Kelly the Dog Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 No, I'm cool with Obama campaigning for a guy who, after he lost, urged his supporters to start killing people and burning churches. I just hope Obama wins the election, because based on your logic, if he doesn't win, it'll be "easy to see" how it's okay for him to blame it on a fraudulent election by the ruling party, which would justify Obama urging his supporters to start killing people and burning churches. Which is probably just the change we need. He never campaigned for the guy. These are not allegations, these are direct quotes. And an analysis from a factcheck organization not known for its political bent. Question: "As you prepared to travel to Kenya you were obviously conscious of two things. One was about being drawn into local politics. The other was the high expectations of what you could do for Kenya now that you are a senator. How did you handle both?" Obama: "One of the things we try to do is meet with all parties. I met President Kibaki, I met Uhuru Kenyatta, I was with Raila Odinga. We met the government, met the opposition and met other groups such as human rights activists. What I try to do is give a consistent message on what I think U.S.-Kenya relations should be, but not to suggest somehow that I think one party is better than the other. That's for the Kenyan people to decide." Also, Obama's gave a high-profile speech the need for the country to move beyond corruption and tribal rivalries. This undercuts Corsi's theory that Obama was motivated by his Luo tribal heritage. "Finally, ethnic-based tribal politics has to stop," Obama said in his speech at the University of Nairobi on Aug. 28, 2006. "It is rooted in the bankrupt idea that the goal of politics or business is to funnel as much of the pie as possible to one's family, tribe, or circle with little regard for the public good. It stifles innovation and fractures the fabric of the society. Instead of opening businesses and engaging in commerce, people come to rely on patronage and payback as a means of advancing. Instead of unifying the country to move forward on solving problems, it divides neighbor from neighbor." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 He's not going to get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew in CA Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 No, I'm cool with Obama campaigning for a guy who, after he lost, urged his supporters to start killing people and burning churches. I just hope Obama wins the election, because based on your logic, if he doesn't win, it'll be "easy to see" how it's okay for him to blame it on a fraudulent election by the ruling party, which would justify Obama urging his supporters to start killing people and burning churches. Which is probably just the change we need. So you're saying that our elections are as fraudulent, ie independent sources verifying the fraud, as Kenya's? That seems to be the premise of your conclusion re: Obama. I dare say, if either party in the United States had been in power since 1957 (let alone our nation's inception), and the other party had by all accounts finally, and fairly, broken through, there'd be blood in the streets. I do not condone the violence, but I stand by the statement that it is easy to see why a nation can turn to violence when its democratic process is revealed as a sham. So, the logic of my statement is: unrepresented citizens for 50 years plus actual fair victory plus total denial of that victory and of the rule of law = understanding, not a jusitification, but an understanding of violent reaction. Also, I am not a supporter of Obama, so don't try claiming I'm a "lemming" or whatever. It seems silly to me to use Obama's relationship with Odinga against him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 He never campaigned for the guy. These are not allegations, these are direct quotes. And an analysis from a factcheck organization not known for its political bent. It amazes me...absolutely amazes me...that Barrack Obama is so incredibly close to SO many bad people and SO many controversial things, but he gets a pass from his supporters and the media because some believe that "technically" he wasn't as close as some people say. "He wasn't campaigning. He was just by his side all the time. Totally different thing." I really can't argue the case much more because virtually everyone says the race is over, Obama has won, and all is going to be great one day as he goes down as the greatest leader in the history of the world. I hope I'm wrong, but my gut tells me that by the time Obama gets done with his first term, people will be begging for Jimmy Carter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 It amazes me...absolutely amazes me...that Barrack Obama is so incredibly close to SO many bad people and SO many controversial things, but he gets a pass from his supporters and the media because some believe that "technically" he wasn't as close as some people say. "He wasn't campaigning. He was just by his side all the time. Totally different thing." I really can't argue the case much more because virtually everyone says the race is over, Obama has won, and all is going to be great one day as he goes down as the greatest leader in the history of the world. I hope I'm wrong, but my gut tells me that by the time Obama gets done with his first term, people will be begging for Jimmy Carter. Getting the same pass you are giving to Palin? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantelliotoffen Posted October 9, 2008 Author Share Posted October 9, 2008 It amazes me...absolutely amazes me...that Barrack Obama is so incredibly close to SO many bad people and SO many controversial things, but he gets a pass from his supporters and the media because some believe that "technically" he wasn't as close as some people say. "He wasn't campaigning. He was just by his side all the time. Totally different thing." I really can't argue the case much more because virtually everyone says the race is over, Obama has won, and all is going to be great one day as he goes down as the greatest leader in the history of the world. I hope I'm wrong, but my gut tells me that by the time Obama gets done with his first term, people will be begging for Jimmy Carter. If the voters weren't swayed by the six degrees of separation between the Bush family and the Bin Laden's in 2004 why would you think they'd be swayed by "associations" between Obama and people they've never heard of and that they couldn't care less about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 Tom Hayden was in Congress. Therefore anyone in Congress at the same time is a terrorist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 It amazes me...absolutely amazes me...that Barrack Obama is so incredibly close to SO many bad people and SO many controversial things, but he gets a pass from his supporters and the media because some believe that "technically" he wasn't as close as some people say. "He wasn't campaigning. He was just by his side all the time. Totally different thing." I really can't argue the case much more because virtually everyone says the race is over, Obama has won, and all