Take a closer look at Obama's character
Jon Penk, Thornton
Sunday, May 11, 2008
- Email this
- Print this
- Comments
- Change text size
- Subscribe to print edition
- iPod friendly
Martin Luther King Jr. once said that he " . . . dreams of a time when a person would no longer be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
Some of us need to consider this quote when favoring Barack Obama and start looking at what's reflected in his character.
Although he's denied being "liberal," he's considered to be one of the most liberal senators by MoveOn.org. He also wants to increase the capital gains tax to 20 percent. This would affect more than 100 million Americans who own a 401(k) or a pension plan.
Granted, Obama is a great speaker. He flows with his words. He's young and maybe even handsome. But what does he mean by "change"? What does he mean by "unity"? What's the meat behind these words? Or are they just unchallenged promises?
May 12, 2008
4:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
Johntrythisone writes:
Jon,
I hope you know you will be castigated because you are raising legitimate questions. How dare you not back up your opinions with facts? And if you do back them up you are simply against Mr. Obama and have no credibility.
Personally, I'm glad you are asking such questions. I have questions about all three candidates, and would like to hear answers to those questions.
May 12, 2008
5:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
rumplstilskin writes:
I'm not voting for him, this guy scares me. He will have this country in worse shape than it is now. He wants to tax tax tax. There goes the rest of your money.
May 12, 2008
6:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
LetsThink writes:
Jon is correct.
Obama has a horrible liberal voting record. He is making the usual Democratic promises of free give-aways. That promise draws the masses of people who want to 'take', instead of 'give'.
If we continue to go in this direction, as we have for the past fifty years or more.....America will collapse.
Even the Republicans have moved too much toward the center or left. We need to take America back to free enterprise, hard work, personal responsibility. That's what made America the great country it is (was).
We don't want to become like Europe. Wake up friends. Socialism is not the answer.
May 12, 2008
6:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
Oh_Wise_One writes:
ditto LetsThink. McCain is a liberal Republican and the Dems have 2 socialist candidates. The left wants to pull us even further into decline as they take from the middle class and give to the lazy.
May 12, 2008
6:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
Froward69 writes:
"We don't want to become like Europe." ~LetsThink
why not? the one euro is worth almost $2.00...
every citizen is allocated health care...
the average vacation is 3 weeks or more per year...
unemployment is half of what it is here in the US.
country's in Europe have more respect around the world than
the US.
Germany leads the world in Solar research and production.
Europe learned the lesson that perpetual war is not the answer either.
paved roads, bridges, schools, and a legislature are indeed socialist.
Obama worked with jobless,homeless,and the downtrodden starting his career. Thats his character...
republicans want us to slide further into dictatorship.
Obama '08
May 12, 2008
6:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
Earl writes:
and please dont mention the people who he hangs out with as that would be an attack on him and his wife will get all upset. you know people like wright and farrahkan and the wonderful endorsement from Hamas that they want him as king or president.
hey backward if he worked with all the homeless and jobless why are they still homeless and jobless and downtrodden? if he is to fix the world you would think he would have been able to fix this part of it. I guess his hope for change hasnt kicked in yet.
May 12, 2008
7:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
Michael writes:
"unemployment (Europe) is half of what it is here in the US." - froward69
Another blatant LIE from this guy. Here is a link to umemployment rates in Europe. Cummulatively, their unemployment rate is almost TWICE what our is - not half. Many countries are in the double digits.
http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/areas/...
May 12, 2008
8:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
samsmargolis writes:
Obama's hand-wringing posture on national defense would have us similarly situated with France in no time, for sure. I hear B-HO has put together his conceptual National Alert System should he be elected to office:
Threat level one: Cower
Threat level two: Wet Pants
Threat level three: Run / Hide
Threat level four: Surrender
Threat level five: Collude
Threat level six: Convert
Sounds about right for the B-HO crowd...
May 12, 2008
8:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
AngelontheSidelines writes:
Unemployment rates dropped here because the official unemployment numbers are counting only those who draw benefits and state run job searches. When your checks run out, and you stop using state job searches you are not counted.
Basic Republican accounting technique stop counting when it looks good:P
Socialism is only feasible when the majority of the public wants it, attempting to force socialist policies upon an unwilling public is not socialism, that would be best described as communism.
May 12, 2008
8:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
AngelontheSidelines writes:
Content of the man's character only applies when the black man is not running for POTUS. Ask an Obamaniac about Barak's character issues (Trust #10209) and you become a racist just for asking.
May 12, 2008
8:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
Tbone writes:
Character?
John Girlyname McSame III called his wife a c*nt in public.
How's that for character?
May 12, 2008
8:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
Froward....
No wonder you have such whacky claims. You don't know what you're saying.
"the one euro is worth almost $2.00... "
And any freshman in a college economics class will tell you... such a statement is meaningless. The level of currency valuations does NOT reflect the economic vitality of a nation. How many yen, is a dollar worth? What is the yen/dollar exchange in comparison to the euro/dollar exchange rate? How does that compare to the British stirling/dollar exchange rate? Your logic is proven to be flawed when you try to make a claim that has ZERO basis in reality.
"every citizen is allocated health care..." And they are in North Korea and Cuba too.... bet you just love those great systems too
"the average vacation is 3 weeks or more per year..." wow... that could explain the high unemployment rate
"unemployment is half of what it is here in the US." An absolute lie that a simple 60 second google search would have revealed to you. Next time, find out the facts, before exposing your ignorance.
May 12, 2008
8:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
Marshdale writes:
When will you working class repubs get it? Your party leaders could give a rats ass about you. They want you to be slaves to the corporation. They want you to work for pennies on the dollar. If worker protections were not set up by the so called liberal union lobyists in this century you would be. Don't think for one lousy minute your republican leaders have your working interests at heart. If they could, they would allow for corporate plantations to exist and you would all be working for peanuts, litteraly. Can't you see that every thing they do is for the corporation. Sure they throw you a little biscuit once in while to make you think they care, but they don't. They get you to be concerned with issues that are really meaningless and distract you from what is really important. The US finaly has a candidate like we have not had since Trueman who actually gives a damn about people more than he does corporate bullies. Wake Up!!!
May 12, 2008
8:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
KW writes:
Michael, rickg - You forgot to remind froward69 about how much higher personal tax rates are in most (if not all) Europian countries as well.
Does froward69 even understand that Europe isn't a country?
May 12, 2008
9:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
HolierThanThou writes:
Excuse me, but I rate my characters partially on the results they produce.
I think the results that Bush has produced speak loudly for his bad character. The man is a psychotic sociopath, mass murderer, liar, and coward. He lied to send our military people to go fight a "100 years" war for no good reason, unless you count oil profits more valuable than human lives.
