Sarah Palin's terrorist pals

[Andrew in CA]

You're missing the point: Palin hung out with a couple of guys who had guns and wanted Alaska to secede from the US, and that is the same as Obama's association with Reznik, Ayers, Wright, Odinga, so it's a wash.

I addressed this in another thread but you didn't respond- Why is meeting with Odinga objectionable?

[erynthered]

That's why Eryn and me are on the Obama Express, ready to give America the change they think they need and deserve.

 

 

CHOO CHOO!! ALL ABOARD!! I'm there with you brother!!

[IDBillzFan]

I addressed this in another thread but you didn't respond- Why is meeting with Odinga objectionable?

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.

This was your comment from yesterday. You don't condone the violence, but you have no problem understanding how it could happen. Which I suspect means you can understand how Odinga URGED everyone to kill and burn, which is what he did.

 

That's where we differ. Real leaders don't lead people to kill, burn and bomb. And yet that seems to be the kind of people Obama hangs out with. And no, it's not an issue of guilt by association. To me, personally, it's a sign of bad judgement. How many times do you hear about problematic football players, and people saying "Well, the first thing Pacman needs to do is change the people he hangs and associates with."

 

Yet where Obama is concerned, everyone is so busy spinning the problem, no one is hearing the real, true, undeniable objection: you, I and everyone else will forever be known by the company we keep.

 

Yes, I understand that works both ways, but Obama seems to be surrounded by bad, dangerous people like a hole surrounds itself with a donut.

[Kelly the Dog]

This was your comment from yesterday. You don't condone the violence, but you have no problem understanding how it could happen. Which I suspect means you can understand how Odinga URGED everyone to kill and burn, which is what he did.

 

That's where we differ. Real leaders don't lead people to kill, burn and bomb. And yet that seems to be the kind of people Obama hangs out with. And no, it's not an issue of guilt by association. To me, personally, it's a sign of bad judgement. How many times do you hear about problematic football players, and people saying "Well, the first thing Pacman needs to do is change the people he hangs and associates with."

 

Yet where Obama is concerned, everyone is so busy spinning the problem, no one is hearing the real, true, undeniable objection: you, I and everyone else will forever be known by the company we keep.

 

Yes, I understand that works both ways, but Obama seems to be surrounded by bad, dangerous people like a hole surrounds itself with a donut.

Tell me please. Yes or no. Do you actually believe, in all the times that Obama may have been in the same room with, had discussions with, or spoke with, they discussed terrorism and the fact that it wasn't a bad thing?

 

Sure you can say, "I don't know." but please don't. Does it make any sense at all that they would? Do you really think this guy Obama is interested in exploring terrorism in a way that is detrimental to the country one bit? Or that he is sympathetic to any kind of terrorism? Or that by sitting on an education board with someone he advocates domestic terrorism? Or that he seeks out terrorists for friends? Do you believe that the Republican former ambassador Walter Annenberg who gave Chicago schools the grants was a terrorist sympathizer or should have demanded that Ayers not be part of that board? Or his judgment should be questioned?

[IDBillzFan]

Tell me please. Yes or no. Do you actually believe, in all the times that Obama may have been in the same room with, had discussions with, or spoke with, they discussed terrorism and the fact that it wasn't a bad thing?

 

Sure you can say, "I don't know." but please don't. Does it make any sense at all that they would? Do you really think this guy Obama is interested in exploring terrorism in a way that is detrimental to the country one bit? Or that he is sympathetic to any kind of terrorism? Or that by sitting on an education board with someone he advocates domestic terrorism? Or that he seeks out terrorists for friends? Do you believe that the Republican former ambassador Walter Annenberg who gave Chicago schools the grants was a terrorist sympathizer or should have demanded that Ayers not be part of that board? Or his judgment should be questioned?

I don't know. I just know he has a tremendous number of bad associations. And when Walter Annenberg is running for POTUS, we'll discuss him. Simply deflecting this to Annenberg or the Washington state nutjobs doesn't change the fact that Obama is the one who is running for president, and he has an inordinate number of friends who have particularly dangerous backgrounds.

