Maximus84's Copy/Paste Anti-Obama Thread

"Barack Obama's Involvement with ACORN Unearthed, Missing Article Recovered" (Cleveland Leader)

Quote:
While Barack Obama's connection with the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) has not gone entirely unreported, it has not been fully explained. Most media background pieces simply note Obama's involvement in a 1995 lawsuit on behalf of ACORN. Obama's own website, as well as most major media, fail to reveal the full depth and extent of his relationship with the organization.

Attempts to hide evidence of Obama's involvement with ACORN have included wiping the web clean of potentially damaging articles that had appeared, and were previously publicly accessible. Unfortunately, those behind the attempted cover-up failed to realize that in today's day and age, nothing disappears forever. There also exists another layer of the web, the hidden web, which is full of information included in proprietary scholarly databases where these very same "missing" articles can be easily uncovered.

Obama's campaign website states:

Fact: Barack was never an ACORN trainer and never worked for ACORN in any other capacity.

Is that really a FACT, or just another lie? Let's take a look at a quote from a 2004 article - Case Study: Chicago- The Barack Obama Campaign - written by Toni Foulkes, a Chicago ACORN Leader, which was published in the journal Social Policy. Did we mention that Social Policy recently pulled this particular article from their website, while leaving links to all other articles up?

"Obama took the case, known as ACORN vs. Edgar (the name of the Republican governor at the time) and we won. Obama then went on to run a voter registration project with Project VOTE in 1992 that made it possible for Carol Moseley Braun to win the Senate that year. Project VOTE delivered 50,000 newly registered voters in that campaign (ACORN delivered about 5,000 of them).

Since then, we have invited Obama to our leadership training sessions to run the session on power every year, and, as a result, many of our newly developing leaders got to know him before he ever ran for office. Thus it was natural for many of us to be active volunteers in his first campaign for STate Senate and then his failed bid for U.S. Congress in 1996. By the time he ran for U.S. Senate, we were old friends."

Not only does Foulkes boast of Obama's ACORN leadership training, but also makes it clear that Obama's post-law school organizing of "Project VOTE" in 1992 was undertaken in direct partnership with ACORN. The tie between Project VOTE and ACORN is also something that Obama and others have attempted to disprove in recent weeks as ACORN has come under fire for allegations of voter registration fraud.

As recently as March 2008, the Los Angeles Times also made reference to Barack Obama's involvement with ACORN:

"At the time, Talbot worked at the social action group ACORN and initially considered Obama a competitor. But she became so impressed with his work that she invited him to help train her staff." (LA Times, March 2, 2008)

All this information was easily pulled up with minimal time investment. It took less than thirty minutes to find, despite attempts by some to bury the truth. If I could find this with little effort, imagine what could be dug up with a serious, in-depth investigation. Scary, isn't it?

Nevertheless, Barack Obama's campaign website continues to lie and deny the truth about his involvement and association with ACORN. No matter how many times you say it, it does not make it true. The facts do not lie, Senator Obama. It's time to come clean and tell the truth, and it's time for the American people to demand it.

http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/7203 (http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/7203)

Back to top (http://1-4u-computer-graphics.com/yabb/YaBB.pl?num=1223913221#top)

’You’ve got only a couple thousand bucks in the bank. Your job pays you dog-food wages. Your credit history has been bent, stapled, and mutilated. You declared bankruptcy in 1989. Don’t despair: You can still buy a house.’ So began an April 1995 article in the Chicago Sun-Times that went on to direct prospective home-buyers fitting this profile to a group of far-left ‘community organizers’ called ACORN, for assistance. In retrospect, of course, encouraging customers like this to buy homes seems little short of madness. At the time, however, that 1995 Chicago newspaper article represented something of a triumph for Barack Obama. That same year, as a director at Chicago’s Woods Fund, Obama was successfully pushing for a major expansion of assistance to ACORN, and sending still more money ACORN’s way from his post as board chair of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. Through both funding and personal-leadership training, Obama supported ACORN. And ACORN, far more than we’ve recognized up to now, had a major role in precipitating the subprime crisis... In June of 1995, President Clinton, Vice President Gore, and Secretary Cisneros announced the administration’s comprehensive new strategy for raising home-ownership in America to an all-time high. Representatives from ACORN were guests of honor at the ceremony. In his remarks, Clinton emphasized that: ‘Our homeownership strategy will not cost the taxpayers one extra cent. It will not require legislation.’ Clinton meant that informal partnerships between Fannie and Freddie and groups like ACORN would make mortgages available to customers ‘who have historically been excluded from homeownership.’ In the end of course, Clinton’s plan cost taxpayers an almost unimaginable amount of money. And it was just around the time of his 1995 announcement that the Chicago papers started encouraging bad-credit customers with ‘dog-food’ wages, little money in the bank, and even histories of bankruptcy to apply for home loans with the help of ACORN...ACORN is at the base of the whole mess... And Barack Obama cut his teeth as an organizer and politician backing up ACORN’s economic madness every step of the way.” —Stanley Kurtz
:loser:

Kurtz makes it sound like the bailout was Clinton's idea...
Even so it's still nothing next to the amount of tax money Bush has wasted on the useless war. (so I suppose in Kurtz's logic that amount would be beyond unimaginable :grinyes: )

Obama wants to tax americans BILLIONS MORE of thier income and send that overseas thru the U.N. to reduce poverty. http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-global-tax-proposal-up-for-senate-vote/ (http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-global-tax-proposal-up-for-senate-vote/) :loser: :screwy:

some links
link 1 (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-542277/How-war-hero-John-McCain-betrayed-Vietnamese-peasant-saved-life.html)
link 2 (http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnmccain.com/)
link 3 (http://educate-yourself.org/cn/earlhopperinterview08feb08.shtml)
link 4 (http://nowaymccain.com/)
link 5 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/10/mccain-decries-fannie-and_n_125468.html)
link 6 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/09/mccain-backed-abolishing_n_125096.html)
link 7 (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09/mccains-integri.html#more)
link 8 (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/11/politics/animal/main4440080.shtml)
see how easy it is to find bad things people say about politicians?

From the Congressional Budget Office's Cost Estimate:

Based on information from the State Department, CBO estimates that implementing S. 2433 [Global Poverty Tax]
would cost less than $1 million per year, assuming the availability of appropriated funds.
Enacting the bill would not affect direct spending or receipts.

:lol: Another one? Someone has been listening to Rush Limbaugh today...

One Beeeeelion Dollars :o

From the Congressional Budget Office's Cost Estimate:Doesnt matter.Thats all cool with you,eh? USA can afford to keep bailing out ourselves,& everyone else too?:loser:

oh yeah, cos it'd be so much better for the global economy to just collapse.
How much did the US spend in the Iraq war again?

your arguments = the fail.

oh yeah, cos it'd be so much better for the global economy to just collapse.
How much did the US spend in the Iraq war again?

your arguments = the fail.:lol: Nice.You ever think B4 you post?

Obviously more than you do.
In case you missed it, the European talks of them injecting cash into their respective banks has meant that stocks in your country closed up 930+ points.

Maybe I should fix my post:
oh yeah, cos it'd be so much better for the global economy to just collapse.
How much did the US spend in the Iraq war again?

your posts = the fail.

Because you failed to answer the one question I posed;
let's look at the numbers.
Since 2003, it is estimated that $550 Billion has been spent.
That's $110 per year.
Compare that to the proposed less than $1 million for the proposals to inject liquidity into banks.


For the record, I still don't see anything that doesn't amount to troll posting.

--------------------------------------------------------

By Noel Sheppard (Bio | Archive)
October 9, 2008 - 10:29 ET

If a recent poll found that almost 75 percent of America's top business leaders felt that a McCain presidency would be disastrous for the nation, with some even stating that his proposals if enacted would bankrupt the country in three years, do you think media would have reported it?

Probably every hour on the hour until every American had heard about it, right?
Well, on Wednesday, with the nation in the middle of what is being regularly portrayed as the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, Chief Executive magazine released its survey of 751 CEOs finding that 74 percent fear "an Obama presidency would be disastrous for the country."

Some CEO's went so far as claiming "[Obama's] programs would bankrupt the country within three years, if implemented" (emphasis added, h/t Jazz from Hell, photo courtesy Time.com):


Chief Executive magazine’s most recent polling of 751 CEOs shows that GOP presidential candidate John McCain is the preferred choice for CEOs. According to the poll, which is featured on the cover of Chief Executive’s most recent issue, by a four-to-one margin, CEOs support Senator John McCain over Senator Barack Obama. Moreover, 74 percent of the executives say they fear that an Obama presidency would be disastrous for the country.

“The stakes for this presidential election are higher than they’ve ever been in recent memory,” said Edward M. Kopko, CEO and Publisher of Chief Executive magazine. “We’ve been experiencing consecutive job losses for nine months now. There’s no doubt that reviving the job market will be a top priority for the incoming president. And job creating CEOs repeatedly tell us that McCain’s policies are far more conducive to a more positive employment environment than Obama’s.” [...]


“I’m not terribly excited about McCain being president, but I’m sure that Obama, if elected, will have a negative impact on business and the economy,” said one CEO voicing his lack of enthusiasm for either candidate, but particularly Obama.

In expressing their rejection of Senator Obama, some CEOs who responded to the survey went as far as to say that “some of his programs would bankrupt the country within three years, if implemented.” In fact, the poll highlights that Obama’s tax policies, which scored the lowest grade in the poll, are particularly unpopular among CEOs.

Despite the poll's findings, from what I can tell, even though this study was disseminated by PRNewswire, it has garnered very little mainstream media attention.

Think that would be the case if these business leaders were so negative about McCain's economic policies?

No, I don't either!
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...astrous-nation (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/10/09/74-ceos-believe-obama-would-be-disastrous-nation)
:eek7:

One of Barack Obama's most potent campaign claims is that he'll cut taxes for no less than 95% of "working families." He's even promising to cut taxes enough that the government's tax share of GDP will be no more than 18.2% -- which is lower than it is today.

http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/ED-AI343_1taxcr_NS_20081008232813.gif

It's a clever pitch, because it lets him pose as a middle-class tax cutter while disguising that he's also proposing one of the largest tax increases ever on the other 5%. But how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all? There are several sleights of hand, but the most creative is to redefine the meaning of "tax cut."

For the Obama Democrats, a tax cut is no longer letting you keep more of what you earn. In their lexicon, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase "tax credit." Mr. Obama is proposing to create or expand no fewer than seven such credits for individuals:

- A $500 tax credit ($1,000 a couple) to "make work pay" that phases out at income of $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 per couple.

- A $4,000 tax credit for college tuition.

- A 10% mortgage interest tax credit (on top of the existing mortgage interest deduction and other housing subsidies).

- A "savings" tax credit of 50% up to $1,000.

- An expansion of the earned-income tax credit that would allow single workers to receive as much as $555 a year, up from $175 now, and give these workers up to $1,110 if they are paying child support.

- A child care credit of 50% up to $6,000 of expenses a year.

- A "clean car" tax credit of up to $7,000 on the purchase of certain vehicles.

Here's the political catch. All but the clean car credit would be "refundable," which is Washington-speak for the fact that you can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability. In other words, they are an income transfer -- a federal check -- from taxpayers to nontaxpayers. Once upon a time we called this "welfare," or in George McGovern's 1972 campaign a "Demogrant." Mr. Obama's genius is to call it a tax cut.

The Tax Foundation estimates that under the Obama plan 63 million Americans, or 44% of all tax filers, would have no income tax liability and most of those would get a check from the IRS each year. The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis estimates that by 2011, under the Obama plan, an additional 10 million filers would pay zero taxes while cashing checks from the IRS.

The total annual expenditures on refundable "tax credits" would rise over the next 10 years by $647 billion to $1.054 trillion, according to the Tax Policy Center. This means that the tax-credit welfare state would soon cost four times actual cash welfare. By redefining such income payments as "tax credits," the Obama campaign also redefines them away as a tax share of GDP. Presto, the federal tax burden looks much smaller than it really is.

The political left defends "refundability" on grounds that these payments help to offset the payroll tax. And that was at least plausible when the only major refundable credit was the earned-income tax credit. Taken together, however, these tax credit payments would exceed payroll levies for most low-income workers.

It is also true that John McCain proposes a refundable tax credit -- his $5,000 to help individuals buy health insurance. We've written before that we prefer a tax deduction for individual health care, rather than a credit. But the big difference with Mr. Obama is that Mr. McCain's proposal replaces the tax subsidy for employer-sponsored health insurance that individuals don't now receive if they buy on their own. It merely changes the nature of the tax subsidy; it doesn't create a new one.

There's another catch: Because Mr. Obama's tax credits are phased out as incomes rise, they impose a huge "marginal" tax rate increase on low-income workers. The marginal tax rate refers to the rate on the next dollar of income earned. As the nearby chart illustrates, the marginal rate for millions of low- and middle-income workers would spike as they earn more income.

Some families with an income of $40,000 could lose up to 40 cents in vanishing credits for every additional dollar earned from working overtime or taking a new job. As public policy, this is contradictory. The tax credits are sold in the name of "making work pay," but in practice they can be a disincentive to working harder, especially if you're a lower-income couple getting raises of $1,000 or $2,000 a year. One mystery -- among many -- of the McCain campaign is why it has allowed Mr. Obama's 95% illusion to go unanswered.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122385651698727257.html (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122385651698727257.html)
//');//]]> window.google_render_ad(); Ads by Google
Corvette Diecast Models (http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/iclk?sa=l&ai=Bl9ADwr3zSI78GJHorAPSqMmGD4zohCC0h4uZAsCNtwHAix EQARgBIOv1-Qk4AFDEyNbsBmDJxriN9KTQGaAB7PGG_gOyARhmb3J1bXMuY29 ydmV0dGVmb3J1bS5jb226AQozMDB4MjUwX2pzyAEB2gE4aHR0c DovL2ZvcnVtcy5jb3J2ZXR0ZWZvcnVtLmNvbS9zaG93dGhyZWF kLnBocD90PTIxNTY2NzWoAwHoA7oG6AOmBugD7AH1AwABAAD1A wQAAACIBAGQBAGYBAA&num=1&adurl=http://www.mintmodels.com/index.asp%3FPageAction%3DVIEWCATS%26Category%3D268&client=ca-ib_autoenth_sede_1)
Detailed scale Corvette models. Precision, accurate, quality models (http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/iclk?sa=l&ai=Bl9ADwr3zSI78GJHorAPSqMmGD4zohCC0h4uZAsCNtwHAix EQARgBIOv1-Qk4AFDEyNbsBmDJxriN9KTQGaAB7PGG_gOyARhmb3J1bXMuY29 ydmV0dGVmb3J1bS5jb226AQozMDB4MjUwX2pzyAEB2gE4aHR0c DovL2ZvcnVtcy5jb3J2ZXR0ZWZvcnVtLmNvbS9zaG93dGhyZWF kLnBocD90PTIxNTY2NzWoAwHoA7oG6AOmBugD7AH1AwABAAD1A wQAAACIBAGQBAGYBAA&num=1&adurl=http://www.mintmodels.com/index.asp%3FPageAction%3DVIEWCATS%26Category%3D268&client=ca-ib_autoenth_sede_1)

www.mintmodels.com (http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/iclk?sa=l&ai=Bl9ADwr3zSI78GJHorAPSqMmGD4zohCC0h4uZAsCNtwHAix EQARgBIOv1-Qk4AFDEyNbsBmDJxriN9KTQGaAB7PGG_gOyARhmb3J1bXMuY29 ydmV0dGVmb3J1bS5jb226AQozMDB4MjUwX2pzyAEB2gE4aHR0c DovL2ZvcnVtcy5jb3J2ZXR0ZWZvcnVtLmNvbS9zaG93dGhyZWF kLnBocD90PTIxNTY2NzWoAwHoA7oG6AOmBugD7AH1AwABAAD1A wQAAACIBAGQBAGYBAA&num=1&adurl=http://www.mintmodels.com/index.asp%3FPageAction%3DVIEWCATS%26Category%3D268&client=ca-ib_autoenth_sede_1)

Obama's Second-Amendment Dance

By Robert D. Novak
Monday, April 7, 2008; A17

Barack Obama (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Barack+Obama?tid=informline), who informs campaign audiences that he taught constitutional law for 10 years, might be expected to weigh in on the historic Second Amendment case before the U.S. Supreme Court (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/U.S.+Supreme+Court?tid=informline). The justices are pondering whether the 1976 District of Columbia law effectively prohibiting personal gun ownership in the nation's capital is constitutional. But Obama has not stated his position.
Obama, disagreeing with the D.C. government and gun control advocates, declares that the Second Amendment's "right of the people to keep and bear arms" applies to individuals, not just the "well regulated militia" in the amendment. In the next breath, he asserts that this constitutional guarantee does not preclude local "common sense" restrictions on firearms. Does the draconian prohibition in Washington fit that description? My attempts to get an answer have proved unavailing. The front-running Democratic presidential candidate is doing the gun dance.
That is a dance that many Democrats do, as revealed in private conversation with party strategists. As urban liberals, they reject constitutional protection for gun owners. As campaign managers, they want to avoid the fate of the many Democratic candidates who have lost elections because of gun control advocacy. The party's House leadership last year pulled from the floor a bill for a congressional seat for the District to protect Democratic members from having to vote on a Republican amendment against the D.C. gun law.
Hillary Clinton (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Hillary+Clinton?tid=informline) has extolled the Second Amendment, though not to the degree Obama has. Campaigning at Iowa's Cornell College on Dec. 5, he asserted that the Second Amendment "is an individual right and not just a right of the militia." He has repeated that formulation along the primary trail, declaring at a Milwaukee (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Milwaukee?tid=informline) news conference before the Feb. 19 Wisconsin (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Wisconsin?tid=informline) primary: "I believe the Second Amendment means something. . . . There is an individual right to bear arms."
That would imply that the D.C. gun law is unconstitutional. Mayor Adrian Fenty (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Adrian+Fenty?tid=informline)'s brief to the Supreme Court rests on the proposition that the Second Amendment "protects the possession and use of guns only in service of an organized militia." Consequently, I concluded in a March 13 column about the case that Obama had "weighed in against the D.C. law."
On March 24, a reader wrote in an e-mail to The Post that "Obama supports the D.C. law" and demanded a correction. That was based on an Associated Press (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/The+Associated+Press?tid=informline) account of Obama's Milwaukee news conference asserting that "he voiced support for the District of Columbia's ban on handguns." In fact, all he said was: "The notion that somehow local jurisdictions can't initiate gun safety laws to deal with gang-bangers and random shootings on the street isn't borne out by our Constitution."
That leaves Obama unrevealed on the D.C. law. In response to my inquiry about his specific position, Obama's campaign e-mailed me a one-paragraph answer: Obama believes that while the "Second Amendment creates an individual right, . . . he also believes that the Constitution permits federal, state and local government to adopt reasonable and common sense gun safety measures." Though the paragraph is titled "Obama on the D.C. Court case," that specific gun ban is never mentioned. I tried again last week, without success, to learn Obama's position before writing this column.
Obama's dance on gun rights is part of his evolution from the radical young Illinois (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Illinois?tid=informline) state legislator he once was. He was recorded in a 1996 questionnaire as advocating a ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns (a position he has since disavowed). He was on the board of the Chicago (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Chicago?tid=informline)-based Joyce Foundation, which takes an aggressive gun control position, and in 2000 considered becoming its full-time president. In 2006, he voted with an 84 to 16 majority (and against Clinton) to prohibit confiscation of firearms during an emergency, but that is his only pro-gun vote in Springfield (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Springfield?tid=informline) or Washington. The National Rifle Association (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/National+Rifle+Association?tid=informline) grades his voting record (and Clinton's) an "F."
There is no anti-gun litmus test for Democrats. In 2006, Ted Strickland (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Ted+Strickland?tid=informline) was elected governor of Ohio (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Ohio?tid=informline) and Bob Casey (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Bob+Casey?tid=informline) U.S. senator from Pennsylvania (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Pennsylvania?tid=informline) with NRA grades of "A." Following their model, Obama talks about the rights of "Americans to protect their families." He has not yet stated whether that right should exist in Washington.:screwy:
© 2008 Creators Syndicate Inc.
var comments_url = "http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/06/AR2008040601652_Comments.html"; ;var article_id = "AR2008040601652" ;

Obama wants to tax americans BILLIONS MORE of thier income and send that overseas thru the U.N. to reduce poverty. http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-global-tax-proposal-up-for-senate-vote/ (http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-global-tax-proposal-up-for-senate-vote/) :loser: :screwy:

Your source is not unbiased

AIM has been criticized as a censorious group eager to silence voices it disagrees with and disdainful of the First Amendment.

For the record, I still don't see anything that doesn't amount to troll posting.

This post, in itself isn't troll posting IMHO. Maximus84 is getting better at following the rules, however the multiple threads with one objective, Obama bashing, should be limited to a single thread since most of what he posts is old news.

Is he able to post any thoughts of his own instead of just cutting and pasting other peoples' articles?

Is he able to post any thoughts of his own instead of just cutting and pasting other peoples' articles?

Probably not, but his posts even if just cut and paste, reflect his current opinion (brainwashing) and if properly attributed are acceptable. Thoughts and ideas like his need to be brought out into the sunshine of legitimate debate less they fester in the back waters of his like minded friends.

He just needs to learn some manners, like I did when I got my hand slapped by the mods when posting improperly here earlier.

yeah, how'd you like them apples?

yeah, how'd you like them apples?The rules? Follow the rules? Why,you guys dont give a crap about them yoursslves obviously.Isnt there something in them about personal attacks? I copy & paste because I'm not a typer.I work as an industrial craftsman & equipment operator,in oil refineries on the West Coast.I dont sit in an office & dont care to,Not much keyboarding going on out in the field.As for you guys,you're great at attacking me,but why dont you post something that proves whast i've posted is wrong.You cant because its stauff Barack has done or said:grinno:

The rules? Follow the rules? Why,you guys dont give a crap about them yoursslves obviously.Isnt there something in them about personal attacks? I copy & paste because I'm not a typer.I work as an industrial craftsman & equipment operator,in oil refineries on the West Coast.I dont sit in an office & dont care to,Not much keyboarding going on out in the field.As for you guys,you're great at attacking me,but why dont you post something that proves whast i've posted is wrong.You cant because its stauff Barack has done or said:grinno:

The way I read this is 'I copy and paste them because I have no thoughts of my own'.

