Palin makes Obama terrorist claim
- Thread starter vinondan
- Start date
-
- Tags
- sarah palin
Sorry ...
If anything, it undermines people who take a responsible, positive way to protesting something.
It also produces far better results if you take responsible, positive actions against something.
I mean, there's nothing easier to use "against" protesters than the one that goes "outside the bounds."
Or don't you understand how W. was able to make the Iraq - Terrorist connection in the minds of some?
A lot of the anti-W. crowd were lumping all of the issues of Iraq and 9/11 into the same boat.
Pick your battles, not the man (or woman) to battle with.
It's the difference between "politics" and actual "leadership."
Politicians argue with people over platforms and "just because" they are not their party.
Leaders actually argue independent of politics, and address the individual issues.
People who blame and do all the conspiracy non-sense on 9/11 only hurt those who took issue with Iraq.
That's because they want to "hate W." and go after him on everything.
Instead of actually joining those of us who take issue with Iraq but realize 9/11 and terrorism is a real threat.
Not one that "just showed up" because W. was President, but we don't "blame Clinton" as the scapegoat either for that matter.
My father, who has 3 purple hearts as a result of 3 tours with the Marines in Vietnam, taught me to think like this.
So many people have taken Vietnam Vets to their cause, and my father can stand none of them.
I remember more recently the US Rep that said, "we were all baby killers."
My father yelled at the TV and said, "I was there 3 times longer than you and I was not! Not all of us were!"
I don't subscribe to the "the ends justifies the means."
If anything, it undermines people who take a responsible, positive way to protesting something.
It also produces far better results if you take responsible, positive actions against something.
I mean, there's nothing easier to use "against" protesters than the one that goes "outside the bounds."
Or don't you understand how W. was able to make the Iraq - Terrorist connection in the minds of some?
A lot of the anti-W. crowd were lumping all of the issues of Iraq and 9/11 into the same boat.
Pick your battles, not the man (or woman) to battle with.
It's the difference between "politics" and actual "leadership."
Politicians argue with people over platforms and "just because" they are not their party.
Leaders actually argue independent of politics, and address the individual issues.
People who blame and do all the conspiracy non-sense on 9/11 only hurt those who took issue with Iraq.
That's because they want to "hate W." and go after him on everything.
Instead of actually joining those of us who take issue with Iraq but realize 9/11 and terrorism is a real threat.
Not one that "just showed up" because W. was President, but we don't "blame Clinton" as the scapegoat either for that matter.
My father, who has 3 purple hearts as a result of 3 tours with the Marines in Vietnam, taught me to think like this.
So many people have taken Vietnam Vets to their cause, and my father can stand none of them.
I remember more recently the US Rep that said, "we were all baby killers."
My father yelled at the TV and said, "I was there 3 times longer than you and I was not! Not all of us were!"
BTW, for the few folks who STILL think that there might be something to Palin's claim that Obama is "palling around with terrorists" (or ever did), CNN - the same network that employs right-winger Glenn Beck in their primetime slot - has already debunked that silly claim. See here:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/05/fact-check-is-obama-palling-around-with-terrorists/
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/05/fact-check-is-obama-palling-around-with-terrorists/
Donkey Boy-Man are you really that stupid to try to use that only part of my sentence and call me a racist? The one thing Barrack and me share is the same skin color, read the sentence again if I it has typos the way I worded it, I really don't care if you want to make it seem like I called him "boy" then go ahead and do so for your own pleasure.
Yankeefan21325-The constant questioning of what Is Palin going to do for this country makes it sound like she is the one running for president, why should it matter? It seems not to be the issue with the two year junior senator from Ill to most people. ( I did call him junior now because that is what he is in the Senate, but I bet you someone might find that racist also). I am also impressed at your skills of breaking down does numbers for me are amazing, it's still a 8 year term by good ol W and it sure feels like he has been wayyyy to long in there more like 10 years or perharps more?
