Barack Obama's radical associations including terrorists

[GarfieldJL]

Proof is in the pudding...listing specific examples with this really helps prove a point.

 

"US KKK of A" is one of them I believe.

 

Another one had to do with the US supposedly inventing the AIDs virus to kill black people.

 

Wow, your lack of any positive examples that could also have happened really does show your bias in this case. Even fox news throws out some positive comments to hold their pseudo-credibility every now and again.

 

Oh you mean like:

"G** D*** America!" - Rev Wright

 

And I don't see you coming up with any explanation of why he attended that church for 20 years.

[Inyri]

Go to church some day and you'll notice that it involves more than a pastor and a sermon. I'm not going to explain why Obama went to a certain church for 20 years because it would be speculation. Why don't you go ask him instead of dishing out conjectural smears?

[GarfieldJL]

Go to church some day and you'll notice that it involves more than a pastor and a sermon. I'm not going to explain why Obama went to a certain church for 20 years because it would be speculation. Why don't you go ask him instead of dishing out conjectural smears?

 

I've been a church that started spewing intolerance and my family and myself left that church immediately.

[Yar-El]

Rev. Wright doesn't have any hate in him?

Reverend Jeremiah Wright Blames the U.S. for 9/11

 

Rev. Wright believes white Americans are the US of KKKA

 

 

Wright is a man who Obama supported for 20 years. Obama and his wife were married by him, and his children were baptised by him. Obama also donated $20,000 to help Wright.

 

[Jae Onasi]

First, you're not answering the question. Why should I take the words that McCain spoke one time over the actions that he's repeatedly made (that's the question)? Second, his "sincerity" is based on your subjective opinion and nothing more (others, including myself, think he looks like someone who is being forced to say something he'd rather not as evidence by lack of eye contact, looking down, etc).

If you're talking about the entire Waukesha town hall, I would agree that the sudden change in tone is completely politically motivated. The only thing I spoke about was the one episode with the lady. You don't have to believe it at all if you don't want--you've clearly made up your mind anyway.

 

I think his immediate breaking eye contact with her was to cut her off right then and refuse even to acknowledge her further. It also looked to me that the reason he was looking down for that moment was to see where he was stepping--not an unusual thing since many of my 70+ year old patients do it quite frequently so they don't trip. I have to look down when I'm walking on a stage to make sure I don't trip over wires, and I'm only permanently 29. I'm not 100% sure if that's what it is, anymore than you're 100% that his action with this older lady was complete fabrication.

 

May I ask why you are linking this website for eye movements, especially one that has on its home page "What does "Blifaloo" mean? Blifaloo is what you say when you are too drunk/tired/lazy/dumb to say or type buatiful beautful beautiful" to explain why it's named "Blifaloo"? It's really hard to take a site like that seriously. There are plenty of scholarly articles with discussion of eye movements and body language that would work better, I think.

 

 

Thank you for the link and the commentary. I am still awaiting the single example of where Obama has gone after or "attacked" McCain on anything other than a campaign issue. Since this is the third time I've tried to direct this point back to your original statement, I am going to proceed as though you are either unwilling or unable to furnish such an example.

OK, you ask for a source, and then you stack the deck to make it impossible to prove that it's not campaign related--everything is campaign-related right now. I'm not going to be able to find anything under that set of impossible conditions.

 

Also, are you saying it's OK to say blatant lies just because it's campaign related? I will say that both parties are guilty of it, McCain's campaign taking far more of that share.

 

Ok, well if you don't intend to do so here, that's fine, but I'm still confused as to why you want to harass those that are choosing to speak out before November 4th. Especially since you've stated that you agree he's been out of line.

If you think I have somehow harassed you, please report it for the staff to evaluate. If you're talking about the edit in your post and you didn't see it, I edited in an apology.

 

McCain has done more than enough stuff to nail him to the wall for, and we could bring up a ton of obvious things to talk about. However, I'm not interested in making an unfair accusation on this particular issue. It's a small potatoes thing that we may have spent more time on than we should have in retrospect. If you want my opinion on the overall tone of the campaign, when I blogged about the WGN issue I said the Obama campaign made a tactical error, and it has turned out not to be an issue. What McCain did last week with the negative attacks has nearly destroyed his campaign and was a huge strategic blunder that I doubt he can recover from. I can't count him out because I never count out McCain, but I don't think he can overcome the glaring errors he made last week.

 

Sent

Thank you. I did appreciate it.

[KinchyB]

"US KKK of A" is one of them I believe.

 

Another one had to do with the US supposedly inventing the AIDs virus to kill black people.

 

Whether you admit it or not 40 years ago "US KKK of A" wasn't exactly missing the mark. If you look at where, how, and what circumstances people grew up in this may make more sense. It's an unfortunate truth about our history that everyone needs to accept. To be honest, until our generation are grandparents this is going to be very prevelent in the older generation.

 

Regarding that AIDS remark...he could just be off his rocker with this one. Get the whole quote though so it can't be taken out of reference and we'll see about that.

 

"Oh you mean like:

"G** D*** America!" - Rev Wright.

 

Taken out of context. Get the whole passage and what he's referring to and we can debate that.

 

And I don't see you coming up with any explanation of why he attended that church for 20 years.

 

Honestly, it sounds like as Wright got older he went off the deep end IMO. Let's keep in mind that Wright is a primary reason why Obama is a Christain today, although this doesn't mean that Obama shares the same values as he obviously does not. Also, 20 is a bit much as he didn't join Wrights church until 1992. But the fact remains, he's not there now and he condemned Wright for what he said.

 

Now, how about you? You mentioned you and your family left a church when you didn't agree with their message (paraphrasing a bit...post #103). Why were you there in the first place? Didn't you know immediately what they would do in the future?

 

[Jae Onasi]

Wright's also old enough to remember when the Tuskegee scandal broke, so while I think it's not reasonable to blame one race for inflicting AIDS on another race on purpose, I can see how he got to that conclusion.

[Achilles]

If you're talking about the entire Waukesha town hall, I would agree that the sudden change in tone is completely politically motivated.

As I have been since the beginning of our exchange.

 

The only thing I spoke about was the one episode with the lady.

Which, being part of said townhall, would be applicable to the discussion. Interesting that the sentence above and this one taken together seem to indicate that you're now trying to argue that this one exchange was sincere, while acknowledging that the others were not. So now instead of having everything except one rally as an outlier, you have everything except one exchange. Which would seem to make the "McCain was being sincere" argument even less tenable.

 

Let's not even bring up that this one statement, even if it did honestly intend to defend Obama, simultaneously managed to insinuate that Arabs are not decent, family oriented people.

 

You don't have to believe it at all if you don't want--you've clearly made up your mind anyway.

To the degree that I "make up my mind" about anything. My position, as always, is based on the available evidence, which is, as always, subject to change.

 

And for the fourth time, I've invited you to introduce something new. First you introduced a strawman argument as a diversionary tactic ("Not lying about your opponent" = "only saying nice things about them", then arguing the latter isn't realistic). Then you introduced a character attack as a diversionary tactic ("You're just bitter, Achilles, and I think it's very sad"). Now, it seems you're trying accuse me of moving the goal post.

 

I think his immediate breaking eye contact with her was to cut her off right then and refuse even to acknowledge her further.

Indeed that is one possible explanation. Of course, this does have one problem in that the next sentence out of his mouth was, in fact, acknowledging her. That plus the argument that breaking eye contact and looking down when addressing someone is consistent with lying body language.

 

But, to quote you, "you've clearly made up your mind anyway".

 

It also looked to me that the reason he was looking down for that moment was to see where he was stepping--not an unusual thing since many of my 70+ year old patients do it quite frequently so they don't trip. I have to look down when I'm walking on a stage to make sure I don't trip over wires, and I'm only permanently 29. I'm not 100% sure if that's what it is, anymore than you're 100% that his action with this older lady was complete fabrication.

No, I don't think it was a fabrication. It really happened - I saw it. I simply question the sincerity and the motivation of the sounds that came out of his mouth.

 

May I ask why you are linking this website for eye movements, especially one that has on its home page "What does "Blifaloo" mean? Blifaloo is what you say when you are too drunk/tired/lazy/dumb to say or type buatiful beautful beautiful" to explain why it's named "Blifaloo"? It's really hard to take a site like that seriously. There are plenty of scholarly articles with discussion of eye movements and body language that would work better, I think.

I quite literally selectect the first result that came back for "eye movement lying" (after I checked to make sure that it actually discussed the topic I was referencing). Did you have any commentary on the information provided on the website or did you only want to critique the name in the banner?

 

Since you mention "scholarly articles", I'm going to assume that you're at least familiar with the research? Does this mean that you are or are not questioning the veracity of the argument? If not (meaning that you are aware of the research and agree that it's legitimate), why the paragraph on the site name (if not to distract)?

 

OK, you ask for a source, and then you stack the deck to make it impossible to prove that it's not campaign related--everything is campaign-related right now. I'm not going to be able to find anything under that set of impossible conditions.

Nope. Please don't move my goal posts.

 

What I'm asking for has not changed: one example of where Obama has attacked McCain on character (accused him of being a terrorist, accused his wife of working with terrorists, questioned his patriotism, accused him of being a muslim, etc) rather than a campaign issue (energy policy, foreign policy, not understanding the needs of the people).

 

Remember all this started because you tried to equate Obama's conduct to McCain's. You're free to retract that statement (or provide evidence for it) at any time.

 

Also, are you saying it's OK to say blatant lies just because it's campaign related? I will say that both parties are guilty of it, McCain's campaign taking far more of that share.

Please show me which part of my post lead you to this conclusion?

 

If you think I have somehow harassed you, please report it for the staff to evaluate. If you're talking about the edit in your post and you didn't see it, I edited in an apology.

Main Entry: ha·rass

Pronunciation: <snip>

Function: transitive verb

Etymology: <snip>

Date: 1617

 

1 a: exhaust , fatigue b (1): to annoy persistently (2): to create an unpleasant or hostile situation for especially by uninvited and unwelcome verbal or physical conduct

2: to worry and impede by repeated raids <harassed the enemy>

You're using one definition. I'm using another.

 

McCain has done more than enough stuff to nail him to the wall for, and we could bring up a ton of obvious things to talk about. However, I'm not interested in making an unfair accusation on this particular issue.

Key premise: "unfair"

 

It's a small potatoes thing that we may have spent more time on than we should have in retrospect.

Probably true, but then again, I wasn't the one that decided to defend McCain by equating the two campaigns and then spending several posts over multiple days avoiding providing any evidence for my argument. Such is the way mole hills become mountains in Kavar's Corner.

 

If you want my opinion on the overall tone of the campaign, when I blogged about the WGN issue I said the Obama campaign made a tactical error, and it has turned out not to be an issue. What McCain did last week with the negative attacks has nearly destroyed his campaign and was a huge strategic blunder that I doubt he can recover from. I can't count him out because I never count out McCain, but I don't think he can overcome the glaring errors he made last week.

I think you and I are in complete agreement here. John McCain has made multiple serious blunders and with exactly 3 weeks to go, it's going to be very difficult (if not impossible) for him to dig his way out and make up all the ground he's lost.

 

Thank you. I did appreciate it.

You're quite welcome. Take care.

[mimartin]

Wright's also old enough to remember when the Tuskegee scandal broke, so while I think it's not reasonable to blame one race for inflicting AIDS on another race on purpose, I can see how he got to that conclusion.

Very good point Jae. It does give some perspective into what Reverend Wright may have been thinking when he made a statement that most of us would consider ludicrous. It also shows why someone could give Reverend Wright the benefit of the doubt when setting in his congregation. For those that don't know what Jae is talking about here are some links.

