"Barack Obama had no idea what the right thing to do is or at least that's Bill Clinton's impression," McCain spokesman Michael Goldfarb said.

"It's disturbing that ... Barack Obama's response to this is 'Tell me what to do and I will sell it,'" Goldfarb added. "That's been Barack Obama's entire campaign -- is one big sales job."

During the height of negotiations in late September, McCain briefly suspended his campaign to work on the economic bailout package and even threatened to sit out the first presidential debate.

Obama teased him for it, and after a mid-week summit with President Bush, congressional leaders and the presidential candidates ended in disarray, his Democratic supporters criticized McCain for "injecting" presidential politics into the debate.

Before the inter-campaign sniping began, the two presidential nominees released a joint statement urging the nation to "rise above politics for the good of the country."

Goldfarb said he can't speculate on the content of the advice Obama solicited in late September but that, "The result was to sit back and do nothing."

Former Hillary Clinton adviser Maria Cardona said Clinton was genuinely trying to pay Obama a compliment Wednesday night, especially after so much was made in the press of the divisions between Obama and Clinton supporters.

"President Clinton was trying to make the point that their campaigns are actually talking to one another quite a bit," she told FOX News. "The point that President Clinton was trying to make is that Senator Obama understands this is a big issue, and he is surrounding himself with people who have that experience."

Bill Clinton has come out forcefully in favor of Obama ever since the Democratic National Convention in late August in Denver.

He declared Wednesday night that, "This man should be our president."

However, he sometimes has had a strange way of showing his support. Clinton has repeatedly praised McCain in interviews, and even described Sarah Palin at one point as an "effective candidate with a compelling story" who cannot be underestimated.

Clinton also said in Florida Wednesday night that Obama has proved himself by running a campaign that "involves so many people," adding: "He has executed this campaign in a way that is different from modern and forward thinking -- something no one else ever could have done. He can be the chief executor of good intentions as president."

It's not clear what he meant, since he pronounced the word 'executer.'

Asked about Clinton's intentions Wednesday, Goldfarb said: "I think ... he clearly chooses his language carefully."

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/10/conservative_group_to_run_anti.php

Quote:

Get ready for a deluge of Wright rantings.

The National Republican Trust PAC, which has been airing an ad attacking Barack Obama's association with Reverend Wright in three battleground states, has now put down for a national buy on five networks that will last from now through election day, a consultant with the group confirms to me.

The ad will run nationally on Fox, CNN, ABC, CBS, and NBC for the next five days, the consultant, Rick Wilson, says -- "all the way until election day."

The ad, which you can watch here, features the now-infamous footage of Wright's livelier sermons, and intones that Obama "never complained" about Wright "until he ran for President," adding that Obama is "too radical, too risky."

Previously, the ad was only running in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida, as Ben Smith reported the other day.

Now, however, the ad will run nationally, Wilson says, adding that the group just got through getting the spot vetted with network lawyers and is good to go.

Best $10 I ever donated!

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20081030/COL05/810300305/1004/COL

Quote:

Barack Obama is a transformational political savior, a reincarnation of JFK who will bring peace, justice and worldwide respect as he is "fulfilling Martin Luther King's dream," in the words of one Enquirer headline.

Or he's a smooth-talking humbug in a glossy wrapper - a radical socialist, friend of terrorists, another clueless Jimmy Carter who will cause economic ruin as he appeases our enemies.

Both Obamas are possible.

Both views are true and false because more than any candidate in our lifetimes, he is a blank sheet of paper, where critics and supporters can write down anything they want.

The reason for that is as disturbing as the fears of Obama: The Fourth Estate has been AWOL. The media have abandoned their responsibility to check out both candidates. We know next to nothing about Obama except what he and his fawning friends in the press have decided to tell us.

Fear and loathing

And that's why this election has pushed so many people out on a ledge. Many of his supporters are worried that something dark and ugly from the blank spots in his resume could jump out of a box and scare voters. So they viciously attack his critics to keep the lid on tight.

Whenever a troubling issue comes up - Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko, links to ACORN voter fraud, radical defense of abortion, drug use - they wrap it in yellow tape and tell us, "Move along, folks, nothing to see here."

Many conservatives, motivated more by fear of Obama than enthusiasm for McCain, are just as jittery. Web sites, chain e-mails and talk radio are teeming with Obamaphobia. Some spread the word about real connections to a Chicago crook, his radical America-hating pastor and domestic terrorists. Others spread wild, high-octane fiction that make him look like a Marxist in a moderate suit.

When our election equipment operates properly, the press checks out those allegations and either confirms them or dismisses them as pulp fiction from conspiracy nuts who think aliens in black helicopters blew up the Trade Center.

But this time, the background screening machine was unplugged for Obama. While Sarah Palin, John McCain and even Joe the Plumber got the full wand treatment and pat-down, Obama was whisked past the security checkpoint by his fans in the press.

So people are left to guess about the real Obama.

The media will pay a price for this. There's a reason 70 percent say the press wants Obama to win. In this election, there's not even a flimsy pretense of being objective. And that betrayal of public trust and professional standards will do lasting damage.

But nothing much can be done about it now that we're in the final two-minute drill.

If Obama wins, we may be in for a surprise. I hope it's a pleasant one. But there are reasons to doubt that.

'Spread wealth' sincerity

In a 2001 radio interview, Obama showed disdain for the Constitution and embraced socialism. He said that a failure of the civil rights struggle was that "the Supreme Court never entered into the issues of redistribution of wealth." He defined the Constitution as a menu of "negative rights" that "says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf."

So Obama's "spread the wealth" remark in Toledo was no slip. He believes it.

Why isn't the press asking for an explanation? When it was reported at all, the story was dismissed as an attack by McCain.

But if that's the real Obama, giving him the almost absolute power of an unchecked Democratic majority in the House and Senate could cause more damage than Carter. The analogy would be closer to FDR, who ran as a moderate, then prolonged the Depression with a legacy of big-government socialism, even trying to rig the Supreme Court to bypass the Constitution.

Obama gives us a lot to worry about: Weakness in the war on terrorism. Alarming inexperience. Tax hikes that could aggravate the economic crisis. Thin-skinned retaliation against critics. A pinched view that the Constitution guarantees "negative rights," not liberties.

But the biggest worry is what we don't even know about Barack Obama.

If you guys can out hannity and colmes on.....apparently they found a book that ayers wrote and dedicated to Obama.....they are going to talk about it in a little bit.

it may not be Obama....they are being mysterious about it.

the book is from1974 so it's not Obam but is bad they said.

the book is dedicated to Sirhan Sirhan the guy that killed RFK. But Obama thinks he's a great guy.

Originally Posted By: PJP

the book is dedicated to Sirhan Sirhan the guy that killed RFK. But Obama thinks he's a great guy.

Come on....killing RFK was just another form of political activism.

Originally Posted By: Lucius Prometheus Vorenus

Originally Posted By: Glacier16

$\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$

$\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$

Originally Posted By: the G-man of Zur-En-Arrh

Originally Posted By: PJP

the book is dedicated to Sirhan Sirhan the guy that killed RFK. But Obama thinks he's a great guy.

Come on....killing RFK was just another form of political activism.

a college prank, gone awry if you will.

he was supposed to duck!

It makes you wonder how Obama can even sleep at night.

I hope that guy's taxes and licenses are all in order.

Quote:

They’re happy to spread yours around, mind you. Just not their own:

Looking at Obama’s charitable giving in since 2000 based on his tax returns, we find that Obama consistently refused to follow his own advice to “spread the wealth” when he had the opportunity to do so. This is especially true in years when he made nearly $250,000 or more. . . . [F]rom 2000-2004, Obama’s charitable giving was less than 1 percent.

His contributions increased after his book deal, to a maximum of 6.1% of income in 2006.

Obama’s running mate, Joe Biden, was even stingier about spreading his wealth. When his tax records were released in September, they revealed that over the past decade he had only donated an average of $369 each year. In 2007, his charitable giving was only $995, or 0.3 percent of income in a year when his tax returns reported $319,853 in income.

By comparison, John McCain gave more than one-quarter of his income in 2006 and 2007 (28.6 and 27.3 percent respectively). And according to the New York Observer, since 1998, he has donated royalties on his books totaling more than $1.8 million.

Obama is also a bad tipper.

On the other hand he has a tremendous singing voice.

And he gives great head.
Um Rob tells me...

Originally Posted By: MisterJLA

Obama is also a bad tipper.

that's why Mrs. Gore is campaigning for him.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/31/obama-lays-plans-kill-expectations-election-victory/

Obama Lays Plans to Kill Expectations After Election Victory

Confident in an Election Day win, the campaign looks to lower supporters' expectations on concerns their hopes of 'change' are unrealistic, a senior aide says

FOXNews.com

By Tim Reid, The Times of London

Barack Obama's senior advisers have drawn up plans to lower expectations for his presidency if he wins next week's election, amid concerns that many of his euphoric supporters are harboring unrealistic hopes of what he can achieve.

The sudden financial crisis and the prospect of a deep and painful recession have increased the urgency inside the Obama team to bring people down to earth, after a campaign in which his soaring rhetoric and promises of "hope" and "change" are now confronted with the reality of a stricken economy.

One senior adviser told The Times that the first few weeks of the transition, immediately after the election, were critical, "so there's not a vast mood swing from exhilaration and euphoria to despair."

The aide said that Obama himself was the first to realize that expectations risked being inflated.

In an interview with a Colorado radio station, Obama appeared to be engaged already in expectation lowering. Asked about his goals for the first hundred days, he said he would need more time to tackle such big and costly issues as health care reform, global warming and Iraq.

"The first hundred days is going to be important, but it's probably going to be the first thousand days that makes the difference," he said. He has also been reminding crowds in recent days how "hard" it will be to achieve his goals, and that it will take time.

"I won't stand here and pretend that any of this will be easy -- especially now," Obama told a rally in Sarasota, Florida, yesterday, citing "the cost of this economic crisis, and the cost of the war in Iraq." Obama's transition team is headed by John Podesta, a Washington veteran and a former chief-of-staff to Bill Clinton. He has spent months overseeing a virtual Democratic government-in-exile to plan a smooth transition should Obama emerge victorious next week.

The plans are so far advanced that an Obama Cabinet has been largely decided upon, with the expectation that most of his senior appointments could be announced shortly after election day. Obama is showing his true colors a little too soon.

So, does this mean that the whomods of the world will start chanting "Obama LIED"TM?

oh my god! he's not lying to people and treating us like we're children the way bush/mccain do.

So lying for the past two years was okay, now that he's ahead in the polls and flush with cash?

Really Machievellian there, Ray.

So what your saying G-man is that you would rather he inflated peoples hope? Whoever wins is going to have a tough couple of years ahead of them.

yeah but he was telling everyone he was going to fix everything......the past few months. He lied about a lot of things. if he wins you will see him do many things that will make you shake his head.

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

So what your saying G-man is that you would rather he inflated peoples hope?

No, I'm saying he already did so and now we're finding out that he promised more than he plans to deliver. I'm not surprised, simply wondering how his zombie supporters (figurative and literal) are going to react to the news that their "messiah" isn't the miracle worker/personal Jesus they all seem to believe.