is going to be great one day as he goes down as the greatest leader in the history of the world. I hope I'm wrong, but my gut tells me that by the time Obama gets done with his first term, people will be begging for Jimmy Carter. The NON-PARTISAN group went in and looked at the trip. This thing is from the Congressional Quarterly and St. Pete Times, not a liberal rag or group. They found NO evidence he was just by his side all the time. They did find evidence that Odingleberry showed up at Obama stops. They found 100% COMPLETELY CONFLICTING evidence in what Obama actually said while he was there. Nothing that would make anyone believe he sided with Odingleberry. This was when asked specifically by reporters on that trip, AND during his speech he gave on his own. Show me your evidence you found that he was by "his side the whole time" OR ANYTHING Obama actually said that even remotely indicates this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 Tom Hayden was in Congress. Therefore anyone in Congress at the same time is a terrorist. In the California State congress... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Hayden Nice try at the usual phony implication with no basis in truth - the kids that you weathered Dems exploit daily eat up your pap without question, so I'm sure you won't stop anytime soon... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 In the California State congress... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Hayden Nice try at the usual phony implication with no basis in truth - the kids that you weathered Dems exploit daily eat up your pap without question, so I'm sure you won't stop anytime soon... Your point being? You wingnuts are claiming that Obama is a terrorist because he associated with a guy formerly associated with the Weatherman. Hayden was not only a politician but as Mr. Fonda rubbed elbows with all sorts of folks. Who, therefore, are also then by your definition terrorists. I didn't make up the silly convoluted logic. You wingnuts did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantelliotoffen Posted October 9, 2008 Author Share Posted October 9, 2008 Want to know why all the righties are bugging out right now? Obama is ahead in Missouri Obama is ahead in Virginia Obama is ahead in Colorado Obama is ahead in Florida Obama leads in Nevada Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 I was just looking at that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew in CA Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 It amazes me...absolutely amazes me...that Barrack Obama is so incredibly close to SO many bad people and SO many controversial things, but he gets a pass from his supporters and the media because some believe that "technically" he wasn't as close as some people say. "He wasn't campaigning. He was just by his side all the time. Totally different thing." I really can't argue the case much more because virtually everyone says the race is over, Obama has won, and all is going to be great one day as he goes down as the greatest leader in the history of the world. I hope I'm wrong, but my gut tells me that by the time Obama gets done with his first term, people will be begging for Jimmy Carter. It is my understanding that Obama's trip to Kenya was to help facilitate the peace process to end the violence after the fraudulent election earlier this year. I would not be surprised if he supported Odinga's position over Kibaki's, but I haven't heard that. I don't understand why this is such an objectionable thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantelliotoffen Posted October 9, 2008 Author Share Posted October 9, 2008 It is my understanding that Obama's trip to Kenya was to help facilitate the peace process to end the violence after the fraudulent election earlier this year. I would not be surprised if he supported Odinga's position over Kibaki's, but I haven't heard that. I don't understand why this is such an objectionable thing. It's an objectionable thing because McCain is trailing Obama by double digits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Fischer Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 Want to know why all the righties are bugging out right now? Obama is ahead in Missouri Obama is ahead in Virginia Obama is ahead in Colorado Obama is ahead in Florida Obama leads in Nevada I think it's going that way but I don't like Rasmussen's robo polls. They may prove right but they seem to swing way too much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 Your point being? You wingnuts are claiming that Obama is a terrorist because he associated with a guy formerly associated with the Weatherman. Hayden was not only a politician but as Mr. Fonda rubbed elbows with all sorts of folks. Who, therefore, are also then by your definition terrorists. I didn't make up the silly convoluted logic. You wingnuts did. There you go again - faced with your failed attempt to put forth yet another false imprimatur, you deflect. Reach for another tack, another subject. Toss out more invectives. blz, your mendacity is truly breathtaking... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 There you go again - faced with your failed attempt to put forth yet another false imprimatur, you deflect. Reach for another tack, another subject. Toss out more invectives. blz, your mendacity is truly breathtaking... I'm neutral on the point. But mendacity is a good word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 The problem McCain is having, IMO, is the same thing that I (and many others who have followed him a long time over the years), is not that McCain has somehow lost his way. Not that this is not the John McCain we have come to know. McCain's problem is John McCain, and he is doing exactly what he has always been doing: Trying to act like he is for the people when in reality he is for the person, and that person is John McCain. He's been the biggest fraud for decades, and his brilliance is how he has been able to hoodwink the public as well as the press. But when things go bad, and not John McCain's way, he is exposed for the nasty fraud that he is. Unfortuntely, McCain has gone along with the wishes of the republican party- he is not acting like the real John McCain, he is acting like the Republican candidate. Despite her showing last week, I think Palin was a poor choice as the running mate. Barr was a better option than McCain to begin with. I really like John McCain, its hard not to....I just don't like him as a candidate- and hopefully whatever actually happened to him health-wise the other week was a false alarm...I am sure that was not fun for him or his family. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 There you go again - faced with your failed attempt to put forth yet another false imprimatur, you deflect. Reach for another tack, another subject. Toss out more invectives. blz, your mendacity is truly breathtaking... 3/4 of this board is now scattering to look those up. Nice one Stuck!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 LOL, stay mad you idiot! http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/a...-than-hell.aspx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts