�
 |
|
 |
|
|
| Obama's Ties to Ayers/Annenberg Challenge/ACORN - Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next |
| View previous topic
:: View next topic |
Need2Know
 Posted:
Tue Aug 26, 2008 3:45 pm |
|
|
|
| yankee-in-france wrote: |
That is not what I am saying. I think that it is very possible to interpret the Constitution consistent with today's world. Slavery was legal, women and minorities did not have the right to vote, segregation, etc. If the Constitution was strictly interpreted without regard to the times, those laws would still be the law of the land. Why aren't they? |
That is why we have amendments, don't we?
|
|
N2K
Joined: 06 Jul 2006
Posts: 11344
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
| yankee-in-france
Posted:
Tue Aug 26, 2008 3:51 pm |
|
|
|
| Need2Know wrote: |
That is why we have amendments, don't we? |
Yes, but not every case need end up with an amendment especially where there are ambiguities in the wording of the Constitution.
|
|
YIF
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 10488
Location: France
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| dithers
Posted:
Tue Aug 26, 2008 3:59 pm |
|
|
|
| yankee-in-france wrote: |
We all have friends and acquaintances and there are many distinctions within those two classes. |
Here's the big difference. We aren't running for POTUS.
Additionally, if I was introduced to someone and knew in advance that they had bombed the Pentagon I would not get involved with them in any way, shape or form. If for no other reason than to protect my own hide from danger, blackmail, govt. scrutiny, etc. but mostly on moral and ethical grounds.
|
|
Deactivated by User's request
Joined: 17 Apr 2006
Posts: 5037
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| yankee-in-france
Posted:
Tue Aug 26, 2008 4:26 pm |
|
|
|
| dithers wrote: |
Here's the big difference. We aren't running for POTUS.
Additionally, if I was introduced to someone and knew in advance that they had bombed the Pentagon I would not get involved with them in any way, shape or form. If for no other reason than to protect my own hide from danger, blackmail, govt. scrutiny, etc. but mostly on moral and ethical grounds. |
Again, where is the proof that they are bosom buddies? Patty Hearst broke laws but people embrace her now. Oh, right, she isn't running for the presidency.
No matter what Obama does, for some there will be nothing but criticism.
|
|
YIF
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 10488
Location: France
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| dithers
Posted:
Tue Aug 26, 2008 4:31 pm |
|
|
|
| yankee-in-france wrote: |
Again, where is the proof that they are bosom buddies? Patty Hearst broke laws but people embrace her now. Oh, right, she isn't running for the presidency.
No matter what Obama does, for some there will be nothing but criticism. |
Oops. Did I miss something? Was Ayers kidnapped and held in a closet and raped and told repeatedly that he'd be executed? Does Patty Hearst say that she doesn't regret what she did and would do it again?
Last edited by dithers on Tue Aug 26, 2008 4:41 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
Deactivated by User's request
Joined: 17 Apr 2006
Posts: 5037
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| yankee-in-france
Posted:
Tue Aug 26, 2008 4:41 pm |
|
|
|
| dithers wrote: |
Oops. Did I miss something? Was Obama kidnapped and held in a closet and raped and told repeatedly that he'd be executed? |
That didn't count with her jury, did it?
I am not talking about Obama but Ayers.
See you tomorrow.
|
|
YIF
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 10488
Location: France
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Phantom
Posted:
Wed Aug 27, 2008 8:12 am |
|
|
|
Have you ever been a friend or business associate of a terrorist?
Have you ever been a friend or business associate of a terrorist? Not someone who, to your shock and horror, turned out secretly to have bombed government buildings. No, the question is whether you’ve ever befriended an unreconstructed radical whose past was well known to you when you entered his orbit and walked through doors he opened for you. Have you been chummy with an unapologetic terrorist who, years after you’d known and worked closely with him, was still telling the New York Times he regretted only failing to carry out more attacks — and that America still “makes me want to puke”?
Barack Obama has.