 

Like I said, it won't matter right now because he's winning this in a landslide, and as is the case with anything like this, only time will determine who is right or wrong. I just don't like his choice of company. But it's like not much different than the Losman/Edwards debate: if Edwards wins and the coaches are right -- even if they're ways I don't agree with -- than being successful trumps my opinion. The same goes for Obama. If he has a way to fix the world -- even if they're ways I don't agree with -- being successful will always trump my opinion because, like you, I ultimately want what is best for our country.

[Andrew in CA]

This was your comment from yesterday. You don't condone the violence, but you have no problem understanding how it could happen. Which I suspect means you can understand how Odinga URGED everyone to kill and burn, which is what he did.

 

That's where we differ. Real leaders don't lead people to kill, burn and bomb. And yet that seems to be the kind of people Obama hangs out with. And no, it's not an issue of guilt by association. To me, personally, it's a sign of bad judgement. How many times do you hear about problematic football players, and people saying "Well, the first thing Pacman needs to do is change the people he hangs and associates with."

 

Yet where Obama is concerned, everyone is so busy spinning the problem, no one is hearing the real, true, undeniable objection: you, I and everyone else will forever be known by the company we keep.

 

Yes, I understand that works both ways, but Obama seems to be surrounded by bad, dangerous people like a hole surrounds itself with a donut.

Thank you for a fair and unpatronizing response. I suppose we do differ on that point. The fact that Odinga urged violence is deplorable in that I don't think it was necessary and therefore the violence was not justified. However, in the situation that Kenya and its citizens found itself in- an election that had finally broken the ruling party's 50 year reign of absolute power was wiped out because of massive election fraud- it is wholly understandable that the response would be violence. It is also understandable for the head of that defeated party, after realizing that peaceable, fair elections was not going to achieve any sort of change, ie that Kenya's "democracy" was anything but, would take the next step to change- violent reaction to demonstrate to the ruling party that the unrepresented citizens of Kenya would no longer take it.

Now, like I said, since I don't believe violence was the only option left, I don't condone it. Whether or not Odinga is a real leader is up for interpretation, so I can see where your objection comes from in that respect. However, to object to Obama's meeting with both parties to try and broker a peace deal seems strange to me. From what I read at the time, I cannot recall Obama praising Odinga's response or anything that would suggest that he also condoned the violence. To meet with the leadership of the two main parties in that situation to help mediate an agreement to stop the violence seems like the most appropriate response to me.

[Boomer860]

Obama is a fraud ,a smooth one at that.

[Johnny Coli]

This was your comment from yesterday. You don't condone the violence, but you have no problem understanding how it could happen. Which I suspect means you can understand how Odinga URGED everyone to kill and burn, which is what he did.

 

That's where we differ. Real leaders don't lead people to kill, burn and bomb. And yet that seems to be the kind of people Obama hangs out with. And no, it's not an issue of guilt by association. To me, personally, it's a sign of bad judgement. How many times do you hear about problematic football players, and people saying "Well, the first thing Pacman needs to do is change the people he hangs and associates with."

 

Yet where Obama is concerned, everyone is so busy spinning the problem, no one is hearing the real, true, undeniable objection: you, I and everyone else will forever be known by the company we keep.

 

Yes, I understand that works both ways, but Obama seems to be surrounded by bad, dangerous people like a hole surrounds itself with a donut.

 

 

Hangs out and surrounded.

 

I get it. We've had eight years of xenophobia and fear spread by the GOP, so I understand your paranoia and skepticism over someone who's different. But even you must be aware that you, SDS and erynthered are sounding just as ignorant and shrill as the tin-foil hat crowd you often ridicule.

 

Neither the Ayers "association," the Rev Wright nonsense, nor Obama's trip to Kenya where Odinga happens to be the PM in any way, shape or form even come close to "surrounding himself with dangerous people." Not by even the most liberal of stretches.

 

You don't want to vote for Obama, fine. That's your right as a voting citizen. There's probably plenty of actual issues you don't agree with him on. But don't justify not voting for him, or legitimize the absurd notion spewed by right-wing cowards by bleating ad nauseum that Barack Obama is some radical Manchurian candidate hell-bent on destroying the US.

 

He's been vetted. Extensively by Clinton and now McCain. There's nothing there. Slander and lies is all the GOP has on him, because they can't beat him on the issues. It's the last-ditch effort of a coward to win at all costs. Not sure why you'd want to be lumped with them.

[PromoTheRobot]

How can anyone pin Ayers on Obama while not pinning the dozen or so Republicans that served on the same board, including Walter Annenberg, a Reagan appointed US diplomat? If Obama is guilty by association, why not the rest of the people in the room?

 

(I'll answer this one: because the whole Ayers thing is a red herring. Totally meaningless to anything, unless you are a right-tilting, Fox News-watching, mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging, Neanderthal who is besides him/herself in frustration that your ticket is so utterly incompetent that it's going to lose...THAT'S RIGHT L-O-S-E!!!...to a demmy-crat! Go curl up in the fetal position, flip on Sean Hannity and suck your thumbs.)

 

PTR

[erynthered]

"the Rev Wright nonsense"

 

Thats some funny shiit.

 

 

That tin foil hat you're wearing Johnny is tilted way way to the left my Kool aid drinking friend. Slurp Slurp.

 

Either way your "man" will be dancin the dance in about 25 days. CHOOO CHOOO!!

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

Like I said, it won't matter right now because he's winning this in a landslide, and as is the case with anything like this, only time will determine who is right or wrong. I just don't like his choice of company. But it's like not much different than the Losman/Edwards debate: if Edwards wins and the coaches are right -- even if they're ways I don't agree with -- than being successful trumps my opinion. The same goes for Obama. If he has a way to fix the world -- even if they're ways I don't agree with -- being successful will always trump my opinion because, like you, I ultimately want what is best for our country.

 

Nuff said, thank you!

[IDBillzFan]

 

Hangs out and surrounded.

 

I get it. We've had eight years of xenophobia and fear spread by the GOP, so I understand your paranoia and skepticism over someone who's different. But even you must be aware that you, SDS and erynthered are sounding just as ignorant and shrill as the tin-foil hat crowd you often ridicule.

 

Neither the Ayers "association," the Rev Wright nonsense, nor Obama's trip to Kenya where Odinga happens to be the PM in any way, shape or form even come close to "surrounding himself with dangerous people." Not by even the most liberal of stretches.

 

You don't want to vote for Obama, fine. That's your right as a voting citizen. There's probably plenty of actual issues you don't agree with him on. But don't justify not voting for him, or legitimize the absurd notion spewed by right-wing cowards by bleating ad nauseum that Barack Obama is some radical Manchurian candidate hell-bent on destroying the US.

 

He's been vetted. Extensively by Clinton and now McCain. There's nothing there. Slander and lies is all the GOP has on him, because they can't beat him on the issues. It's the last-ditch effort of a coward to win at all costs. Not sure why you'd want to be lumped with them.

I put a lot of stock in the concept of "the company you keep."

 

You don't.

 

Not a big deal.

 

It's just more fun than arguing with you about the fact that under Obama we're going to become a socialist nation, which won't be that big of a deal to me once I cut my staff and reduce my income to I can be one of the getters instead of one of the givers.

 

If it makes you feel better, McCain can take his $300Gzillion mortgage bail out plan and shove it straight up his own ass.

 

Go Obama/Plugs in '08!! When The Goverment Takes From The Rich And Gives To The Poor, How Bad Can Change Possibly Be???

[blzrul]

I would like to hear Sarah Palin or John McCain condemn the "rage" and screams of "kill him" that are being reported to be taking place at their rallies. That they seem more interested in whipping up their followers into a frenzy of hatred is a little worrisome and reflects poorly on them. Failure to protest could be taken as condoning the violence ... which is a little on the terroristic side I would say.

[The Big Cat]

I put a lot of stock in the concept of "the company you keep."

 

You don't.

 

Not a big deal.

 

It's just more fun than arguing with you about the fact that under Obama we're going to become a socialist nation,

 

And this would be bad because?

[IDBillzFan]

And this would be bad because?

 

I guess if you, as an individual human being, have no ambitions, no prospects, no ability to respect and accept personal responsibility and accountability, and believe that the government running all aspects of your life is a far, far better thing than you could ever accomplish on your own, then you're probably right. It's not such a bad idea.