 

Tuskegee Study

 

CDC

 

Tuskegee University

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Very good point Jae. It does give some perspective into what Reverend Wright may have been thinking when he made a statement that most of us would consider ludicrous. It also shows why someone could give Reverend Wright the benefit of the doubt when setting in his congregation. For those that don't know what Jae is talking about here are some links.

 

Tuskegee Study

 

CDC

 

Tuskegee University

inb4 liberal bias/conspiracy

[GarfieldJL]

From your own cited article: "But Biden said he didn’t think there was anything intentionally personal in the ad."

 

Also: "But as the moment went viral, hitting the internet traffic engine the Drudge Report, Biden revised and extended his remarks in a statement — saying he hadn’t even seen it when he condemned it."

 

Wonder how they twisted Biden's arm to get him to backtrack. Cause that ad did target McCain's war injuries about him not being able to use a computer so he is out of touch.

 

Well to me that's more than a little out of line, considering he can't use a computer because of physical injuries he suffered while serving in defense of this country.

 

As far as McCain trying to be civil and keep the attacks from getting out of hand, it's because McCain gave his word to try to keep it a civil and respectful campaign on his end. Fact is though, Obama apparently can't keep his word nor can he tell the truth unless it benefits him.

 

Go to church some day and you'll notice that it involves more than a pastor and a sermon. I'm not going to explain why Obama went to a certain church for 20 years because it would be speculation. Why don't you go ask him instead of dishing out conjectural smears?

 

I have gone to a church whose pastor started spewing stuff out that my family and I viewed as objectionable, and my family and I left that church immediately and never went back to that church.

 

In all honesty, at this point I wouldn't believe anything Obama says on the subject because he's changed his story several times. From Wright being his father figure and spiritual mentor, to just his pastor that they disagree on things, to he isn't the man he knew.

 

So as far as smearing him, I really don't even have to smear him, he smeared himself with his own bad judgement and bad associations.

 

The second Rev Wright started to spew that stuff, Obama should have confronted him, and the next sermon he heard it in, he should have left. If he had done that, this wouldn't be an issue.

 

Instead he lied, he tried to explain it away, it was finally when Wright basically called him a typical politician that would say anything to get elected, is when he finally disavowed Rev. Wright. And even then he didn't leave the church until Pastor Pfleager (sp?) (another radical connection)started bashing Hillary Clinton when he was giving a guest sermon.

[ET Warrior]

it's because McCain gave his word to try to keep it a civil and respectful campaign on his end.

I'm sorry, perhaps I am confused, but whose campaign has been so negative that their supporters shout things like 'terrorist' and 'kill him' at rallies?

[GarfieldJL]

I'm sorry, perhaps I am confused, but whose campaign has been so negative that their supporters shout things like 'terrorist' and 'kill him' at rallies?

 

It's funny how people try to hold McCain responsible for his supporters, yet Obama can't be held accountable for the people he willingly associates with, gives money to, works for, sits in their church for 20 years etc.

 

Anyone else noticing the double standard?

[ET Warrior]

I hold McCain accountable for the way that he has run his campaign, and for having a running mate who intentionally incites the crowds into that kind of fervor.

[GarfieldJL]

I hold McCain accountable for the way that he has run his campaign, and for having a running mate who intentionally incites the crowds into that kind of fervor.

 

I don't hold him responsible for his running mate telling the truth.

 

 

Bill Ayers is a friend of Obama (despite what Obama has tried to deny and hide).

 

Bill Ayers is an unrepentent terrorist.

 

Bernadine Dorn is Bill Ayers' wife and is also an unrepentant terrorist.

 

 

Therefore if you follow where this is going Obama pals around with terrorists, and he was associating with them after it had come to light what all they had done.

 

 

So I see no reason to condemn Governor Palin for telling the truth.

