Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Who is Barack Obama?

Who is Barack Obama?
Thread Tools
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2008, 12:24 PM
 
Democrats and their staff that works part-time in the mainstream media like to piss and moan that the "issues" should be focused on despite the fact that their chosen candidate has little to no experience dealing with the "issues" and in fact when you look at his past it resembles NOTHING that he now claims is his take on the "issues". They don't want an examination of Obama's past, much like a shady used car dealer doesn't want you to know much about the lemon he's about to sell you. It makes it much tougher to make the sale.

Obama talks moderate, but his entire background (that he will allow to be investigated) has been spent engaging in radical leftist politics and partisan schemes. We've recently found out that he's spent all of his political life engaging in a working and social relationship with an unrepentant terrorist, spent the majority of his spiritual life being preached to by an unrepentant America hater, has been a member of socialist organizations, allowed a con man to buy property for him he couldn't afford, has been neck deep in the mortgage manipulations that has hurt our economy, and has no real history of tackling major problems in a bi-partisan way.

Maybe that's why now that the VP debates are over and Palin showed that despite the media's claims, when she's not filtered she CAN string 2 sentences together and actually talk intelligently about the issues (despite only having a couple of weeks to prepare for what was essentially an enormous pop quiz), and some of the information about who Obama really is, and how he's been lying about it has come out - the polls are heading back in McCain's direction.

The more that we know about Obama, the more we can see that he is selling us a bill of goods. He's not the guy who goes and fights against even members of his own party for the good of the country, shuns pork laden earmarks, tries to enact legislation when it's clear there are problems with F&F, or does anything else that shows leadership on the issues. The guy who does that IS JOHN MCCAIN.

Why does Obama want everyone to think that he's really John McCain, and John McCain is really George Bush? Because Barrack Obama can't get elected if he's Barrack Obama. That guy isn't someone the electorate will buy. That's why despite having a HUGE advantage over McCain, he's still stuck at not much better than a statistical tie when he likely needs 6+ points just to break even.

The Democrats could have had someone who probably would have ran away with the election in a landslide who had experience and might have done the country good. Instead, they choose the guy who knew how to market himself to the base - the guy who knew how to appeal to the far left that he spent his whole life supporting and being supported by. In the end, it will hurt them, not help them.
( Last edited by stupendousman; Oct 8, 2008 at 12:33 PM. )
     
Dork.
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2008, 12:28 PM
 
I have no clue who Barrack Obama is. Barack Obama, on the other hand, is that good-looking, articulate guy running for President.

Edit: Through the power of teh Google, I have found out what Barrack's goal is!

     
stupendousman  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2008, 12:34 PM
 
Typo fixed....smarta$$.

     
ort888
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Your Anus
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2008, 12:38 PM
 
Wow, you've really changed my mind. I've never heard any of these ideas put out there like this. Thank you so much for your continued efforts to save us all from ourselves.

My sig is 1 pixel too big.
     
sek929
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2008, 12:43 PM
 
How many ways can you say the same thing over and over again?
     
Indecision08
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Sep 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2008, 12:46 PM
 
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2008, 12:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by sek929 View Post
How many ways can you say the same thing over and over again?
Well, one. I think the actual question is how many times can you say the same thing over and over again.
     
sek929
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2008, 12:51 PM
 
I figured he would be able to phrase the same sentence at least a few different ways, maybe that's to much credit.
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2008, 01:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by sek929 View Post
How many ways can you say the same thing over and over again?
When you have nothing of substance, you tend to do that.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2008, 01:23 PM
 
Here's what the McCain campaign' co-chair in Virginia says about Obama. Some sample quotes from what they view as Obama's political agenda.
Reparations to Black Community: Opposes before Election Day and supports after Election Day.

Freedom of Religion: Mandatory Black LIberation Theology courses taught in all churches - raise taxes to pay for this mandate. Put Rev. Jeremiah Wright in charge. Condemnation of homosexuality from the pulpit will become a Class 1 Felony.

Drug Crisis: Raise taxes to pay for free drugs for Obama's inner-city political base.

2nd Amendment: Under Obama will only apply to gang-bangers, illegal aliens, Islamo-Fascist terrorists and Senator Jim Webb's aide.

Foreign Relations: Appoint Rev. Al Sharpton as Secretary of State, Jesse Jackson as UN Representative and let Bill Clinton handle all other "foreign relations" ... as long as Hillary doesn't find out! And raise taxes.

The White House: Hire rapper Ludacris to "paint it black." Taxes to be increased to buy enough paint to do the job plus spray-paint for graffiti.

Third World Countries: Raise taxes to send $845 billion, send most to Africa so the Obama family there can skim off enough to allow them to free their goats and live the American Dream.

National Anthem: Change to the "Black National Anthem" by James Weldon Johnson. And raise taxes.

US Currency: Update photos to reflect US diversity; include pictures of "great Americans" such as Oprah Winfrey, Ludacris, Sheila Jackson-Lee, Paris Hilton, Britney Spears and Louisiana Congressman William Jefferson (Obama's new Secretary of the Treasury - 50 Cent refused position after learning that he would lose his crazy check if he accepted the nomination. And raise taxes.
How many references to blacks, rappers, inner-city drug-users, gang-bangers and the like is that? This is what's going to be fun about the last month of this election: Seeing the conservative id in all its, um, glory.
     