Artimus- Nah it's just than to get any stupid job these day the practically look at your myspace, pictures, friends, you know a good background check and if they don't like what they see then they don't hire you. But Obama is different he is about to be the president but his background doesn't matter because he is no punishment from the allmighty he is the Chosen One and no one can say or question anything about him because that my friend would be worse than sin. :bowdown:
YMIHERE- I guess you missed the point that Biden is old also but no one is bringing that up, because if Obama (hopefully not) gets taken out he would be the president, but it seems to be a main concern among Obama supporters the age of McCain even though they are not voting for him. That's your point since you wanted one
Sorry for calling like it is, but everyone running for president needs to be scrutinized even if they are our favorite make me feel good person or maverick.
meesterperfect
Hiliary 2020
Yeah, thats about it.
But many people get very emotional when you say anything about Obama and when you do make a valid point they then bring up something like " well two wrongs don't make a right" " He is not a terrorist" , "McCain is desperate", the always fasionable " you are a racist" or something else from left feild.
I have a direct question, is this article true or not?
because its a little more than just " He's a guy in my neighborhood" " An english teacher".
"Ayers donated 200 dollars to the Obama campaign in 2001".
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=76022
I highly question the assertion that "he would not even get a call back" if he were applying with the FBI, CIA, or a police department. I question it mostly because his connections with Ayers are trivial, and do not indicate any sort of agreement regarding Ayers's past extremism.
I have a direct answer. No, the article is not true. It is not true inasmuch as anything in the article is written in such a way as to actually BE falsifiable. It's easy to win an argument if you don't say anything that can be proven false, if you just make a bunch of underhanded and murky suggestions. The article (posted on the right-wing WorldNetDaily, a site that surely has an axe to grind in the coming election - that is, they want McCain to win just as badly as Palin and McCain do) is primarily a collection of assertions and, more often, insinuations, connected to minor pieces of "evidence" that do not actually support the assertions and insinuations in any real way. Yes, they have worked together - in a group that funded schools and educational groups. Are they "pals" or even anything more than friendly acquaintances or occasional work colleagues? No. Do they share the same opinions about extremism and terrorism or anything remotely related to those subjects? Not one shred of evidence for that. Not one shred.
And to counter your claim that "emotional" people say outrageous things when you (or whoever) confronts them with a "valid point" (and you have not), it is simply not a "left-feild" [sic] claim to say that "He (Obama) is not a terrorist." There is as much evidence of Obama being a terrorist as there is of Jay Leno being a terrorist.
Direct question back at you:
Do the people involved in the "research" about the "links" between Obama and Ayers - National Review and, to a much lesser degree, WorldNetDaily - have a direct and personal interest in smearing Obama and assisting McCain in an election victory? Are they more interested in establishing some truth about Obama, or in getting McCain elected? (Keep in mind that those outlets are even less subtle than FoxNews in their outright support for the right-wing conservative elements of the Republican Party. They are completely explicit in their support.)
breaststroker
Banned
Don't forget, folks:
- Obama is a Muslim who was educated at a Middle Eastern madrassah!
- Obama will raise your taxes to 120% of your income.
- Obama is a socialist who will terminate free market enterprise.
- Obama is a black guy who wants to fuck your daughters.
- Obama will import 150 million Mexicans to destroy American society.
... Can I have a bucket, please...?
These lies make me puke!
- Obama is a Muslim who was educated at a Middle Eastern madrassah!
- Obama will raise your taxes to 120% of your income.
- Obama is a socialist who will terminate free market enterprise.
- Obama is a black guy who wants to fuck your daughters.
- Obama will import 150 million Mexicans to destroy American society.
... Can I have a bucket, please...?
These lies make me puke!
meesterperfect
Hiliary 2020
Hmmm, so the article I posted was all lies?
Prove it.
Prove it.
meesterperfect, I already addressed the silly article that you posted above, in #87. I'll devote just a little bit more time to it, but then I'm going to let it go, as you seem to be open only to your own unique type of "facts" - the kind that are largely removed from the sphere of reality.
Let's take a look at one of the series of claims in the article:
"According to the documents, the CAC granted money to far-leftist causes, such as the radical Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN, which, WND reported, has done work on behalf of Obama's presidential campaign.
ACORN is the nation's largest community organization of low- and moderate-income families. It has held violent, disruptive protests, seeks to regulate banks, supports left-leaning education policies, is accused of working on urging partisan voter turnout for elections, and seems to promote driving businesses from cities."
My breakdown:
"...the CAC granted money to far-leftist causes" Okay, well, I need more details about these "causes". They might be liberal or even, in some way, "leftist" but what does that mean? Keep in mind that the pro-McCain forces, of which WorldNetDaily is a part, largely interpret anything to the left of FoxNews or Sean Hannity as "liberal" or "leftist." We can see now how merely asking Sarah Palin what newspapers or magazines she reads is "gotcha" journalism perpetuated by the liberally-biased mainstream media (MSM). Who's defining "far-left"? Another thing to keep in mind is that one can be far-left or liberal and not necessarily be anything like socialist or communist. There are anti-capitalists who are not socialists or communists. The world is complex don'tcha know? (sorry for the Palinism there!)
Then they go on to call ACORN "radical". Well, again, who's defining the terms. If it's WND, then I question their assessment. Perhaps a better approach to this might be, since Ayers & terrorism are the primary aspects of this "controversy", to see if ACORN has systematically engaged in illegal activities.
Then we're told that ACORN has done work on behalf of Obama's campaign. (Hmmmm.....and would anyone like to know what organizations, corporations, and lobbyists have done work for the McCain campaign???) and that "ACORN is the nation's largest community organization of low- and moderate-income families." Now, since, as we've been told numerous times now from the Bush/McCain camp, Obama's an "elitist" (recall Rove comparing him to a martini-sipping guy at the country club), why on Earth would an organization of low- and moderate-income families want to lobby for an elitist like Obama. I mean, Obama doesn't even know for sure how many houses he owns, right? Oh, wait, that's.....never mind. Yes, Obama's an elitist and he has helped and been helped by a group representing low-income people.
...and ACORN has:
"has held violent, disruptive protests" - details, please! Did ACORN encourage or condone the violence or lay it out as part of their protest strategy? Or did a couple of people get violent at a protest? Who started the fight? Leaders of ACORN, members, or people who were just tagging along? Perhaps a rogue cop decided to swing his billy club just for fun, without cause? Also, I shouldn't have to point it out, but it's not necessarily illegal, nor even immoral, for a protest to be disruptive. Protests are often intended to be "disruptive" even if they are fully permitted by law-enforcement and there's a clear policy of non-violence by all involved organizations. If some people are meeting in a building and protesters are outside shouting, chanting and waving signs and banners, and they "disrupt" the meeting, well this isn't illegal and I don't think it should be, do you? I guess as long as someone relates more to the people meeting in the building (the ones with the power) than those outside, then that will affect your answer.
"seeks to regulate banks" - oh Heavens, no!!! Is this illegal, to have an opinion that banks should be regulated, that rules should apply and be enforced upon the banks? Get real.
"supports left-leaning education policies" - again, so??? Is this a problem? Is this terrorism or anything remotely like it? No, it isn't. Guess what, WorldNetDaily supports right-leaning education policies!! Amazing, isn't it? If you think about it, people with strong opinions, left or right, will find that most educational policies have social and political dimensions to them, and very little becomes policy without some controversy or disagreement along the way. There are few policies of any kind that just everyone agrees upon.
"is accused of working on urging partisan voter turnout for elections" - Hmmmm....so a group of low- and middle-income people feels that one party (apparently the Dems) might be better at running the government, so they try to get more and more Dems to actually VOTE. Guess what? Conservative groups do the same thing, although since they've pretty much maxed out their membership, their strategy is to discourage people from voting or make new laws to make it illegal for more people to vote (esp. those who will likely vote Dem). Or they just cheat. See here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/12/AR2006111201084.html
Also, it should be noted the use of the word "accused" - nothing has been proven, nobody's been convicted, apparently. I'm guessing that the accusers were of the Limbaugh / WorldNetDaily variety. I won't hold my breath to see if there's a conviction for any wrongdoing.
"seems to promote driving businesses from cities" - Oh, so it "seems" this way to someone? My guess is that it "seems" this way to businesspeople who don't want to pay any taxes and that they interpret taxes as being driven out of a city (no doubt "violently"!!). This is just an opinion made to look like a fact of some crime. My hometown recently drove out a strip club that had been the scene of some actual sex crimes (parking lot and back rooms). City council voted and that business was "driven out" of town. See, the devil is in the details.
So, that was just a couple paragraphs from the article you posted. It doesn't prove much of anything. Yes, Ayers and Obama know each other and have worked together on some projects regarding education. There are records of their meetings and contacts and nothing is about blowing things up or enslaving white people.
My guess is also that if Ayers is even half as radical as he used to be, that he disagrees a great deal with a lot of Obama's policy proposals and voting record, and that if he votes for Obama he'll see it as a "lesser of two evils" sort of thing, like most Americans have (see the McCain voters this time around) at election time for the last 15-20 years, at least.
I think you should all take five and go pre-vote for Obama.
If ya wanna justify it..Two bush's, two wars. Obama has to clean up the mess that the conservatives and Bush/Cheney have concocted against terrorists. Whoever they are. So we killed some of these bad guys.. and made plenty of enemies and lost our economy in the process. Seems an awful lot like a terrorist is already in the white house and you're getting paranoid about old connectons to controversial people.
But hey, call it lesser of two evils if it lets you sleep at night.
If ya wanna justify it..Two bush's, two wars. Obama has to clean up the mess that the conservatives and Bush/Cheney have concocted against terrorists. Whoever they are. So we killed some of these bad guys.. and made plenty of enemies and lost our economy in the process. Seems an awful lot like a terrorist is already in the white house and you're getting paranoid about old connectons to controversial people.
But hey, call it lesser of two evils if it lets you sleep at night.
Obama is a sleeper cell !
For why does he keep his wife in the background (if at all) ?
Isn't this customary in the islamic culture ?
I'm just giving you guy's shit !
At ease
Eh, I'll drink to razzing the other side!
:
asses you a bottle:: Here ya go!http://img15.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=71345_bottleholesmall_123_625lo.JPG
Last edited by a moderator:
Untouchable One? Obama cult? Barry?
I'm sorry but I honestly don't get the point of a lot of your posts. Like a McCain ad that talks about his celebrity in Berlin. If he wasn't a popular figure that people believed in and in Europe no less, he wouldn't draw a record crowd. That's got nothing to do with a "cult". :dunno:
I've refered to McCain as McCan't I think once, but I don't get your constant reference to Obama as Barry. As a grown up adult, I have to say, I don't think a teen age kid with a typical identity crisis, adds up to a disturbed adult. When I was a kid, I wanted to be like James Bond, my friend across the street pretended he was some famous baseball pitcher, I don't remember who. As much as I despise a lot of people in the current and past administrations and McCain and Palin, I call Reagan, Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Ashcroft, Condolezza Rice and the rest by their real names. :dunno:
I do all of my own research, read a lot, and also recommend documentaries by reputable sources as full of the history of failed US policy.
Biden brought up a few good points in his speech today, to paraphrase after the issue of attacking Obama because there was nothing left for the McCain campaign to do, they have nothing;
(my words from memory)
- You can't sell yourself as a maverick when all you've been is a sidekick.
- Same day McCain said the economy was doing well, 2 hours later he said the economy was in trouble. That's what us Catholics call an "epiphany". Not that he saw the light, he saw the Presidency slipping from his grasp.
A commentary on the debate by ABC pointed out that McCain's new plan, regarding bailing out homeowners paying a mortgage on a house now worth much less, isn't so new at all. In fact it's part of the bill already written, the 103 page Homeowner Bailout Plan.