Originally Posted By: PJP

yeah but he was telling everyone he was going to fix everything......the past few months. He lied about a lot of things. if he wins you will see him do many things that will make you shake his head.

Unless he gave some type of time limit on fixing things, I don't understand how you think he "lied"?

Originally Posted By: PJP

yeah but he was telling everyone he was going to fix everything......the past few months. He lied about a lot of things. if he wins you will see him do many things that will make you shake his head.

I meant shake your head.....if he is President you will go to jail if you shake his head.

mem is already making excuses for obama.

Originally Posted By: PJP

yeah but he was telling everyone he was going to fix everything......the past few months. He lied about a lot of things. if he wins you will see him do many things that will make you shake his head.

no one could possible have seriously thought everything would magically change overnight. he's not saying he won't make change or fix things, he's being honest about it being a long and difficult task.

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

Originally Posted By: PJP

yeah but he was telling everyone he was going to fix everything......the past few months. He lied about a lot of things. if he wins you will see him do many things that will make you shake his head.

How come when Bush said things like that you wouldn't give him the benfit of the doubt?

Bush was not a perfect President and Barack won't be a perfect President if he wins. No one could be. But you guys blasted his every move never once giving him the benefit of the doubt.

Originally Posted By: PJP

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

Originally Posted By: PJP

yeah but he was telling everyone he was going to fix everything......the past few months. He lied about a lot of things. if he wins you will see him do many things that will make you shake his head.

How come when Bush said things like that you wouldn't give him the benfit of the doubt?

That's an excellent point. Look at how the libs think that Bush was supposed to prevent 9/11 by magically predicting when an Al Quaeda attack would occur.

Oh and trying to lower expectations is fine......but I would like to know if you Ray and MEM will be upset if he lied about the 95% of Americans will get a tax break since that was the cornerstone of his campaign?(class warfare to get elected then bait and switch)

Originally Posted By: PJP

I am willing to guarantee that people making as low as 40,000 year will see tax increases within 1 year of an Obama Presidency.

Originally Posted By: PJP

Bush was not a perfect President and Barack won't be a perfect President if he wins. No one could be. But you guys blasted his every move never once giving him the benefit of the doubt.

He is a shitty president who squandered away so much IMHO but I sincerely doubt the McCain supporters on this board will be any more respectful if Obama wins & does a better job than W. Or would you?

Originally Posted By: PJP

yes, and i would also be mad if he invaded mexico and destroyed the moon. let's let him do the wrong thing before condemning him for it.
this isn't minority report!

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

let's let him do the wrong thing before condemning him for it.
this isn't minority report!

I remember Democrats claiming that Bush's tax cuts had 'destroyed the economy' before those same cuts even took effect.

Which sort of discredits their claims regarding them now, I might add, insofar as it shows they were always biased against them.

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Originally Posted By: PJP

Bush was not a perfect President and Barack won't be a perfect President if he wins. No one could be. But you guys blasted his every move never once giving him the benefit of the doubt.

He is a shitty president who squandered away so much IMHO but I sincerely doubt the McCain supporters on this board will be any more respectful if Obama wins & does a better job than W. Or would you?

If Obama wins he is my President and I will pray every day he does right by the country. I'm not saying I won't criticize him but I won't hate him the way some libs hated Bush.

This is all Gore's fault really. He should never have challenged an election he lost fair and square. And as for Bush he made mistakes I have said that many times.....but he also suffered the worst terrorist attack ever the worst natural disaster ever and now the worst financial crisis in modern times ever.......NONE of them were his fault but he was forced to clean up the mess.

That fucking scum dem governor in Louisiana knew those levees were shit for years and never did anything....where was the uproar for that? Yeah Bush fucked up the FEMA response but maybe the black people should have voted for him(kidding!).

Originally Posted By: PJP

yeah but he was telling everyone he was going to fix everything......the past few months.

no he wasn't.

Quote:

He lied about a lot of things.

such as?

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

Originally Posted By: PJP

yes, and i would also be mad if he invaded mexico and destroyed the moon. let's let him do the wrong thing before condemning him for it.
this isn't minority report!

that's fine.....I pray that whoever wins has good karma and lots of luck......we need it. I actually also hope that whoever wins wins convincingly like Rob was saying......this way you can say it was a referendum. But I have a feeling this is going to be very close maybe a few days of tallying afterwards too and maybe I hope not a Republican challenge in Ohio if Obama wins because of the illegal votes in Ohio.

http://www.drudgereport.com/

Tomorrow's Zogby Poll will show McCain has taken a 1 point lead.

During the Obama infomercial Obama said if he loses he will run again in 2012.

If he loses this election he will be labeled unelectable. More of this shit will come out over the next few months and if he couldn't beat McCain in this horrible political climate that favors Obama along with the help of the media he will never win. I would imagine Hilary will run on the I told you so platform.

Considering the money he's able to raise it would have been a surprise (to me anyway) that he would run again if he lost this one. Same thing with Hillary if he loses. Nobody ever likes the "I told you so" person so if Obama loses I would hope she would avoid that.

obama is the flavor on the month. He won't get his chance again.

Originally Posted By: PJP

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

Originally Posted By: PJP

yeah but he was telling everyone he was going to fix everything......the past few months. He lied about a lot of things. if he wins you will see him do many things that will make you shake his head.

How come when Bush said things like that you wouldn't give him the benfit of the doubt?

because he told people to shop and cut taxes while fighting two costly wars. he was like the cool uncle who stuffs you with candy and junk food, obama has to be the mom who cleans up the vomit and diarrea.

That's a clever analogy. Did you come up with it all by yourself?

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

Originally Posted By: PJP

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

Originally Posted By: PJP

yeah but he was telling everyone he was going to fix everything......the past few months. He lied about a lot of things. if he wins you will see him do many things that will make you shake his head.

How come when Bush said things like that you wouldn't give him the benfit of the doubt?

When he said to us go out and shop.....he also said go out and do your normal business don't be afraid.....don't let the terrorists win.

People were scared. They needed to hear from our leader that it was ok to go outside and go back to "normal". He handled himslef brilliantly after 9/11 and I hope someday you realize that. I know the left hates him but that go outside and shop criticism is stupid and ignorant.

maybe Obama can get her a driver's license....

Originally Posted By: PJP

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

Originally Posted By: PJP

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

Originally Posted By: PJP

yeah but he was telling everyone he was going to fix everything......the past few months. He lied about a lot of things. if he wins you will see him do many things that will make you shake his head.

How come when Bush said things like that you wouldn't give him the benfit of the doubt?

I know Ray grew up in the liberal SF area, he seems like a good kid. Hopefully ray will get away from there someday and expand his views. Bush wasn't a very good administrator for sure. But no one in there right mind can fault the way Bush responded to the attack in the months following it. He got this country to keep going, if we had stopped for even a week it would have been a victory for those terrorist scumbags. A lot of whom are dead today.

You can't cause terror with a bullet in your head!

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/29/eveningnews/realitycheck/main4557520.shtml

Quote:

Without question, the Barack Obama infomercial served as a very slick and powerful recitation of the biggest promises he's made as a presidential candidate. But the very bigness of his ideas is the problem: he seems blind to the concept his numbers don't add up.

Obama has already proposed a new stimulus package of $188 billion over two years. His tax cuts will cost $85 billion a year. His "army of new teachers": $18 billion; Renewable energy: $15 billion. CBS News and various independent experts estimate Obama's total first year spending could exceed $280 billion.

Still Obama repeated his claim he can find the money to pay for every proposal.

"I've offered spending cuts above and beyond their cost," he has said.

The fact is the savings Obama has identified do not cover his spending. According to a CBS News estimate, he's around $90 billion short. The Obama campaign disputes this, saying everything including the stimulus is paid for over 10 years. But other analysts say - even presuming Obama saves money in Iraq and chops the federal budget as promised - he falls short.

Let's break all of this down, starting with his highly suspect, and widely discredited, claim that he can find federal "spending cuts beyond the costs" of his promises. Very few independent economists believe he has identified the savings needed to offset his remarkable list of tax credits, tax cuts and spending pledges.

Fact: Even if you believe Obama intends to fix health care, most independent analysts say the cost is massive - $1.2 trillion over ten years, according to the highly respected Lewin Group. When the new Congress wakes up next year to a $1 trillion deficit, and answers the overwhelming new demands for another stimulus package, will the leadership really bite on a health care reform package that digs the deficit hole so much deeper?

And that's just the beginning of what Obama would spend.

Fact: The tax cuts he promises, which are mostly refundable tax credits (code for cash back), will cost $60 billion just in year one, according the National Taxpayers Union, though the Obama campaign's own estimates in July put that figure at $130 billion.

Fact: His new promise to give businesses a $3,000 tax credit for each new job created will cost $40 billion. But economists say this credit is far more likely to benefit companies already planning to expand and will likely not be enough to help companies create new jobs or forestall layoffs.

Fact: Obama's claim he will lower health care premiums by $2,500 is: 1.) guesswork, which is 2.) based on health care savings that might, in a perfect world, happen over 10 years - a fact Obama neatly glosses over.

Fact: Obama, when referring to savings he can make by leaving Iraq ($90 billion, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates), has spent these savings several times over, across several different promises depending on the crowd he's addressing.

Most of the time he spends the Iraq savings in the context of the roads he wants to build; sometimes it's for the teachers he wants to hire. Tonight, he riffed rhetorically on the savings, asking how many scholarships could be funded, or how many schools could be built. In the end though, presuming he really saves $90 billion, he can only spend it once.

Remember he also mentioned rebuilding the military ($7 billion/yr); his education initiative ($18 billion/yr); and his energy initiative ($15 billion/yr). He did not mention the $188 billion that he would spend on the brand new stimulus package he has proposed.

If he closes every loophole as promised, saves every dime from Iraq, raises taxes on the rich and trims the federal budget as he's promised to do "line by line," he still doesn't pay for his list. If he's elected, the first fact hitting his desk will be the figure projecting how much less of a budget he has to work with - thanks to the recession. He gave us a very compelling vision with his ad buy tonight. What he did not give us was any hint of the cold reality he's facing or a sense of how he might prioritize his promises if voters trust him with the White House.

The liberal press it seems is slowly doing it's job, but it's likely too little too late. I think they want to cover their butt so if he is elected, when the truth comes out they have a story or two to point at and say, we tried.

Originally Posted By: 655321

Originally Posted By: PJP

yeah but he was telling everyone he was going to fix everything......the past few months.

no he wasn't.

Quote:

He lied about a lot of things.

such as?

you still trying to find a response to these? i'd be interested in seeing where he said he was going to fix everything and all these lies he's told.

Originally Posted By: PJP

http://www.drudgereport.com/

Tomorrow's Zogby Poll will show McCain has taken a 1 point lead.

$\:lol\:$ where? i followed the link from drudge to zogby and this is what it says. he's not 'leading', he's still trailing.

http://www.zogby.com/main.htm

Quote:

Republican John McCain made a small gain against Democrat Barack Obama and has pulled back within the margin of error, now trailing Obama by five points, 49.1% to 44.1%, the latest Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby daily tracking telephone poll shows.

didja catch that 'within the margin of error' part right before the bold tags you added? us adults see that and know that it means they could just as easily be tied. and that's without factoring in the bradley effect. or the notorious inaccuracy of phone polls, exit polls, and most other polls that aren't the only poll that really matters.