TheMosco
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: MA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2008, 01:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
When you can't defend, attack. Noted.
From another thread.... Seems thats the only thing republicans have left to do...
AXP
ΔΣΦ
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2008, 01:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post
Here's what the McCain campaign' co-chair in Virginia says about Obama.
Those flag "label" pins will get you.
     
tie
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2008, 01:37 PM
 
Basically, Obama's a black guy. And black people are scary. Their music is too loud. Do we really want the cabinet filled with rappers?! Vote McCain. He's white.

(Bobby May resigned yesterday from McCain's campaign.)
The 4 o'clock train will be a bus.
It will depart at 20 minutes to 5.
     
stupendousman  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2008, 01:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by TheMosco View Post
From another thread.... Seems thats the only thing republicans have left to do...
What exactly am I not defending? When a candidate basically says "hey..me too", how is it an attack to point out the truth? What isn't being defended? People could not defend the fact that Obama lied about his relationship to a terrorist. Instead, they made it personal TOWARDS ME in regards to your quote, just as they are doing in this thread. When you can't refute the message, attack the messenger.

Really, maybe the problem with some people in this thread is a basic lack of understanding of logic.

FAIL.

ps. It sounds like no matter how I word the facts, the problem is that people can't credibly refute them.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2008, 01:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
What exactly am I not defending? When a candidate basically says "hey..me too", how is it an attack to point out the truth? What isn't being defended? People could not defend the fact that Obama lied about his relationship to a terrorist. Instead, they made it personal TOWARDS ME in regards to your quote, just as they are doing in this thread. When you can't refute the message, attack the messenger.

Really, maybe the problem with some people in this thread is a basic lack of understanding of logic.

FAIL.

ps. It sounds like no matter how I word the facts, the problem is that people can't credibly refute them.
I think you're just unrepentant.
     
stupendousman  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2008, 02:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
I think you're just unrepentant.
Unrepentant truth teller, that I am.

If you have a problem with that, please don't attend any parties at my house in your honor, nor accept any jobs I push your way.
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2008, 02:13 PM
 
stupendousman, we all understand your views, but the least you could do is give your thread a title that isn't exactly the same as yesterday's McCain campaign attack ad. I mean, if you don't mind being just a campaign worker bee, you could at least pretend that you're not.
     
TheMosco
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: MA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2008, 02:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
What exactly am I not defending? When a candidate basically says "hey..me too", how is it an attack to point out the truth? What isn't being defended? People could not defend the fact that Obama lied about his relationship to a terrorist. Instead, they made it personal TOWARDS ME in regards to your quote, just as they are doing in this thread. When you can't refute the message, attack the messenger.

Really, maybe the problem with some people in this thread is a basic lack of understanding of logic.

FAIL.

ps. It sounds like no matter how I word the facts, the problem is that people can't credibly refute them.
You can't defend your own candidates positions. Instead you spend your life trying to point out everything wrong with Obama.

Instead of being pro-mccain, you just come off as just anti-obama. And that gets old fast. People wouldn't give you a hard time so much if instead of saying Obama is a terrorist sympathizer, etc, and instead made posts that said:

I agree that we should tax health care benefits and provide a tax credit to people, and I don't agree with Obama's plan because etc etc etc.

That way, you look like a person willing to think and discuss, instead of someone who keeps trying to find things to rant about.
AXP
ΔΣΦ
     
Rumor
Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the verge of insanity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2008, 02:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Democrats and their staff that works part-time in the mainstream media like to piss and moan that the "issues" should be focused on despite the fact that their chosen candidate has little to no experience dealing with the "issues" and in fact when you look at his past it resembles NOTHING that he now claims is his take on the "issues". They don't want an examination of Obama's past, much like a shady used car dealer doesn't want you to know much about the lemon he's about to sell you. It makes it much tougher to make the sale.

Obama talks moderate, but his entire background (that he will allow to be investigated) has been spent engaging in radical leftist politics and partisan schemes. We've recently found out that he's spent all of his political life engaging in a working and social relationship with an unrepentant terrorist, spent the majority of his spiritual life being preached to by an unrepentant America hater, has been a member of socialist organizations, allowed a con man to buy property for him he couldn't afford, has been neck deep in the mortgage manipulations that has hurt our economy, and has no real history of tackling major problems in a bi-partisan way.

Maybe that's why now that the VP debates are over and Palin showed that despite the media's claims, when she's not filtered she CAN string 2 sentences together and actually talk intelligently about the issues (despite only having a couple of weeks to prepare for what was essentially an enormous pop quiz), and some of the information about who Obama really is, and how he's been lying about it has come out - the polls are heading back in McCain's direction.

The more that we know about Obama, the more we can see that he is selling us a bill of goods. He's not the guy who goes and fights against even members of his own party for the good of the country, shuns pork laden earmarks, tries to enact legislation when it's clear there are problems with F&F, or does anything else that shows leadership on the issues. The guy who does that IS JOHN MCCAIN.

Why does Obama want everyone to think that he's really John McCain, and John McCain is really George Bush? Because Barrack Obama can't get elected if he's Barrack Obama. That guy isn't someone the electorate will buy. That's why despite having a HUGE advantage over McCain, he's still stuck at not much better than a statistical tie when he likely needs 6+ points just to break even.

The Democrats could have had someone who probably would have ran away with the election in a landslide who had experience and might have done the country good. Instead, they choose the guy who knew how to market himself to the base - the guy who knew how to appeal to the far left that he spent his whole life supporting and being supported by. In the end, it will hurt them, not help them.