Last edited:
:thumbsup:
I would think of someone like Ron Paul as more of a Cult figure than Obama who is a certified 'worldwide' phenomenom.. There is no way Obama would be as popular had this been in 2000 after 8 years of very sound leadership in the White House under the Clinton years.
But after 8 years of Bush Policies & self rigtheous right wing rule,an unjustified & very costly war in Iraq, crumbling ecoomy & the threat of more of the same any Democrat would be very popular now. Obama simply is cashing in on Bush's ineptness & the polls show that McCain would get beaten easily(double digits) by a generic Democrat ,but people are having trouble pulling the lever for Obama(reasons I refuse to get into). This thing wouldn't even be close if people would put their petty issues & prejudices aside.
Like Eddie Murphy once said after a week or so without food even a plain soda cracker would like a T-bone steak & 8 years of absolutely atrocious leadership most any thing different would look good to some. Obama is in the right place at the right time.
No one thinks Obama can singlehandedly 'save' this country,but he can certainly change the direction back into a more successful era like under Clinton & hopefully this movement will continue even if Obama loses.
And I thought McCain's $300 billion dollar plan to bailout out bad mortgages was a new idea thanks for letting me know that it is already in the bailout package.
Yes, ABC news made that quite clear it was in the bailout details. Donna something who I've also seen on CNN brought it up. McCain also wanted to take credit for fixing the economic crises singlehandedly, as you recall this was suddenly more important before the first debate, before he was told he better get to Mississippi to meet Obama which he finally did.
I said his presence in Washington was just theatrics like Clark Kent running into a phone booth to become Superman, as he would have little to do with the outcome. Commentators said he appeared to be in the way.
I said his presence in Washington was just theatrics like Clark Kent running into a phone booth to become Superman, as he would have little to do with the outcome. Commentators said he appeared to be in the way.
Black woman? Must be Donna Brazile(?) who supervised Al Gore's campaign. She will certainly keep the McCain campaign in line:thumbsup:
Do you agree with the assessment that Obama has benefitted greatly from Bush's ineptness & people's desperate desire for a different direction? People foolishly think there is some kind of mindless devotion to Obama when it is in fact a very reactionary response to Bush(who may go down as the worst Prez in modern day history). Plus Obama is a very charismatic guy.
Actually ...
I'm finding the words of Bill Clinton rather interesting lately. As much as people say it's because he wants Obama to lose (for his wife in 2012), he does put a lot on his own shoulders, along with several Democrats and Republicans alike from the '90s, as well as the '80s and the '00s.
And then there is also some great articles on where investment banking really began, when not only did partnerships turn into corporations -- with reduced, individual liabilities -- but investment companies started listing themselves on the exchange, which was previously prohibited. That actually started in the late '60s.
This has been building up since the crash of '87, the run up to false wealth of the late '90s coupled with alleged deregulation (which even Clinton says was not bad, and I partially agree with him), the gutting of the surplus in 2000 by the .COM bust, the layoffs in 2001, the false wealth re-created in the real estate market, and the eventual crash of investment companies allegedly "securing" these loans with only 3-5% liquidity, if that sometimes.
As much I dislike W. for Iraq, that didn't cause this. As much as I can't stand the Republican-Republican non-sense from 2001-2006, and the countless bloat in social spending and "pork" added to the war budget, it didn't do it on its own. It was pure, unadulterated, 0 accountability greed on Wall Street. They should have let those investment banks fail, and moved to secure deposits and traditional banks while trying to keep people in their homes.
The GAAP issues went on during the '90s. Enron did not happen during the W. administration, just the fallout did. The loss in wealth didn't happen during the W. administration, it was just the layoffs that resulted during them. Was Clinton to blame? Hardly. Is W. to blame for Iraq? Most certainly. But this has more to do with that simple logic. Hell, Hoover v. FDR is a great study in the same regard (including much of what would become "The New Deal" already being blocked in Congress at the time of the '32 election).
The UK seems to know a heck of a lot more about what to do than the special, Wall Street interest here in the US. These are people, and some are friends of mine, that made enough money to retire on within 5-10 years. If they didn't save, then they were stupid. If they lost their own investments in their shady company, so be it, that was their fault. It seems we've traded one mistake by the Fed long ago for another set of bad moves now.
I'm actually finding myself appreciating BIll Clinton, the closet and compromising fiscal conservative he is, along with both select Democrats and Republicans as of late. They are the few people I do agree with. But none of them are running for any office last time I checked, sans one, more local Libertarian (not the one running for President, he's a Republican and definitely not getting my vote).
This is a mess that was a long time in coming. Unfortunately, based on the pork-stuffed bailout bill, it's not going to be the government that saves us. They are just making it worse. Regulation v. deregulation was never the problem. It was ethics and scrutiny, dumb investors and dumb home buyers, and special interest on Wall Street, many of which will still have 7-8 (sometimes 9) figures in wealth after all this. Kinda sad.
Especially for the minority of us who are responsible individuals, with little to no debt, and pay the bulk of income taxes. We're getting fucked most between them all.
I'm finding the words of Bill Clinton rather interesting lately. As much as people say it's because he wants Obama to lose (for his wife in 2012), he does put a lot on his own shoulders, along with several Democrats and Republicans alike from the '90s, as well as the '80s and the '00s.
And then there is also some great articles on where investment banking really began, when not only did partnerships turn into corporations -- with reduced, individual liabilities -- but investment companies started listing themselves on the exchange, which was previously prohibited. That actually started in the late '60s.
This has been building up since the crash of '87, the run up to false wealth of the late '90s coupled with alleged deregulation (which even Clinton says was not bad, and I partially agree with him), the gutting of the surplus in 2000 by the .COM bust, the layoffs in 2001, the false wealth re-created in the real estate market, and the eventual crash of investment companies allegedly "securing" these loans with only 3-5% liquidity, if that sometimes.
As much I dislike W. for Iraq, that didn't cause this. As much as I can't stand the Republican-Republican non-sense from 2001-2006, and the countless bloat in social spending and "pork" added to the war budget, it didn't do it on its own. It was pure, unadulterated, 0 accountability greed on Wall Street. They should have let those investment banks fail, and moved to secure deposits and traditional banks while trying to keep people in their homes.
The GAAP issues went on during the '90s. Enron did not happen during the W. administration, just the fallout did. The loss in wealth didn't happen during the W. administration, it was just the layoffs that resulted during them. Was Clinton to blame? Hardly. Is W. to blame for Iraq? Most certainly. But this has more to do with that simple logic. Hell, Hoover v. FDR is a great study in the same regard (including much of what would become "The New Deal" already being blocked in Congress at the time of the '32 election).
The UK seems to know a heck of a lot more about what to do than the special, Wall Street interest here in the US. These are people, and some are friends of mine, that made enough money to retire on within 5-10 years. If they didn't save, then they were stupid. If they lost their own investments in their shady company, so be it, that was their fault. It seems we've traded one mistake by the Fed long ago for another set of bad moves now.
I'm actually finding myself appreciating BIll Clinton, the closet and compromising fiscal conservative he is, along with both select Democrats and Republicans as of late. They are the few people I do agree with. But none of them are running for any office last time I checked, sans one, more local Libertarian (not the one running for President, he's a Republican and definitely not getting my vote).
This is a mess that was a long time in coming. Unfortunately, based on the pork-stuffed bailout bill, it's not going to be the government that saves us. They are just making it worse. Regulation v. deregulation was never the problem. It was ethics and scrutiny, dumb investors and dumb home buyers, and special interest on Wall Street, many of which will still have 7-8 (sometimes 9) figures in wealth after all this. Kinda sad.
Especially for the minority of us who are responsible individuals, with little to no debt, and pay the bulk of income taxes. We're getting fucked most between them all.
Similar threads