That plus what I had posted was yesterday's numbers where McCain was in fact ahead by 48 - 47. Zogby works on a 3 day average so that is one day out of 3 but they said the fact that it happened this late and hasn't happened in over a month was significant. It's just one day and I don't get too crazy over the polls but it was interesting to see. That spongebob dumbfuck is an insignificant speck of turd in the universe and therefore I don't respond to that kind of scum. But I like talking to you Phil!

Phil is my kind of scum!

Originally Posted By: PJP

Originally Posted By: BASAMS The Plumber

Phil is my kind of scum!

aw shucks guys!

Originally Posted By: BASAMS The Plumber

Damn I wish I had thought of that.

The creation of the Obama SS.

Shit it's the cops let's get out of here!

He just bashed the military. The same military that will protect him if he is elected. Fucking douche.

Originally Posted By: PJP

The creation of the Obama SS.

He wants to create "a civilian National Security Force" to augment the military?

We already have a Peace Corps and Vista. We already have police and fire departments.

So, unless he plans on organizing a giant, nationwide, "neighborhood watch," this is a pretty bizarre statement.

My best guess: he's talking in code for setting up a program of "national service" requirements where we're all forced, like college freshmen during orientation week, to donate our services to some government determined "cause."

A prediction: Obama will bring back the draft and add to it the idea that you can avoid military service by participating in the "civilian national security" force.

He wants to build a national community manager police force!

I hope I can survive the trail of tears to Montana....

Check this out HR 808, the Department of Peace & Non-Violence, it was ab Obama supported Bill. It’s a new cabinet level the Democrats are proposing. I’m not kidding. This is going to be huge. And expensive. And oppressive. Take a look at some of the offices:

* Office of Peace Education and Training
* Office of Domestic Peace Activities
* Office of International Peace Activities
* Office of Technology for Peace
* Office of Arms Control and Disarmament
* Office of Peaceful Coexistence and Nonviolent Conflict Resolution
* Office of Human Rights and Economic Rights

I wonder if this Peace Education and training will involve 20 ft tall fences with barbed wire?

A little deeper reading reveals this little tidbit:

Quote:

(6) create and establish a Peace Academy, which shall--

(A) be modeled after the military service academies;

(B) provide a 4-year course of instruction in peace education, after which graduates will be required to serve 5 years in public service in programs dedicated to domestic or international nonviolent conflict resolution; and

you ignore the more realistic outcomes of systems like canada and england.

Yes, the holocaust wasn't real ray, we understand Louis Farrakan and Rev. Wright's teachings....

Originally Posted By: BASAMS The Plumber

Obama’s Campaign Logo derived from the Weather Underground?

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

you ignore the more realistic outcomes of systems like canada and england.

There's an entire thread here somewhere that the doctor (not me, not BSAMS, not the WB, the doctor) started a few years ago about how England and Candada have more or less gutted their free-speech protections over the past few years.

Furthermore, perhaps this is because San Francisco only teaches "the history of white oppression" in their public school social studies class, or something, but the founding fathers started this country in large part to avoid many of the aspects of English rule.

So that's hardly reassuring.

I know people from England that have told me personally how the free speech laws are bent depending on who is in charge of the country, if we are not allowed our constitutional right to free speech things could get really bad, really quick.

Years ago it was considered offensive for people to claim slaves were legitimate human beings, if offensive speech was squashed, we likely would have never got away from that oppressive chapter in American history.

Originally Posted By: BASAMS The Plumber

Yes, and the gays here, like MEM and Ray, should remember how-until very recently-any discussion of their lifestyle or rights was quickly censored.

Originally Posted By: the G-man of Zur-En-Arrh

Originally Posted By: BASAMS The Plumber

Yes, and the gays here, like MEM and Ray, should remember how-until very recently-any discussion of their lifestyle or rights was quickly censored.

Isn't Ray straight, your not mixing your fantasy world with the real one are you?

As I've noted several times I'm not for censorship no matter if it's VP candidate Palin asking a librarian repeatedly if she would remove books for her or if it's progressives that want to reinstate the old fairness laws in the media.

I also am quite aware which party supports my rights. It's your party G-man that talks about changing the constitution against gays.

I'd like to see where g-mans party wants to change the constitution against gays.

You would do well to look at what's happening in Europe, MEM. As Muslim radicals push through more of their agenda (in the guises or recognizing their "Right" to practice Islam) it's getting increasingly dangerous for homosexuals there. Even if Obama isn't a Muslim, it's no secret that he's "tolerant" of "the religion of peace."

Not having gay marriage will be the worst of problems when some Muslim radical group stones your boyfriend to death and get away with it because it's part of their "culture."

Originally Posted By: BASAMS The Plumber

I'd like to see where g-mans party wants to change the constitution against gays.

This is just MEM once again sticking his head in the sand to excuse his blind obedience to his Democrat masters.

He's done it before. Remember the time it was pointed out that Bill Clinton signed the defense of marriage act and MEM tried to tell us that Clinton banned gay marriage in order to save it?

Originally Posted By: BASAMS The Plumber

I'd like to see where g-mans party wants to change the constitution against gays.

It was only a couple of years ago President Bush & the GOP ran on this BSAMS...
whitehouse.gov

When it comes to an individual's rights there is more than one party you need to worry about.

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Your the one G-man side-stepping what your party just pushed for in recent elections.

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Originally Posted By: BASAMS The Plumber

I'd like to see where g-mans party wants to change the constitution against gays.

It was only a couple of years ago President Bush & the GOP ran on this BSAMS...
whitehouse.gov

When it comes to an individual's rights there is more than one party you need to worry about.

that's not against gays, it's preserving a long standing understanding that marriage is a woman and a man.

Originally Posted By: BASAMS The Plumber

...
that's not against gays, it's preserving a long standing understanding that marriage is a woman and a man.

Bullshit, it's against gays & state rights besides.

I agree it should be left up to the States, there is a crapload of laws the fed has(like Obama's upcoming National Police Force), but because a law doesn't cater to a specific groups wishes does not mean it is against them.

are you kidding? failing to stroke a people group's ego is so much worse than charming them into complacency until it's time to call for their annihilation! $\:lol\:$

Originally Posted By: BASAMS The Plumber

It does more than not cater to gays BSAMS, maybe this rationalization makes you feel ok with what the GOP tried to do but it's very much against gays.

CNN: Barack Obama Opposes same-sex marriage.

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Originally Posted By: BASAMS The Plumber

It does more than not cater to gays BSAMS, maybe this rationalization makes you feel ok with what the GOP tried to do but it's very much against gays.

When the tax code gave a bigger break to two gay guys living together than two hetero's married living together, no one believed the government was anti-heterosexual. I appreciate your sensitivity to the subject as you've been bombarded by these left wing fear tactics for years, but if you would look at this objectively, I think you'd have a more rational belief.

He's not trying to change the constitution though G-man. While that might not mean anything to you it does to me. If you ever found yourself in the same situation I think we would agree.

How do you know he's not going try and to change it? Or put in judges that will interpret it different. Get the blinders off man.

Originally Posted By: BASAMS The Plumber

How do you know he's not going try and to change it? Or put in judges that will interpret it different. Get the blinders off man.

Who's spouting fear tactics here? Obama has a record of supporting gay rights & is in a party that also supports gay rights.

So now you want us to base our opinions on his history? When it's Farrakan, Ayers, and Rev. Wright, we ignore his history, when it's for a policy you support it is the real him. Gotcha.

Originally Posted By: BASAMS The Plumber

So now you want us to base our opinions on his history? When it's Farrakan, Ayers, and Rev. Wright, we ignore his history, when it's for a policy you support it is the real him. Gotcha.

Nice of you to just make that up, I never said those guys were off the table though. Or does that matter to you at this point?

If you are going on his history, then he has been palling around with real anti-gay figures, not just people who would like to make sure marriage is kept traditional.

Originally Posted By: BASAMS The Plumber

If you are going on his history, then he has been palling around with real anti-gay figures, not just people who would like to make sure marriage is kept traditional.

So then would McCain's associations also be a matter for me to consider?

Originally Posted By: the G-man of Zur-En-Arrh

You do reallize Bush endorsed McCain don't you?

You're the one trying to argue that casual associations mean exactly the same thing as long-running friendships.

Originally Posted By: the G-man of Zur-En-Arrh

You're the one trying to argue that casual associations mean exactly the same thing as long-running friendships.

$\:lol\:$

You know full well that Bush and McCain have never been close friends and that Bush is not McCain's mentor the way that Wright and Ayers were Obama's.

My point still holds.

MEM is grasping at straws. again.

I feel sort of sorry for him.

"straws" $\:lol\:$

You'll continue to rant G-man but don't confuse that with a point. McCain is obviously a Bush buddy now. While Katrina was happening who's birthday party was he at?

Only MEM would compare a conservative President to a terrorists, a racist, and a antisemite....

well him and whomod...

Originally Posted By: BASAMS The Plumber

Only MEM would compare a conservative President to a terrorists, a racist, and a antisemite....

Oh your just being retarded, we were talking about anti-gay associations in general I thought. Bush is by no way a G. Gordon Liddy type.

another dodge....

You gotta admit, MEM is pretty nimble. Most people couldn't dodge that fast with their heads buried like that.

Oh big surprise you guys gotta go with the usual attack in response.

He could have also said the words...."95%, Hope and Change" in any order.....that seems to work with simpletons.

Originally Posted By: PJP

He could have also said the words...."95%, Hope and Change" in any order.....that seems to work with simpletons.

We've gone back & forth quite a bit PJP, honestly how often do I use any of those?

Yeah, lay off MEM, guys. He's a real independent thinker.

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Originally Posted By: PJP

He could have also said the words...."95%, Hope and Change" in any order.....that seems to work with simpletons.

We've gone back & forth quite a bit PJP, honestly how often do I use any of those?

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Originally Posted By: PJP

He could have also said the words...."95%, Hope and Change" in any order.....that seems to work with simpletons.

We've gone back & forth quite a bit PJP, honestly how often do I use any of those?

I didn't mean you......I meant the Obamanites. I know deep down you are simply voting dem since you more in common with that platform.

Originally Posted By: PJP

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Originally Posted By: PJP

He could have also said the words...."95%, Hope and Change" in any order.....that seems to work with simpletons.

We've gone back & forth quite a bit PJP, honestly how often do I use any of those?

I didn't mean you......I meant the Obamanites. I know deep down you are simply voting dem since you more in common with that platform.

Well besides that I think Obama doesn't share the same beliefs of Ayers & Wright no more than I believe McCain is going to push for anti-gay legislation even though it was popular with his party & his leader.

Quote:

I think Obama doesn't share the same beliefs of Ayers & Wright

And that's why we accuse you of having your head in the sand.

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/series13.aspx

I don't get crazy about the polls but this was the only one that got the 2004 election right. Investor's Business Daily.

Obama 46% to McCain 44% with a whopping 8.7% still undecided.