"Yes. Your training is almost complete."
I like my water with hops, malt, hops, yeast, and hops.
     
stupendousman  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2008, 02:49 PM
 
BRussell, we all understand your views, but the least you could do is ignore threads you don't like and not attack the messenger when you have nothing to add to the debate.
     
stupendousman  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2008, 03:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by TheMosco View Post
You can't defend your own candidates positions. Instead you spend your life trying to point out everything wrong with Obama.
Where exactly in this thread have I refused to defend my candidate's position? That is assuming someone would want to try and change the subject and to shift attention away from Obama's scary past. Obama's the guy pretending to be John McCain. I like most of McCain's positions. All I can do is point out that despite Obama's act, he isn't John McCain. When he tries to pretend he is, his past is evidence that isn't the case.

Instead of being pro-mccain, you just come off as just anti-obama. And that gets old fast. People wouldn't give you a hard time so much if instead of saying Obama is a terrorist sympathizer, etc, and instead made posts that said:
I AM ANTI-OBAMA. I disagree with most of what he says. I'm not interested in having someone who is pretending to be something he's not get into office based on that lie. If you don't like it, ignore it or use facts to rebut what I've said. It's real simple.
     
Rumor
Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the verge of insanity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2008, 03:03 PM
 
Your diatribe is astounding.
I like my water with hops, malt, hops, yeast, and hops.
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2008, 03:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
BRussell, we all understand your views, but the least you could do is ignore threads you don't like and not attack the messenger when you have nothing to add to the debate.
I think pointing out and providing proof that you are providing the daily talking points from the national McCain campaign adds something to the debate.
     
MindFad
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Sep 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2008, 03:28 PM
 


Man, people really know how to call this stuff.

I think I just saw this speech on CNN. I get it. Obama: myserious, dark-skinned planetarium-lover we're "unfamiliar" with; McCain: wrinkly old "mavericky" white guy we all know and love, and can count on to fight bear DNA studies—oh wait, he voted for that one, but boy, he sure didn't like it. (loltalkingpoints)

I love you, MacNN.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2008, 03:38 PM
 


"Really, Barry, I'm not that way inclined."
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Krusty
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Always within bluetooth range
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2008, 04:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
"I've slept with your wife."
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2008, 04:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
"That's not the microphone..."

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
stupendousman  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2008, 05:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post
I think pointing out and providing proof that you are providing the daily talking points from the national McCain campaign adds something to the debate.
I don't get "talking points" and I think I as at McCain's website twice in the past year (I think 2 months ago). I do read many news sources and form my opinions based on what I read.

The fact is, I understand that It's a lot easier to pass judgement on the messenger than to refute the message. It would be my opinion that attacking the messenger and simply engaging in name calling towards the message doesn't add much of anything to the debate. All it does is show that the "talking points" as you call them aren't something you are able to overcome intellectually. In essense, it's not much better than thumbing your nose and saying "nananana-booboo".

How enlightening.
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2008, 05:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
I do read many news sources and form my opinions based on what I read.
Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reily, Glenn Beck...
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2008, 05:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
I don't get "talking points" and I think I as at McCain's website twice in the past year (I think 2 months ago). I do read many news sources and form my opinions based on what I read.

The fact is, I understand that It's a lot easier to pass judgement on the messenger than to refute the message. It would be my opinion that attacking the messenger and simply engaging in name calling towards the message doesn't add much of anything to the debate. All it does is show that the "talking points" as you call them aren't something you are able to overcome intellectually. In essense, it's not much better than thumbing your nose and saying "nananana-booboo".

How enlightening.
Point taken.
     
stupendousman  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2008, 08:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reily, Glenn Beck...
Dude...grow a better sense of self discipline. Can you even see threads started by people who you claim to have on ignore?
     
Gee-Man
Senior User
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2008, 09:14 PM
 
Another thing to point out in the midst of this blizzard of BS that started this thread and others about Ayers is that Bill Ayers turned himself in to police in 1980. That doesn't sound like the actions of an "unrepentant terrorist" to me.

There is absolutely zero evidence that Barack Obama thinks like Ayers, has more than a casual relationship with him, or agrees with him on anything regarding the Weather Underground. None of the reporters digging into this story, including some very conservative-leaning outfits like Fox News, have been able to uncover anything resembling a "smoking gun", other than the same stuff that Obama says - he served on a board with him working on education issues, and they have a casual relationship because they live in the same neighborhood. Ayers was a college professor when Obama met him, and was considered pretty much a respectable citizen in Chicago by almost everyone - in a time when you couldn't simply Google anybody to check up on their background. Objectively speaking, what's the likelihood that Obama knew for a fact that Ayers used to be a domestic bomb-maker 30 years earlier when attending an event at someone's house? I live in California, and I sometimes run in circles where I get to attend a number of events and fund-raisers at rich people's houses - and I can tell you for a fact that I would have no idea who was who at some of these things if they're not a celebrity. Rich people tend to open their houses up for posh events all the time, you simply don't go background-digging before you arrive.

And if you want to play 6-Degrees-of-Kevin-Bacon on us, Ayers is linked to all kinds of people through his membership on the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, including... Nancy Reagan? Yes, it's true. So is Nancy Reagan a "terrorist sympathizer" too?

Seriously, stupendousman. This stuff simply reflects your blind hatred of Obama, and willingness to believe anything bad about him, no matter how ridiculous or unlikely. Having genuine policy differences with Obama is one thing. We get that. This slime about "terrorist sympathizer", thrown at a sitting US Senator, is completely wrong and off-the-charts vile.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2008, 09:18 PM
 
Wait...did you just directly refute his points? But how is that possible? They're bulletproof!
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2008, 09:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by Gee-Man View Post
And if you want to play 6-Degrees-of-Kevin-Bacon on us, Ayers is linked to all kinds of people through his membership on the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, including... Nancy Reagan? Yes, it's true. So is Nancy Reagan a "terrorist sympathizer" too.
To be clear, Ayers was not actually on the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (which was dissolved in 2002) -- he worked more on the operational side as a member of the Chicago School Reform collaborative, and was instrumental in getting it off the ground. The board that he and Obama served on together on was the Woods Fund of Chicago.

This Annenberg Foundation grant that you linked to has nothing to do with the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, as far as I can tell. The Annenberg Foundation is a separate organization that made a large grant to fund the Chicago Annenberg Challenge back in 1995.

This doesn't refute your basic point, though, that there are a lot of people, including Republicans, who could be connected to Ayers through the Chicago Annenberg Challenge and other Chicago institutions.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
Gee-Man
Senior User
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2008, 09:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey View Post
To be clear, Ayers was not actually on the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (which was dissolved in 2002) -- he worked more on the operational side as a member of the Chicago School Reform collaborative, and was instrumental in getting it off the ground. The board that he and Obama served on together on was the Woods Fund of Chicago.
You're correct - I incorrectly said Ayers was on the CAC when he only got a grant from them. Point taken.

This Annenberg Foundation grant that you linked to has nothing to do with the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, as far as I can tell. The Annenberg Foundation is a separate organization that made a large grant to fund the Chicago Annenberg Challenge back in 1995.

This doesn't refute your basic point, though, that there are a lot of people, including Republicans, who could be connected to Ayers through the Chicago Annenberg Challenge and other Chicago institutions.
Yep. That link wasn't meant to illustrate that this specific grant was about the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, but merely to point out that Ayers could easily be linked to a number of people, including people conservatives don't have a blind hatred for, through the work he was doing in Chicago.
     
stupendousman  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2008, 09:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by Gee-Man View Post
Another thing to point out in the midst of this blizzard of BS that started this thread and others about Ayers is that Bill Ayers turned himself in to police in 1980. That doesn't sound like the actions of an "unrepentant terrorist" to me.
He was on the run. It's not uncommon for people on the run to give themselves up. Not because they repent, but because they are tired of running.

There is absolutely zero evidence that Barack Obama thinks like Ayers, has more than a casual relationship with him, or agrees with him on anything regarding the Weather Underground.
No one said there was. No more than hanging out and having a casual relationship with Eric Rudolph would mean that you thought like Rudolph. Do you think that if McCain and Rudolph were engaged in projects together and McCain attended a party at Rudolph's home held in his honor, we'd be hearing:

"There is absolutely zero evidence that John McCain thinks like Rudolph, has more than a casual relationship with him, or agrees with him on anything regarding bombing abortion clinics."

No, we wouldn't. John McCain would have never gotten the nomination of his party if that were the case.

None of the reporters digging into this story, including some very conservative-leaning outfits like Fox News, have been able to uncover anything resembling a "smoking gun", other than the same stuff that Obama says - he served on a board with him working on education issues, and they have a casual relationship because they live in the same neighborhood.
Actually, when asked Obama just said that he was just some guy in his neighborhood, which of course is a lie. I MYSELF outlined where Ayers and Obama continually supported each other politically and professionally and as you've stated, had a casual social relationship due to living in the same place and sharing the same social circles. NO ONE SAID that they were caught kissing, where blood brothers or wrote each others names in the snow with urine. It's not necessary to show that when you claim that Obama has no problems hanging out, working with and supporting an unrepentant terrorist. The evidence DOES show that. It doesn't require it to show anything more, which is the false standard those who try to dishonestly debunk the story have to use.

Ayers was a college professor when Obama met him, and was considered pretty much a respectable citizen in Chicago by almost everyone - in a time when you couldn't simply Google anybody to check up on their background.
It speaks volumes that a confessed and unrepentant terrorist is a "respectable citizen in Chicago". What flies in the circles of left-wing Chicago politics DOES NOT fly most anywhere else. Otherwise, Obama wouldn't be lying about his relationship with Ayers and falsely accusing those who mention is of not telling the truth when it's 100% truth.

Objectively speaking, what's the likelihood that Obama knew for a fact that Ayers used to be a domestic bomb-maker 30 years earlier when attending an event at someone's house? I live in California, and I sometimes run in circles where I get to attend a number of events and fund-raisers at rich people's houses - and I can tell you for a fact that I would have no idea who was who at some of these things if they're not a celebrity. Rich people tend to open their houses up for posh events all the time, you simply don't go background-digging before you arrive.
Then the question is what did he know, and when did he know it. To suggest he just never knew would mean essentially that Obama is stupid. I'd heard of Ayers prior to Obama and I don't live in Chicago.

Seriously, stupendousman. This stuff simply reflects your blind hatred of Obama, and willingness to believe anything bad about him, no matter how ridiculous or unlikely.
A. I don't hate him. I really don't hate anyone. The Bible teaches me to love my neighbor. Even ones who support terrorists. I love them, but I have no desire to spend time with them or work side by side with that kind of poor judgement.

B. I believe things when there are facts to support them. Nobody seems to be able to refute the facts, but instead tries to spin them with strawmen and diversions.