Bush supporters share the same character defect that produced his deadly and disgraceful results. Since when did murder-by-remote-control become a mark of good character? Maybe it's just my bias in admiring personal courage but that seems cowardly to me. Lying about weapons of mass destruction is dishonest. Supporting a liar after his lie has been revealed marks you as a dishonorable person, a lick-spittle and sycophant.
So, I find it very interesting that the most dishonorable persons in America are the first to question the characters of Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. When you have the courage to admit the truth about Bush. When you have guts to apologize for supporting him and his murderous milieu then you might have earned the right to question someone else's character. But not until then, Mr, Penk.
May 12, 2008
9:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
mark79trans writes:
""unemployment (Europe) is half of what it is here in the US." - froward69
Another blatant LIE from this guy. Here is a link to unemployment rates in Europe. Cumulatively, their unemployment rate is almost TWICE what our is - not half. Many countries are in the double digits.
http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/areas/...
Don't forget a much lower standard of living with minimal freedoms and opportunities. I more then doubled my salary in six years; not from government, handouts, or any union involvement. I did it through, changing my career, hard work, and earning a masters degree with little to no sleep. If people are too lazy to take advantage of the opportunities out there, it is their fault and they should accept the consequences. Although, personal responsibility is something that is dead in our society. Socialism is tyranny...I will die (fighting) before I live that way.
Obama is a socialist, a wolf in sheep's clothing. The old saying is this...you are the company you keep.
May 12, 2008
9:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
pzswim writes:
Angel,
That is completely untrue. Unemployed workers are those who are currently not working but are willing and able to work for pay, currently available to work, and have actively searched for work. This is measured by comprehensive surveys, which include phone sampling among other means.
Of course this method has some error, but this is used across the board for both the US and other countries. The same error for the US unemployment rate will show up in the rate for France. So while the statistics aren't a perfect view of the actual unemployment rate, they can be used as a comparison between other countries.
The US's unemployment rate, as mentioned earlier, is significantly lower than that of European countries.
May 12, 2008
9:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
dblgood writes:
National Association of Angry Democrats (NAADs)
Go! NAADs!
May 12, 2008
9:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
mark79trans writes:
HolierThanThou - in response to your last post
As an independent fundamentally conservative constitutionalist, I am happy to acknowledge the deficiencies of George W. Bush although I see his deficiencies different then you. I would rate him at about 40%-50%. The problem is that even though I give him a failing grade, he is much better then his two opponents from the far left, Gore and Kerry. If the Democrats wish to build a coalition, they need to bring forth a candidate who is not a re-packaged socialist (giving in to the interests of trial lawyers, unions, and the environmental lobby while not accepting personal property rights and individual liberties). I only give two passing grades to presidents over the past 100 years, JFK and Ronald Reagan. It is sooooo unfortunate that we lost JFK and ended up with Lyndon Johnson and the mess made by that guy. That said...Obama is a mess. He is way too far to the left (taxes, property rights, and individual liberties are three major issues with this guy). I do not see Obama as a patriot of the United States or someone who will serve the interests of our nation state. Obama is NOT a commander and chief!
May 12, 2008
9:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
leftside writes:
I love it when conservatives question the character of Democrats and think their candidates are squeaky clean.
From Snopes.com,
Cindy McCain is Senator McCains second wife. His infidelities put a strain on his first marriage, and he was divorced from Carol McCain, his wife of 15 years, in 1980. Carol McCain not only waited for five and a half years for her husband to return from Vietnam, but she also endured a horrific automobile accident during that period which broke both her legs and one arm and ruptured her spleen. She nearly lost her left leg, and surgeries left her four inches shorter that she was before her accident. The woman John McCain returned to was far different in appearance from the beautiful former model he’d left behind.
Snopes paints a much prettier picture of Cindy McCain and the letter was determined to be true, which you can see at www.snopes.com/politics/mccain/cindy.asp. However, in 1989 Cindy became addicted to painkllers in which she used other peoples names to obtain prescriptions and stole drugs from the “American Voluntary Medical Team”. She avoided prosecution by agreeing to do regular drug testing, pay a fine and did community service.
I can’t “cut and paste” from snopes but this is the general story. Like I said check it out yourself.
The point is while the letter writer and you good moral conservatives are doing what you normally do, which is slandering and defaming yet another candidates reputation you might want to check out your own.
May 12, 2008
9:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
freethinker07 writes:
Sammargolis, I think you got it wrong.
Threat level one Hope
Threat level two Change
threat level three negotiate
threat level four blame Bush.
May 12, 2008
9:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
OhBrother writes:
is BO the right guy? Maybe, but if it's talk of character then please remember what McCain calls his wife and what he thought of a MLK national holiday. People can CHANGE, but let's not forget what he was made of when it counted.
another republican president? it took 8 yrs to get nowhere with the illegal immigration problem that so many republicans complain about, maybe with 4 more years in power they'll think of somthing...but hey, I guess there is no need to CHANGE the strategy now is there? Are illiterate pesants really out thinking/working our government? what has a republican OR democrat done for you lately
May 12, 2008
9:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
I would ask the letter writer to do me a couple of favors if he plans on voting in November.
1. Educate yourself on both McSame's and Obama's policy stances.
2. Do some research as to which policy stances are supported by the majority of Americans.
3. Determine which candidate's stances are favored by the majority of Americans and compare that list with a list of your own opinions.
4. If you score below 30% on Obama's stances, you might be a wingnut. You hold an extremist position on the political spectrum. This fact skews your ideas of want constitutes "liberal" and "conservative".
5. Please seek help immediately and definitely before the election.
May 12, 2008
9:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
mark79trans writes:
leftside
McCain is not supported by conservative Republicans for the reasons you mentioned and others. McCain is supported by independents, moderate Democrats and moderate Republicans. He is the centrist candidate. If McCain is elected, Congress will likely state Democrat. If Obama or Clinton is elected, then the Congress will shift as it did in Bill Clinton's midterm of his first term...the big '94 landslide election.
May 12, 2008
9:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
samsmargolis writes:
dblgood - very nice, thanks. I needed a good chuckle this morning...
May 12, 2008
10:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
TheeDude writes:
Jon,
Judging by your vacuous letter, you are uninformed. Try going to Obama's website to read his platform for yourself.
Tax cuts for the rich, stimulus packages during a time of a 9.3 trillion dollar deficit, and war-costs that are plunging our entire economy down the $hi++er...
And you're worried about the capitol gains tax? The capitol gains tax should only be lowered during a time of economic prosperity. In case you haven't noticed it has been 7.5 years since we had an economic surplus.