 

Found some more interesting reading:

http://earlytoday.wordpress.com/2008/08/09/illegal-obama-donors-middle-eastern-arabs/

[ET Warrior]

You don't hold her accountable for working the crowd into a frenzy shouting 'terrorist' and 'kill him' and then smiling and winking when they do? Because that is neither civil nor respectful, and contradicts your earlier statement that McCain is running just such a campaign.

 

Additionally, in the week of September 28 - October 4 nearly all of McCain's ads were negative

 

I am not saying that Obama has been 100% positive, and I'm not saying he's without fault, although you seem to be trying your hardest to insinuate that John McCain is.

[GarfieldJL]

You don't hold her accountable for working the crowd into a frenzy shouting 'terrorist' and 'kill him' and then smiling and winking when they do? Because that is neither civil nor respectful, and contradicts your earlier statement that McCain is running just such a campaign.

 

I don't hold her accountable for pointing out that Obama pals around with Terrorists, ACORN, Islamic Extremists, the fact he got campaign money from Hamas.

 

Despite dropping the groundbreaking bombshell story of "Palestinian" brothers from the Rafah refugee camp in Gaza who donated $33,000 to Obama's campaign, no big media picked up the story. Jihadis donating to Obama from Gaza? Could there be a bigger story? Foreign donations are illegal, but this story was all that and so much more. The "Palestinian" brothers were proud and vocal of their "love" for Obama. Their vocal support on behalf of "Palestinians" spoke volumes to Obama's campaign.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/08/obamas_donor_contributions_sil.html

 

Donations of this nature would violate election laws, including prohibitions on receiving contributions from foreigners and guidelines against accepting more than $2,300 from one individual during a single election, Bob Biersack, a spokesman for the Federal Election Commission, told WND in response to a query.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=71431

[Giant Graffiti]

Please provide one example of where Obama has attacked McCain's character, patriotism, devotion to country...heck, provide just one example of where Obama has "attacked" McCain on anything that wasn't a campaign issue. Please try again.

 

Do you mean something that he actually said or one of his ads?

[Achilles]

Alright, there's one candidate for a truly "negative" ad (let's concede that it is for the sake of argument). Is that all? Just one? Compared to how many from McCain?

[Giant Graffiti]

Achilles, you have strange tactics. I have a question, could you send me a link to all the <video> ads from McCain which you say are attacking Obama on non-campaign issues?

[Achilles]

Achilles, you have strange tactics.

Really? Strange how?

 

I have a question, could you send me a link to all the <video> ads from McCain which you say are attacking Obama on non-campaign issues?

 

<snipped aggressive comment> Please everyone, lets play nice, no need to take swipes at each other over political savvy, or perceived lack of. - j7

 

All of them? Probably not. Here are some of them though:

 

(lies about Obama's tax plan after Obama has corrected him several times)

(Bill Ayers is a personal attack, fueled by lies. Not a campaign issue.)

(Mocks Obama as a christ figure. Not a campaign issue)

(More Ayers. Arbitrarily ties Obama to the housing crisis. I'm assuming that this particular ad had RNC funding, hence the split message).

(Accuses Obama of being dishonorable and dishonest i.e. direct personal attack).

 

Here are five of the nine videos on the front of McCain's YT page. There are more. During the first week of October, McCain ran the last two almost exclusively, which lead to a few of the independent media outlets to report that McCain's campaign had gone "100% negative".

 

Of course, this doesn't even mention the robo-calls (which we're discussing in another thread), the mailers he's sent, or the commentary offered at his rallies.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AL_QAIDA_US_ELECTION?SITE=VAROA&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

[GarfieldJL]

Okay I've got some other names to throw in and apparently a dinner party as well.

Rashid Khalidi - Former PLO operative, anti-semite

 

So, the LA Times has video of Obama attending a Jew bash and toasting a radical former PLO operative, and they are not sharing it with the public. I think we all know they would immediately release the tape if it were Sarah Palin making the toast.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/john-stephenson/2008/10/25/la-times-witholds-video-obama-toasting-former-plo-operative-jew-bas