Having genuine policy differences with Obama is one thing. We get that. This slime about "terrorist sympathizer", thrown at a sitting US Senator, is completely wrong and off-the-charts vile.
...but accepting an admitted and unrepentant terrorist as a "respectable citizen" is reasonable and not vile. I think most would suggest that you've got your priorities more than a tad bit screwed up. Otherwise, there'd be no reason for Obama to lie about his relationship with this "respectable citizen" and no reason for people to think badly of Ayres. Of course, we both know better than that, which is why I take your "vile" comment as the empty political pot-shot that it is.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2008, 09:55 PM
 
The Ayers -Obama connection has more to do with what they did with CAC money than what
Ayers and Dorhn did "when O' Bama was eight years old". In addition to giving money to groups whose goal was to "radicalize" students, CAC monies were also given to ACORN and Trinity United. Ayers was asked to help O' Bama formulate the bylaws of CAC. CAC money also went to one of Bernadine Dorhn's groups
     
stupendousman  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2008, 09:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey View Post
To be clear, Ayers was not actually on the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (which was dissolved in 2002) -- he worked more on the operational side as a member of the Chicago School Reform collaborative, and was instrumental in getting it off the ground. The board that he and Obama served on together on was the Woods Fund of Chicago.
You're right. Ayers was the one that wrote the grant that Annenberg approved and was essentially in charge of seeing the Challenge get off the ground. After Obama was recruited by Ayers et al. to run it, Ayers helped Obama form the by-laws. Shortly after, Ayers had Obama over to his house for a party as a way to introduce Obama to his leftist political friends as the "heir apparent" to Alice Parker who decided to run for Congress.

Yeah..Ayers...that guy that Obama says he knows because they just happen to live in the same neighborhood.

Bawhahahahahah!!!

This Annenberg Foundation grant that you linked to has nothing to do with the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, as far as I can tell. The Annenberg Foundation is a separate organization that made a large grant to fund the Chicago Annenberg Challenge back in 1995.
My point in regards to the Annenbergs themselves having anything to do with picking Ayers.
     
Gee-Man
Senior User
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2008, 09:58 PM
 
Another thing that's really odd about this obsession right-wingers have with "the REAL Obama" - we can't seem to find any real evidence about this character they've invented. Although this thread starts with a question, it's obviously not a question in the OP's mind - he's already decided who Barack Obama is, and he's just trying to sell the rest of us. Ok.

But I'd really like to see something from Obama himself that reveals the "true" Barack Obama. Isn't that the normal standard in judging somebody? Shouldn't we be able to find:

1) Obviously radical passages in the 2 books he's written.
2) Obviously radical bills he's passed or tried to pass in either the Illinois State Senate or the US Senate.
3) Obviously radical speeches he's given over the 20+ years he's been in the public eye.
4) Obviously radical proposals he's suggesting if he wins the presidency.
5) Obviously radical statements he's made to the press, either on or off the record.

Shouldn't there be SOMETHING to report with all of that potential sitting right in front of us? But unfortunately for the right-wingers, there isn't anything. All the stuff you'd think would be easily discovered is either non-existent, or throughly debunked (supposed ACORN membership which he was never a member of, fabricated numbers for the Global Poverty Act, "Muslim" rumors that turn out to be completely fabricated, and on and on).

You guys should be able to find something direct. Why are you unable to do so?

So instead, they keep coming back with this "It's a conspiracy!" nonsense, either making sh*t up, or blowing smoke with no actual fire, and desperately hoping that others will see the light.

It's rather sad, actually.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2008, 10:02 PM
 
I loved the part about the O' Bama and Ayers kids going to school together. Problem is, Ayers' kids are >20's
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2008, 10:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
O' Bama
I'm not sure what the new running joke is here.
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2008, 10:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
My point in regards to the Annenbergs themselves having anything to do with picking Ayers.
...is not germane to the point I was making to Gee-man. Read my response in the other thread. You obviously either have no idea how private charitable foundations operate, or you can't be bothered to do even basic research on the Annenbergs.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
Gee-Man
Senior User
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2008, 10:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
No one said there was. No more than hanging out and having a casual relationship with Eric Rudolph would mean that you thought like Rudolph. Do you think that if McCain and Rudolph were engaged in projects together and McCain attended a party at Rudolph's home held in his honor, we'd be hearing:

"There is absolutely zero evidence that John McCain thinks like Rudolph, has more than a casual relationship with him, or agrees with him on anything regarding bombing abortion clinics."

No, we wouldn't. John McCain would have never gotten the nomination of his party if that were the case.
William Ayers was a college professor when Obama met him. Your analogy makes no sense - if Ayers was known ONLY as a former (and famous) terrorist, and everybody in Chicago shunned him except Obama, you'd have a point.

The fact that he was now considered respectable, long after Obama met the guy, changes everything.

And as others have in fact pointed out, McCain does have friendships with convicted criminals, and is completely unrepentant about it. I don't recall him losing the nomination over his relationship with G. Gordon Liddy.


Actually, when asked Obama just said that he was just some guy in his neighborhood, which of course is a lie. I MYSELF outlined where Ayers and Obama continually supported each other politically and professionally and as you've stated, had a casual social relationship due to living in the same place and sharing the same social circles. NO ONE SAID that they were caught kissing, where blood brothers or wrote each others names in the snow with urine. It's not necessary to show that when you claim that Obama has no problems hanging out, working with and supporting an unrepentant terrorist. The evidence DOES show that. It doesn't require it to show anything more, which is the false standard those who try to dishonestly debunk the story have to use.
I will say that Obama does downplay the relationship a bit. But that's understandable - because there's no there there. What, exactly, does Obama working on an education board with a guy that used to be a radical but is now a professor say about Obama?

Exactly nothing, that's what. You can keep blowing smoke, but there's nothing there.