Originally Posted By: the G-man of Zur-En-Arrh

Quote:

I think Obama doesn't share the same beliefs of Ayers & Wright

And that's why we accuse you of having your head in the sand.

I wonder if there is anyone on the left of this board that really respects the "we" on this board & what you proclaim. I don't.

fair play!

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Don't distract me. I enjoy the taste of Kool Aid

How does it taste G-man?

Originally Posted By: the G-man of Zur-En-Arrh

Originally Posted By: PJP

Don't we already have the FBI, ATF, and DEA to do all that?

Of course. That simply points further in the direction of a mandatory national service.

If you consider that Obama is-in his heart-a professional academic, this makes sense. Colleges (and even some high schools) been imposing mandatory "community service" as a graduation requirement for years. Further, people like his mentor Ayers have been pushing for its expansion for quite some time.

Couple this with race baiters like Rangel wanting to reinstate the draft, on the theory that a volunteer military disproportionately takes minorities, and you have all the signs pointing to an Obama draft that mandates either military or civilian "community service."

All the battleground states are either tied or within 1-3 points for either Mac or Hussein. PA is about 3 points too. McCain has a very good chance of winning tomorrow. We just need to hope the get out the vote effort is good enough which I believe it will be.

I'm turning in my ballot in a couple minutes!

Once it stops raining. I fucking hate oregon.

Anonymous 11/04/08 07:46 PM Reading a post
Forum: Politics and Current Events
Thread: Barack Hussein Obama in '08?

its almost over whomod, a few more hours and you can login and nanner your heart out, or logout and lurk for 4 years....

I just saw michelle obama and puff daddy together. This is what you want America. I hope you are all fucking happy. The America hater and the guy who threatened to kill everyone that didn't vote four years ago.

I only wanted it because now I can't possibly be racist. I voted for that nigger.

...

Originally Posted By: Balloon Knot

I only wanted it because now I can't possibly be racist. I voted for that nigger.

You're the idiot that makes actual thinking people look like morons.

I know NO ONE will believe its me saying this but

ROB
BAN THIS ASSHOLE!

He already did. But he came back.

My guess

Speedy

Originally Posted By: Franta

Originally Posted By: Balloon Knot

I only wanted it because now I can't possibly be racist. I voted for that nigger.

You're the idiot that makes actual thinking people look like morons.

I know NO ONE will believe its me saying this but

ROB
BAN THIS ASSHOLE!

Originally Posted By: rex

He already did. But he came back.

aye. i deleted BK once, and all historical traces of him, through the power of me. i then permitted his return.

i don't like banning people or deleting posts, ever. BK's are really the best example of the ones i would, however. generally speaking, he's a cunt. i have no further comment at this time.

Jebus criminey, these posts sound like they're from 2001!

Originally Posted By: rex

Damn, I almost forgot to come back here and gloat!

Damn RIGHT this is what America wants--and the right-wing losers are back where they belong, on the trash heap. Yee-haa!

It's just like the end of World War II--once again, America has defeated fascism.

PRESIDENT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, bitches! Suck it up!

Originally Posted By: Calybos

PRESIDENT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, bitches! Suck it up!

Calybos, this is a prejudice-free zone. Please don't come here and make racist attacks on our Glorious Leader by using his middle name.

what else is he gonna do with his life? obviously he's either very bored or very lonely without all his friends here to tell him what to think.

Originally Posted By: Calybos

Originally Posted By: rex

Because threatening to kill everyone that doesn't vote isn't fascist?

it's only fascist when white people do it, reax.

Obama Win Causes Obsessive Supporters To Realize How Empty Their Lives Are

$\:lol\:$

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/06/liberman.democrats/

Quote:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sen. Joe Lieberman met Thursday with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to discuss Lieberman's future with the Democratic caucus.

After the meeting, the Connecticut senator did not discuss what he and Reid talked about, but said, "The election is over, and I completely agree with President-elect [Barack] Obama that we must now unite to get our economy going again and to keep the American people safe.

"That is exactly what I intend to do with my colleagues here in the Senate in support of our new president," he said. "And those are the standards I will use in considering the options that I have before me."

Reid said in a statement that no decisions had been made during their meeting.

"While I understand that Sen. Lieberman has voted with Democrats a majority of the time, his comments and actions have raised serious concerns among many in our caucus," said Reid, D-Nevada.

"I expect there to be additional discussions in the days to come, and Sen. Lieberman and I will speak to our caucus in two weeks to discuss further steps," he said.

Lieberman, the Democrat turned independent who backed Republican Sen. John McCain for president, angered many Democrats -- including Reid -- when he attacked Obama during the presidential campaign. VideoWatch Lieberman call for Americans to unite »

Reid was especially irked by Lieberman's prime-time speech at the Republican National Convention this summer.

During the speech in St. Paul, Minnesota, Lieberman said, "Sen. Barack Obama is a gifted and eloquent young man who I think can do great things for our country in the years ahead, but, my friends, eloquence is no substitute for a record, not in these tough times for America."

After his speech, Obama adviser Robert Gibbs said that "Joe Lieberman ought to be ashamed of himself for some of the things he said tonight, not as a Democrat but as an American."

At stake is Lieberman's chairmanship of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and possibly his other committee assignments.

Reid could also ask Lieberman to leave the Democratic caucus altogether.

Reid was reluctant to act against Lieberman earlier because Democratic control of the Senate relied on Lieberman's decision to organize with Democrats. But after picking up multiple Democratic seats on Election Day, Reid is politically empowered to strip Lieberman of the coveted chairmanship if he chooses.

The full Democratic caucus would have to approve any action Reid takes when it meets on Capitol Hill in two weeks.

Reid has not been shy in the past about expressing his frustration with Lieberman, who just eight years ago was the Democrats' nominee for vice president.

But he's also repeatedly said he values Lieberman's membership in the caucus because on most issues, Lieberman votes with Democrats.

Joe The Plumber, Sen. Lieberman, who will be the next to be punished for having an opinion about the Obamassiah?

The Nature Boys

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2008...ive_bipart.html

I won;t bother quoteing the article you can go read it if you want. More of the liberal media love affair. They say Bush must put partisan politics aside and push through Obama's agenda in the closing days. Isn't Bush our President? Shouldn't Obama be the one called upon to put politics aside and support our President? It's scary the way the press has anointed him the Messiah, when you have Obamanauts like Promod and whomod dong it, it goes with the territory, the week minded are easily duped. But the press is supposed to be a little more savy.

In 2004 Bush got 62,040,606 votes in 2008 Obama got 65,431,955, considering the millions of new voters that Obama obtained through illegal ACORN actions, if the Conservatives that were basically told to stay home by the press had came out and voted, this would have been a McCain victory. So the press can pretend there is a mandate, but I don;t remember them acting that way with GW and he had very similar numbers.

Originally Posted By: BASAMS The Plumber

More of the liberal media love affair. They say Bush must put partisan politics aside and push through Obama's agenda in the closing days.

Strange. I don't recall the press telling Bill Clinton that he had to start pushing through Bush's agenda in the closing days of his presidency.

For that matter, I don't recall the press telling any president that he had to start pushing his victorious successor's agenda before leaving office.

The press in this country has gone from a fourth estate to a fifth column.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081109/ap_on_el_pr/obama;_ylt=AmyISPcA873XVgkItHbu8P5bbBAF

Quote:

President-elect Obama's transition chief said Sunday the incoming administration is reviewing President Bush's executive orders on stem cell research, oil and gas drilling and other matters.

John Podesta said the president can use such orders to move quickly without waiting for Congress to act, highlighting the extraordinary powers a president can wield beyond signing legislation approved by Congress. Podesta said people should expect Obama to use those powers to reverse many policies of the Bush administration.

The federal Bureau of Land Management is opening about 360,000 acres of public land in Utah to oil and gas drilling, leading to protests from environmentalists.

"They want to have oil and gas drilling in some of the most sensitive, fragile lands in Utah," Podesta said. "I think that's a mistake."

Is continuing dependence on Iran for oil change?

We have not had a major inland drilling accident, this environmentalist crap is getting old. This should help appease Iran before Obama has his sit down.

Originally Posted By: BASAMS The Plumber

if the Conservatives that were basically told to stay home by the press had came out and voted, this would have been a McCain victory.

bahahaha, the press told conservatives to stay home?

the loss has made you delusional.

Originally Posted By: BASAMS The Plumber

Is continuing dependence on Iran for oil change?

Hey, every president owes his donors.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081110/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_al_qaida

Quote:

WASHINGTON – The U.S. military has conducted nearly a dozen secret operations against al-Qaida and other terrorist groups in Syria, Pakistan and other countries since 2004, The New York Times reported Sunday night.

Citing anonymous U.S. officials, the Times story said the operations were authorized by a broad classified order that then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld signed and President Bush approved in spring 2004. The order gave the military authority to attack al-Qaida anywhere in the world and to conduct operations in countries that were not at war with the U.S.

One such operation was the Oct. 26 raid inside Syria, the Times reported. Washington hasn't formally acknowledged the raid, but U.S. officials have said the target was a top al-Qaida in Iraq figure. Syria has asked for proof and said eight civilians were killed in the attack.

In another mission, in 2006, Navy SEALs raided a suspected terrorist compound in Pakistan's tribal areas.

The raids have typically been conducted by U.S. Special Forces, often in conjunction with the Central Intelligence Agency, the newspaper said. Even though the process has been streamlined, specific missions have to be approved by the defense secretary or, in the cases of Syria and Pakistan, by the president.

A Defense Department spokesman had no comment Sunday night on the Times report.

Nothing like currying favor with the press at the risk of the soldiers. Two days after they were given National Security clearance and briefed, and one day after Obama proudly proclaimed he was going over executive orders this leaks. I'm sure it's a coincidence though.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/11/10/republican-congressman-warns-obama-dictatorship/

Quote:

WASHINGTON -- A Republican congressman from Georgia said Monday he fears that President-elect Obama will establish a Gestapo-like security force to impose a Marxist or fascist dictatorship.

"It may sound a bit crazy and off base, but the thing is, he's the one who proposed this national security force," Rep. Paul Broun said of Obama in an interview Monday with The Associated Press. "I'm just trying to bring attention to the fact that we may -- may not, I hope not -- but we may have a problem with that type of philosophy of radical socialism or Marxism."

Broun cited a July speech by Obama that has circulated on the Internet in which the then-Democratic presidential candidate called for a civilian force to take some of the national security burden off the military.

"That's exactly what Hitler did in Nazi Germany and it's exactly what the Soviet Union did," Broun said. "When he's proposing to have a national security force that's answering to him, that is as strong as the U.S. military, he's showing me signs of being Marxist."

Obama's comments about a national security force came during a speech in Colorado about building a new civil service corps. Among other things, he called for expanding the nation's foreign service and doubling the size of the Peace Corps "to renew our diplomacy."

"We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set," Obama said in July. "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

Broun said he also believes Obama likely will move to ban gun ownership if he does build a national police force.

Obama has said he respects the Second Amendment right to bear arms and favors "common sense" gun laws. Gun rights advocates interpret that as meaning he'll at least enact curbs on ownership of assault weapons and concealed weapons. As an Illinois state lawmaker, Obama supported a ban on semiautomatic weapons and tighter restrictions on firearms generally.