Or, maybe you just are not comfortable with a half white half black man in the oval office. You probably think he is a Muslim too.
May 12, 2008
10:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"He is the centrist candidate."
wow
i hate to tell you this, but congress is staying just the way it is...but with fewer republican seats.
the nov 06-style beatings will continue until policy changes.
May 12, 2008
10:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
P_Denver writes:
Bush has been horrible; the only thing worse would have been to elect Gore.
Ms Clinton would be horrible; the only thing worse would be to elect Obama.
Let's be clear: McCain is no prize, either. It will be difficult for "regular" Republicans to support him.
This is one of the worst fields of candidates we've had in decades. That's the reason everyone in this blog is having such a hard time getting behind anyone. It's easier to list why you WON'T vote for one of these fine folks rather that why you WOULD. Mostly what I see is: "He's a Democrat" or "He's a Republican."
Pretty sad.
May 12, 2008
10:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
leftside writes:
Mark79, so the conservatives won't be voting in this election? Seems to me their in here everyday slandering either Hillary or Obama, old habits die hard I guess.
May 12, 2008
10:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
Tbone writes:
pzswim-
"Angel,
That is completely untrue. Unemployed workers are those who are currently not working but are willing and able to work for pay, currently available to work, and have actively searched for work. This is measured by comprehensive surveys, which include phone sampling among other means."
Unfortunately, Angel was correct. If you are no longer looking for a job, you are not counted as unemployed.
Marktrans-
"Don't forget a much lower standard of living with minimal freedoms and opportunities"
In what way are Europeans less free than us?
May 12, 2008
10:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
P_Denver, if you believe that bush was a disaster, why would you vote for a third term under mccain?
May 12, 2008
10:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
popo writes:
what I find interesting is that Cons never refer to Barack Obama as white, although he IS as a result of his mother being a white American.
He is unique in that he never had a powerful family name to help him ( Like McCain and Bush), and he's worked his ass off to become what he is .
He never hung out with the rich and powerful to gain power. (Like Clinton).
He never divorced his wife to advance his wealth and power(McCain).
He never sold out to health insurance corporations. (Like Clinton).
He never complained about being called "Halfrican-American" by Rush. ( And other like-minded idiots)
He HAS shown class and a willingness to solve problems.( And ignore like-minded idiots like Rush)
We need him as President of the United States.
Now more than ever.....after 8 years of Bush.
And WAY too many years of Rush. (And like-minded idiots).
May 12, 2008
10:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
Spencer writes:
Although he's denied being "liberal," he's considered to be one of the most liberal senators by MoveOn.org..from letter. When did he deny being a liberal?
May 12, 2008
10:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
cogramma writes:
Gee, you folks need to get out more. If you WANT to educate yourself about Barack Obama, and not just whine about what you perceive, try reading his books. Lots of info to be found there.
May 12, 2008
10:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
jgd writes:
And if the letter writer rates higher than 30% on Obama stances you definitely lean to the left any higher than 50% you are bordering on being a socialist. Over 70%, you would be considered a untreatable socialist and there is actually nothing that can be done to help you with your problem.
When you see the majority of Americans want health care reform doesn't mean the majority of Americans want a socialist government run health care.
When the majority of Americans want to bring the military home from Iraq doesn't mean the majority of Americans want to see our government surrender to the terrorist and leave the Iraqis to the mercy of Iran and Syria.
Jay doesn't seem to understand there are other ways to accomplish what the majority of Americans want without cut and running from Iraq or handing everything over to the government and let them take care of us.
May 12, 2008
10:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
leftside writes:
Good post popo.
There was a time when Republicans preferred a hard working politician. Someone who brought themselves from nowhere to something great. Those days left them long ago and now you can find most of those hardworkers on the Democratic side of the isle. I'm sure there are those types on the Republican side just like there are "silver spooners" on the Democratic side but it seems the Republicans no longer favor them the way they used to.
May 12, 2008
10:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
Hamas supports Obama. That is enough reason for any NORMAL American to vote for McCain.
No wonder McCain is beating Obama in traditional blue states. A perfect example of that is the release today of polling in Michigan that shows McCain winning.... and if Obama can't win a solid blue state like Michigan, the Dems will be toast.
With Americans learning more about Obama, he is crashing faster than the Hindenburg.
May 12, 2008
10:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
Hengist writes:
Jon, Obviously you don't support Obama, which is your priviledge.
However, when looking at the sad state of affairs we, as a country, find ourselves in, how can an intelligent, sane and rational person support the people who got us into the mess we find ourselves in? We've had 20 years of Bush-Clinton-Bush again and now to support either Clinton, or McSame(Bush) is insane. Your questions don't matter. What is Change? Change is not Clinton, not Bush (McSame).
May 12, 2008
11:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
leftside writes:
jgd,
"When you see the majority of Americans want health care reform doesn't mean the majority of Americans want a socialist government run health care."
Actually your wrong. The majority of Americans believe the government should be involved in this health care crisis. Be that as it may, neither of the Democratic candidates are presenting the type of "socialistic" of health plans you talk about. Although government controlled it would not be anything like "socialism". As I have told you before labeling Democrats as "socialist" is the same as calling Republican "totalitarians. Fun to talk about but very inaccurate.
"When the majority of Americans want to bring the military home from Iraq doesn't mean the majority of Americans want to see our government surrender to the terrorist and leave the Iraqis to the mercy of Iran and Syria."
Then you should be happy with McCain. He has suggest staying over there as long as it takes. Costing more lives and treasure helping a people that have proven would turn it's back on us simply at the request of one of the clergy. Hopefully, in November, most Americans disagree with you.
May 12, 2008
11:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
dblgood writes:
"P_Denver, if you believe that bush was a disaster, why would you vote for a third term under mccain?"
Jay. Not presuming to speak for P_Denver, but the answer to your question is pretty simple actually. The alternative is to vote for a Democrat/Socialist. Ain't gonna happen!
May 12, 2008
11:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
Obama represents change as much as Hamas represents peaceful, non-violent protest.
Obama is nothing but hot air and empty talk.
Why would any sane person support a candidate that Hamas supports?
Why would any sane person support a candidate that defends his racist "mentor"?
Why would any sane person support a candidate that radical leftwing terrorists like Bill Ayres supports?
Why would any sane person support a candidate that accepted a mult-million dollar mansion from a slumlord that is now on trial for his crimes?
Obviously, there are no sane people supporting Obama... which is why he TRAILS McCain, even in blue states!!! When Michigan prefers McCain, as polls released today proves, then even the blue staters are recognizing the stupidity of Democrats nominating an empty suit with ties to terrorists and racists.