It speaks volumes that a confessed and unrepentant terrorist is a "respectable citizen in Chicago". What flies in the circles of left-wing Chicago politics DOES NOT fly most anywhere else. Otherwise, Obama wouldn't be lying about his relationship with Ayers and falsely accusing those who mention is of not telling the truth when it's 100% truth.
I think the fact he was able to get major education grants from Republican foundations says a lot more about him than your simplistic analysis implies. I know right-wingers aren't used to thinking in anything other than binary, but sometimes, people do good things late in life after they've done horrible things early in life.

And the "unrepentant" part is an vast oversimplification. Ayers has repeatedly, and on the record, said that he regrets and denounces any violence he participated in. He says the only part he remains unrepentant about is his opposition to the Vietnam War.

Then the question is what did he know, and when did he know it. To suggest he just never knew would mean essentially that Obama is stupid. I'd heard of Ayers prior to Obama and I don't live in Chicago.
This is basically unprovable on the internet, but I call BS. How would you have known about Ayers background in 1995?

Sorry, I'm not buying that.

A. I don't hate him. I really don't hate anyone. The Bible teaches me to love my neighbor. Even ones who support terrorists. I love them, but I have no desire to spend time with them or work side by side with that kind of poor judgement.


B. I believe things when there are facts to support them. Nobody seems to be able to refute the facts, but instead tries to spin them with strawmen and diversions.
You have an annoying tendency to claim victory after a single post, but I notice that you rarely have any actual links in the posts you write to back things up. Your "facts" in this case simply aren't true, and you need to do more than just say "I'm right" over and over before anybody will take your arguments seriously.

...but accepting an admitted and unrepentant terrorist as a "respectable citizen" is reasonable and not vile. I think most would suggest that you've got your priorities more than a tad bit screwed up. Otherwise, there'd be no reason for Obama to lie about his relationship with this "respectable citizen" and no reason for people to think badly of Ayres. Of course, we both know better than that, which is why I take your "vile" comment as the empty political pot-shot that it is.
The vile part is making accusations that a sitting US Senator and candidate for President is a terrorist sympathizer when it's very clear that they are not. I'm sorry you are too blinded by partisanship to see that.

I would not, nor would I ever want to, accuse John McCain of being a "criminal coddler" even though his relationship with G. Gordon Liddy is troublesome. I would need to prove that he shares the same views as Liddy, just as you need to prove Obama shares the same views as Ayers, in order to pass this basic test of credibility.

Each post you write on this subject completely fails that basic test.
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2008, 10:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
I'm not sure what the new running joke is here.
Yeah, I've been wondering about that for a few days.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
Gee-Man
Senior User
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2008, 10:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
The Ayers -Obama connection has more to do with what they did with CAC money than what
Ayers and Dorhn did "when O' Bama was eight years old". In addition to giving money to groups whose goal was to "radicalize" students, CAC monies were also given to ACORN and Trinity United. Ayers was asked to help O' Bama formulate the bylaws of CAC. CAC money also went to one of Bernadine Dorhn's groups
Link? And please spare me the WND or other wacko right-wing blogs - I need something verifiable.
     
stupendousman  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2008, 10:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by Gee-Man View Post
Another thing that's really odd about this obsession right-wingers have with "the REAL Obama" - we can't seem to find any real evidence about this character they've invented. Although this thread starts with a question, it's obviously not a question in the OP's mind - he's already decided who Barack Obama is, and he's just trying to sell the rest of us. Ok.
I asked the question, then answered it. The media isn't doing it's job so I'm glad to help out - with evidence and supporting facts. Just because someone reads the facts and evidence and squints their eyes, and changes the argument doesn't mean they aren't there.

But I'd really like to see something from Obama himself that reveals the "true" Barack Obama. Isn't that the normal standard in judging somebody? Shouldn't we be able to find;

1) Obviously radical passages in the 2 books he's written.
Is that what his books are about? Are there obviously conservative or moderate passages in the books?

What we do know is who he chose to associate with politically and what causes he chose to work on. Both where radical leftist in nature. From Bill Ayers to his work with ACORN and CAC, it all revolved around far-left political activism. Not the moderate, reasonable consensus builder he claims to be.

2) Obviously radical bills he's passed or tried to pass in either the Illinois State Senate or the US Senate.
Was voting to allow comprehensive sex-ed to Kindergarteners not enough for you?

3) Obviously radical speeches he's given over the 20+ years he's been in the public eye.
He praised Bill Ayers support for teaching children left-wing political activism.

4) Obviously radical proposals he's suggesting if he wins the presidency.
He's a wacko liberal, but that doesn't mean he's stupid.

5) Obviously radical statements he's made to the press, either on or off the record.
He's spent the last several years lying about his past and reinventing himself into something he thinks can get elected. He's talked out of both sides of his mouth depending on who the audience is and lied about his past as a member of the Chicago radical leftist community, even belonging to a socialist organization. I'd say all that is an example of pretty radical behavior.

Shouldn't there be SOMETHING to report with all of that potential sitting right in front of us? But unfortunately for the right-wingers, there isn't anything.
See above. Obama has spent his life in radical liberalistic endeavors. The evidence has been provided. Just because he NOW chooses to obscure all of that because he knows that if the American people knew THE REAL Barack Obama, he'd never get elected, isn't evidence that wipes his long record clean.

All the stuff you'd think would be easily discovered is either non-existent, or throughly debunked (supposed ACORN membership which he was never a member of....
This is the type of "debunking" I love. He wasn't a MEMBER of ACORN, he simply was responsible for FUNNELING MONEY TO IT, and TRAINING IT'S MEMBERS. Not really a difference with distinction, but rather the kind of phony 'fact checking' that is the best rebuttal Obama's apologists can muster.