"We can't be lulled into complacency," Broun said. "You have to remember that Adolf Hitler was elected in a democratic Germany. I'm not comparing him to Adolf Hitler. What I'm saying is there is the potential."

Obama's transition office did not respond immediately to Broun's remarks.

Is Canada going to be your country's Poland?

I hope so.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/15625#full

Quote:

President-elect Barack Obama met Thursday with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) at his transition headquarters in Chicago as a growing chorus of advisers pushes her for secretary of state.

This would give him a “Team of Rivals” Cabinet that would allow him to focus on the domestic economy while Clinton traveled the world to shore up America’s image with allies.

Add to that the fact that Obama is choosing a lot of Clinton's old staff in the transition team, I have to wonder how he isn't part of the 'same old politics'.

Obama's new slogan?

"I'm going to be really patient with him. Change takes a lot of time," said Hannah Gold, 21, a junior studying political science at Hunter College.

And:

Those of us who have lived a few years know that real change takes a lot of time to effect in a massive nation the size of the USA. And even longer to manifest itself.

I have a feeling that that "Change takes a lot of time" is going to be a common expression over the next four years...especially among the people who mocked President Bush for failing to turn Iraq into a modern democracy overnight.

Change we can wait on!

Yes we can...... at a later date.

$\:lol\:$

Change sammitch can believe in!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,451941,00.html

Quote:

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan — No students showed up at Mirwais Mena girls' school in the Taliban's spiritual birthplace the morning after it happened.

A day earlier, men on motorcycles attacked 15 girls and teachers with acid.

The men squirted the acid from water bottles onto three groups of students and teachers walking to school Wednesday, principal Mehmood Qaderi said. Some of the girls have burns only on their school uniforms but others will have scars on their faces.

"Today the school is open, but there are no girls," Qaderi said Thursday. "Yesterday, all of the classes were full." His school has 1,500 students.

Afghanistan's government condemned the attack as "un-Islamic" and blamed it on the "country's enemies," a typical reference to Taliban militants. Qari Yousef Ahmadi, a Taliban spokesman, denied the insurgents were involved.
Related

Girls were banned from schools under the rule of the Taliban, the hard-line Islamist regime that ruled Afghanistan from 1996 to 2001. Women were only allowed to leave the house wearing a body-hiding burqa and accompanied by a male family member.

Qaderi said he believes there were multiple teams of assailants because the attacks took place at the same time in different neighborhoods. Provincial Police Chief Mati Ullah Khan said three people have been arrested. He would not provide further details because the investigation was not completed.

The country has made a major push to improve access to education for girls since the Taliban ouster. Fewer than 1 million Afghan children — mostly all boys — attended school under Taliban rule. Roughly 6 million Afghan children, including 2 million girls, attend school today.

But many conservative families still keep their girls at home and the acid attacks are a reminder that old biases remain.

"They don't want us go to school. They don't like education," said Susan Ibrahimi, who started teaching at Mirwais Mena four months ago. She and her mother, also a teacher at the school, were wearing burqas on their walk to work when the motorbike stopped next to them.

"They didn't say anything. They just stopped the motorbike and one of the guys threw acid on us and they went away," Ibrahimi said in a telephone interview.

The acid ate through the cloth covering Ibrahimi's face and left burns down her left cheek. The acid also burned her mother's hand.

"I am worried that I will have scars on my face," said Ibrahimi, who is 19 years old and not married.

Fifteen people were hit with acid in all, including four teachers, Qaderi said.

Ibrahimi said it was the Taliban that attacked her but then explained that she used the term to refer to anyone who was against education for women.

The United Nations called the attack "a hideous crime."

First lady Laura Bush on Thursday decried the attack as cowardly, saying in a statement the "shameful acts are condemned by honorable people in the United States and around the world."

The attacks are "contrary to previous assurances Afghans have been given that there would not be further attacks against schools or students," the U.N. said in a statement.

Arsonists have repeatedly attacked girls' schools and gunmen killed two students walking outside a girls' school in central Logar province last year. UNICEF says there were 236 school-related attacks in Afghanistan in 2007. The Afghan government has also accused the Taliban of attacking schools in an attempt to force teenage boys into the Islamic militia.

In Wednesday's attack, three young women were hospitalized for burns. Two were released Thursday morning, but 17-year-old Shamsia Husainai was still lying on a hospital bed unable to open her eyes. Her brother Masood Morbi said her body shook about every 10 seconds.

She could talk, but her brother said her words were mangled. Her face was covered with a cream to treat her burns. The doctors were giving her pills to blunt the pain.

Husainai's younger sister told The Associated Press on Wednesday that they had been walking on the street with a group of friends, all of whom were wearing a typical Afghan school uniform of black pants, white shirt, black coat and white headscarf.

Fourteen-year-old Atifa Bibi was also badly burned on her face but she was released from the hospital late Wednesday.

Qaderi, the principal, said no one in the school had reported any direct threats but one of the teachers attacked Wednesday had reported an incident two days ago in which two men threatened her.

"She told me when she was walking two men said to her, 'Oh, you are putting on makeup and going to the school. Okay, we will see you.'"

Husainai and Bibi's aunt, Bibi Meryam, said no one had threatened them but they would consider keeping the girls at home until it felt safer.

A handful of teachers showed up Thursday, but Qaderi said the only students who tried to attend were about 20 primary school students who arrived late in the afternoon and were sent home because the school had already decided not to hold classes.

Ibrahimi, the young teacher who was burned, said she and her mother stayed home.

"Yesterday we didn't go to school. Today we didn't go to school. I don't know about the future," she said.

These are the kinds of people Hussein thinks we can sit down and negotiate with. Who in their right mind thinks these people are worthy of sitting down with?

http://www.foxnews.com/photoessay/0,4644,5682,00.html

Pictures of the victims.

But nobody died so it's only political activism or a fraternity prank.
Right, promod?

Plus didn't the Taliban give fair warning?

Just think, in forty years, a future US President could be friends with one of these guys and that would be totally cool.

My son is 13, would he qualify? Or is it too far past 8?

I don't know. That's a close call. I think it's going to depend on his eventual party affiliation.

I should mention as full disclosure though with much shame, he was actually born in the United States.

Originally Posted By: rex

Change sammitch can believe in!

I would tell you how clever that is but I haven't gotten around to it yet.

I went out tonight and ran into a group of friends who are Obama supporters and, sure enough, the hive mind was already droning on about how "Bush made things so bad it will take Obama eight years at least to fix it."

The guy hasn't been sworn in yet and they are already making excuses for him.

Cut Government spending in half and the problems will be gone in a year and a half.

Originally Posted By: PJP

Cut Government spending...

...and taxes...

Quote:

in half and the problems will be gone in a year and a half.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd...has-thin-resume

Quote:

Interestingly, Dan Morain of the L.A. Times has just discovered that Barack Obama has a pretty thin resume [1] prior to being elevated to the presidency. Between 1993 and '96, Obama, the much-ballyhooed "Constitutional scholar," had only an unusually low 3,723 billable hours of legal work accrued over a four-year stint with his law firm employer Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Gallard. Further, he seems to have worked on but few cases and made little impact commensurate with his reputation. The question I have, of course, is why is the L.A. Times only NOW interested that Obama was "involved in relatively few cases before entering politics"? Where was this investigating before the election?

The Morain piece begins by recounting how Obama has so often made a big deal out of his days as a "civil-rights attorney" claiming it a key ingredient of his early, formative community development years. Yet, Morain finds that there isn't much record proving that Obama did a whole heck-of-a-lot back in those days. (bold mine)

Senior attorneys at the small firm where he worked say he was a strong writer and researcher, but was involved in relatively few cases before entering politics.

So, Obama, for all his claims of being involved in the lives of "churches and community groups" as a lawyer with the firm is... what? Blowing smoke? If the paper trail reveals he didn't work on many cases or have very many billable hours, how is it that he found this experience to be a monumental involvement in the community that shaped his career?

Morain doesn't directly ask these questions in his piece, wisely preferring to let the facts talk to the reader. But, a careful read of his L.A.Times piece cannot help but elicit the pertinent question: what the heck was Obama doing during those four years, anyway? After all, it sure doesn't look like he was doing much legal work!

Here's how Morain sums up Obama's paper trail:

30: The approximate number of legal cases Obama was involved in:

4: The number of years Obama was a full-time lawyer

70%: The amount of time Obama spent on voting rights, civil rights and employment, generally as a junior associate. (The rest of his time was spent on matters related to real-estate transactions, filing incorporation papers and defending clients against minor lawsuits.)

3,723: The number of billable hours Obama accrued while working at Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Gallard.

According to Morain, some of Obama's "big" cases were the case of a shortchanged babysitter, the case of a cold building tenant, and a lawsuit against a corporation that owned low-income housing on behalf of a guy that slipped and fell down. Additionally, Obama was involved in the enforcement of the federal Motor Voter law in Illinois -- at lest that one being a higher profile case.

So, it appears Obama has less billable hours during those four years than most young lawyers are expected to accrue (which is up to 2,000 hours a year [2] according to some estimates), worked on but few cases, and only on one notable one. On top of that, he was rarely more than a "junior associate" the whole time.

This is the man that was praised for his extensive legal career? A slighted babysitter and a guy that fell down are the amazing legal challenges he faced as a young lawyer?

Of course, the biggest question is, why are we only now seeing this report in the L.A. Times? Where was this report two months ago or more?

Need I even ask?

Originally Posted By: whomod May 13, 2008

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

It's possible that Obama, if elected, will later actually listen to the generals

$\:lol\:$ Sorry, in light of bush's record on this matter, it's ridiculous that you bring it up in regards to Obama.

Quote:

Praise Allah!

Now you're just a right wing talk show jackass.

Except that Obama now is listening to the generals.
And not the ones you YouTubed.
Jackass.

Originally Posted By: BASAMS The Plumber

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081020/ap_on_el_pr/obama

Quote:

Well the endorsement is becoming a little clearer now, apparently there is a informal deal in place for an endorsement for a job.

Guess the job offer fell through: Powell airs doubts on Obama agenda

Colin Powell, one of President Obama's most prominent Republican supporters, expressed concern Friday that the president's ambitious blitz of costly initiatives may be enlarging the size of government and the federal debt too much.

"I'm concerned at the number of programs that are being presented, the bills associated with these programs and the additional government that will be needed to execute them," Mr. Powell said in an excerpt of an interview with CNN's John King, released by the network Friday morning.

Maybe you should have thought of that before you endorsed someone simply because of their skin color, General.

Great to see that people are starting to come around about Obama. Too bad it is too late.

Originally Posted By: the G-man of Zur-En-Arrh

...

Maybe you should have thought of that before you endorsed someone simply because of their skin color, General.

How do you know he endorsed Obama because of his skin color? It's not like he had a history of following the GOP herd lock step even when he was with Bush.

How do we know? How do you know the sun comes up in the morning?

Originally Posted By: BASAMS The Plumber

How do we know? How do you know the sun comes up in the morning?

As I pointed out Powell was never a predictable GOP player. Try again.

The suns up.

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Originally Posted By: the G-man of Zur-En-Arrh

...

Maybe you should have thought of that before you endorsed someone simply because of their skin color, General.

How do you know he endorsed Obama because of his skin color?

Powell was a major McCain donor previously. They share a military backgound and, in general, a belief system. Powell had more in commons with McCain's philosophy than he did with Bush's.

The only thing Powell didn't have in common with McCain, in fact, was a skin color and a belief in affirmative action.

Sure, Powell made some half-assed, incoherent, attempts to explain his decision but there was no logic to them. Anyone not blinded by politics could see that Powell wanted to support the first major party black president nominee and, therefore, endorsed a member of his "race" over his friend and ally

Originally Posted By: the G-man of Zur-En-Arrh

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Originally Posted By: the G-man of Zur-En-Arrh

...

Maybe you should have thought of that before you endorsed someone simply because of their skin color, General.

How do you know he endorsed Obama because of his skin color?

You're still guessing and presenting it as fact. A partisan such as yourself (and basams) displayed and still display so much resentment over last year's election that it's probably a case of some payback for Powell for not being loyal to a political party.

Evidence is evidence, MEM. And the evidence in this case is overwhelming.

Originally Posted By: the G-man of Zur-En-Arrh

Evidence is evidence, MEM. And the evidence in this case is overwhelming.

Yep, lots of sour grapes, lots of sour wine for you.

You and basams are the ones using skin color in how you judge Powell's actions. Shame on you.

the sun is down.

Powell Defends Sotomayor Ruling Against White Firefighters

So, to recap: Powell is a Republican who generally only breaks with the Republican Party when it involves taking the side of unqualified African Americans over more qualified whites.

Yet, according to MEM, there is no evidence that these breaks with the party are based on race.

MEM is about one step away from being one of those guys who says we have to pretend that OJ and Michael Jackson are innocent just because a jury didn't find them guilty.

Originally Posted By: the G-man of Zur-En-Arrh

Just to be clear, I didn't say there was no evidence. I just pointed out that you didn't know that Powell's support was based on race. You and basams however were the ones using Powells' skin color as a basis for your opinion.

the sun is up again.

I bet powell buys all his gas from nigaz!

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul/02/obama-stands-with-tyrants/

Quote:

Dictators and demagogues can rest easy on President Obama's watch. When thousands of Iranians flooded the streets of Tehran protesting a rigged election and were beaten and shot down by pro-regime thugs, the president bided his time before making a series of noncommittal statements. He seemed to hope it would all just go away. However, when a socialist demagogue was ejected unceremoniously from Honduras on Sunday by his own government for trying to establish a presidency for life, Mr. Obama instantly sprang to his defense.

What happened in Honduras was not a military coup. Honduras has a civilian president, Roberto Micheletti, a member of former President Manuel Zelaya's own Liberal Party, who was elevated to the post after Mr. Zelaya was removed. The army did not seize power, but acted as the elected government's instrument in ousting Mr. Zelaya, who was well on his way to subverting the Honduran constitution and erecting a dictatorship.

The crisis followed an intense week of political drama over a planned referendum seeking to convene an assembly to rewrite the 1982 constitution to allow Mr. Zelaya to serve in office beyond the mandated one-term limit, which would have ended in January 2010. The Honduran National Congress opposed the referendum, and the Supreme Court declared it illegal. The plan was denounced by majority and opposition political parties, the Catholic Church and the Honduran Human Rights Commission.

The military impounded the illegal ballots, and Mr. Zelaya fired military chief Gen. Romeo Vasquez for refusing to distribute them. This prompted resignations from Defense Minister Edmundo Orellana and all the service chiefs. The Supreme Court quickly ruled the firing was illegal. Meanwhile, Mr. Zelaya led a band of followers to air force headquarters and seized the illegal ballots, seeking to hold the referendum regardless. The Congress then acted to remove this renegade ruler and defend the Honduran constitution.

Mr. Zelaya is a demagogue in the mold of Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, who bolstered the Zelaya regime through a subsidized energy program called Petrocaribe and gave direct financial support through the ALBA Bank. The acronym stands for Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas, a Chavez-backed anti-U.S. alliance of nine Latin American states, prominently Venezuela, Cuba, Bolivia and Nicaragua, all of which are pursuing explicitly anti-U.S. policies.

In throwing its unqualified support to Mr. Zelaya, the Obama administration is enabling America's strategic foes. This shortsightedness is truly breathtaking and underscores the incoherence of the administration's foreign policy. Smart power? We think not.

By sending Mr. Zelaya to El Salvador, the new government gave him the opportunity to rally world opinion. The exiled former president also benefited from the fact that the new government limited press coverage, which did not bolster the legitimacy of the transfer of power. Now Mr. Zelaya has secured the backing of numerous Latin American leaders, the United Nations and the United States. He had planned to return to Tegucigalpa on Thursday, but the Organization of American States has given Honduras three days to reinstate him. Honduran Attorney General Luis Alberto Rubi has issued an arrest warrant for Mr. Zelaya on 18 charges, including abuse of power and treason.

Whatever the outcome of the crisis in Honduras, Mr. Obama has failed another key test of international leadership. The United States is in an increasingly perilous position in Latin America and needs solid allies to stem the anti-American tide being led by Venezuela. Mr. Obama should think twice before rushing to stand beside the likes of dictators such as Mr. Chavez and Cuba's Fidel Castro. They support Mr. Zelaya because he is a fellow traveler, a socialist in good standing, a member of their anti-gringo alliance. There's no reason for America to support him.

Anonymous 3 seconds ago Reading a post
Forum: Politics and Current Events
Thread: Barack Hussein Obama in '08?

Welcome back Jason!

Originally Posted By: BASAMS The Plumber

Anonymous 3 seconds ago Reading a post
Forum: Politics and Current Events
Thread: Barack Hussein Obama in '08?

Welcome back Jason!

AFLAC!

Originally Posted By: whomod

Quote:

"They will not fund our party, they will not run our White House and they will not drown out the voice of the American people" - Barak Obama

$\:lol\:$

Rasmussen

Quote:

As president, Obama lost the support of Republicans in February during the debate over the stimulus package. Over the summer, economic concerns and the health care debate cost the president support among unaffiliated voters. By October, a month-by-month review showed that Obama's overall job approval had slipped to 48% among Likely Voters.

This morning, on the anniversary of his election, the president's Approval Index rating is at -13, just one point above the lowest level yet recorded and down 41 points since the Inauguration.

Economic conditions have played a role in dimming Obama's support. For much of the past year, voters continued to blame George W. Bush for the economy, but the blame is more evenly divided now between Bush and Obama.

The core promise made down the stretch to voters by candidate Obama was a pledge to cut taxes for 95% of all Americans. Now, more than 40% expect a tax hike and hardly anybody expects their taxes to go down. Not surprisingly, 74% of voters now view the president as politically liberal.

Just 33% believe the stimulus package has helped, and most opposed other economic initiatives including the takeover of General Motors and the cash-for-clunkers program. Among the priorities established by the president, voters consistently see deficit reduction as the most important but least likely to be achieved.

The health care plan proposed by the president is struggling and is supported by just 42% of voters nationwide. Confidence in the War on Terror spiked during the first weeks of the Obama administration but has now fallen to the lowest level in nearly three years. On a related topic, one of the president's earliest initiatives, his promise to close the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, initially received mixed reviews but is now opposed by most Americans.

Sixty-five percent (65%) of voters now expect politics in Washington to become more partisan over the coming year. That's up 25 points since Inauguration Day when a plurality believed politics might become more cooperative.

Anonymous 29 seconds ago Reading a post
Forum: Politics and Current Events
Thread: Barack Hussein Obama in '08?

up early for a Saturday whomod?

Originally Posted By: BASAMS The Plumber

Anonymous 29 seconds ago Reading a post
Forum: Politics and Current Events
Thread: Barack Hussein Obama in '08?

up early for a Saturday whomod?

AFLAC!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2416710/posts

Quote:

Barack Obama enjoys living like a king, so why shouldn't Michelle Obama live like a queen?

The First Lady was photographed last night in Hawaii wearing $635 per pair designer shoes by Maison Martin Margiela.

The shoe style is called "Leather open toe flat pumps." It features a "thin nude leather strap across the top of the toe."

A woman lucky enough to have a job in this economy and working for the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour would have to work 88 hours (without taxes taken out) to make enough to pay for Michelle Obama's shoes. If she can get them on sale, they would only set her back $445 for 62 hours work.

The Obamas are staying at an $8.9 million estate for an estimated $4000 per night. To cover the Obama's ten night stay, the minimum wage worker would have to work two-and-a-half years (before taxes) to come up with the $40,000 Obama is reportedly laying out.

Obama has lectured Americans about how they can not expect to live their lives as indulgently as they have in the past. He has lectured businesses about their travel and pay. Yet Obama and his wife live like kings and queens.

The news media has yet to call him out on his extravagance when there is 10% unemployment with no sign of the employment picture improving this coming year.

Farrakhan Takes Aim at Right: Nation of Islam leader claims 'white right' is using health care to make Obama a one-term president

does The Bastard write his speeches?

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

G-man posted this in the religion forum but since it's Obama spiritual advisor it deserves a post here as well...

Quote:

RAW
This isn't something you just quietly dissagree with & expect to win a general election.

It appears Matter-eater Man was onto something when he questioned Barrack Hussein's character and his questionable association with a know anti-semite preacher:

Israel recoils as US backs nuclear move

Quote:

Washington's unprecedented backing for a UN resolution for a nuclear-free Middle East that singles out Israel has both angered and deeply worried the Jewish state although officials are cagey about openly criticising their biggest ally.

The resolution adopted by the United Nations on Friday calls on Israel to join the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and urges it to open its facilities to inspection.

It also calls for a regional conference in 2012 to advance the goal of a nuclear-free Middle East.

Israel is widely believed to be the only nuclear power in the Middle East, with around 200 warheads, but has maintained a policy of deliberate ambiguity about its capabilities since the mid-1960s.

The document, which singles out Israel but makes no mention of Iran's controversial nuclear programme, drew a furious reaction from the Jewish state who decried it as "deeply flawed and hypocritical."

But it was US backing for the resolution which has caused the most consternation among Israeli officials and commentators, who interpreted the move as "a resounding slap around the face" which has dealt a very public blow to Israel's long-accepted policy of nuclear ambiguity.

Publicly, the Israel government has not criticised the US position but privately, officials expressed deep disappointment over the resolution, which Washington backed despite intensive Israeli efforts to block it.

According to the top-selling Yediot Aharonot daily, the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was "furious with the Obama administration for having failed to prevent the resolution from passing... and for choosing to support it."

"The American support for the resolution, after decades in which it supported Israel on this issue, came as a complete surprise," the paper said.

"In the secret talks that Netanyahu held with Obama's men... Israel was promised that the resolution would not focus on Israel and that if it did, the Americans would vote against."

The left-leaning Haaretz daily said Israel had been "sacrificed by the US on the altar of a successful conference" in what constituted "a diplomatic victory for Egypt" which has campaigned against Israel's nuclear arsenal.

Five years ago, the paper recalled, Obama's predecessor George W. Bush, refused to accept parts of a draft document calling on Israel to join the NPT and dismissed the idea of holding talks to create a nuclear-free Middle East -- even at the cost of the conference's failure.

The controversial resolution was passed just days ahead of a key meeting between Obama and Netanyahu aimed at restoring friendly ties between the two allies which had been soured over a dispute about Jewish settlements.

But the Maariv daily said that Obama's 'last minute' invitation for Netanyahu to visit the White House had clearly been planned with the NPT review conference in mind.

"It is reasonable to assume that the Americans knew they were going to deliver a blow to Israel's policy of nuclear ambiguity and that Obama wanted to try to minimize the damage," the paper said.

The move draws a line under a long-held "agreement" between Israel and Washington dating back to 1969 under which the Jewish state was permitted to keep silent on its country's nuclear potential while holding back from any nuclear test.

In return, Washington agreed not to exert or allow any pressure on Israel over its nuclear capabilities.

"It is an undeniably negative change to US policy" with regards to Israel's nuclear programme, said Eitan Gilboa, an analyst from Bar Ilan University near Tel Aviv.

Pointing to contradiction between Obama both applauding the resolution and criticising it for singling out Israel, Gilboa said Washington was "losing its leadership role because of the naive and unrealistic" outlook of its president.

If you elect a President who went to an Anti-Semitic church for 20 years these kinds of moves are expected. No one who voted for him should be surprised.

Originally Posted By: Arthur Digby Sellers

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

G-man posted this in the religion forum but since it's Obama spiritual advisor it deserves a post here as well...

Quote:

RAW
This isn't something you just quietly dissagree with & expect to win a general election.

It appears Matter-eater Man was onto something when he questioned Barrack Hussein's character and his questionable association with a know anti-semite preacher:

$\:lol\:$

MEM, how many times have I tried to tell you: we CAN and DO read your old posts. You can't keep pretending you didn't write things you wrote.

What's the issue G-man? Obama did have to address the Wright thing several times during the election. So I was correct in what I origianally posted. I think it's funny now how some conservatives have conflicting Obama talking points. On the one hand he's being criticised for adding another jewish person to the Supreme Court while others are still trying to make him an anti-semite.

Where is the criticism for adding a Jew? I believe the criticism is being leveled at the fact that he is nominating someone with zero judicial track record. Look how electing a President with no experience has wrecked this country. Record deficits, unemployment, our traditional allies UK, Israel have been isolated, our enemies have been emboldened, health care freedom taken from the people. It's a risky bet to hire someone that does not know what they are doing.

Looks like another old pal of Obama is on the Anti-Semite band wagon again:

Helen Thomas says that the Jews must get out of Israel, go back to Germany and Poland. I bet Barrack Hussein accidently yelled out an Amen thinking he was back at Trinity Church in Chicago:

Side note, why are most Progressive women ugly bitches? Does being ugly make you become liberal, or does being a liberal make you ugly?

Helen Thomas: Hey, sorry about that whole “Jews out of Palestine” thing

Quote:

It must be sincere. She’s never betrayed any anti-Israel sentiment before, has she?

Quote:

Helen Thomas issued the following statement today: “I deeply regret my comments I made last week regarding the Israelis and the Palestinians. They do not reflect my heart-felt belief that peace will come to the Middle East only when all parties recognize the need for mutual respect and tolerance. May that day come soon.”

I’m satisfied. Who among us hasn’t innocently stumbled into a statement of support for ethnic cleansing when we didn’t really mean it?

Originally Posted By: Irwin Schwab, October 24, 2008

A test Obama has failed for 18 months now.

Originally Posted By: the G-man, October 26, 2008

Originally Posted By: PJP

A lot of people think this scenario, or something quite like it, is what Biden meant when he said that Obama would be "tested" and that people would be upset by what he did.

Rather prophetic, of the Israel situation over Obama's tenure.

Analysis: U.N. rebukes of Israel permitted in U.S. policy shift

Quote:

Under President Barack Obama, the United States no longer provides Israel with support at the United Nations where the Jewish state faces a constant barrage of criticism and condemnation.

The subtle but noticeable shift in the U.S. approach to its Middle East ally comes amid what some analysts describe as one of the most serious crises in U.S.-Israeli relations in years.

"Israel became used to unconditional support of the United States during eight years of the Bush administration," said Marina Ottaway, director of the Middle East Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington.

Last week the United States backed a Security Council statement on Israel's commando raid on an aid flotilla that tried to break Israel's blockade of the Gaza Strip. Nine people on one of the ships were killed in the action.

The statement regretted the loss of life and demanded a "prompt, impartial, credible and transparent investigation conforming to international standards.

UNITED NATIONS "LYNCH MOB"?

Israel was still unhappy with the statement and its supporters accused Obama of abandoning the Jewish state.

In an article called "Joining the jackals," Elliott Abrams, at the Council on Foreign Relations, accused Obama of exposing Israel to a virtual U.N. "lynch mob."

"The White House did not wish to stand with Israel against this mob because it does not have a policy of solidarity with Israel," Abrams said. "Rather, its policy is one of distancing and pressure."

Abrams also criticized the White House over the recent five-year review conference of signatories to the 1970 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) that Israel, like nuclear-armed Pakistan and India, has never signed.

Washington backed a call for a 2012 meeting of all countries in the Middle East to discuss making the region a zone free of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction -- a plan originally proposed by Egypt with Arab backing to add pressure on Israel to give up its nuclear weapons.

After allowing it to pass, the U.S. delegation criticized the NPT final declaration for "singling out" Israel, which neither confirms nor denies having atomic weapons.

This statement did not satisfy commentators like Abrams, who said Obama had "abandoned Israel in the U.N. and in the NPT conference in the course of one week."

"During the George W. Bush years, Washington's siding with Israel on any issue seriously eroded what had been America's long-standing posture as an honest broker in the Middle East," said Mark Fitzpatrick of the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London.

"Obama has been trying to reclaim that status, while keeping in mind the domestic political need of not being seen as anti-Israel," he said.

Outside the United Nations, analysts say Obama tried to ease strains with Netanyahu after tensions spiked earlier this year over Jewish settlement construction on occupied Palestinian land.

He coaxed Israel into indirect talks with the Palestinians, his biggest tangible achievement in Middle East diplomacy.

But an Israeli official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the jury is still out on the Obama administration's approach to the Jewish state.

"It's still difficult to decipher the intentions behind the changing U.S. policy at the United Nations, and not just in regard to the Middle East," the official said.

"If the Americans are convinced that, through adopting a softer approach ... they will achieve support from countries that heretofore opposed their policy -- they will discover that they are wrong," the official added.

He did nominate Kagan though.

Attorney General Holder: Violation of the U.S. Neutrality Act, 18 U.S.C. § 960 Against Israel, Funding Jihad

Quote:

Attorney General Eric Holder
U.S. Department of Justice
950Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Via Fax: (202) 307-6777

Dear Attorney General Holder,
Re: Violation of the U.S. Neutrality Act, 18 U.S.C. § 960

As you are no doubt aware, this past week a boat flotilla organized by Turkish NGOs and Islamic terrorists set out to provoke the Israel Defense Forces and to violate Israel's military blockade of the Hamas controlled Gaza Strip. The flotilla's efforts resulted in the deaths of 9 armed militants and the serious injuring of numerous Israeli soldiers.

I am writing to bring to your attention to a serious matter regarding the flotilla and what might have been a conspiracy to violate the U.S. Neutrality Act, 18 U.S.C. §960, regulations of the Internal Revenue Service and an attempt to aid & abet the Palestinian terrorist organization Hamas, which has occurred within the United States.

It has come to our Law Center's attention that the radical pro-Hamas organization, the Free Gaza Movement ("FGM"), has been raising funds for its extremist activities within the United States. The FGM was one of the driving forces behind past efforts to run the Gaza flotilla in 2008 and its members directed the current Gaza flotilla campaign from Cyprus. These activities would appear to be a violation of the U.S. Neutrality Act which is codified in section 960 of title 18 of the U.S. Code and provides:

"Whoever, within the United States, knowingly begins or sets on foot or provides or prepares a means for or furnishes the money for, or takes part in, any military or naval expedition or enterprise to be carried on from thence against the territory or dominion of any foreign province or state, or of any colony, district, or people with whom the United States is at peace, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both".

- 2 -

This past week US Vice- President Joesph Biden declared that the Israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip is lawful and pursuant to international law. The blockade was established in June 2007, after terrorist from the Hamas organization violently took control of the territory and ousted the members of the Palestinian Authority security services. Since that time, Hamas has engaged in a relentless campaign to obtain weapons and explosives and to terrorize Israel's civilian population. In an effort to prevent Hamas from obtaining any additional military equipment and to impose economic pressure on the Hamas leadership in Gaza, the Israeli Security Cabinet imposed a series of sanctions on the Gaza Strip including a coastal blockade that is being implemented by the Israeli navy. The naval blockade is particularly important in light of previous attempts by the Iranian government to transfer weapons to Palestinian militants at sea such as occurred in January 2002 when the Israeli navy seized the "Karine A" ship that was loaded with 50 tons of Iranian supplied weaponry. Moreover, there are several provisions within the agreements signed by Israel and the Palestinian Authority that grant Israel the right to implement a naval blockade on the Gaza Strip. Specifically, the September 28, 1995 Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip that was signed in Washington D.C. which provides that Israel has "the responsibility for defense against external threats, including for defense against external threats from the sea and from the air." In addition, it was agreed by the parties that foreign vessels would "not approach closer than 12 nautical miles from the coast" unless specifically authorized by Israel. As such, the Israeli blockade on Gaza is lawful and the waters outside of Gaza are lawfully controlled by Israel.

The FGM has a website at http://www.freegaza.org . Those who wish to support the FGM's activities, including the organizing and outfitting of the boat flotilla which attempted to engage the Israeli navy and run the Gaza blockade, are asked to donate to the FGM. As the FGM website plainly explains (http://www.freegaza.org/en/usa-donations), however, that since the FGM does not "currently have 501(c)3 status," Donations to the group will be channeled through the American Educational Trust, the publishers of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, who "have generously agreed to serve as our fiscal sponsor in the United States. Through the American Educational Trust you can make U.S. tax-deductible donations to us either with PayPal or by check".

Potential donors are informed that if they "would like to make a U.S. tax-deductible donation to the Free Gaza Movement by check, please make out the check to: American Educational Trust LE" and write "Free Gaza" in the memo section "…

- 3 -

In addition, to organizing boat flotilla's that contain weapons and supplies that the Israeli government has deemed harmful to its security and which the FGM seeks to smuggle into Gaza which would constitute a violation of the Neutrality Act the FGM has attempted to defraud the IRS. It is difficult to believe that the IRS would authorize an outlaw organization like the FGM, which does not appear to be incorporated nor have tax-free status in the United States, to have another organization like the American Educational Trust issue tax receipt to donors on its behalf. This is a clear case of money laundering by the FGM and the American Educational Trust and an effort to defraud the regulations of the IRS. It is the FGM and the American Educational Trust, as well as its donors, who are knowingly engaging in this conspiracy to provide tax receipts on behalf of an organization that is not legally authorized to provide them.

Accordingly, despite the clear unequivocal policy of the United States to support Israel's right to control the security of the territorial waters around Gaza and to isolate Hamas from external support, the FGM and the American Educational Trust are attempting to undermine the foreign policy of both the United States and a friendly nation, Israel, and attempting to aid and abet the Hamas terrorist organization, by raising money to smuggle in weapons and supplies in direct violation of the Interim Agreement regarding foreign vessels and to undermine Israel's sovereign authority. As such, the actions of the FGM and the American Educational Trust are nothing short of an attempt to violate the laws of the State of Israel and to engage in conduct that has the effect of undermining the national security of a U.S. ally. Consequently, I respectfully request that your office take all necessary and appropriate actions to uphold the laws of the United States, to investigate those that are organizing, money laundering and funding this illegal effort and to enjoin any unlawful activity on the part of The FGM and the American Educational Trust.

Thank you, ,

Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, Esq.

Photo of Obama’s Radical Mentor Chucking Rocks at Israeli Soldiers

Quote:

This may help explain Barack Obama’s animosity towards the Jews…

Barack and Michelle Obama attend a May 1998 Arab community event in Chicago where their friend Edward Said gave the keynote speech.

Campus Watch reported more on Obama and his friend and instructor Edward Said:

Quote:

The invaluable Andrew McCarthy takes note of a connection between Barack Obama and Edward Said, an apologist for terrorism, who played a key role in changing the field of Middle East Studies towards an anti-Western and anti-Israel bias.

Said, a writer and professor at Columbia University, trained many of the Middle East professors who now broadcast his message to thousands of students across America and the world. Said hated Israel so much that he was seen throwing rocks from Lebanon at Israeli soldiers across the border.

His role in distorting the field of Middle Eastern studies has prompted a counter-movement led, among others, by the esteemed Bernard Lewis of Princeton University.

McCarthy:

Obama was a student at Columbia from 1981 to 1983. He refuses to discuss those years; it is known only that he studied for at least some time under Edward Said, the late PLO apologist.

Not only has Barack Obama refused to discuss those years-as he refuses to discuss much of his past, he will not release his transcripts from Columbia or his thesis that he wrote before he graduated (claiming he “lost” the thesis). Would a transcript reveal more about his education under Edward Said?

How long-lasting and durable were these ties between Barack Obama and Edward Said? There is a photo of the Saids and Obama having dinner together in 1998 at an Arab community event in Chicago at which Said gave the keynote speech.

And, here is Barack Obama’s close family friend, former instructor and mentor Edward Said chucking stones at Israeli soldiers.

Edward Sa’id launching a stone against Israeli soldiers on the other side of Lebanon’s border with Israel from the southern Lebanese village of Kfar Kila on July 3, 2000. Sa’id, who is on a private visit to Beirut, took a trip to south Lebanon to visit the formerly occupied area which Israel evacuated in May. Sa’id’s family is originally from Jerusalem.

I'm sure he was just another guy from the neighborhood and Obama barely knew him. Just like Wright and Ayers.

It's all coincidence. Who doesn't have several anti-semitic friends?

rex. But that's because he doesn't have ANY friends.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Originally Posted By: whomod

Yes. How DARE the media ask a presidential candidate about his friendship with an admitted terrorist?

Apparently the University of Illinois agrees that Obama's pal Ayers is a terrorist not worthy of honoring.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/u-of-ill-denies-william-ayers-emeritus-status/

Quote:

URBANA, Ill. (AP) — The University of Illinois on Thursday denied 1960s radical William Ayers emeritus faculty status after trustees Chairman Christopher Kennedy noted Ayers dedicated a book to, among others, the man who killed Kennedy’s father, Robert F. Kennedy.

All nine voting trustees either opposed granting Ayers, a recently retired University of Illinois-Chicago professor, the largely honorary status or abstained from the vote. Universities often grant emeritus status to distinguished retired faculty members. At Illinois it doesn’t come with any monetary benefits, spokesman Tom Hardy said.

Ayers co-founded the Weather Underground, an anti-war group held responsible for a series of bombings during the Vietnam War era, including nonfatal explosions at the Pentagon and U.S. Capitol.

Trustees voted after a speech by Kennedy in which he noted the 1974 book “Prairie Fire: The Politics of Revolutionary Anti-Imperialism,” by Ayers and other members of the Weather Underground. The book includes a dedication to a lengthy list of revolutionary figures, musicians and others, including Sirhan Sirhan, who shot Robert Kennedy to death in 1968 after the New York senator declared victory in the California Democratic presidential primary.

“There is nothing more antithetical to the hopes for a university that is lively and yet civil, or to the hopes of our founding fathers for their great experiment of a self-governing people, than to permanently seal off debate with one’s opponents by killing them,” Kennedy said. “There can be no place in a democracy to celebrate political assassinations or to honor those who do so.”

Ayers did not return an e-mail from The Associated Press seeking comment.

Trustees approved emeritus status for a number of other retirees Thursday, and Hardy said it was unusual for anyone to be turned down.

“Nobody could remember a similar circumstance in the last several decades,” he said after asking other university officials.

Retired faculty ask for emeritus status, and it’s then signed off on by several levels of university administration before heading to trustees, Hardy said.

Ayers announced his retirement in August after more than 20 years as an education professor at the University of Illinois-Chicago.

Ayers was a fugitive for years for his role with the Weather Underground until surrendering in 1980. Charges against him were dropped because of government misconduct.

His past became a campaign issue during the 2008 presidential race because he once served with now-President Barack Obama on a Chicago charity’s board.

Ayers has since been invited to speak at U.S. universities, though some of those invitations — such as one from the University of Wyoming this year — have been withdrawn over protests about his history.

I suspect this was only because he dedicated the book to a killer of a liberal icon (RFK).

MEM must be tore on this one.

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

G-man posted this in the religion forum but since it's Obama spiritual advisor it deserves a post here as well...

Quote:

RAW
This isn't something you just quietly dissagree with & expect to win a general election.

Looks like MEM was onto something about Obama:

http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=221383

Quote:

MKs on the Right expressed outrage on Thursday night at US President Barack Obama’s call for the creation of a Palestinian state based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, in an exchange of territory for security.

They called upon Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to reject Obama’s plan when he meets with him on Friday in Washington.

“Barack Hussein Obama adopted Yasser Arafat’s staged plan for Israel’s destruction, and he is trying to force it on our prime minister,” Likud MK Danny Danon said. “All that was new in the speech was that he called for Israel to return to 1967 borders without solving the crisis. Netanyahu has only one option: Tell Obama to forget about it.”

I'm amazed that three years after Obama was elected, and 4 years after vetting Obama began, the media is still not reporting the ties to radicals Obama has, and the clear influence of their radical ideology on Obama's policy agenda.

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

$\:lol\:$ $\:lol\:$

I just happened to see this, re-reading the topic:

Originally Posted By: whomod

Uh...

Tactics of the Left

Not "crap the extreme right shovels" but the STATED ideology of the Left, quotable in their own books, speeches and public statements.

Obama used to TEACH Saul Alinsky to classes of ACORN "community organizers" (i.e., social Marxists trained in the skilled use of personal slander and deceit to meet their objectives).

Hillary Clinton, the next Democrat in line, is likewise a socialist radical, who did her Master's thesis on Saul Aliksky.

And their STATED goal is to topple our democracy and all its institutions, to "fundamentally transform" America into a Marxist utopia.

I'm sure Whomod will see this topic and reply to you promptly.

I believe he's posting as Iggy these days.

Expanding on the OBAMA'S PLAN: "Jeopardize U.S. battlefield superiority" article I posted back in June 2008 on page 77. This...

Blaze Sources: Obama Purging Military Commanders

Quote:

Nine senior commanding generals have been fired by the Obama administration this year, leading to speculation by active and retired members of the military that a purge of its commanders is underway.

Retired generals and current senior commanders that have spoken with TheBlaze say the administration is not only purging the military of commanders they don’t agree with, but is striking fear in the hearts of those still serving.

The timing comes as the five branches of the U.S. armed forces are reducing staff due to budget cuts, and as U.S. troops are expected to withdraw from Afghanistan next year.

“I think they’re using the opportunity of the shrinkage of the military to get rid of people that don’t agree with them or not tow the party line. Remember, as (former White House chief of staff) Rahm Emanuel said, never waste a crisis,” a senior retired general told TheBlaze on the condition of anonymity because he still provide services to the government and fears possible retribution.

“Even as a retired general, it’s still possible for the administration to make life miserable for us. If we’re working with the government or have contracts, they can just rip that out from under us,” he said.

Retired U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely, an outspoken critic of the Obama administration, said the White House fails to take action or investigate its own, but finds it easy to fire military commanders “who have given their lives for their country.”

“Obama will not purge a civilian or political appointee because they have bought into Obama’s ideology,” Vallely said. “The White House protects their own. That’s why they stalled on the investigation into fast and furious, Benghazi and Obamacare. He’s intentionally weakening and gutting our military, Pentagon and reducing us as a superpower, and anyone in the ranks who disagrees or speaks out is being purged.”

A Pentagon official who asked to remain nameless because they were not authorized to speak on the matter said even “young officers, down through the ranks have been told not to talk about Obama or the politics of the White House. They are purging everyone and if you want to keep your job — just keep your mouth shut.

[more on the generals fired at link]

And:

OBAMA CRIPPLES U.S. MILITARY BY FIRING 500 MAJORS, and OVER 1,000 CAPTAINS

Quote:

Back in the day when it was fashionable for the press to criticize the president and senior military officials for mismanaging a war--that is, from 2003 to 2009--such stories often focused on the colonels, majors, and captains who saw firsthand the practical problems with their superiors' approach and who pushed hard to change policy based on that hard-fought experience.

In journal articles such as "A Failure of Generalship," and in long profiles in the New York Times (repeatedly) and elsewhere, they ventilated major problems in the military's thinking and created substantial political pressure on the White House, Pentagon, and military bureaucracy to correct the course.

Ultimately, the need to retain majors and captains, precisely in order to maintain the long-term quality of America's military capabilities, became a substantial political issue. Shortly before President Obama entered office, incoming Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Michele Flournoy argued that the Army would "need to retain a higher percentage of its experienced officers to lead the force"; the Center for American Progress argued that "Majors are the Army’s future senior leaders, but they are exiting the service at increasing rates during a period of military growth."

But the clearest call for retaining majors and captains came from Candidate Obama himself, in a 2007 speech before the VFW in Kansas City (emphasis added): "Retention rates of West Point graduates are approaching records lows. We need to keep these battle-hardened majors and captains so they can become tomorrow's generals."

Fast forward seven years, and those words are long forgotten. As the AP reports this week, President Obama's Defense Department will lay off 550 majors, including many currently stationed overseas. This comes on the heels of the decision last fall to fire more than 1,000 captains.

Tom Ricks summarized last fall's decision succinctly: "Army to its captains: Thanks for your service. Now, 20 percent of you, get lost!"

Evidently President Obama doesn't find "tomorrow's generals" as valuable as he used to. But America can't make the same mistake.

Many have received their pink slips on the battlefield. "You're fired. Oh, but please keep risking your life on the battlefield for a few more weeks."