An organization called the American Issues Project, backed by Dallas investor Harold Simmons, is running a campaign ad which highlights Obama’s troubling relationship with William Ayers. Ayers is a former member of the Weathermen terrorist organization that bombed the Pentagon, the U.S. Capitol, various police headquarters, and other targets in the early 1970s.
The Obama campaign’s rejoinder is three-pronged: The first shot was an Obama response ad, which fails to offer any substantive explanation of why Obama maintains ties to Ayers. Obama’s second move was to launch a heavy-handed effort to pressure television stations into rejecting the ad by promising financial retaliation against the stations and their advertisers — which effort has apparently succeeded in intimidating Fox and CNN. The capper is a desperate call for the Justice Department to muzzle political speech through the prospect of a criminal investigation — a demand that provides a disturbing sneak peak into what life would be like under an Obama Justice Department.
Needless to say, none of this is justified. If Obama has a good explanation for his ties to Ayers, he ought to give it. In the meantime, raising questions about that relationship is entirely legitimate.
Obama’s campaign has acknowledged that the candidate and Ayers are friends. Though Obama has more recently minimized Ayers as “just a guy who lives in my neighborhood,” it is clear that the relationship was much deeper than that. Ayers and his fellow-terrorist wife, Bernadine Dohrn (who have spoken admiringly of the infamous Manson Family murders), are icons in Chicago’s hard-left circles, to which Obama sought entrée as a young “community organizer.” In 1995, they hosted a fundraiser that helped launch his career in Chicago politics.
Ayers has never abandoned his indictment of America as an imperialist hotbed of racism and economic exploitation. He has merely shifted methods from violent extortion to academic indoctrination. Through his perch as a professor of education at the University of Illinois, he has been a ceaseless critic of the criminal-justice system (he is essentially opposed to imprisoning even the most violent criminals) and a proponent of what he calls “education reform” but what is actually the use of the classroom to proselytize for the Left’s political agenda.
Writing in the Chicago Tribune in 1997, Obama called A Kind and Just Parent, Ayers’ polemic on the Chicago court system, “a searing and timely account.” Michelle Obama, then a dean at the University of Illinois, invited Ayers to participate in a panel with her husband, then a state senator who, the program explained, was “working to block proposed legislation that would throw more juvenile offenders into the adult system.”
Obama apologists dismiss all this as “guilt by association” based on a single joint appearance. But it was far from the only one.
In fact, by 1997 Obama and Ayers were collaborators on a far more significant level. They sat together for several years on the board of the Woods Fund, a left-wing Chicago charitable organization. There, they doled out tens of thousands of dollars to such beneficiaries as the Trinity Church (where Obama was a longtime member and where another Obama mentor, Jeremiah Wright, preached a radical, anti-American brand of Black Liberation Theology) and the Arab American Action Network (co-founded by Rashid Khalidi, a Yasser Arafat apologist who has supported attacks against Israel and now directs Columbia University’s notorious Middle East Institute, founded by Edward Said).
Even more intriguing, in 1995 Ayers won a $49.2 million grant from the Annenberg Foundation — matched two-to-one by public and private contributions — to promote “reform” in the Chicago school system. He quickly brought in Obama, then all of 33 and bereft of any executive experience, to chair the board. With Ayers directing the project’s operational arm and Obama overseeing its financial affairs until 1999, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge distributed more than $100 million to ideological allies with no discernible improvement in public education.
Until this week, moreover, the University of Illinois at Chicago, where Ayers works, was blocking access to the project’s files (examination of which was being sought by frequent National Review contributor Stanley Kurtz), until finally relenting under public pressure. Less than three months from Election Day, analysis of the records from Barack Obama’s only significant executive experience is just beginning.
The mainstream media has been derelict on the Obama/Ayers relationship. Perhaps now, finally, it will get the scrutiny it deserves.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDI4YzUyYmI1ZjA1OWUzMDA5ZDIzNTI4NTk5ZmYwYWY=
|
|
Joined: 05 Jun 2006
Posts: 3332
Location: My only friend, the end
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| yankee-in-france
Posted:
Wed Aug 27, 2008 8:49 am |
|
|
|
| dithers wrote: | | Quote: | "yankee-in-france"]
Obama was not offered up by the black community or anyone else. He is not there to be the best black president. He wants to be the best president for these times.
I have not heard any oozing of contempt for America by either Barack or Michelle. I believe that there are people who are flooding the internet with malicious rumors and twisted facts for no other reason but to scare the hell out of Americans and defeat his candidacy.
What -- get Supreme Court justices on the bench that would endanger the country with Joe Biden as vice-president. You must be kidding. He would bork everyone of them. |
And that's something to be proud of? What an embarrassment.
Besides do you really think that the VP would have any say in who was nominated to the Supreme Court? |
Dithers, I happened to read this article in the NY Times this morning relating to the Bork matter which I thought that you and others might find interesting.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/27/opinion/27rosen.html?th&emc=th
|
|
YIF
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 10488
Location: France
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Phantom
Posted:
Wed Aug 27, 2008 9:47 am |
|
|
|
Bill Ayers: Unrepentant LYING Terrorist
In that Fox interview that Rich linked to, Ayers preposterously claimed that he and his fellow Weather Underground terrorists did not really intend to harm any people — the fact that no one was killed in their 20 or so bombings was, he said, "by design"; they only wanted to cause property damage:
Between October 1969 and September 1973, the Weather Underground claimed credit for some twenty bombings across the country, in which no one was harmed — save the three cell members who perished in a Greenwich Village townhouse in March 1970, when one of their creations detonated prematurely.Ayers claimed the fact that no other individuals were killed as a result of the Weathermen’s actions was “by design.”
In his autobiography, Fugitive Days: A Memoir, Ayers recalled, he posed the question: “How far are you willing to take that step into what I consider the abyss of violence? And we really never did, except for that moment in the townhouse.… I actually think destroying property in the face of that kind of catastrophe is so — restrained. And I don’t see it as a big deal.
Right.
First of all, "that moment in the townhouse" he's talking about happened in 1970. Three of his confederates, including his then girlfriend Diana Oughton, were accidentally killed when the explosive they were building to Ayers specifications (Ayers was a bomb designer) went off during construction. As noted in Ayers' Discover the Networks profile, the explosive had been a nail bomb(Including nails into a bomb makes it an anti-personal bomb, meant to kill and maim people). Back when Ayers was being more honest about his intentions, he admitted that the purpose of that bomb had been to murder United States soldiers:
That bomb had been intended for detonation at a dance that was to be attended by army soldiers at Fort Dix, New Jersey. Hundreds of lives could have been lost had the plan been successfully executed. Ayers attested that the bomb would have done serious damage, "tearing through windows and walls and, yes, people too."
In fact, Ayers was a founder of the Weatherman terror group and he defined its purpose as carrying out murder. Again, from Discover the Networks:
Characterizing Weatherman as "an American Red Army," Ayers summed up the organization's ideology as follows: "Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, Kill your parents."
Now he wants you to think they just wanted to break a few dishes. But in his book Fugitive Days, in which he boasts that he "participated in the bombings of New York City Police Headquarters in 1970, of the Capitol building in 1971, and the Pentagon in 1972," says of the day that he bombed the Pentagon: "Everything was absolutely ideal. ... The sky was blue. The birds were singing. And the bastards were finally going to get what was coming to them."
And he wasn't singular. As I noted back in April in this article about Obama's motley collection of radical friends, the Weatherman “War Council” meeting in 1969, Ayers' fellow terrorist and now-wife, Bernadine Dohrn, famously gushed over the barbaric Manson Family murders of the pregnant actress Sharon Tate, coffee heiress Abigail Folger, and three others: “Dig it! First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them. They even shoved a fork into the victim’s stomach! Wild!” And as Jonah recalled yesterday, "In appreciation, her Weather Underground cell made a threefingered “fork” gesture its official salute." They weren't talking about scratching up the wall-paper.
eatherman affiliate group which called itself "the Family" colluded with the Black Liberation Army in the 1981 Brinks robbery in which two police officers and an armed guard were murdered. (Obama would like people to believe all this terrorist activity ended in 1969 when he was eight years old. In fact, it continued well into the eighties.) Afterwards, like Ayers and Dohrn, their friend and fellow terrorist Susan Rosenberg became a fugitive.
On November 29, 1984, Rosenberg and a co-conspirator, Timothy Blunk, were finally apprehended in Cherry Hill, New Jersey. At the time, they were actively planning an unspeakable bombing campaign that would have put at risk the lives of countless innocent people. They also possessed twelve assorted guns (including an Uzi 9 mm. semi-automatic rifle and an Ithaca twelve-gauge shotgun with its barrel sawed off), nearly 200 sticks of dynamite, more than 100 sticks of DuPont Trovex (a high explosive), a wide array of blasting agents and caps, batteries, and switches for explosive devices. Arrayed in disguises and offering multiple false identities to arresting officers, the pair also maintained hundreds of false identification documents, including FBI and DEA badges.
When she was sentenced to 58 years' imprisonment in 1985, the only remorse Rosenberg expressed was over the fact that she and Blunk had allowed themselves to be captured rather than fighting it out with the police. Bernadine Dohrn was jailed for contempt when she refused to testify against Rosenberg. Not to worry, though. On his last day in office, the last Democrat president, Bill Clinton, pardoned Rosenberg — commuting her 58-year sentence to time-served.
These savages wanted to kill massively. That they killed only a few people owes to our luck and their incompetence, not design. They and the Democrat politicians who now befriend and serve them can rationalize that all they want. But those are the facts.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODk2ZTRmZDIwNWEzOWE2MDNhMTQ0ZWYwYmRiNWZmNDM=
|
|
Joined: 05 Jun 2006
Posts: 3332
Location: My only friend, the end
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Need2Know
Posted:
Wed Aug 27, 2008 10:02 am |
|
|
|
| yankee-in-france wrote: |
Again, where is the proof that they are bosom buddies? Patty Hearst broke laws but people embrace her now. Oh, right, she isn't running for the presidency.
No matter what Obama does, for some there will be nothing but criticism. |
There is plenty of proof that they are close enough. Is this okay as well? Should we not consider that either. Obama is running for a pretty important job, wouldn't you say? What do you think MSM would be doing with this story if it were McCain or any other Republican?
|
|
N2K
Joined: 06 Jul 2006
Posts: 11344
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Phantom
Posted:
Wed Aug 27, 2008 10:09 am |
|
|
|
| Need2Know wrote: |
There is plenty of proof that they are close enough. Is this okay as well? Should we not consider that either. Obama is running for a pretty important job, wouldn't you say? What do you think MSM would be doing with this story if it were McCain or any other Republican? |
There wouldn't be enough time, paper or ink if it was McCain or any other Republican.
|
|
Joined: 05 Jun 2006
Posts: 3332
Location: My only friend, the end
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| dithers
Posted:
Wed Aug 27, 2008 10:16 am |
|
|
|
| Quote: | yankee-in-france wrote:
Again, where is the proof that they are bosom buddies? Patty Hearst broke laws but people embrace her now. Oh, right, she isn't running for the presidency.
No matter what Obama does, for some there will be nothing but criticism. |
I saw this earlier today and thought the poster summed it up pretty well.
| Quote: | Obama himself doesn’t think there was anything wrong with being friends with Ayers.
Sure, naturally. But what if Timothy McVeigh had gotten off on a technicality, and was now a college professor in Chicago. What if Mohammad Atta never got on that flight, got off on a technicality, and was teaching in Chicago?
Now, you might think the government was wrong about Waco, or wrong about supporting Israel, or whatever. Terrorists always have their reasons. But politicians? At what point does killing other Americans to make a political point become out of bounds for liberals? At what point does being friends with terrorists become a problem?
Liberals are okay with associating with terrorists, so long as they bloodied their hands for liberal causes. THAT's the disconnect.
What conservative here would serve McVeigh to jump start their political career, had he been acquitted due to FBI misconduct? I'm guessing absolutely no one. Think about that. |
|
|
Deactivated by User's request
Joined: 17 Apr 2006
Posts: 5037
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| yankee-in-france
Posted:
Wed Aug 27, 2008 11:11 am |
|
|
|
| dithers wrote: | | Quote: | yankee-in-france wrote:
Again, where is the proof that they are bosom buddies? Patty Hearst broke laws but people embrace her now. Oh, right, she isn't running for the presidency.
No matter what Obama does, for some there will be nothing but criticism. |
I saw this earlier today and thought the poster summed it up pretty well.
| Quote: | Obama himself doesn’t think there was anything wrong with being friends with Ayers.
Sure, naturally. But what if Timothy McVeigh had gotten off on a technicality, and was now a college professor in Chicago. What if Mohammad Atta never got on that flight, got off on a technicality, and was teaching in Chicago?
Now, you might think the government was wrong about Waco, or wrong about supporting Israel, or whatever. Terrorists always have their reasons. But politicians? At what point does killing other Americans to make a political point become out of bounds for liberals? At what point does being friends with terrorists become a problem?
Liberals are okay with associating with terrorists, so long as they bloodied their hands for liberal causes. THAT's the disconnect.
What conservative here would serve McVeigh to jump start their political career, had he been acquitted due to FBI misconduct? I'm guessing absolutely no one. Think about that. | |
Oh my, all the what ifs. Look, I think that people do change but can also rationalize their prior misdeeds. Actually, if McCain had some connection to Ayers, MSM wouldn't go near it. It is because of McCain's longtime respectability that they wouldn't dare start insinuating what people are about Obama. Obama hasn't been on the stage long enough to establish his respectability so he is fodder for all the twisted facts and innuendo that abound.
Liberals are not known to condone murder or attempted murder to further liberal causes. We may not be perfect but we are not complacent about violence.
The 60s was a violent decade, no doubt, and America IMO lost its innocence forever. One thing I know is that I will never apologize for protesting the Viet Nam War through legitimate dissent. It too was a war that should never have started, but there was a paranoid administration that was just as reckless and lawless as Ayers. Tell me, what do you think of those who organized the Kent State massacre and the leaders who approved it. What about them?
|
|
YIF
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 10488
Location: France
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Phantom
Posted:
Wed Aug 27, 2008 11:21 am |
|
|
|
| yankee-in-france wrote: | | Actually, if McCain had some connection to Ayers, MSM wouldn't go near it. It is because of McCain's longtime respectability that they wouldn't dare start insinuating what people are about Obama |
Oh Really? Is that why the NYT published a front page story about McCain having an affair with a lobbyist or aide when all they had was anonymous sources telling them about the affair?
|
|
Joined: 05 Jun 2006
Posts: 3332
Location: My only friend, the end
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Phantom
Posted:
Wed Aug 27, 2008 11:29 am |
|
|
|
| yankee-in-france wrote: | | Liberals are not known to condone murder or attempted murder to further liberal causes. We may not be perfect but we are not complacent about violence. |
I guess you didn't read the story I posted above that the bomb that Ayers designed and accidently blew up in NYC was meant to kill and maim as many as possible at a dance in Fort Dix, NJ?
| yankee-in-france wrote: | | The 60s was a violent decade, no doubt, and America IMO lost its innocence forever. One thing I know is that I will never apologize for protesting the Viet Nam War through legitimate dissent. It too was a war that should never have started, but there was a paranoid administration that was just as reckless and lawless as Ayers. Tell me, what do you think of those who organized the Kent State massacre and the leaders who approved it. What about them? |
I have no problems with peaceful legimate dissent, but that wasn't what Ayers was about.
And maybe you should reread history, because the U.S. involvement escalated in the early 1960s and combat units were deployed begining in 1965.