....fabricated numbers for the Global Poverty Act, "Muslim" rumors that turn out to be completely fabricated, and on and on).
I'll give you the "Muslin" rumors. Not true. He actually belongs to a radical leftist "black liberation" church that preaches hate for America and distrust of white people. Or, at least he did before his opponents started telling everyone about it. Just another one of those things that Obama had to stop doing if he wanted to get elected. Another group or person he had to throw under the bus once he realized that their existence would prove to be a stumbling block to his rise to power.

You guys should be able to find something direct. Why are you unable to do so?
Bahwhahaha. Funny man....you're a funny man.
     
Gee-Man
Senior User
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2008, 11:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
I asked the question, then answered it. The media isn't doing it's job
Conspiracy! The Librul media strikes again!

Is that what his books are about? Are there obviously conservative or moderate passages in the books?

What we do know is who he chose to associate with politically and what causes he chose to work on. Both where radical leftist in nature. From Bill Ayers to his work with ACORN and CAC, it all revolved around far-left political activism. Not the moderate, reasonable consensus builder he claims to be.
So, you have no direct quotes from his books to enlighten us with claims of radicalism, so you try to change the subject to his "associations". Noted.

Was voting to allow comprehensive sex-ed to Kindergarteners not enough for you?
That was throughly and decisively debunked, by not only all mainstream news sources, but even by Republicans. Even Karl Rove said that one "went too far". Everybody who isn't a Republican water-carrier knows that bill was designed to prevent sexual predators from victimizing children.

You and McCain are the only ones who believe the claptrap that Obama wants to teach kindergarteners how to f*ck. Noted.

Actually, I take some of this back - even McCain doesn't believe this. He's only trying to get elected President of the United States, so he's willing to say stupid shyte as long as it increases his chances.

What's your excuse?

He praised Bill Ayers support for teaching children left-wing political activism.
WTF does this mean? Do you have any actual links or information about this, or is this more completely pulled-from-the-ass right-wing nonsense?

Inform us about the "radical" ideas, specifically, that Obama himself is/has directly supported, or STFU. You haven't done so, so you're back to "associations" again. Noted. Next point:

He's a wacko liberal, but that doesn't mean he's stupid.
More "he's HIDING from us! Only I can see what's not there!" nonsense. Again, I'm asking for direct evidence from Obama himself. You haven't provided it.

He's spent the last several years lying about his past
No evidence. Your opinion, yet not backed up by anything specific.

and reinventing himself into something he thinks can get elected.
Your opinion, yet not backed up by anything specific.

He's talked out of both sides of his mouth depending on who the audience is
Your opinion, yet not backed up by anything specific.

and lied about his past as a member of the Chicago radical leftist community, even belonging to a socialist organization.
More evidence-free ranting. And back on the associations thing again instead of direct evidence, just like I said originally.

I'd say all that is an example of pretty radical behavior.
"All that"? All what? You haven't provided a single link or substantive piece of evidence, only a string of fact-free opinions about someone you already have made clear to us that you don't like. Nothing to back it up, once again.

See above. Obama has spent his life in radical liberalistic endeavors. The evidence has been provided.
You've written a lot of words, but no evidence. No links, no specific information. So again, nothing direct from Obama.

This is the type of "debunking" I love. He wasn't a MEMBER of ACORN, he simply was responsible for FUNNELING MONEY TO IT, and TRAINING IT'S MEMBERS. Not really a difference with distinction, but rather the kind of phony 'fact checking' that is the best rebuttal Obama's apologists can muster.
Like I said, debunked. Including the funneling money and training members part.

http://fightthesmears.com/articles/20/acornrumor
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/1..._n_132098.html

I'll give you the "Muslin" rumors. Not true. He actually belongs to a radical leftist "black liberation" church that preaches hate for America and distrust of white people. Or, at least he did before his opponents started telling everyone about it. Just another one of those things that Obama had to stop doing if he wanted to get elected. Another group or person he had to throw under the bus once he realized that their existence would prove to be a stumbling block to his rise to power.
Most right-wingers really have no idea what that church was about. But it's true, Obama was forced to leave his church because people like you wouldn't leave the subject alone, and still can't. It's too bad, really, since it wasn't what it appeared to be, but understandable.

McCain had his pastor problem too - he had to disavow somebody he had actively sought an endorsement from after it was discovered he had said some offensive things. So it goes in presidential politics, guilt by association is the order of the day for partisans everywhere.

Bahwhahaha. Funny man....you're a funny man.
What's hilarious is that you seem to think all that BS you posted is actually "evidence". That word does not mean what you think it means.
( Last edited by Gee-Man; Oct 9, 2008 at 12:14 AM. )
     
stupendousman  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2008, 07:01 AM
 
So, you have no direct quotes from his books to enlighten us with claims of radicalism, so you try to change the subject to his "associations". Noted.
I have no desire to read one the memoirs of someone who hasn't even been in higher political office for more than a couple of years. You can figure out his ideology by observing his actions and his choices. Words are cheap. Especially when you are crafting the words in order to attract the widest audience to get votes. Words are marketing, actions speak louder.

We know that according to "his words" he worked on "education reform" with Ayers, when in fact they decided to used CAC money to pay off ACORN (a noted vote fraud and home mortgage shakedown group), hatemonger Rev. Wright's church and experimental schools whose standards where that student left-wing political activism was more important than doing well in math and science. CAC was eventually shut down because it was found to have achieved "little impact on school improvement and student outcomes," its final report stated. He did talk about that in his books....right? Or was he leaving out all the stuff that could be used against him later that he thought he could just lie about or use euphemisms to cover up?