As it stands, I don't care for Obama much either, but these are based upon my own thoughts, not somebody else's rhetoric I read on the internet.

The way I read this is 'I copy and paste them because I have no thoughts of my own'.

As it stands, I don't care for Obama much either, but these are based upon my own thoughts, not somebody else's rhetoric I read on the internet.You sound like all the rhetoric I always hear,when anything's said about Obama.So,sounds like you're referring to yourself. Its baffling to me with all the stuff about Obama thats come up,no one cares about his affiliations with radicals & terrorists,especially in the times we're in.And,you noticed I havent attacked any of you on this forum(until now),and havent insulted you or used any name-calling,but you sure like directing your insecurities towards me.. which goes against your 'rules' you keep bringing up when I post anything.A sign of small minds:screwy:

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y3/nwmaximus/JustalittleBS.jpg :lol2: :biggrin: :shakehead

You sound like all the rhetoric I always hear,when anything's said about Obama.So,sounds like you're referring to yourself. Its baffling to me with all the stuff about Obama thats come up,no one cares about his affiliations with radicals & terrorists,especially in the times we're in.And,you noticed I havent attacked any of you on this forum(until now),and havent insulted you or used any name-calling,but you sure like directing your insecurities towards me.. which goes against your 'rules' you keep bringing up when I post anything.A sign of small minds:screwy:

You're a fascinating individual, I hope you're around a long time.

You even go so far as to counter those that clearly state they don't care for Obama by accusing them of intolerance towards negativity towards Obama :lol2:

Either way, you've now convinced me that your problem isn't a case of not having any original thoughts of your own and I appreciate that. Thank you.

did you have a look at any of the 8 links that I posted earlier?
quite interesting reading and not much different to the things you are posting.

So why should we believe that McCain is any better than Obama?

Obama sees responsible gun owners dangerous and this is not true about responsible gun owners.He plans on to change the second admendment and there is one problem: The NRA is way too powerful and this will not happen.I would not trust Obama at all.He is pointing the finger for the job losses at the wrong people,John MCcain and president Bush.Former president Bill Clinton is to blame for the job losses: signing NAFTA in 1992 and NAFTA is a huge joke.I do not trust Barrack Obama as our next president,he will screw up our country more with tax raises.A physic did tell the future and I heard this about 3 weeks ago: There is going to be a black president that is going to be assisinated.Barrack Obama is a very good target for assisination.

You're a fascinating individual, I hope you're around a long time.

You even go so far as to counter those that clearly state they don't care for Obama by accusing them of intolerance towards negativity towards Obama :lol2:

Either way, you've now convinced me that your problem isn't a case of not having any original thoughts of your own and I appreciate that. Thank you.Whatever,dude. What,we're sposed to be good buddies now and go have a beer,when you open with The way I read this is 'I copy and paste them because I have no thoughts of my own'. -Right! :grinno: Grow up! I have views that dont align totally with one candidate & I dont really care if someone votes for either 'major' party,what bothers me is no one really cares of Obamas past, his extremely liberal/radical USA hater pals, & his associations with people who bomb their own country.

sounds like you're refering to the Ayers thing.

If that is what you're talking about, there's a very simple reason why no one seems to really care and that would be because it is plainly rediculous. If it were in any way true, you can be sure that their opposition would still be mentioning it.

A physic did tell the future and I heard this about 3 weeks ago: There is going to be a black president that is going to be assisinated.Barrack Obama is a very good target for assisination.

Wow...

I wonder if Maximus can find anything good to say about McCain.

I wonder if Maximus can find anything good to say about McCain.

MAVERICK

MAVERICK 2strokebloke...What a dumb ass!:grinno:

I still see no reason to vote for McCain. If your only talking point is that he's not Obama then that's pretty sad.

Also - are you calling me a dumbass?

I still see no reason to vote for McCain. If your only talking point is that he's not Obama than that's pretty sad.

Also - are you calling me a dumbass?I think your pretty sad,because as soon as you hear Democrat,thats all you go on. Originally Posted by 2strokebloke
I wonder if Maximus can find anything good to say about McCain.

So you're saying you can't say anything good about McCain then.

Also, your un-imaginative humor in comparing Obama to Osama is simply racist. Now, they obviously make unfair comparisons between the two based on his previous muslim faith (or current as some believe). Assuming he's a terrorist based on religious beliefs is discrimination, but please explain how are they racist?

This is really sad. :shakehead

I can see why Obama is side stepping the issue and trying to distance himself from ACORN even though his campaign gave ACORN $800,000 and ACORN endorses him. Of course it remains to be seen whether Obama had any direct illegal involvement. But as far as I am concerned it is fair game.

See the video from CNN Special Investigations Unit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkUKOSnv2zY


And the FBI has started an investigation into ACORN in several states.


Source: AP
Oct 16, 2008
Officials: FBI investigates ACORN for voter fraud

WASHINGTON - The FBI is investigating whether the community activist group ACORN helped foster voter registration fraud around the nation before the presidential election.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081016/ap_on_el_pr/voter_fraud_fbi;_ylt=Alvo3UA8zf60v0cVG7idaQHCw5R4

Newsmax.com

:evillol:
'Smears' About Obama Largely True

Monday, October 20, 2008 9:32 PM

By: Lowell Ponte
http://images.newsmax.com/headline_vertical/83361242.jpg

The Obama campaign says its candidate is a victim of “smears” — and has even created a Web site to fight such attacks.

But a Newsmax investigation finds many of the so-called smears are largely based in truth — and the Obama campaign uses half-truths, clever language, and ad hominem attacks to spin the facts.

Obama’s www.FightTheSmears.com (http://www.FightTheSmears.com) focuses mainly on anti-Obama messages being repeated on the Internet and talk radio, the only media where Obama's ideological allies are not dominant.

These "smears" and the Obama rebuttals are often framed in lawyerly language that leaves much wiggle room in the candidate’s answers.

FightTheSmears.com also makes no attempt at objectivity, describing Obama’s critics as “pushing misleading research and distorted claims” because they are “ideologues” busy “spreading a ‘pack of lies’ about Barack.”

In a section of the site titled, “Who’s Behind the Smears?” visitors can see a chart naming seven groups and six individuals with lines that suggest multiple, sinister connections between them.



The people and groups named are real and are members of Washington’s small but conservative sphere of power and influence. The Obama conspiracy chart links all of these conservative individuals and groups back to the critics who dogged the “Clinton 1992 Campaign.”

This may come as something as a surprise to Hillary Clinton, as many of the “smears” against Obama first surfaced during her heated primary contest with him.

Newsmax reviewed 10 random claims and related rebuttals posted on Obama’s ever-changing FightTheSmears.com to gauge their veracity. Here’s what we found:

Claim No. 1: Obama's campaign is funded by the rich, big corporations and foreigners.
“Barack Obama was the only major presidential candidate this year to completely reject contributions from The Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs that have dominated our politics for years,” the Obama site says of the persistent online criticisms of its fundraising.

“Instead, this campaign has been owned by the more than 3.1 million everyday Americans who have donated in small amounts.”

Not so, according to campaign finance records. Nearly half of the $600 million raised by Obama to date has come from wealthy donors and special interests. Obama's allies months ago dropped their ad linking Republican rival “Exxon John” McCain to Big Oil after it came to light that Obama had taken far more money from Exxon-Mobil than McCain.

“The Obama campaign has complied fully with federal election law,” claims the Obama site, “including donor eligibility and contribution disclosure requirements.”

However, one giant loophole the politicians wrote into the law allows contributions in amounts of $200 or less with no donor identification. Obama claims that $300 million in campaign funds was given by these small donors, and he won’t release their names and addresses.

McCain has released his whole donor database, including those who have contributed less than $200.

Critics argue that the other half of Obama’s campaign haul — the part not raised from big corporate donors and special interests — came in a small flood of anonymous donations that might be foreign or corrupt, or both.

Claim No. 2: Obama has had a close, ongoing relationship with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers.
The Obama site acknowledges that its candidate and Ayers ”served on the board of an education-reform organization in the mid-1990s,” but maintains most stories about the links between Obama and Ayers are phony or exaggerated.

It does not mention that Obama and Ayers worked together on the board distributing millions of dollars with the aim of radicalizing Chicago schoolchildren.

Nor does the site acknowledge that Obama kicked off his first political campaign in the living room of Ayers, the former Weather Underground leader. (Obama is currently saying it was not the first event. There is no dispute that one of Obama’s first political events in his first run for public office was held in Ayers’ home.)

There is also no dispute the Weather Underground bombed the Pentagon the Capitol, the home of a New York Supreme Court justice, and a police station, among other targets. FBI agent Larry Grathwohl, who infiltrated the group, has recounted Ayers teaching him how to make bombs and saying, “In the revolution, some innocent people need to die.”

“Smear groups and now a desperate McCain campaign are trying to connect Barack to William Ayers using age-old guilt by association techniques . . .” says the Obama Web site.

Actually, McCain and Obama critics are questioning why Obama would continue to associate with a man who, as recently as 2001, said he did not do enough and wished he had bombed more.

Conservatives also note that if Ayers had bombed abortion clinics, the liberal media would brand him a pariah forever. What does it tell us about the liberal media’s and Obama’s judgment and values that they see nothing wrong with embracing unrepentant terrorist Ayers today?

Claim No. 3: Obama takes advice from executives of troubled mortgage backer Fannie Mae.

“John McCain started smearing Obama about non-existent ties to Fannie Mae in some of his deceptive attack ads,” says FightTheSmears.com. The site downplays connections between Obama and two former heads of the giant mortgage-backing institution — James A. Johnson and Franklin D. Raines — whose corruption played a key role in the current financial crisis.

But an editorial in the Aug. 27, 2008, Washington Post described Johnson and Raines, as “members of Mr. Obama’s political circle.”

Raines advised the Obama campaign on housing matters. Obama chose Johnson to select his vice presidential running mate. But because neither are advising Obama today, this Web site’s present-tense claim that he “doesn’t [not didn’t] take advice from Fannie Mae execs” is technically, if deceptively, true.

Johnson also reportedly helped raise as much as $500,000 for Obama’s campaign.

And despite Obama’s lack of seniority in the U.S. Senate, he pocketed more than $105,000 in political contributions, the third-highest amount given to any lawmaker, directly from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Obama’s Web site leaves all this unmentioned.

Claim No. 4: Obama has close ties with the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), a group suspected of massive voter registration fraud.
Obama’s site says the candidate was never an ACORN employee and that ACORN “was not part of Project Vote, the successful voter registration drive [Obama] ran in 1992.”

In defending Obama, the site resorts to smearing former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell — calling him a “discredited Republican voter-suppression guru” — for daring to fight the vote fraud so often associated with operatives of ACORN, among the largest radical groups in the United States.

As Newsmax has documented in ["Clever Obama Tries To Bury ACORN Past," (http://www.newsmax.com/lowell_ponte/obama_acorn_organizer/2008/10/13/139989.html)] Obama’s Web site is attempting to deceive when it says Obama was never “hired” to work as a trainer for ACORN’s leaders. In fact, he did the work for free from at least 1993 until 2003.

ACORN spokesman Lewis Goldberg acknowledges in the Oct. 11, 2008, New York Times that Obama trained ACORN leaders. And Obama worked as a lawyer for ACORN.

As to heading up Project Vote in Illinois, Obama said during a speech to ACORN leaders last November, "[When] I ran the Project Vote voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack-dab in the middle of it.”

Veteran journalist Karen Tumulty described Project Vote in the Oct. 18, 2004, issue of Time magazine as “a nonpartisan arm of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now” after interviewing its national director.

The co-founder of ACORN, former Students for a Democratic Society official Wade Rathke, described Project Vote as one of ACORN’s “family of organizations.”

Over the years, ACORN and its front groups, like the one Obama ran in Illinois, have registered more than 4 million voters. When authorities in Virginia checked ACORN registrations, it found that 83 percent were fraudulent or had problems. This, in theory, could mean ACORN may have created the opportunity for stealing more than 3.3 million votes in this November’s election, a margin far wider than that by which Obama is likely to win.

Claim No. 5: Obama has shown only wavering support for individual gun-ownership rights.
“During Barack’s career in the Illinois and United States Senates, he proudly stood to defend the rights of hunters and sportsmen,” says Obama’s Web site, “while doing everything he could to protect children — including his own two daughters — from illegal gun violence.”

But the National Rifle Association, it continues, “is distributing a dishonest and cowardly flyer that makes confrontational accusations and runs away from verifying them.”

Actually, the NRA does a meticulous job of laying out documentation, as Newsmax reported in September ["NRA to Fight Obama Over Gun Rights Flip-Flops," (http://www.newsmax.com/lowell_ponte/nra_obama/2008/09/29/135501.html)] to show that Obama has supported handgun confiscation; the handgun ban in Washington, D.C.; a virtual ban on high-powered rifle ammunition; and many other draconian restrictions on Second Amendment rights.

If elected, wrote the NRA, Obama “would be the most anti-gun president in American history.”

Claim No. 6: A fervent supporter of abortion rights, Obama supports late-term and partial-birth abortions.
The Obama Web site dismisses such criticism as the work of “radical anti-abortion ideologues running ads against Barack.”

But as an Illinois state senator, Obama voted repeatedly against legislation to protect infants who, during a late-term abortion, were “born alive.” Such protection, he has argued, already exists in Illinois; it does, but is subject to the abortionist’s decision whether such an infant has a good likelihood of survival.

Nurses have reported instances in which surviving aborted babies were left by abortionists to die without water, food, or warmth.

Obama’s Web site notes that even the Republican author of one of these bills, former state Sen. Rick Winkel, has written that “none of those who voted against [his bill] favored infanticide.”

True, but Obama’s site does not quote the rest of Winkel’s statement: “[T]heir zeal for pro-choice dogma was clearly the overriding force behind their negative votes rather than concern that my bill would protect babies who are born alive.”

Obama has a 100 percent pro-choice voting record according to NARAL Pro-Choice America; his rating from the National Right to Life Committee is zero.

How extreme is Obama on this issue? In the U.S. Senate, he has voted against bills that would prohibit minors from crossing state lines for abortion without parental notification.

"Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old,” Obama has said. “I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."

Claim No. 7: Obama showed little interest or support for American combat troops during his overseas visits.
Doubts about Obama’s true support for the military cropped up during a campaign trip to Iraq, Afghanistan, and Europe.

A widely circulated e-mail, penned by Army Capt. Jeffrey S. Porter, described Obama's visit to Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan: “As the Soldiers lined up to shake his hand, he blew them off . . . He again shunned the opportunity to talk to soldiers to thank them for their service . . . I swear we got more thanks from the NBA basketball players or the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders than from [Obama].”

Porter later recanted, sending a follow-up e-mail that said, in part: “After checking my sources, information that was put out in my e-mail was wrong.” He did not specify which information was wrong, leading Obama skeptics to suspect that this officer has been disciplined by his superiors.

Heading home, Obama touched down in Germany, where he “was scheduled to visit the American hospitals at Ramstein and Landstuhl.” But as The Washington Post reported, Obama “canceled the trips after being told by Pentagon officials that he could only visit in his official capacity as a senator, not as a candidate” and could not have his visits with hospitalized soldiers videotaped by the media.

Prominent liberal mainstream media reporters such as NBC’s Andrea Mitchell rushed to defend Obama, saying that the press had never planned to cover his visits to military sickbeds. But Obama canceled both visits and used his free time instead to shoot hoops, with the media recording his best shots.

Claim No. 8: Barack Obama is a Muslim.
FightTheSmears.com states bluntly that Obama is a Christian, not a follower of Islam.

In fact, Barack Hussein Obama’s Kenyan father was raised Muslim, though he reportedly was not religious.

His mother divorced and remarried another man, a Muslim from Indonesia. As a youngster in Indonesia, Barack Obama attended two schools and was registered at both as a Muslim. He received religious instruction in both schools as a Muslim, including studying the Quran. According to a childhood friend, Obama occasionally attended services at a local mosque.

Obama’s Muslim upbringing has been detailed in a 2007 Los Angeles Times report (reprinted in The Baltimore Sun) headlined "Islam an Unknown Factor in Obama Bid." (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation/bal-te.obama16mar16,0,1634059,print.story?coll=bal_new s_nation_promo) Middle East expert Daniel Pipes has studied the question of Obama’s Muslim faith and says he is “lying” when he says he was never a Muslim. (http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/pipes_obama_muslim/2008/10/09/138898.html)

It’s important to note that Obama’s Web site does not say he was never a Muslim. But in the past, Obama’s site and FightTheSmears.com did make the claim Obama was never a Muslim. Since that claim is obviously false, it is no longer used.

Obama says he became a Christian in his late 20s. He now describes himself as Christian. Until recently, he spent two decades as a member of a Chicago United Church of Christ congregation that embraces Black Liberation theology. Somewhat like the Roman Catholic liberation theology of Latin America, the Chicago UCC church preaches elements of neo-Marxist class warfare. It combines these radical socialist elements with black racialism.


Claim No. 9: As president, Obama would raise taxes dramatically for most Americans.
Millions of Americans recognize that Obama is likely to raise taxes. But like a good conjurer, who tricks you into watching his right hand while doing things with his left, the Obama Web site assures readers with a red herring.

The Illinois senator will not tax your water, as claimed in some fringe e-mails, FightTheSmears.com maintains.

What Obama will do, however, is tax businesses and capital gains more heavily, even though America already has the world’s second-highest business taxes.

“Now our opponents tell you not to worry about their tax increases” said former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson at the 2008 Republican National Convention. “They tell you they are not going to tax your family. No, they’re just going to tax businesses! So unless you buy something from a business, like groceries or clothes or gasoline . . . or unless you get a paycheck from a big or a small business, don’t worry. It’s not going to affect you.”

During his campaign, Obama has promised to raise various taxes that will fall on most economic classes, including the dividend tax, the FICA tax cap, the capital gains tax, the estate tax, and new taxes on gasoline.

He also called for the Bush tax cuts to expire in 2010, which will automatically raise taxes on most Americans. By letting the Bush cuts expire, Obama would produce a $2 trillion tax increase that some economists predict will rumble through the already weakened economy like an earthquake.


Claim No. 10: Obama was born outside the United States and is ineligible for the presidency. :loser:
The Obama Web site dismisses the claim that the candidate was born anywhere but in the United States as “completely false” and “groundless.”

As proof, the Obama’s campaign has produced a “certificate of live birth” from Hawaii indicating that Barack Hussein Obama II was born Aug. 4, 1961. Critics, however say the document could have easily been forged and is not a substitute for a certified birth certificate.

No reporter has been allowed to see the original certificate of live birth or its certificate number, which is blacked out on copies of it on the Obama site.

Skeptics note that Obama’s “Father’s Race” is identified on this document as “African,” a geographic and modern politically correct term rather than a 1961 racial designation. The standard term used on American birth certificates until the U.S. Census changed it in 1980 would have been “Negro.”

Former deputy attorney general of Pennsylvania, Philip J. Berg, a Democrat with mixed credibility (he has supported conspiracy theories involving 9/11), has filed a lawsuit to force Obama to produce a certified copy of his birth certificate. According to Berg, Obama’s paternal grandmother has said she was present at his birth in Kenya, after which his mother promptly returned with her baby to the United States.

If that is true, Obama could be constitutionally ineligible to be president.






















© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

*sigh*

Old news. Never the less, if it proves to be true it'll resolve itself when it can. If not, oh well. Or he's good enough to keep it hidden. This won't sway people form voting for him because they'll point out someone else lied, they lied, this person lied, blah blah blah.....

So let people vote for BS and let's get it over with. Gosh I wish Nov 4 would get here sooner. I'm tired of hearing this.

Biden or Palin for president? 'Cause we know the elects won't survive too long. ;) :cwm27: :shakehead

So what are you going to do when/if Obama wins?

*sigh*

Old news. Never the less, if it proves to be true it'll resolve itself when it can. If not, oh well. Or he's good enough to keep it hidden. This won't sway people form voting for him because they'll point out someone else lied, they lied, this person lied, blah blah blah.....

So let people vote for BS and let's get it over with. Gosh I wish Nov 4 would get here sooner. I'm tired of hearing this.

Biden or Palin for president? 'Cause we know the elects won't survive too long. ;) :cwm27: :shakehead:lol:

So what are you going to do when/if Obama wins?There goes that inebriated primate again.:rofl:

Newsmax.com


Al-Jazeera for Obama

Tuesday, October 21, 2008 3:42 PM

By: Cliff Kincaid

Colin Powell’s predicted and expected endorsement of Barack Obama was transformed into big news by the pro-Obama media. But Arab propaganda channel Al-Jazeera’s intervention in the U.S. presidential contest is also extremely significant.

Al-Jazeera, a mouthpiece for enemies of the United States, aired a Moammar Gadhafi speech praising Obama and followed with a story depicting supporters of Sarah Palin as white, racist Christians. The channel is subsidized by the oil-rich Sunni Muslim plutocracy/dictatorship in Qatar.

The Al-Jazeera “reporter” who did the hit piece on Palin was Casey Kaufmann, who surfaces in Federal Election Commission (FEC) records as a $500 contributor to the Obama-for-president campaign and is based in Doha, Qatar.

The first plank in Al-Jazeera’s “code of ethics” includes a statement about “giving no priority to commercial or political considerations over professional ones,” which would seem to preclude political activities and contributions.

Kaufmann apparently didn’t get a copy of the ethics code when he was hired by the terrorist propaganda channel and made his $500 contribution to Obama. The contribution was recorded by the FEC back in February, before he made his way to Ohio to a Palin rally in search of ways to smear the GOP vice-presidential nominee.

It’s no wonder that former ABC newsman Dave Marash, once considered the “American face” of the English-language version of the channel, quit in disgust in March. He cited anti-American bias and other factors.

We’re probably asking too much if we request that Al-Jazeera take its ethics code down from its official Web site since it’s painfully clear that the rules don’t apply to Kaufmann or anybody else at the channel. It’s to Marash’s credit that he had the honesty and integrity to quit.

Al-Jazeera is the mouthpiece for al-Qaida and other terrorist groups and inspires foreign Muslim fighters to go to places like Iraq and Afghanistan to kill Americans. Accuracy in Media produced a documentary about the channel, warning U.S. cable and satellite providers to beware of its incendiary programming.

Our video showed clips of terrorists saying they went to Iraq to kill Americans because of what they saw on Al-Jazeera.

Among other things, we noted that Al-Jazeera’s first managing director was an agent of the Saddam Hussein regime and that one of its Afghanistan reporters, Tayseer Alouni, went to prison in Spain on terrorism charges. Al-Jazeera paid Alouni’s salary, legal fees, and “related expenses” during his trial and continues to defend him.

Judea Pearl, father of slain Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, has called Al-Jazeera “today’s greatest recruiter for terrorism.” Daniel Pearl was murdered by al-Qaida.

In July of this year, Pearl notes, Al-Jazeera threw a birthday party for Samir Kuntar, a released terrorist who had smashed the head of a 4-year-old girl with his rifle butt in 1979 after killing her father before her eyes. Kuntar had been released by Israel in exchange for the bodies of two Israeli soldiers, who were kidnapped by Hezbollah in 2006.

Kuntar’s birthday party was “initiated and choreographed by Al-Jazeera’s bureau in Beirut and aired on Al-Jazeera TV July 19,” Pearl noted.

“Brother Samir,” the interviewer says, “we would like to celebrate your birthday with you. You deserve even more than this. I think that 11,000 prisoners if they can see this program now are celebrating your birthday with you. Happy birthday, brother Samir.”

One of the regular personalities on Al-Jazeera is Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who has inflamed Sunni-Shia tensions in the Muslim world, in addition to encouraging suicide bombings against Americans. He has been banned from entering the U.S.

Now the terrorist channel has turned its sights on the American presidential election, intervening in an effort to make those in the U.S. opposed to Obama appear to the outside world as white Christian racists. The YouTube video of Kaufmann’s report has been viewed by more than 1 million people.

In another interesting video that has surfaced on Al-Jazeera, Libya’s Moammar Gadhafi is shown giving a speech in which he describes Obama as someone with an “African and Islamic identity” running for president of the U.S. with Arab and Muslim backing. WorldNetDaily was the first national website to highlight these comments, which were monitored by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI).

“All the people in the Arab and Islamic world and in Africa applauded this man [Obama] . . . [and] may have even been involved in legitimate contribution campaigns” to his campaign, said Gadhafi. The Libyan dictator described Obama as “a black citizen of Kenyan African origins, a Muslim, who had studied in an Islamic school in Indonesia.”

The Gadhafi address aired on Al-Jazeera TV on June 11, 2008.

While Gadhafi is pumping up the crowds on behalf of Obama abroad, Casey Kaufmann’s assignment was to find some controversial Palin supporters making controversial comments, in order to depict Obama’s opposition in the U.S. as racist rabble. It was “mission accomplished” for Kaufmann’s Arab backers and financial sponsors.

Predictably, far-left Web sites such as the Huffington Post were quick to exploit the Kaufmann report in order to make anti-Republican points.

“Hate and fear are still powerful forces in American society,” stated Kaufmann, in a report that was headlined as revealing popular “misconceptions” about the Democratic presidential nominee.

What were those misconceptions? According to Kaufmann’s report, some of the people in Ohio thought Obama had links to terrorists. Is it possible they came to this conclusion because of Obama’s actual and documented association with terrorists?

Others in Kaufmann’s piece thought that Obama and his wife may harbor anti-white views. Could this conclusion be based on Obama’s association over a 20-year period with a racist like Rev. Jeremiah Wright?

The facts, of course, didn’t matter to Kaufmann.

We don’t know how many Palin people were interviewed in order to find the select few who surfaced in the report and made disparaging remarks about Obama and Obama’s supporters. But Colbert King of the Washington Post was sufficiently impressed by this propaganda piece that he wrote about Al-Jazeera’s visit to a “white working class community” in Ohio in an October 18 column under the inflammatory headline, “A Rage No One Should Be Stoking.” King, who is black, is offended that some white people don’t like Obama or what he stands for. King is himself angry because Palin and McCain have belatedly begun focusing attention on Obama’s ties to terrorists who killed Americans.

But realizing that he would look like a complete fool if he offered up anti-American propaganda from Al-Jazeera without any critical comment, King posed the big question: “Was this fodder served up by Al-Jazeera to feed anti-American sentiment overseas?” He answered himself: “To be sure. But the camera didn’t lie. Did Al-Jazeera, however, record the whole truth?”

King’s conclusion was that the only way the Al-Jazeera report would turn out to be untrue is if Obama is elected president. In other words, white people have to prove they’re not racists by voting for Obama. On the other hand, if record numbers of blacks vote for Obama, in the 90-95 percent range, that is not by definition racism. This is the double-standard that is being used to browbeat whites into voting for Obama. King knows that if Obama doesn’t get a significant percentage of the white vote, he will lose.

Kaufmann’s cameras did lie, of course, in failing to explain why Americans believe Obama has links to terrorists and racists. One point of Kaufmann’s piece was that Americans are racist if they take note of the racism that shaped Obama. So Palin’s supporters couldn’t come out looking good no matter what. This is what made Kaufmann’s story an amateurish piece of foreign propaganda. It was almost laughable.

Al-Jazeera has the right to produce such trash and distribute it around the world. But the Kaufmann “report” will serve as another reason why major U.S. cable and satellite providers should have second thoughts about putting this propaganda on the air on a regular basis. It’s too bad that columnists for the Post don’t have higher standards.

Cliff Kincaid is the editor of Accuracy in Media, and can be contacted at [email protected].



© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

So what are you going to do when/if Obama wins?It is much the same ole story with true believers in Barack Obama. They have made up their minds and not only don't want to be confused by the facts, they resent being told the facts:loser:

eh?
I'll ask again because you seem to have missed it.

what are you going to do when/if Obama wins?

eh?
I'll ask again because you seem to have missed it.

what are you going to do when/if Obama wins?Since you missed all the other posts,& added inapprpriate stuff to my sig.... It is much the same ole story with true believers in Barack Obama. They have made up their minds and not only don't want to be confused by the facts, they resent being told the facts:loser:

and how does that answer my question?

And who said I altered your sig?
To be honest, I thought it was you being ironic.

and how does that answer my question?

And who said I altered your sig?
To be honest, I thought it was you being ironic.Whats that? You being moronic? :rofl: :naughty: :cwm27: :lol2: :lol:

because third time's the charm?

what are you going to do when/if Obama wins?

what are YOU going to do if Obama wins? :evillol: Chertoff Warns of Terror Vulnerability


Tuesday, October 21, 2008 5:44 PM

By: Jim Meyers Article Font Size http://www.newsmax.com/images/layout/minus.jpg (http://javascript<b></b>:setActiveStyleSheet('default');) http://www.newsmax.com/images/layout/plus.jpg (http://javascript<b></b>:setActiveStyleSheet('largeFont');)

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said terrorist groups are more likely to try to take advantage of a new president and administration by launching an attack during the next six months.
“Any period of transition creates a greater vulnerability, meaning there's more likelihood of distraction,” Chertoff said in an interview with Bloomberg.com.
“You have to be concerned it will create an operational opportunity for terrorists.”
He said that would be true whether Democrat Barack Obama or Republican John McCain is elected president, undercutting McCain's argument that the U.S. would be more likely to be attacked if Obama wins.
“We don't want a president who invites testing from the world at a time when our economy is in crisis and Americans are already fighting in two wars,” McCain said Tuesday at a rally in Pennsylvania.
Chertoff noted that he didn't know of any specific threat to the nation linked to the election or transition.
But on March 11, 2004, three days before Spain’s general elections, an al-Qaeda cell set off 10 bombs targeting passenger trains in Madrid, killing more than 190 people.
And former CIA Director George Tenet wrote in his memoir that at the time, the agency believed that Osama bin Laden had “himself assessed that a logical time to attack the United States was just before the U.S. election.”
Chertoff also expressed concerned about the rhetoric from some hate groups or individuals during the current campaign.
“There's a general level of intemperateness in the discussion as we approach the election,” he told Bloomberg. “Do I worry that it could trigger in a disturbed individual a desire to do something? Absolutely, I worry about it.”
:shakehead

what are YOU going to do if Obama wins? :evillol: Chertoff Warns of Terror Vulnerability