 

By your own admission, you're young and inexperienced in the workforce (based on your toilet overflow drama), currently working a temp job. So I guess if I tried really hard I could maybe, possibly see where letting the government take care of you for the rest of your life would be appealing. But personally speaking, it ain't my gig. Being, theoretically older than you, the way I see it, it would be like I was competing in, say, a sport like football. I work harder than most all offseason to get ready, then work harder than most to earn a roster spot, then work harder than most to earn a starting spot, then be with a team that works harder than most to make the playoffs, then work harder than most to make the Super Bowl, only to show up and have someone suddenly say "This competition thing isn't working, so instead of letting you duke it out for a big trophy, we're going to make 32 little trophies for everyone because that's really the fair way to go. But hey...thanks for the effort."

 

All the work, sacrifice, defeats and ultimate success over all these years just to I can share with people who live for their entitlements?

 

No thanks. But hey...if it works for you, enjoy yourself.

[erynthered]

I guess if you, as an individual human being, have no ambitions, no prospects, no ability to respect and accept personal responsibility and accountability, and believe that the government running all aspects of your life is a far, far better thing than you could ever accomplish on your own, then you're probably right. It's not such a bad idea.

 

By your own admission, you're young and inexperienced in the workforce (based on your toilet overflow drama), currently working a temp job. So I guess if I tried really hard I could maybe, possibly see where letting the government take care of you for the rest of your life would be appealing. But personally speaking, it ain't my gig. Being, theoretically older than you, the way I see it, it would be like I was competing in, say, a sport like football. I work harder than most all offseason to get ready, then work harder than most to earn a roster spot, then work harder than most to earn a starting spot, then be with a team that works harder than most to make the playoffs, then work harder than most to make the Super Bowl, only to show up and have someone suddenly say "This competition thing isn't working, so instead of letting you duke it out for a big trophy, we're going to make 32 little trophies for everyone because that's really the fair way to go. But hey...thanks for the effort."

 

All the work, sacrifice, defeats and ultimate success over all these years just to I can share with people who live for their entitlements?

 

No thanks. But hey...if it works for you, enjoy yourself.

 

 

Thank you for posting this. In the last few months here there have been a few, including pastajoe, EII, johnny coli, pBills and maybe a hand few of others who have endorsed socialism. Actually saying thats its better than what we have. Its !@#$ing frighting. Honestly. To have some of these young kool aid drinkers say that it would be better than what we have scares me. Maybe they're still sucking their mothers tit, who knows. Thanks for responding to his nonsense.

 

How you sat there and punched those keys with out ripping him a new one is beyond me. Thanks again

[elegantelliotoffen]

Thank you for posting this. In the last few months here there have been a few, including pastajoe, EII, johnny coli, pBills and maybe a hand few of others who have endorsed socialism. Actually saying thats its better than what we have. Its !@#$ing frighting. Honestly. To have some of these young kool aid drinkers say that it would be better than what we have scares me. Maybe they're still sucking their mothers tit, who knows. Thanks for responding to his nonsense.

 

How you sat there and punched those keys with out ripping him a new one is beyond me. Thanks again

 

Watch this and maybe you'll realize how stupid you sound.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1K4whIv4M0

[erynthered]

Watch this and maybe you'll realize how stupid you sound.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1K4whIv4M0

 

 

Maybe you need to check some of the posts of the few that I mentioned. They outright said they'd like to see it. Dont let the facts get in the way of your ignorence. Too late

 

I'll add your name to the list, beautiful.

[StupidNation]

So a potential US president palling around around with a guy who says he hates America and would rather crap on an American flag than salute it is just peachy keen with you? I guess the Rev. Wright/Obama thing is okay by you too?

 

PTR

 

Actually he never said he hated America. He hated what the federal gov't was doing to state land and usurping authority.

 

I swear, if you guys read the founding father you would hate them too. The only federalist in the bunch was Madison, and look at how he turned out.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Mostly because you're effing whacked.

 

 

Nice!

 

 

Just answer the question. WTF is the difference between having your child on AK soil or USA soil?