That was throughly and decisively debunked, by not only all mainstream news sources, but even by Republicans. Even Karl Rove said that one "went too far". Everybody who isn't a Republican water-carrier knows that bill was designed to prevent sexual predators from victimizing children.
No, everyone does not know this and it was not "debunked". We went over this here and it was shown that the law did exactly what I claimed, and Obama voted for it (regardless of what he now claims where his reasons). This sort of law is exactly the type of leftist radical policy that Obama's friend Bill Ayers would be proud of. The fact is that Obama supported a LOT of crazy education ideas, a lot of which came from Ayers. Ideas that would later to be found to have achieved "little impact on school improvement and student outcomes." I don't trust Obama's word in this regard anymore. He's either lied or distorted his record too many times to cover the record of his radical past.

WTF does this mean? Do you have any actual links or information about this, or is this more completely pulled-from-the-ass right-wing nonsense?
Obama and Ayers Pushed Radicalism On Schools - WSJ.com

Inform us about the "radical" ideas, specifically, that Obama himself is/has directly supported, or STFU. You haven't done so, so you're back to "associations" again. Noted. Next point:
See above. Ayers wasn't really interested in "reform", he was interested in political indoctrination. Obama was his guy to get it done.

No evidence. Your opinion, yet not backed up by anything specific.
How many specifics do you require? I've already shown that Obama has lied about his links to Ayers and hasn't been forthcoming about what it was that CAC did while he worked for them. The foundation themselves said that Ayers and Obama's efforts had little "impact on school improvement and student outcomes."

Your opinion, yet not backed up by anything specific.
His "clinging to religion and guns" in one speech to liberals, while claiming common ground with christians and gun owners in others comes to mind.

More evidence-free ranting. And back on the associations thing again instead of direct evidence, just like I said originally.
I'm glad to post citations whenever you directly refute a point. It's not that hard. The problem is that once I do, you move on to the next point and then claim I never provide "evidence" as if I didn't just prove my point via direct citation. As if it never even happened....

Power Line

You've written a lot of words, but no evidence. No links, no specific information. So again, nothing direct from Obama.
Your complete inability to read is noted.


Like I said, debunked. Including the funneling money and training members part.

Fight the Smears: Barack Obama Never Organized with ACORN
Smears Contradicted: Obama Organizing Work Was Not With ACORN
Like I said, more dishonest spin. The gist of your links is that since he never received a paycheck from ACORN itself, but instead worked for an affiliated organization which DID train ACORN member, that the accusation that he trained these people is false. DOES NOT COMPUTE. It doesn't matter WHO paid him or who he was working for. What matters is WHAT THE GOAL WAS, and it is exactly as it has been claimed.

This is a classic example of refuting a strawman, then saying the original claim has been "debunked". I'm sorry, but that simply doesn't work with intelligent people. This is the sort of phony baloney Obama has been throwing out to cover-up his past. The fact that it's clear that you are not intelligent enough to parse it, or dishonest enough to forward as fact shows that he didn't overestimate his audience when choosing to take this dishonest tact.

Most right-wingers really have no idea what that church was about. But it's true, Obama was forced to leave his church because people like you wouldn't leave the subject alone, and still can't. It's too bad, really, since it wasn't what it appeared to be, but understandable.
No, Obama was forced to leave when it was proven that his pastor was a rabid anti-Amerca hate monger, and he had to repudiate his old friend for political gain just as he's had to do Ayers. If it "wasn't what it appeared to be", then he wouldn't have had to claim that what his pastor was preaching was wrong.

McCain had his pastor problem too - he had to disavow somebody he had actively sought an endorsement from after it was discovered he had said some offensive things.
True. The difference is that the pastor in question was not McCain's long-time "spiritual advisor", didn't marry him, didn't belong to his church for years, didn't sit in his pews listening to his sermons only later to throw the guy under the bus. It's all about perspective. McCain dumped the guy who he really didn't know the minute he found out he wasn't shooting straight, the same as he did with Keating. Obama spends YEARS with these folks and knows exactly where they stand and only throws them under the bus after it's clear that they will hurt his chances of getting elected.

What's hilarious is that you seem to think all that BS you posted is actually "evidence". That word does not mean what you think it means.
It means exactly what I think it means. It doesn't mean setting up strawman arguments then knocking them down dishonestly, then claiming "no evidence".
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2008, 07:26 AM
 
Originally Posted by Gee-Man View Post
Link? And please spare me the Huffington Post or other wacko left-wing blogs - I need something verifiable.
fixinated
Here ya go, good ole verifiable CNN http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wI7pUMbaINI though Anderson Vanderbilt tries to spin.

Oh, BTW he's really Irish
     
tie
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2008, 08:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
I have no desire to read one the memoirs of someone who hasn't even been in higher political office for more than a couple of years. You can figure out his ideology by observing his actions and his choices. Words are cheap. Especially when you are crafting the words in order to attract the widest audience to get votes. Words are marketing, actions speak louder.
Read them. This is a democracy, and voters have the responsibility to get to know the candidates. What are you doing starting threads entitled "Who is Barack Obama?" when you haven't done even the barest amount of research first?

Also, not to beat a dead horse, but you'd do well to look up the Wikipedia pages for the Nobel prize. I'm still waiting for any evidence for the fictional post you made the other day.
The 4 o'clock train will be a bus.
It will depart at 20 minutes to 5.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:48 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,