Which party was in power then?
|
|
Joined: 05 Jun 2006
Posts: 3332
Location: My only friend, the end
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Need2Know
Posted:
Wed Aug 27, 2008 11:30 am |
|
|
|
| yankee-in-france wrote: |
Oh my, all the what ifs. Look, I think that people do change but can also rationalize their prior misdeeds. Actually, if McCain had some connection to Ayers, MSM wouldn't go near it. It is because of McCain's longtime respectability that they wouldn't dare start insinuating what people are about Obama. Obama hasn't been on the stage long enough to establish his respectability so he is fodder for all the twisted facts and innuendo that abound.
Liberals are not known to condone murder or attempted murder to further liberal causes. We may not be perfect but we are not complacent about violence.
The 60s was a violent decade, no doubt, and America IMO lost its innocence forever. One thing I know is that I will never apologize for protesting the Viet Nam War through legitimate dissent. It too was a war that should never have started, but there was a paranoid administration that was just as reckless and lawless as Ayers. Tell me, what do you think of those who organized the Kent State massacre and the leaders who approved it. What about them? |
Sorry to say this my friend YIFFY, but you skirted the real heart and question of this issue pretty well, just like your candidate Obama is famous for doing. Yes, people change, but Ayers has not taken any of that back and is actually pretty proud of it.
Here comes my rant: If it were up to me, I'd take his sorry ass and put him on a plane to a true Terrorist country where he would not be protected to rant about all the ills of his government and have people like me and many others go into harm's way and lose limbs and lives to protect the very freedom that this asshole feels he can protest with violence. His citizenship should have been stripped and his sorry ass placed in the desert and than see how vocal and truly brave he is to "stand up" for his ideals. I would do that to all terrorists who are American that attack any other Americans or institutions.
Okay, back to civility 
|
|
N2K
Joined: 06 Jul 2006
Posts: 11344
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Phantom
Posted:
Wed Aug 27, 2008 11:36 am |
|
|
|
| Need2Know wrote: |
Sorry to say this my friend YIFFY, but you skirted the real heart and question of this issue pretty well, just like your candidate Obama is famous for doing. Yes, people change, but Ayers has not taken any of that back and is actually pretty proud of it.
Here comes my rant: If it were up to me, I'd take his sorry ass and put him on a plane to a true Terrorist country where he would not be protected to rant about all the ills of his government and have people like me and many others go into harm's way and lose limbs and lives to protect the very freedom that this asshole feels he can protest with violence. His citizenship should have been stripped and his sorry ass placed in the desert and than see how vocal and truly brave he is to "stand up" for his ideals. I would do that to all terrorists who are American that attack any other Americans or institutions.
Okay, back to civility |
BRAVO N2K, BRAVO!
|
|
Joined: 05 Jun 2006
Posts: 3332
Location: My only friend, the end
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| yankee-in-france
Posted:
Wed Aug 27, 2008 12:39 pm |
|
|
|
| Need2Know wrote: |
Sorry to say this my friend YIFFY, but you skirted the real heart and question of this issue pretty well, just like your candidate Obama is famous for doing. Yes, people change, but Ayers has not taken any of that back and is actually pretty proud of it.
Here comes my rant: If it were up to me, I'd take his sorry ass and put him on a plane to a true Terrorist country where he would not be protected to rant about all the ills of his government and have people like me and many others go into harm's way and lose limbs and lives to protect the very freedom that this asshole feels he can protest with violence. His citizenship should have been stripped and his sorry ass placed in the desert and than see how vocal and truly brave he is to "stand up" for his ideals. I would do that to all terrorists who are American that attack any other Americans or institutions.
Okay, back to civility |
You are right, but they didn't strip his citizenship or do anything to him which probably contributed to his sense of pride in what he did. I am not voting for Ayers. There are other fine people working in that organization and talking to him. Why can't Obama? I am not voting for Ayers.
|
|
YIF
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 10488
Location: France
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Need2Know
Posted:
Wed Aug 27, 2008 12:53 pm |
|
|
|
| yankee-in-france wrote: |
You are right, but they didn't strip his citizenship or do anything to him which probably contributed to his sense of pride in what he did. I am not voting for Ayers. There are other fine people working in that organization and talking to him. Why can't Obama? I am not voting for Ayers. |
I guess we still disagree. "other fine people" and "talking" to him is not the possible POTUS who considers him a friend and has even defended him in the past. Obama is being exposed, like it or not and hopefully many more will awaken to reality of his complete inability to lead this country. What do you have to say about Biden and Hillary both being on the recored saying Obama IS NOT qualified, yes, they said NOT QUALIFIED to be POTUS yet there they are now "supporting" him? There are so many things wrong with Obama's lack of true leadership, experience and qualifications that it really is not difficult to come up with them.
|
|
N2K
Joined: 06 Jul 2006
Posts: 11344
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| yankee-in-france
Posted:
Wed Aug 27, 2008 1:49 pm |
|
|
|
Look at the alternative. McCain is a nice man, I believe. America cannot take another four years of neocon policies.
|
|
YIF
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 10488
Location: France
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Need2Know
Posted:
Wed Aug 27, 2008 1:56 pm |
|
|
|
| yankee-in-france wrote: | | Look at the alternative. McCain is a nice man, I believe. America cannot take another four years of neocon policies. |
America will do fine with or without McCain or Obama but with what I know so far, as for me and hopefully for millions upon millions of others, McCain, although far from ideal, is a much better choice than Obama.
|
|
N2K
Joined: 06 Jul 2006
Posts: 11344
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| pax
Posted:
Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:44 pm |
|
|
|
| Need2Know wrote: |
Sorry to say this my friend YIFFY, but you skirted the real heart and question of this issue pretty well, just like your candidate Obama is famous for doing. Yes, people change, but Ayers has not taken any of that back and is actually pretty proud of it.
Here comes my rant: If it were up to me, I'd take his sorry ass and put him on a plane to a true Terrorist country where he would not be protected to rant about all the ills of his government and have people like me and many others go into harm's way and lose limbs and lives to protect the very freedom that this asshole feels he can protest with violence. His citizenship should have been stripped and his sorry ass placed in the desert and than see how vocal and truly brave he is to "stand up" for his ideals. I would do that to all terrorists who are American that attack any other Americans or institutions.
Okay, back to civility |
Me too. Then I think of my grandfather who sacrificed his life to defeat fascism. Democracy isn't easy, but I prefer it.
|
|
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 20573
Location: No H8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| pax
Posted:
Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:49 pm |
|
|
|
| yankee-in-france wrote: |
If all this information was true and correct, and the onus by these articles was not being placed on Obama to prove his innocence, I may feel differently. It seems that article after article is being written to smear Obama via innuendo as opposed to inform the voters of the truth. |
I agree, and feel it's partly because the authoritarian right does not want to debate policy because the contradictions inherent in their policy are disastrous for the large majority of the American people. So they call everything with which they disagree 'liberal' and convince themselves they are 'winning' a debate.
|
|
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 20573
Location: No H8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Need2Know
Posted:
Thu Aug 28, 2008 8:12 am |
|
|
|
| pax wrote: |
I agree, and feel it's partly because the authoritarian right does not want to debate policy because the contradictions inherent in their policy are disastrous for the large majority of the American people. So they call everything with which they disagree 'liberal' and convince themselves they are 'winning' a debate. |
Great, but Obama is still not qualified to lead this country as president.
|
|
N2K
Joined: 06 Jul 2006
Posts: 11344
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| pax
Posted:
Thu Aug 28, 2008 10:36 am |
|
|
|
| Need2Know wrote: |
Great, but Obama is still not qualified to lead this country as president. |
The 'not qualified' argument isn't persuasive. Many said women weren't qualified to vote in the 1920's, blacks weren't qualified to vote in the 1950's and Bill Clinton wasn't qualified in the 1990's. They were wrong. Barack Obama is better qualified to lead this country than his opponent, who abandoned his maverick status and endorses the same bad policies of the current Administration, imo.
|
|
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 20573
Location: No H8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
�
Jasidogdotcom template v.1.0.4 © jasidog.com
Powered by phpBB
© 2001, 2004 phpBB Group
|