Tuesday, October 21, 2008 5:44 PM

By: Jim Meyers Article Font Size http://www.newsmax.com/images/layout/minus.jpg (http://javascript<b></b>:setActiveStyleSheet('default');) http://www.newsmax.com/images/layout/plus.jpg (http://javascript<b></b>:setActiveStyleSheet('largeFont');)

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said terrorist groups are more likely to try to take advantage of a new president and administration by launching an attack during the next six months.
“Any period of transition creates a greater vulnerability, meaning there's more likelihood of distraction,” Chertoff said in an interview with Bloomberg.com.
“You have to be concerned it will create an operational opportunity for terrorists.”
He said that would be true whether Democrat Barack Obama or Republican John McCain is elected president, undercutting McCain's argument that the U.S. would be more likely to be attacked if Obama wins.
“We don't want a president who invites testing from the world at a time when our economy is in crisis and Americans are already fighting in two wars,” McCain said Tuesday at a rally in Pennsylvania.
Chertoff noted that he didn't know of any specific threat to the nation linked to the election or transition.
But on March 11, 2004, three days before Spain’s general elections, an al-Qaeda cell set off 10 bombs targeting passenger trains in Madrid, killing more than 190 people.
And former CIA Director George Tenet wrote in his memoir that at the time, the agency believed that Osama bin Laden had “himself assessed that a logical time to attack the United States was just before the U.S. election.”
Chertoff also expressed concerned about the rhetoric from some hate groups or individuals during the current campaign.
“There's a general level of intemperateness in the discussion as we approach the election,” he told Bloomberg. “Do I worry that it could trigger in a disturbed individual a desire to do something? Absolutely, I worry about it.”
:shakehead

So your answer to DM's question is to post somebody else's work?

For the love of common sense, can you please answer the question?

What will MAXIMUS84 do if Obama wins?

We wish to hear your opinion, please.

Don't you realize some people can't think for themselves? I'm having that problem in my psych classes, people posting works of others without having their own opinion.

Never the less, I'll live just as anyone will if the "other guy" gets elected.

Don't you realize some people can't think for themselves? I'm having that problem in my psych classes, people posting works of others without having their own opinion.

Never the less, I'll live just as anyone will if the "other guy" gets elected.

I understand your point Damien. To counter that though, if one is unable to think for oneself, surely one should not engage in debates that require one to have opinions on matters. :redface:

I'm pretty sure that if Obama were elected, Maximus would continue to copy and paste other people's opinions till the end of eternity.

Obama's campaign isn't really doing anything that McCain's campaign (or pretty much any presidential campaign within the last half century) hasn't done.

and the Obama campaign uses half-truths, clever language, and ad hominem attacks to spin the facts.

Because desperately attempting to connect Obama to Ayers isn't an ad hominem attack. :rofl: It's ALSO a red herring!:lol: etc. etc. etc.

Politicians will be politicians...

Also, Maximus, please refrain from insulting other members and name calling. If you can't present your opinions without insulting other members, then you should probably not write anything at all.

And I've told you before, you now have you very own thread for all this copy/paste crap. Keep it there.

If you want to write something original, feel free to create a new thread for it.

Claim No. 7: Obama showed little interest or support for American combat troops during his overseas visits.
Doubts about Obama’s true support for the military cropped up during a campaign trip to Iraq, Afghanistan, and Europe.

A widely circulated e-mail, penned by Army Capt. Jeffrey S. Porter, described Obama's visit to Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan: “As the Soldiers lined up to shake his hand, he blew them off . . . He again shunned the opportunity to talk to soldiers to thank them for their service . . . I swear we got more thanks from the NBA basketball players or the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders than from [Obama].”

Porter later recanted, sending a follow-up e-mail that said, in part: “After checking my sources, information that was put out in my e-mail was wrong.” He did not specify which information was wrong, leading Obama skeptics to suspect that this officer has been disciplined by his superiors.

Heading home, Obama touched down in Germany, where he “was scheduled to visit the American hospitals at Ramstein and Landstuhl.” But as The Washington Post reported, Obama “canceled the trips after being told by Pentagon officials that he could only visit in his official capacity as a senator, not as a candidate” and could not have his visits with hospitalized soldiers videotaped by the media.

Prominent liberal mainstream media reporters such as NBC’s Andrea Mitchell rushed to defend Obama, saying that the press had never planned to cover his visits to military sickbeds. But Obama canceled both visits and used his free time instead to shoot hoops, with the media recording his best shots.


Obama has hurt himself with our military so there is truth to the above. The Military Times and the Army Times newspapers recently published a poll/survey showing the position of the troops from all services. And these media sources are owned by Gannett which leans to the left. The MSM has failed to report this. :runaround:



Military Times poll: Troops backing McCain

By Brendan McGarry - Staff writer
Thursday Oct 9, 2008

Sen. John McCain enjoys overwhelming support from the military’s professional core, a Military Times survey of nearly 4,300 readers, indicates, though career-oriented black service members strongly favored the Democratic Party candidate.

McCain, R-Ariz., handily defeated Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., 68 percent to 23 percent in a voluntary survey of 4,293 active-duty, National Guard and reserve subscribers and former subscribers to Army Times, Navy Times, Marine Corps Times and Air Force Times.

The results of the Military Times 2008 Election Poll are not representative of the opinions of the military as a whole. The group surveyed is older, more senior in rank and less ethnically diverse than the overall armed services.

But as a snapshot of careerists, the results suggest Democrats have gained little ground in their attempts to significantly chip away at a traditionally Republican voting bloc in campaign messages and legislative initiatives, such as the recent expansion of GI Bill benefits, experts said.

Poll Results (http://www.militarytimes.com/static/projects/pages/081003_ep_2pp.pdf)

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/10/military_poll_100508w/


I received this email from my sister in reference to Obama's visit to Anbar Province, Ramadi, Iraq back on July 21. He is well known for dissing the troops. :shakehead

I guess he believes the military vote doesn't count or the military does not vote at all. :screwy:


Inside scoop: Obama blasted General Petraus at the meeting Justin attended...saying Petraus didn't know what he was doing and doing a bad job and that when he becomes President, that he will pull out all the troops. His only interest there was to have his face in the camera all the time...that's how Justin felt ....and Obama was not appreciative of the troops, Justin said he made everyone feel like a "goofball" in front of all the Military and Iraqi leaders. Obama was originally supposed to go over on a fact and find mission only, as the junior Senator with two other senior Senator's and he was to observe and comment on all the progress....well he did not even comment on all the progress being made there...he just chastised Petraus and everyone else and was not appreciative for anyones efforts..that's how Justin felt.

Oh well, inside scoop from your brother-in-law.

Ann


http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y186/lizzywiz/obama_jr.jpg
My brother in law with Obama

And I've told you before, you now have you very own thread for all this copy/paste crap. Keep it there.

If you want to write something original, feel free to create a new thread for it.Then change the title you so eloquently,but dismissively, chose for it!

You got it champ.