May 12, 2008
11:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
leftside writes:
Why would a sane person believe the polls before the Democratic candidate is elected?
Why would a sane person know that the primary numbers of Democrats and Republicans favor the Democrats?
Why would a sane person not recognize that the debates yet to come between McCain and the Democratic nominee will have a devastating impact on McCain?
Why would a sane person want 4 more years the insanity we went through for the past 8?
Why, if a working man, would a sane person vote against his own interest?
May 12, 2008
11:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
samsmargolis writes:
freethinker07 - "Sammargolis, I think you got it wrong.
Threat level one Hope
Threat level two Change
threat level three negotiate
threat level four blame Bush."
No, I think we're on the same page. "Hope" - the bad guys don't do bad things to us as we cower in the corner; "Change" - his wet pants; "Negotiate" - terms of surrender and collusion; "Blame" - the non-believers and convert. Yep, we're on the same page.
May 12, 2008
12:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
drumdance writes:
The capital gains tax has no effect on 401(k) plans or IRAs because tax on them is deferred until retirement, at which point it's treated like ordinary income.
If you're so worried about capital gains, ask yourself whether it's fair that Warren Buffet, Bill Gates and most other billionaires pay lower tax rates than their secretaries, and probably everyone on this board.
May 12, 2008
12:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
Hengist writes:
Many of these posters, who are disparaging senator Obama, are the same ones who were duped into believing that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and that Iraq was a threat to the national security of the United States. The Clintons and McSame got that wrong, too. Senator Obama got it right. There is no issue more important than going to war. The Clintons and McSame are the warmongers, Obama was the one who was correct.
May 12, 2008
12:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"Jay doesn't seem to understand there are other ways to accomplish what the majority of Americans want without cut and running from Iraq or handing everything over to the government and let them take care of us."
yet another strawman argument from jdg in an attempt to rationalize the fact that many more americans support obama's policy stances than do mccain's.
i also hear the standard far right talking points about "socialism", "communism", etc. which of obama's policy stances equates to "socialism" in your minds?
May 12, 2008
12:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
“Barack Obama said today that politics has become too gummed up by money and influence … and then he had to leave to attend a fundraiser.” –Jay Leno
“Senator Obama answered doubts about his inexperience by saying he has gained tremendous insight from his work as a community organizer, civil rights attorney, constitutional law professor, key club president, 4H treasurer, lunch room monitor, two years of jazz, and four years of tap.” –Amy Poehler
May 12, 2008
12:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
SASQUATCH writes:
BO VISITED 57 STATES WITH 1 TO GO?
In Beaverton, OR, the Democrat candidate let it slip that during this marathon 16-month party presidential nomination struggle against a bunch of dropouts and this female political zombie from New York who won't surrender short of a silver stake, he had already visited 57 states with one more to go.
-----
COLUMBIA, HARVARD LAW...57 STATES? NO, ONE MORE TO GO...MAKE THAT 58 STATES!
May 12, 2008
12:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
O_TRAIN writes:
Why would any sane American give credence or "credibility" by caring who Hamas endorses? I didn't know Hamas had any delegates?
Maybe some folks take their direction and make their decisions based on what Hamas says, but none I know.
May 12, 2008
12:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
"more americans support obama's policy stances than do mccain's"
Too bad for Obama that when his name is attached to a policy that Americans normally support, their support for it DROPS!!!!
The polls PROVE it! Americans are rejecting the Hamas candidate... Obama!
http://rasmussenreports.com/public_co...
May 12, 2008
12:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
rg writes:
The mere fact that Obama has kicked ass: Powerful Clintons, the other Presidential Aspirants in spite of Rev. Wright and Obama's wife speaks volumes. Who will answer the phone at three in the morning if McCain wins? Nancy answered the phone for Reagan. Richard Grimes, deicide.
Deicide Corner: “I'm an atheist, and that's it. I believe there's nothing we can know except that we should be kind to each other and do what we can for each other.” -- Katharine Hepburn
May 12, 2008
1:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
Charles_B writes:
Jon Pank seemingly can't be bothered to type www.barackobama.com in order to have his "questions" answered.
What a lazy idiot.
And then comes the string of ditto-heads parroting any and every fallacious claim and nonsensical "concern" they have about the "socialist" Obama.
They do certainly reflect the lack of intellectual rigor that exists within that imbecilic 18% of Americans who think things are just great under GWB.
Predictable yet still disappointing.
Watch someone with intelligence and foresight exhibit *real* judgment and courage:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1LhCc...
May 12, 2008
1:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Alive writes:
Can't wait for rev Wright to come visit the White House. But all those pictures of our white "racist" evil forefathers may make him uncomfortable. I suppose those will have to be taken down.
Michelle is angry and bitter and you can bet she will do some major redecorating. I wonder if Farrakhan's portrait will grace the halls?
May 12, 2008
1:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
Eli writes:
Jay,
"many more americans support obama's policy stances than do mccain's."
One of your favorite websites, pollingreport.com, suggests otherwise. Most results show a 3-5% difference, some in favor of McCain and some not. See for yourself here:
http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm
May 12, 2008
1:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
TheeDude writes:
Rickg19611 wrote:
"Obama represents change as much as Hamas represents peaceful, non-violent protest.
Obama is nothing but hot air and empty talk.
Why would any sane person support a candidate that Hamas supports?
Why would any sane person support a candidate that defends his racist "mentor"?"
Way to regurgitate Faux Noise talking points that are blatant lies. Your lack of education is glaring. STFU already, and try looking for the actual facts.
May 12, 2008
1:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
Charles_B writes:
rickg19611:
Still clicking those heels I see Little Ricky...and Kansas still nowhere in sight:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epol...
Good luck getting the doddering old fool you nominated elected. He's the Bob Dole of his generation (most of which has passed on)!
I prefer a president who isn't going to go 45mph in the fast lane and who's wife's daddy didn't bankroll his political career.
And how does he reward her for it (besides flying around in her private jet)?
He calls her a c*nt.
Watch him not deny it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOl4iT...
May 12, 2008
1:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
"On Friday, Robert Malley, an Obama advisor, resigned from the senator's campaign as reports surfaced that he had met with the terrorist group Hamas. Last month, Hamas political advisor Ahmad Yousef said on WABC Radio in New York that he hoped Mr. Obama would be elected president. Mr. McCain said Hamas would never want him to be president, "so if Mr. Obama is favored by Hamas, I think people can make judgments accordingly."
Obama's terrorist connections may be part of the reason that Obama is trailing in blue states like Michigan and Wisconsin.
May 12, 2008
1:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
P_Denver writes:
jay / dblgood
Sorry if I wasn't clear -- I'm not inclined to vote for McCain. I'm hoping (desperately) that Clinton or Obama - whoever ends up as the Democrat nominee - will do or say something I can hang on to.
In my time (I’m old) I have voted for both parties: Kennedy and Reagan.
As I said – not much to choose from this time around.
May 12, 2008
1:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
Jonjonmon writes:
in response to "johntrythisone", my source is the Wall street journal. an edition that was a couple of weeks ago. This was AFTER Charles Goodson corrected him during the PA debate. Initially Obama wanted to raise the corporate gains tax t0 28% but found out that government made less $ doing this.
May 12, 2008
1:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
Jonjonmon writes:
in response to Hengist, so any change is good,in your opinion. If or when Obama becomes president, he vows to withdrawal the troops from Iraq since this is what most people want and dispite the progress we are making there. But do we also want another vietnam? Countless Iraqes being murdered because we left an unstable country? this "change" will be what we get if we leave Iraq.
May 12, 2008
1:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
Konyok writes:
Tbone,
In answer to your question how Europe is less free than the US:
Consider the case of Brigitte Bardot. The former sex kitten is an avid animal rights activist and does not like the muslim custom of slaughtering live lambs for the Ramadan feast of Eid. She has been prosecuted several times for hate speech in speaking out on the topic. I don't think that could happen in the US of A.
French and German workers do indeed enjoy a state mandated three week vacation. However, both worker and employer suffer a fine if the worker would rather work and earn more.
France instituted a 30 hour work week, similarly regulated. The idea was to decrease unemployment through workers sharing jobs. The experiment blew up and unemployment increased even more.
Consistently, the electorates of the nations of the European Union have rejected the draft constitution, but the EU bureaucracy is using the backdoor to go around the voters.
Far from being more respected than the US, the EU has consistently proven impotent without US muscle. See Bosnia and Kosovo.
Yes, the Euro is currently stronger than the dollar, but petrol in Europe costs between 6 and 10 dollars a gallon and, perhaps the world's most reliable exchange value, the Big Mac value meal costs about 8 dollars in most European countries. The dollar, and the American consumer, still have much more buying power than the Europeans.
May 12, 2008
1:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
Jonjonmon writes:
in responst to HolierThanThou, I agree Bush has made many mistakes. One of which was firing Rumsfield after the election and after he lost most of the republicans. Why didn't he do it earlier when it was obvious Rumfsfield wasn't working. However, blaming him for murdering 1,000s is unfair. Around 9/11, everyone was for this war and the soldiers vollunteered. Bush, and the Congress voted to go to war with Iraq based on what the evidence showed.It might have been faulty or mis-leading but with the fear of terrorism looming around every corner, could we really have taken a chance? Just for the sake of it, Clinton had the chance to capture Bin Laden in the 90's, however there wasn't enough "evidence" against him. I guess there is now.
May 12, 2008
1:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
Konyok writes:
Drumdance,
The capital gains tax rate has a profound effect on 401k and IRA accounts because it discounts the entire stock market. When investors have to pay a higher premium they look for better investments, if they leave the market demand decreases and prices go down, causing the value of mutual funds, 401k and IRA accounts to go down.
Considering that candidate Obama himself acknowledges that raising rates is a fairness issue, not enhancing revenue to the government, it seems a rather silly step to take and an even sillier message to send to investors in the stock market.
May 12, 2008
2 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
eli...i don't see any mention of specific policy stances in the poll you posted...or the american population's support for them (or lack thereof). did you post the right one?
rickyg...come on man...it would be funny if you weren't so serious.
May 12, 2008
2:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"Around 9/11, everyone was for this war and the soldiers vollunteered. Bush, and the Congress voted to go to war with Iraq based on what the evidence showed"
this isn't even remotely true.
as is this...
"Clinton had the chance to capture Bin Laden in the 90's, however there wasn't enough "evidence" against him."
konyok, do you think that we should add trillions of dollars to the nation's debt to give corporations even more tax cuts?
May 12, 2008
2:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
p_myers661 writes:
Hey. I hate the thought of McCain anywhere near the presidency almost as much as I hate the thought of either one of the other two near there. Looks like I have to hope, and I'm a conservative Republican, that the Democratic party convention has to decide on a candidate and they find someone else that I can vote for. Not because they are what I want, but because none of the three is one I want. If not, I'll be a clothespin voter this year and McCain will win because I will have lots of company from both parties.
Clinton and Obama both know that the loser between them will be the front runner in four years if the other loses the general election. Look for Hilary, who will be the loser in this I think, to sabotage underneath and support on top. It is all about her just take a good look at her track record.
May 12, 2008
2:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
Eli writes:
Jay,
The numbers there just show support for the three candidates. I'd make the assumption that those who were polled and said they support McCain or either of the two Democratic candidates did so for a reason, despite the fact that the polls do not mention specific policies. If your assertion that the majority prefers the policies of Obama or Clinton over McCain, logic would denote that the numbers in those poll results would be different, no?
May 12, 2008
2:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
maybe you're confused about the point we're discussion, eli....mostly because of these words "if your assertion that the majority prefers the policies of Obama or Clinton over McCain, logic would denote that the numbers in those poll results would be different, no?".
have you read any information regarding the country's wishes in regards to the specific policy stances mccain and obama favor?
May 12, 2008
2:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Konyok writes:
Jay, what?
I'm simple minded, I need some continuity here?
Think about the connection with what I said and take it step by step. I know that you can do it ... ;)
By the way, I don't beat my wife and I don't drink koolaid.
May 12, 2008
2:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
Fresh writes:
ALL of you are the problem , you are partisan HACKS of the highest order and you LACK original thought and decision making on an independent level.
we have three candidates that are almost completely worthless . why not vote for SOMEONE ELSE ??????
idiots!
May 12, 2008
2:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
Eli writes:
You avoided the question, jay. If the majority prefer the policies of Clinton and/or Obama over McCain, shouldn't those numbers show different results? If not, why?
May 12, 2008
2:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
HISTORIC LANDSLIDE LOSS IN THE MAKING FOR THE SS OBAMATITANIC CAMPAIGN!
Today's polls of West Virginia voters (Democrat blue state with Robert "Democrat Icon" Byrd as its perpetual spokesperson) show that Obama is CRASHING even more than he was a week ago!!! The MARGIN OF HIS LOSS ARE EVEN LARGER!!!!
More proof of the fact....."The more Americans know about Obama, the more votes and support he loses!!!!"
Clinton 60%
Obama-titanic 24%
A 36% margin!
No wonder Wisconsin and Michigan are rejecting the Hamas wing of the Democrat party.
May 12, 2008
2:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
Eli writes:
Fresh,
Do you have any realistic suggestions on a viable alternative?
May 12, 2008
2:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
KarlCheney writes:
jonjonmon,
After 9/11 everyone was for the invasion of Afghanistan, not this Iraq war. Iraq didn't attack us, once again 9/11 and the Iraq war have no ties. Everybody was behind invading Afghanistan and we did. However, Bush and Co. used 9/11 and weapons of mass destruction to scare the American people and use patriotism to sway the Congress to vote for the use of force against Iraq for WMD's. None were found, this war then morphed into getting rid of Saddam and his evil tyranny, then it morphed into a democracy for Iraq in the Middle East. We went to find WMD's that was supposed to be it... Now for Clinton not getting Bin Laden in the 90's, when he was going after him the right wing was chanting "No War For Monica".. So he gave in to the pressure. Yes now Bin Laden has enough evidence against him but Bush doesn't care nor does he spend much time thinking about it. Bush doesn't want to get Bin Laden he is just a figure head now, so he has no concern over that.
May 12, 2008
2:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
KarlCheney writes:
rickg19611,
Wisconsin and Michigan are rejecting the Hamas wing of the Democrat party!!!
That sounds like a Rush, O'Reilly, Hannity, Savage or Coulter label. You didn't make that up yourself did you?
I just love how the right always tries to label the democrats with Jihad or Hamas or terrorsts of some type.
Also they now don't say democratic party it is Democrat party, I guess because Democratic is too close to Democracy and since the libdem, socilaist, commies hate democracy (according to the right) I guess they have to say democrat party.
Label away Republics, label away..
May 12, 2008
2:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Konyok writes:
KarlCheney,
I support the war in Iraq and I was lukewarm about Kosovo. The "wag the dog" taunts from conservatives does undermine their position now. It was bad karma and set a bad precedent.
Also, I don't buy the line that Clinton could've gotten bin Laden but wimped out. I don't recall any conservative voices calling for a war on terror.
The attack of 9/11 caught all of us by surprise. For a moment or two we were united, but our short national attention span got the better of us. Sure, Democrats can say that Iraq is a distraction, but that's just politics. A better case can be made that Democrats have undermined the war effort for political gain. However, making that case is itself a bid for political gain. The urgent sense of crisis faded away and things got back to normal, which was exactly what we were telling ourselves that we needed to do to make sure "the terrorists don't win."
The center of gravity of the American people are tired of the war, but they don't want to lose. We ought to be reconciling on that basis instead of taking these extreme partisan positions.
May 12, 2008
3:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
my bad, konyok, i'd pegged you for a mccain supporter and assumed you already knew of his economic plans
May 12, 2008
3:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
me2 writes:
What has Bush done for conservatives and their values in 8 years? Candidates can tell us what they want or what they would like to see, say Bush mentioned fuel cells for cars, but then the legislators make the laws.
You have to look at the core ideas of the Democratic vs Republican parties and remember that presidents don`t make laws. But they do shape national policy and have the power to start wars.
That alone is a good reason to look closely at the three remaining candidates: would any of them have gone into Iraq, knowing what Bush knew at the time?
May 12, 2008
3:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
leftside writes:
Looks like rick19611 has taken on the SASQUATCH style of posting.
If don't have the ability to argue your point just yell out a bunch of Republican rhetoric. All it takes is "caps lock".
May 12, 2008
3:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
Konyok writes:
Again, Jay, continuity.
Using my psychic powers I guess that you are trying to say something about capital gains tax rates. Your comments about corporate taxes and the deficit are a non sequitor.
If you want to argue that raising capital gains tax rates increases revenue to the government, then make that case. Unfortunately, even the majority of liberal economists disagree with you.
Senator Obama is making a moral argument, not an economic efficiency argument. I am only commenting on the economic efficiency question.
May 12, 2008
3:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
Marshdale writes:
Here we go again. All I have read on recent posts is penny anti issues that are really senseless. "Hamas supports him" Big Deal!! Do you really think that matters or that he even cares about Hamas? McCain has aquaintences who lobbied on behalf of a military dictatorship in Myanmar. So what!!! Do you think he really cares. I sure as hell don't. None of these hot button issues have anything to do with what kind of president either one of these guys will be. Who cares what McCain said to, or about his wives. Who cares what aquaintences Obama has in Illinois. Do any of you get it? These types of issues are what the party elites want us to focus on so that we don't make an informed vote. I just came back from Europe and people in Europe are so much more in tune with what is going on in goverment than we Americans, that it is pathetic and makes us look like mental midgets. We are a laughing stock. Not because we are American, but because we don't pay any attention to real issues and what is really going on in the world and our own country. Lets wake up Americans and quit letting the political pundits tell us what is important. We are so mired in crap that it is really beginning to stink. Lets open our eyes.
May 12, 2008
3:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
KW writes:
Posted by Eli on May 12, 2008 at 2:21 pm:
"You avoided the question, jay."
Eli - And this surprises you how again...? All jay can ever spout is "McSame or else "third term Bush."
Answering direct questions isn't within jay's realm of capabilities.
Keep on trying though, maybe someday jay will surprise us all.
May 12, 2008
3:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
Fresh writes:
Eli,
Vote for someone that will fuel your stance on the issues. not the lesser of two evils. to me it is clear that NONE of these candidates have any idea on how to solve our problems. they want the POWER that comes with the office to push their OWN agendas, NOT the agenda of what is best for the country and its people.
I for one have not decided on a candidate that will get my vote , but I am 100% sure it is not going to be one of these three.
May 12, 2008
3:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
sorry konyok, i thought the question was pretty clear.
do you think that we should add trillions of dollars to the nation's debt to give corporations even more tax cuts?
it's either a yes or a no....
May 12, 2008
3:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
Konyok writes:
Marshdale,
I think that I kinda, maybe, almost agree with you.
(I'm hedging on the contrast with Europeans. Every time I'm over there, when the wine begins to flow all they seem able to talk about is "The Jews!")
I amuse myself by trying to guess who most posters here are plagiarizing, if that isn't too dignified a word. Every now and then somebody does say something interesting, but mostly it's recycled dung.
Obvious things happen right in front of their eyes, and they don't notice or can't notice because it wasn't covered in their Rush/Daily Kos/Free Republic/NPR/Fox news briefing. (Example: the Rocky decided not to archive Paul Campos' column of April 23. No curiosity in this crowd.)
Between the grand pronouncements of those who always capitalize and our dear little Jay who seems to think that he's perpetually auditioning for a revival of "Crossfire," there is little meat to be had here. Just a lot of rancid catsup.
May 12, 2008
3:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"If the majority prefer the policies of Clinton and/or Obama over McCain, shouldn't those numbers show different results? If not, why?"
sorry...wasn't avoiding the question, but trying to cut down on the time i spend dealing with willful ignorance by just ignoring it....which is why kw is pouting...again.
do you really not understand why a poll, that doesn't in any way address particular policy stances, would not be a valid source of data on said policy stances favorability with the nation?
that's an honest question...if you truly are having trouble understanding that concept then i'll be happy to tell you a little bit about the science of statistics. if, however, you're trying to stubbornly stick to a indefensible point through the strategic use of willful ignorance....let's just move on, shall we?
so...back to the question...have you read any information regarding the country's wishes in regards to the specific policy stances mccain and obama favor?
May 12, 2008
4:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
Big_D writes:
I am socially liberal and fiscally conservative and no matter what programs Obama introduces if he can get us out of Iraq he will be a success. Neither McCain nor Hillary seems they will sincerely try to end this war. The plans Obama has do not even dent the surface of what we are throwing down a rat hole in Iraq. If you don't believe me think of what 300 billion a month could do. That is what Iraq is costing us and that is head and shoulders above all other expenses on the table. Just ask a Russian what the unending Afghanistan war did to the USSR.
May 12, 2008
4:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
me2 writes:
Kon, what is the sense of posting an original idea or question if the agendanites take over every thread?
May 12, 2008
4:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
popo writes:
Eli & Fresh,
Your wish has come true.
You DO have an alternative who just threw hat in the ring today.
It's Bob Barr (L).
Go ahead..make my day and vote for Bob.
One more thing, when McCain was in Denver recently, he railed against having the (Gasp) GOVERNMENT running our health care................ Funny, I don't recall Senator McCain complaining about the (Gasp) GOVERNMENT RUN health care plan he and his family have been enjoying for better than three generations.
I sincerely believe that ALL Americans should be able to have the same plan that he's had.
Hillary tried to implement universal health care back in '93, and was promptly shot down by millions of $$$ worth of "Harry and Louise" ads by the....(Wait for it)....THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY!!!
God bless Obama . A good guy and so far untainted.....And very much a Christian. (for all you misinformed ditto-heads out there.)
And Michelle has spunk.....and class.
I like that.
May 12, 2008
4:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
popo writes:
One more thing,
How y'all enjoying the (Very much closed-door) Cheney/Big Oil energy policy?
How much have YOU been spending to fill your tank?
Can you afford this much longer?
I can't.
May 12, 2008
4:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
KarlCheney ...
"I just love how the right always tries to label the democrats with Jihad or Hamas or terrorsts of some type."
You mean the right like Obama's OWN campaign? Or the Chicago Sun Times? Or uber-nutty left MSNBC?
How about that news stunner on Friday....""Rob Malley, a Middle East policy adviser to likely Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama, resigned after news surfaced that he had been meeting with Hamas"
Why is Obama's staff engaging in "meetings" with Hamas terrorist groups? What are they planning together? What are they cooking up? Why are they hiding what they talked about?
Of course, normal Americans know that Obama has ties to terrorists... such as Bill "I should have bombed more" Ayres. And then the Hamas spokesman that publicly admitted that Hamas wants Obama to win.
The facts remain... NORMAL Americans won't swallow the lies of Obama, Osama, Hamas, and Ayres.... no matter what lies Obamanuts tell to try to cover up his connections to terrorists.
May 12, 2008
4:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Geof writes:
Compared to Bush, a headless chicken could manage to tie two thoughts together better. There couldn't a worse president because there hasn't been a worse president. So it's peculiar that the GOPSOB's here whinge about Obama as if Satan were about to sit on their heads whilst rifling through their precious wallets. Worried about being taxed because you don't like paying taxes? Hmm-hmm, doesn't sound very responsible to me. Don't mind spending drillions on a bullsh&t war and trillions for the Saudi's gas, but find unlimited outrage in yourselves that we would try to make health care universal? You probably already pay for insurance - strangely enough that concept aligns nicely with socialist philosophy - why not put it in the hands of the entity that has some degree of accountabilty? No? Ah, that's right, I forgot. You like to think CEO's represent the height of ethics and honesty, and that somehow they are accountable in ways superior to our elected officials. So that's why you voted for Bush....?
Obama represents a measure of integrity and honestly that has not existed in the White house for decades. To trust conservatives after the Bush debacle would be like - embracing torture, corruption, ineptitude and incompetence, hyper-selfish politics, and galactic disregard for human life - once again. No thanks, my perky little pumpkin-pluckers. No thanks.
Omaha
Betty
Backs
Obama
May 12, 2008
5:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
Grim_Reefer writes:
Good post, Geof...
May 12, 2008
5:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
Eli writes:
Jay,
You should run for office. You can dodge questions better than pretty much any politician, as you're still running from mine like a coward. I'll vote for you if you run, just out of morbid curiosity.
May 12, 2008
5:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Charles_B writes:
Here's the article Ricky won't link to regarding the Obama "adviser" meeting with Hamas:
http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/94...
This is just more hyperbolic blatherings from a talking-points puppet. From the article:
"Malley is an analyst at the Washington, D.C.-based International Crisis Group, specializing in the Israeli-Arab conflict. He told NBC News that his job "is to meet with all sorts of savory and unsavory people and report on what they say. I've never denied whom I meet with; that's what I do."
People like Rick prefer to put their heads in the sand and perish in ignorance rather than gather information about our enemies.
No doubt that's why he favored going into Iraq: Ignorance of the consequences.
Here's someone who had it right from the beginning:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1LhCc...
And here's a tat for the tit regarding old-man McBush's lobbyist buddy:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/136321
That "Maverick" never met a lobbyist he didn't grovel before:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gEROV...
May 12, 2008
6:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
Chuckie...
Post a link to where Obama reveals what his advisor was meeting with Hamas about.
Post a link to where Malley reveals what was so urgent that he set up secret meetings with proven terrorist group.
They don't exist, because both Obama and Malley refuse to say why they were getting advice and instructions from Hamas. What are they hiding?
And Obama's connections don't end with his secret covered-up dealings with Hamas.... why did Obama send his 'advisors' to meet with the Colombian terrorist organization FARC? Why did Obama meet with FARC, and still refuses to admit what his 'advisor' was doing meeting with a Colombian narco-terrorist organization that STILL is holding Americans hostage? Was Obama getting directions from them? Was he cooking up some deal? Why does Obama refuse to answer some simple questions about his dealings with FARC... and HAMAS?
And the Obama terrorist trail continues... why did Obama refuse to condemn the leftwing nuts like Ayres? Ayres paid money to launch Obama's political career.... so why does Obama refuse to even acknowledge him now? What are they covering up?
A vote for Obama = a vote for Hamas, FARC, Ayres..... and if terrorist groups are so well connected to Obama that he gets secret instructions and directions from them through his advisors.... then what about the connection between Obama and his namesake Osama?
May 12, 2008
6:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
KarlCheney writes:
rickg19611,
I gather you are OK with the Bush ties to the terrorist Bin Laden family. They've been in business for years. His ties to the big oil Saudi terrorist groups are just fine with you right? After all Rumsfield was chummy with Saddam for years as long as he was our puppet.
May 12, 2008
6:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
MORE connections between Obama and Palestinian terrorist groups. First, Obama was shown to have had connections to Hamas. Now, there is proof that he also helped the PLO raise terrorist funding.
Why did Obama help raise money for members of the PLO?
Why did Obama allow members of the PLO to put on a fundraiser for his political campaign?
"From 1999 through December 2002 Ayres and Obama served together as directors of the Woods Fund of Chicago. That non-profit organization provided two grants in 2001 and 2002 to the Arab American Action Network, or AAAN, of $40,000 and $35,000 respectively. The AAAN was run by co-founders Rashid and Mona Khalidi.
Rashid Khalidi is a Columbia University professor who previously worked for the PLO, a terrorist organization, and hosted a fund raiser for Obama's US Senate bid.
Khalidi said he supports Obama for president "because he is the only candidate who has expressed sympathy for the Palestinian cause."
Khalidi also lauded Obama for "saying he supports talks with Iran. If the U.S. can talk with the Soviet Union during the Cold War, there is no reason it can’t talk with the Iranians."
When questioned about his relationship with the Woods Fund, which provided more than one-quarter of the groups funding, Khalidi lied, claiming no knowledge of the non-profit organization.
Concerning Obama’s role in funding AAAN, Khalidi claimed he "never heard of the Woods Fund until it popped up on a bunch of blogs a few months ago." He terminated the interview when pressed further about his links with Obama."
May 12, 2008
6:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
Fact_Check writes:
Ricky:
Post something grounded in reality and I'll respond. Post a link backing your hyperbolic claims and I'll respond.
You're the one who does lots and lots of talking around here but never backing up what you say.
Obama is smart enough to know that he can't know too much about the world and you aren't. That's your problem, not his.
You prefer to remain shrouded in ignorance and enjoying your bliss between your impotent tirades here on the RMN threads.
May 12, 2008
6:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"Jay,
You should run for office. You can dodge questions better than pretty much any politician, as you're still running from mine like a coward. I'll vote for you if you run, just out of morbid curiosity."
i'm sorry, maybe you didn't see my last post about your question, eli, i'll post it again...and will help if you need it...just say the word:
sorry...wasn't avoiding the question, but trying to cut down on the time i spend dealing with willful ignorance by just ignoring it....which is why kw is pouting...again.
do you really not understand why a poll, that doesn't in any way address particular policy stances, would not be a valid source of data on said policy stances favorability with the nation?
that's an honest question...if you truly are having trouble understanding that concept then i'll be happy to tell you a little bit about the science of statistics. if, however, you're trying to stubbornly stick to a indefensible point through the strategic use of willful ignorance....let's just move on, shall we?
so...back to the question...have you read any information regarding the country's wishes in regards to the specific policy stances mccain and obama favor?
May 12, 2008
6:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
Charles_B writes:
Sorry, Fact_Check was a dummy account I used to test post. The above derision of Ricky was written by me, Charles_B.
May 12, 2008
6:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
Eli writes:
Jay,
You're still avoiding the question, this time by repeating yourself. You are by far the finest example of cowardice I have ever seen when it comes to any kind of honest debate. If you refuse to answer, just come out and say so. Don't repeat yourself and ignore the question again, and don't answer it by asking another question. That's not an answer, it's another question.
May 12, 2008
6:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
Charles_B writes:
Eli:
The reason is simple: McBush's policies haven't been scrutinized and people don't actually *know* where he stands.
(Just trying to head off another "who's on first" episode)
May 12, 2008
6:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
Chuckie seems to be schizophrenic.... attempting to post using other names to cover up the fact that his schemes to cover up Obama's terrorist connections are failing....
FACT: Obama accepted money from a fundraiser hosted by Rashid Khalidi
FACT: Rashid Khalidi worked for the Palestine Liberation Organization while it was involved in anti-Western terrorism and was labeled by the State Department as a terror group
Why does Obama refuse to admit that terrorists are supporting his candidacy?
Why does Obama hide the fact that Palestinian terrorists have bankrolled his political career?
Why does Obama refuse to stop meeting with terrorists like Hamas and FARC, and when confronted with the facts about members of the PLO funding him, he refuses to comment?
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.ph...
May 12, 2008
7:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
snowsurfer writes:
Bull crap repubilcan propaganda. The machine is freaking out. I wonder who is really in a panic self destruction mode? The republicans don't know whether to work with dems or to stand up against them and they are loosing seats in congress like crazy. Many typical republican strong holds like Mississippi are voting democratic. Times are changing.
May 12, 2008
7:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
Eli writes:
See Jay? Read the post from Charles and take notes. That is how a question is answered. Not by repeating yourself, and not by answering a question with another question.
May 12, 2008
8:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
leftside writes:
Here's the skinny on rickg's website from Wikipedia.
"WorldNetDaily, also known as WND, is a conservative [1][2] web site and online news site, founded in 1997. It is currently in the top 90 news sites as listed at Alexa.[3] It has been described by some writers as 'far right' in its political leanings.[2]"
I'd describe it as a pack of lies and half truths.
Ricky, pickup a National Enquirer, it's better reading material.
May 12, 2008
8:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
leftside writes:
snowsurfer,
"I wonder who is really in a panic self destruction mode?'
The Republicans. They played the Rev. Wright story to the hilt and it didn't slow Obama down a bit. If fact he now leads Hillary in Super's. American are getting wiser, the old tricks conservative tricks aren't working anymore and it's killing them.
May 12, 2008
8:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
so now that charles b was so nice to answer your question...can you answer mine?
have you read any information regarding the country's wishes in regards to the specific policy stances mccain and obama favor?
my goodness, i never thought you'd run so hard from such an innocent question...
May 12, 2008
8:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
KaySieverding writes:
I hope and pray Obama is idealistic. I personally really really need an idealistic honest president to protect my rights
May 12, 2008
9:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Eli writes:
Yes Jay, I have. Mainly various polling data on specific issues.
Regarding the polling numbers that do not support your assertion, do you agree with the theory presented by Charles that this is caused by ignorance?
May 12, 2008
9:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
Eli writes:
And by the way, jay, you are the absolute last person on this entire website who should be accusing someone of "running" from a question.